INTERNATIONAL

Ballad of the Sad Cafes

How Paris is coping with its bistro smoking ban.

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: pweck @ 02/02/2009 6:10:56 PM

    An article would never mourn the decline of smoking in America. This is simply misplaced nostalgia for a tourism experience that Americans desire when they visit France. But the lung cancer and other health problems caused by smoking in France have been as real as anywhere else. France also had one of Europe's worst drunk-driving problems in the post-war years -- due to a culture of heavy per-capita wine-consumption that was not necessarily combined with meals (as in Italy). So these trends toward healthier, more responsible living shouldn't be mourned. They are evidence of a society changing and waking up to habits that have been destructive in many ways. We don't mourn these changes in America. Why should we in France? There's more to being French than drinking Moet and smoking Gauloises...

  • Posted By: vpucsekberman @ 01/19/2009 7:58:38 AM

    It seems that the French are losing their time outs to relax and be social. Getting people to stop smoking and reducing their alcohol intake bring lifestyle changes which result in less socializing. On the other hand we are told that socializing is crucial to well being. Modern lifestyles are too hectic and too noisy. The French will find themselves subject to more stress as they lose this aspect of their lives.

  • Posted By: Lucero.fr-dr @ 01/17/2009 6:59:21 PM

    Your article is elegant, captures the spirit of the moment and sublimely pulls out the truth from its shadowed conrner
    and brings it into a painful stark light, for all to see. I live in France and I see and feel and hear what yo are talking about.
    I was so saddend to see a little restaurant close near by me that had once been a staple of my quartier...it gave me such a melancholy tha I wanted to cry and move away, I even had to discuss it with neighbors to try to make myself feel a little better. Sometimes it seems as if the degeneration of everything will only accelerate. The people that I had created in my mind through its literature and poetry and cinema and then ultimately through living here is slowly fading away..being replaced by something so generic...it makes me plain depressed. But Vive La France, even though I am not French myself I have adopted this country and I love her. She is still in my heart the dazzling darling of Europe, Marianne beaming a beaty so great that even in her rags and through her misery we are captured by her, holding a torch of light and hope for all to see...

  • Posted By: dunnhaupt @ 01/17/2009 6:17:32 PM

    Nobody in Europe smoked cigarettes in the 19th century. Cigarettes became the rage of the flapper era in the Twenties and were popularized by the the smoking Hollywood movie stars.

  • Posted By: jeromekellner @ 01/13/2009 6:46:30 PM

    Moronic nonsense from a usually intelligent correspondent.

    This idiotic habit that kills 420,000 American annually -- and the same percentage of French smokers -- and Dickey wants to lament that getting rid of it is changing Paris and France for the worse.

    Give me a break

    Tobacco smoking belongs on the junk heap of human history, along with practices like crucifixion and slavery. The sooner the better.

    • Posted By: K.I.S.S. METHOD @ 01/14/2009 1:43:27 PM

      Yes it is people like you telling every one else how to live healthier that is crushing the joy and simple pleasures out of life. "Sin Taxes" will soon be applied to all of those sweets and treats you shove in your face and pour down your throat. In the name of protecting you from skin cancer we will not allow you outdoors without protective clothing. To keep you safe from drowning we will not allow you to swim,nay not even to bathe in a tub. Lest you damage your hearing we will decide to limit all sound emmissions to a "safe" level. No more concerts or loud stereos for you. We will ban piping hot food so you won't burn your self and since you might freeze in winter you must remain indoors. You might wreck your car or die in a plane crash so we will ban transportation of all kinds to keep you safe and healthy.

      Personally, I would rather take my own risks and choose my own life. Stay Healthy!

      • Posted By: ItMo @ 01/14/2009 2:08:35 PM

        Hmm..well, you're taking sensible courses of action and stretching them beyond reason, just so you can call the original point unreasonable...let's see how that type of thing works on YOUR idea....

        Sure. live your own life. Do anything you want, whenever and however you want. Don't want to work anymore? DON'T. In fact, nobdoy should work who doesnt' feel like it. It's our right!! Don't feel like driving the speed limit? DON'T! It's your right to drive however you want. In fact, don't bother following the designated lane-lines, don't follow traffic lights, and enjoy. It's our right! Feel like going on vacation, but you have small children? GO! The kids will probably be just fine 'till next week. If I do get sick, I don't want to wait to feel better...disband the FDA so I can get drugs as cheap as I hear you can in Mexico. Any and ALL laws restrict MY freedom, and "I would rather take my own risks and choose my own life.". Everyone should be able to do ANYTHING they want at all times. A lot of parents have already started enacting this principle at home: and now kids understand they have the freedom to disrespect any authority figure, from the parents themselves, to teachers, to law-enforcement...
        NO LAWS= NO RESTRICTION ON MY FREEDOM= Me taking my own risks and choosing my own life.


        Sounds kinda silly right? Not quite as silly as your post. Nobody's talking about banning sunshine, hot food, or soundwaves. This is about smoking. Some "freedoms" are restricted for smokers while they're smoking. You are choosing to smoke. That action can potentially impact other's freedom. Think driving a car: you are choosing to drive but we have restrictions left and right. The negative consequences are immediate, gruesome, and dreadful. Lung cancer is every bit as horrible, but it doesn't impact us the same way. Shoud I be able to jab people around me with HIV infected needles???
        I STILL cannot believe there's still an argument FOR smoking....

        • Posted By: mel5431 @ 01/17/2009 12:49:02 PM

          Perhaps your anger has clouded your vision: I do not now, nor have I ever smoked. Nowhere in my post do I subscribe to smoking. In fact, I shared that smoking had taken the lives of two whom I loved dearly. Nowhere in my post do state that this law should or shouldn't have passed. Indeed, in my opening statement, the word "ostensibly" makes it clear that this article may appear to be about smoking, but in fact, it is about much more than that. And if you read the article, you will see that the author makes the same point by recounting the story of his favorite bar losing business, and subsequently closing. Your argument seems to say that the article is about civil rights...yours. But when we legislate anything, even something that to you personally is so evidently unlawful and objectionable, there are far reaching-often unforseen--changes that are effected. In the case of smoking in Paris, the law has impacted many small businesses profoundly and devastatingly. And with the disappearance of the cafes, we see changes in social behavior as well. As a human being with an interest in Sociology, I must state that when the very way of cultural or social life is impacted by legislation, it is well worth writing about...and discussing openly--preferably with passion, but without anger.

    • Posted By: curmuffin @ 01/14/2009 1:22:47 PM

      Tyranny is what belongs on the "junk heap of history". It is none of your, or your government's, business if smoking causes 10 times the number of deaths per year than you stated. Other posters have it right: This is about freedom. A significant number of us around the world would rather have it than your sanitized, colorless, soft tyranny.

      • Posted By: ItMo @ 01/14/2009 1:48:55 PM

        curmuffin: not sure where you'd draw that line of freedom...we have something that is deadly (not immediate, so therefore legal) and addictive. It is something that is deadly to those nearby when partaken (if you're still on the notion that 2nd hand smoke is harmless, then just think of what kills the quickest in structural fires: not fire, not falling debris, but smoke. Same idea works with smoking..just a lot slower...). OF COURSE the government is going to step in. It has not only the right to save us (even from ourselves), but the responsibility. The people we elect wouldn't be doing their jobs if they sat back and let it happen. And oh, btw, it's not tyranny when 72% of the population is in favor of it. Welcome to a Democratic-republic.
        Having hundreds of thousands of people slowly dying is a HUGE drain on our medical resources; it's more a tragedy that in these cases, it's all self-inflicted. YOU being sick costs ME. It costs everyone around you, but it's so spread out that we can hardly put a finger on it. Rising healthcare? Higher taxes (state and local, too, don't forget). Employers suffer from YOU not being at work, and when employERs suffer, employEEs suffer even more.
        So, it matters a lot if 400,000+ choose to do something that ends up harming them.
        When a child wanders into the medicine cabinet and wants to eat all those things that look like candy, I really HOPE someone is there to infringe on his right to eat and drink whatever he wants...
        As adults I would think that we'd know better than to do something that very definitely harms us. If we're not sharp enough to avoid it, I'd HOPE the government steps in and keeps you all safe and sound.
        I still can't believe we're arguing FOR smoking....
        Why not argue for taking away speed limits, traffic lights, drinking age-restriction, drunk-driving laws (it's our freedom to drink and drive, right??), and gun-restrictions....all i could think of real quick...all these laws/rules violate our freedoms!! haha...

      • Posted By: sickofredbs @ 01/14/2009 1:28:52 PM

        Except that your smoking jeapordizes my life. That makes it my business. If you don't believe its the governments business, then don't cry when the poor guy who doesn't have insurance is turned away by the hospital for cancer or emphysemsa treatments because he can't pay. As for most European countries, they have universal healthcare so it is very much their business. Why should those who are stupid enough to continue smoking increase the costs of health care for the majority who don't?

  • Posted By: Getitout @ 01/16/2009 7:17:57 PM

    Did the Frenchy were never introduced to chewing tobacco. They'll have to spit it on the street, and enjoy a nice day at there favorite bistro, A good cup of expresso coffee, and a freshly baked brioche. And don't forget a copy of Le Monde.

  • Posted By: Getitout @ 01/16/2009 7:14:42 PM

    Did the Frenchy was never introduced to chewing tobacco. Spit it on the side walk and enjoy your bistro expresso and the warmth of a freshly baked brioche.

  • Posted By: San Ying @ 01/16/2009 10:28:39 AM

    Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo smoking?
    Gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood!!

  • Posted By: Qidisrupt @ 01/15/2009 11:25:10 PM

    I enjoy the rich aroma of fine pipe tobacco...doesn't smell obnoxious to me. In fact cigarette smoke smells good to me, too...not as good as fine pipe tobacco, though. I do not smoke, but I have no right to mandate my choices on other people who choose to smoke. People in the welding profession ought to quit their jobs...welding fumes are far more smelly, obnoxious, and dangerous to health than tobacco....everyone should quit their jobs and leave their modes of transportation sit idle...exhaust fumes are obnoxiously dangerous yet nobody gripes about it much...we gotta get to work somehow,right? Of course, I am giving off fumes of sarcasm in this post...I think people make too much out of smoking when so many other things are more dangerous to us. One of the most dangerous things we can do as human beings is exclude people out of our lives because we feel a need to mandate on others what we personally do or don't do. Another dangerous thing to get caught up in is to be a habitual complainer...after a while people will tune you out.

  • Posted By: worldwidepi @ 01/15/2009 1:59:17 PM

    My good fortune was to be in Paris on the Left Bank - the seventh and the fifth for my 39th birthday in 1987 while working. It was the year Jules Verne opened and a beautiful South African working in television was my accomplice. We created a ruse of wanting a drink in the restaurant as it opened at 5:00 pm. They were fully booked for months and highly defended against interlopers seeking dinner. Suzy was blond and wore black leather with red lipstick and by doing so matched their decor. The staff found us a table for dinner once they saw her. We smoked, drank and fell in love in that way that although we have not spent our lives together - neither of us will ever forget Paris in August. Banality is the cruelest reward for a place that the world has worshiped for its efforts and gifts regardless of the price. To have lived seventy years well and to have been a part of French cafe society well exceeds the decades longer in rest homes intended by the well-meaning government. Amnesia in old age will be unnecessary soon, as there will be little to remember. The well meaning will go to their graves never understanding any of what they have missed or destroyed.

  • Posted By: MariRivera @ 01/15/2009 1:01:00 PM

    I think these bans have been a long time coming, for too long cigarettes have been romanticized in places like this and I hope society will slowly come to realize more and more that cigarettes are not romantic or glamourous, they are horribly smelly and obnoxious.

  • Posted By: Qidisrupt @ 01/15/2009 12:26:07 AM

    Don't need a reason to search? Smacks of totalitarianism...at least have a valid reason to search...not because you have a "gut feeling." Now, does my post give law enforcement a valid reason to follow me around wherever I go?; simply because I know there should be a valid reason for searching people?
    In fact I was unjustly harassed by a local police officer in my home town...without a valid reason. I happened to witness a scuffle in a Wal-Mart parking lot...the officer asked me if I wished to fill out a report...I complied and agreed to do so. As I was writing out my statement of what I saw, the officer decided to start bumping my arm as I was trying to fill out the report. I thought I was doing the right thing by doing such a thing...but, evidently, the officer took offense to me for some reason...he had no right to do this kind of childish crap to me or to anyone else for that matter. I guess I have learned my lesson...if they ask me to do anything, forget it...nobody should have to experience crapolla such as this.

  • Posted By: Kanan Divecha @ 01/15/2009 12:07:13 AM

    Alas, sadly the ban on smoking in Parisian street-side cafes pronounces the death of yet another opulent culture that was the pride of "living it up' mantra of the early and mid-1099s. Paris, in fact, defined the cool, indulgent life-style of the western world. If the cafes want to survive, they will have to redefine what they have to offer to its patrons. Reinvent and then reassure the passersby that the Parisian cafes are still what they used to be -- good hang-out places, but with a difference. Kanan Divecha, Mumbai, India


    l

  • Posted By: whynot11111 @ 01/14/2009 11:56:47 PM

    It appears the people who hate freedom have found a majority on the Supreme Court. Thanks for the gift that keeps on giving dubya! As if that jaggoff hadn't done enough to trample the constitution, his lackeys ruled today that the police don't actually need a reason to search you, it's enough if they think they might have a good reason. They won't be happy until they've trashed every last word in the constitution except the second ammendment. PLEASE PEOPLE, study nazi germany, and explain to me why you fight so hard to create a police state.

  • Posted By: Qidisrupt @ 01/14/2009 11:22:35 PM

    Maybe we should all quit our jobs because the vehicles we drive spew plenty of toxic fumes to kill each other off...yeah, let's ban driving vehicles, flying planes, riding motorbikes, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

  • Posted By: OMgirl @ 01/14/2009 11:03:37 PM

    I find it absurd that smokers feel they have any rights whatsoever when millions of people die from second hand smoke. It would be one thing if it was only affecting you and no one else, but why should I have to be disturbed by your addiction? That's as if I were an alcoholic and made everyone else around me drink the same amount of alcohol I did and whenever I wanted!! Smoking is poison!! It stinks, it effects your lungs and your immune system not to mention causing cancer. If it didn't make so much money if would've been made illegal a long time ago!! And if smokers were more thoughtful of how they effect others, they might not have all of these strict rules now as well. It's a nasty habit that is bad for you and everyone around you and it's not fair to the rest of us who have to breathe it and smell it because YOU have an addiction

  • Posted By: OMgirl @ 01/14/2009 11:00:26 PM

    I find it absurd that smokers feel they have any rights whatsoever when millions of people die from second hand smoke. It would be one thing if it was only affecting you and no one else, but why should I have to be disturbed by your addiction? That's as if I were an alcoholic and made everyone else around me drink the same amount of alcohol I did and whenever I wanted!! Smoking is poison!! It stinks, it effects your lungs and your immune system not to mention causing cancer. If it didn't make so much money if would've been made illegal a long time ago!! And if smokers were more thoughtful of how they effect others, they might not have all of these strict rules now as well. It's a nasty habit that is bad for you and everyone around you and it's not fair to the rest of us who have to breathe it and smell it because YOU have an addiction.

  • Posted By: marciashines @ 01/14/2009 2:18:30 PM

    It's not the land of the free with I can't go dancing without being exposed to carcinogenic smoke! I have the right to go to PUBLIC places that don't jeopardize my health. At least not in this respect.

    • Posted By: cntrygrl76 @ 01/14/2009 2:25:20 PM

      Yes, it is your right. But, how many times on your nights out dancing did you have a couple cocktails and then drive home? It's my right to get home without you or any other self-righteous non-smoker killing me b/c you drank too much and drove. Same difference.

      • Posted By: Mr.Dave @ 01/14/2009 2:32:05 PM

        Excellent point. Smoking in public should be illegal in public for the same reasons drunk driving is illegal in public. Both can kill innocent bystanders, and no one should be allowed that kind of "freedom".

        • Posted By: Greed @ 01/14/2009 3:04:15 PM

          Mr. Dave, drunk driving is illegal period. Not just "in public". Public drinking in general happens all the time in bars but I cant smoke in a bar. So by your logic drinking and smoking are in the same boat so I can smoke in a bar if I get drunk there too? If you dont like an establishment where people smoke why not just complain to the owner? If the owner agrees with you he has every right to ban smoking in his place of business. If he doesnt agree with you then tough luck. Suck it up or find someplace else to spend your money.

          • Posted By: Mr.Dave @ 01/14/2009 9:58:18 PM

            Actually, if you owned a field or other large open space you could drive drunk in it alone to your heart's content. It's when you use public roads and areas where there are people that you start to infringe on other people's rights and the drunk driving laws have effect. In other words, you keep your destructive behavior to yourself, and it's not illegal. In my opinion, smoking is a bigger problem outside of businesses, in public areas, than it is inside, specifically for the reason you mention: Choice. I can choose to take my money elsewhere if a business allows their establishment to become offensive and dangerous to customers. But what about on the street? Or at the beach? When one inconsiderate addict creates a poisonous stench for the next 100 people downwind, who is the problem? The people who want the freedom to go in public areas without enduring stench and poison, or the antisocial addict who doesn't even care about their own well being, let alone anyone else's? I say smokers should should always be required to keep their poison from polluting others that don't want it in their lungs when they're in public. That way only the guilty suffer the consequences. Justice.

    • Posted By: schnetz @ 01/14/2009 2:30:43 PM

      It should be the right of the business owner to decide how he/she wants to run their busines. If they allow smoking, then go somewhere else!

  • Posted By: Iconoblaster @ 01/14/2009 11:51:35 AM

    There have always been control-freaks who want to tell everyone what to do, and sheep, who are only too eager to surrender every choice, every freedom, big and small, for the comfort and safety promised by the control freaks. Freedom to choose, apparently, is dangerous.

    A ship in a safe harbor is safe. But thats not what ships are for.

    • Posted By: ItMo @ 01/14/2009 1:16:12 PM

      Sure, but a ship with a captain who ignores storm warnings and doesn't bother with proper navigation or communication equipment risks the lives of not only himself and the crew, but the crews of ships all around him... Freedoms aren't and shouldn't be unlimited. Rules and laws are there especially for those who don't control themselves.
      If you want to drive 120mph down the road, you're putting other people at risk. If you crash, emergency response has to risk their safety to help you. The hospitals have to treat your injuries. Then, you're out of work for a time (or indefinitley). You are no longer a useful part of society. You become a drain on everyone, and all because you wanted to exercise your "right" to drive however your whim decided...
      Somewhere along the way, we lost sight of the fact that we all have a responsibility to our society. Imagine villages hundreds or thousands of years past...everyone needed to pitch in or the whole group could perish. The rules were in place for everyone's well-being. Why are things so different now? Because the threat of not surviving a harsh winter or a poor harvest/hunt isn't a daily reality? Maybe.
      Regardless of how vast and complex our societies have become, we're members. We need to do our part to make sure we stay ahead of the curve. Rules are there to keep us on track. Smoking?? Are we seriously arguing FOR smoking? It's legal for a host of reasons- be happy you can still buy them. Heroine, cocaine, opiates, and many others were all viewed as harmless (or even helpful) at one point and were eventually deemed harmful. We can call that progress. Smoking is on its way, too, thankfully. Infringing on rights? Get over it. You can't randomly discharge firearms in public either...Smoking risks your health and the health of those around you (Go ahead, even TRY to contest that with a straight face), which costs the rest of us when you're ill (and away from work)...
      When you practice your freedom in a way that negatively impacts others in your society, you should have your freedoms restricted. Laws, rules, morals. They all apply.

      This was a great story that, mercifully, veered away from a civil-rights tirade, and just dwelled on memories of a very nice city with an amazing history.

      • Posted By: The Real Slim K @ 01/14/2009 2:41:39 PM

        deeply deeply saddened and disappointed to read this article and learn about this new law--and I'm a non-smoker. BUT, when I was in Paris and London not so long ago, but perhaps 7-8 years or so, they had these completely silent little air-sucking things above the table, so the smoke went straight up, and even if I were sitting at the next table, I could not smell the smoke. As a rabid non-smoking advocate, I was won over to the other side: we had gone too far, it had become self-righteous people-hating and sanctimony rather than anything really to do with health. Come on: banning smoking in OUTSIDE places, and in apartments, at the beach, in parks, etc.? Frankly no matter how much claptrap you hear from the doofus proponents, this IS a loss of rights and individuality, this article says 'loss of pleasure' yeah, maybe that too. And I'm a non-smoker. Funny, the people's republic of China has no laws regarding tobacco OR alcohol. You tell ME with a straight face how the U.S. shows more democracy and human rights by forbidding our 20-year-olds (maybe on their 3rd tour of duty in Iraq already) a (low alochol) beer. In China? go ahead. Can't help but feel the REAL explanation for all thse so-called activitists in the U.S. is religiousity. Embarrasingly selfish religiousity.

        • Posted By: Mr.Dave @ 01/14/2009 9:08:06 PM

          According to the World Health Organization, about 3,000 people die every day in China as a result of smoking. Can you tell ME with a straight face that you still think they've got a good thing going on over there?

  • Posted By: Greed @ 01/14/2009 2:07:54 PM

    Mr.Dave you are an ass. Smoking a cigarette and having others inhale second hand smoke is unfortunate but unintentional by the smoker. Using a metaphor like pouring abestos on someone else and their children, food, etc. is improper and doesn't have any relevance whatsoever to smoking. Now if someone were to pour abestos on themselves and others had to deal with being in proximity to it, that would be relevant. So if you want a metaphor here is an example: Mr.Dave was sitting next to me covered in abestos and I laughed at him as I lit up a Lucky Strike. To each his own I say.

    • Posted By: Mr.Dave @ 01/14/2009 8:41:50 PM

      Thank you for the childish personal attack. It said a lot more about you than it did about me. Your caricature of my illustration makes it clear you don't understand the point, so let me make it more clear for you: A cigarette does not produce cancerous second-hand smoke unless someone lights it. You lighting it is a deliberate act--no less than someone deliberately sprinkling asbestos on their surroundings. You deliberately subject the people around you to a cancerous poison, which is indeed improper. Get it?

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse