Ballad of the Sad Cafes

You really have no right to go to a karoke bar, it is a private establishment. If you choose to go there, and people smoke there, you have chosen to expose yourself to secondhand smoke. Most of the people who choose to be there are there to drink and smoke. The karoke is a secondary distraction. You know secondhand smoke kills. You are not a victim of circumstance if you have knowingly and willingly exposed yourself to a carcinogen, although it certainly should be your right to do so. Studies show that while smoker's healthcare costs are higher, their life cycle burden to society is less because they live longer. It seems to me that what is best for society is for everyone to smoke. Maybe it should be illegal for people to Not smoke. A thousand years ago people developed communities with people of similar mores. Today, that has been made impossible through the tyranny of the majority's quest to create a symmetrical culture in which they can sell their big mac's and suburbans.

A global conspiracy to reduce citizens rights? Look back ay the rights we've lost globally in the last 10 years.

Yes, smoke in your own home, kill the businesses that were the lifeblood of Paris. Kill them all, then you can be happy in your smoke free deaths of miserable, controlled, lives. You stink without the cigarettes!

if my smoking bothers you don't come into "my space"

if my smoking bothers you then don't come where i'm at

Many of you are missing the point here. IIt's not whether you must be subjected to smoke, that would be your CHOICE. Kind of like going to a gay bar vs a straight bar, or watching tv..IF you don't like it change the channel or go to that straight bar, but don't ban the option.
Unfortunately, when the government steps in and takes someone's CHOICE away from them is where the line has been crossed. The option should be up to the owner of the bar or cafe. I'm sure there would be as many non smoking bars and cafes as there would be for smokers. Why take that choice away? For ones' own good? Where do we draw the line? Well the same government that draws THIS line is the same government that will not shut the "unhealthy" industry down because it is a cash cow...The hypocrisy is sickening...

This is absurd. It is riddled with logical fallacy and dangerously misplaced romanticism.

I have been to Paris six times in the past five years, usually for a month at a stretch, and while it certainly has changed, it is nowhere near the hollow shell the author represents here. It is ridiculous to claim that the smoking ban will alter the character of the city beyond recognition or reparation. New York and San Francisco have maintained their character long after their smoking bans were passed, and in a couple of generations, when Parisians have gotten used to it, it will be the same there.

Incidentally, since you may not know this, the French government finances Tabacs, and profits from all tobacco sales made in the country. For a long time the money they made from the Tabacs was greater than the money they spent in universal healthcare to combat diseases caused by smoking. But the latter eclipsed the former in recent years, giving special motivation to push the ban.

On a humanitarian level, do some research on secondhand smoke deaths and diseases. When two people's rights cross-cancel each other (in this case, the smoker's right to enjoy his smoke and the nonsmoker's right to enjoy his time in the cafe without breathing in the smoke), it is always the person causing the least harm whose rights take priority.

We don't think about things in perspective if we're used to them, but banning any harm-causing agent is always good for the culture at large. Especially when those around you have no choice about subjecting themselves to harm. If you want to drink a fifth of Jack next to me, go for it, you are responsible for yourself and your choices and are free to hurt yourself for the sake of pleasure--but I am not affected in that case, and I am affected if you light up next to me.

The world is getting a little carried away, I agree, and it is unfortunate that every developed country is becoming more and more homogenized...but this author is trying to tie the systematic phasing out of a destructive national habit (that has dangerously become tied in with identity for the people and the place) with the broader changes taking place all over France and the rest of the world. That is an error of reasoning that has kept many a harmful practice going in times past--a great step forward at this stage is to recognize that error and amend our thinking to support actions taken to help and protect ourselves.

I love it when people state that they ban smoking because it costs everyone too much money. I would like to see statistics on how much it costs all of us when someone chooses to take part in an "extreme" sport, or even just a regular sport, then gets lost, injured, etc., and our tax dollars have to be spent to rescue them and then our insurance money goes to heal them. Or how about people who are not equipped to handle home improvement projects, yet try to do them anyway, only to end up in the hospital. I don't think my insurance contributions should go to pay for their injuries, either. It was THEIR CHOICE to fix up their house, or take part in that sport. I can come up with A LOT of these. We ALL do things that others do not see the need for, which in turn "eat up" rescue, hospital and insurance resources for the rest of us. Wait until the thing YOU enjoy doing is considered a society no-no. Then you'll be singing another tune! As for second hand smoke and your right to not be exposed to the smoke, I totally agree. I was fine when we were all "segregated" to separate rooms in the restaurants and bars. But to take away my right totally? Like I said, next up will be something that you enjoy, and then we'll see.

Hey Barbie, you also have the choice not to go to that establishment to eat your healthy meal. When is the last time you went to a bar to be healthy?

This is absurd. It is riddled with logical fallacy and dangerously misplaced romanticism.

I have been to Paris six times in the past five years, usually for a month at a stretch, and while it certainly has changed, it is nowhere near the hollow shell the author represents here. It is ridiculous to claim that the smoking ban will alter the character of the city beyond recognition or reparation. New York and San Francisco have maintained their character long after their smoking bans were passed, and in a couple of generations, when Parisians have gotten used to it, it will be the same there.

Incidentally, since you may not know this, the French government finances Tabacs, and profits from all tobacco sales made in the country. For a long time the money they made from the Tabacs was greater than the money they spent in universal healthcare to combat diseases caused by smoking. But the latter eclipsed the former in recent years, giving special motivation to push the ban.

On a humanitarian level, do some research on secondhand smoke deaths and diseases. When two people's rights cross-cancel each other (in this case, the smoker's right to enjoy his smoke and the nonsmoker's right to enjoy his time in the cafe without breathing in the smoke), it is always the person causing the least harm whose rights take priority. I went to a little bistro in Saint Germain-des-Pres once and hung out downstairs to do karaoke for two hours--*two hours*. My body had such a violent reaction to the smoke, I was bedridden for a day afterward. Especially in areas with poor ventilation, smoke has been a major problem over the years. You get used to it eventually, but you shouldn't have to get used to carcinogens that come from hobby instead of necessity being everywhere in your environment.

We don't think about things in perspective if we're used to them, but banning any harm-causing agent is always good for the culture at large. Especially when those around you have no choice about subjecting themselves to harm. If you want to drink a fifth of Jack next to me, go for it, you are responsible for yourself and your choices and are free to hurt yourself for the sake of pleasure--but I am not affected in that case, and I am affected if you light up next to me.

The world is getting a little carried away, I agree, and it is unfortunate that every developed country is becoming more and more homogenized...but this author is trying to tie the systematic phasing out of a destructive national habit (that has dangerously become tied in with identity for the people and the place) with the broader changes taking place all over France and the rest of the world. That is an error of reasoning that has kept many a harmful practice going in times past--one of the great steps forward at this stage is to recognize that error and amend our thinking to support actions taken to help and protect ourselves.

if some dumbass wont let me smoke when i want to then what is the point of living here with my free will and all. we can write about fatties and twinkies and smoking but it is still my right if i want to. and let me tell you the revenues of the joints you can't smoke in will definitely go no matter how many new left wing dumbasses show up now.

This is absurd. It is riddled with logical fallacy and dangerously misplaced romanticism.

I have been to Paris six times in the past five years, usually for a month at a stretch, and while it certainly has changed, it is nowhere near the hollow shell the author represents here. It is ridiculous to claim that the smoking ban will alter the character of the city beyond recognition or reparation. New York and San Francisco have maintained their character long after their smoking bans were passed, and in a couple of generations, when Parisians have gotten used to it, it will be the same there.

Incidentally, since you may not know this, the French government finances Tabacs, and profits from all tobacco sales made in the country. For a long time the money they made from the Tabacs was greater than the money they spent in universal healthcare to combat diseases caused by smoking. But the latter eclipsed the former in recent years, giving special motivation to push the ban.

On a humanitarian level, do some research on secondhand smoke deaths and diseases. When two people's rights cross-cancel each other (in this case, the smoker's right to enjoy his smoke and the nonsmoker's right to enjoy his time in the cafe without breathing in the smoke), it is always the person causing the least harm whose rights take priority. I went to a little bistro in Saint Germain-des-Pres once and hung out downstairs to do karaoke for two hours--*two hours*. My body had such a violent reaction to the smoke, I was bedridden for a day afterward. Especially in areas with poor ventilation, smoke has been a major problem over the years. You get used to it eventually, but you shouldn't have to get used to carcinogens that come from hobby instead of necessity being everywhere in your environment.

We don't think about things in perspective if we're used to them, but banning any harm-causing agent is always good for the culture at large. Especially when those around you have no choice about subjecting themselves to harm. If you want to drink a fifth of Jack next to me, go for it, you are responsible for yourself and your choices and are free to hurt yourself for the sake of pleasure--but I am not affected in that case, and I am affected if you light up next to me.

The world is getting a little carried away, I agree, and it is unfortunate that every developed country is becoming more and more homogenized...but this author is trying to tie the systematic phasing out of a destructive national habit (that has dangerously become tied in with identity for the people and the place) with the broader changes taking place all over France and the rest of the world. That is an error of reasoning that has kept many a harmful practice going in times past--one of the great steps forward at this stage is to recognize that error and amend our thinking to support actions taken to help and protect ourselves.

I am so sick of smokers telling me it's their right to poison the air I breathe. You can't poison my food, or poison my water so why should you be allowed to poison my air. I am all for smoking bans in all public places. Second-hand smoke kills!!! It's a fact. Smoke in your own homes, dirty your own air, litter you own place w/ astrays and butts but don't inflict your nasty, stinky habbit on me.

It says right on the side of the box that if you smoke it will kill you. By now, everyone knows that seconhand smoke will also kill you. There are smoke-free bars and cafe's. I can choose to not kill myself, and still get a beer and a meal. Smoking will kill me slowly, drinking battery acid will kill me quickly. Arguing that the government should tell me I can't because then I wont be able to contribute to society is slavery.

Great article! Instead of outright bans, governments should look at having both smoking and non-smoking establishments. Problem with that is it has been shown that smokers tend to spend more and even tip more on average than non-smokers. That would explain the bans since only an idiot would actually cater to those spending less when the overhead would be the same as on someone who spends more, Without bans in place it would be difficult to find non-smoking establishments; like it was in the 70's and 80's before Big Brother got involved.

I thought the most telling part of the article was that the Cafes are disappearing due to the fact "their meals are highly taxed" This should serve as a warning to those that are trying to make the US more like these socialists...

I love going to France but could never go during the winter months when indoor air was un-breathable. I have asthma and a meal in a restaurant meant I would get sick. By the way, if you don't think that Mr. Peresse's death was due to lung cancer brought on by cigarette smoke then I don't know what planet you are coming from. I do not call cigarette smoking a simple pleasure, as stated in one of the comments. Neither would anybody in their right mind consider the smoking ban as "not accommodating the simple pleasures of the people that do not share their dreams". What dream in hell are we taking about? Mr. Dickey I am sorry to say but you are doing a disservice to society by painting such a picture, check the statistics then talk about the subject; whether it is the attendance in cafes or the health related issues.