The Museum of Smoking

Nick Gillespie | September 7, 2007

As Paris gears up for new restrictions on smoking in public areas, the city also celebrates a new "Museum of Smoking":

Not too long ago, public smoking bans were regarded as a uniquely American phenomenon - a puritanical gesture, held in ridicule by any self-respecting, Gauloise-puffing Frenchman. Over time, however, the public health burden of smoking-related illnesses has spurred a number of industrialized nations to follow the American example. When the initial steps of a public smoking ban took effect in Paris this February, French opinion polls reported that 70 percent of Parisians were in favor of the prohibition.

With the rites of public smoking thus endangered, it's tempting to conclude that a smoking-themed museum is a great way to preserve an increasingly marginalized social ritual. In truth, the opposite is probably more accurate: To paraphrase what sociologist Dean MacCannell said a generation ago about folk museums, the best indicator of smoking-culture's demise is not its disappearance from public areas, but its artificial preservation in a place like Le Musée du Fumeur.

More here.

Via the invaluable Arts & Letters Daily.

reason on smoking.

Comments

|9.7.07 @ 8:28AM|#

Ancient tribes (5000 B.C.) smoked tobacco.

Westerners have been smoking since the 1500s, or possibly earlier.

Any group of pussy bureaucrats who think that tinkering around the edges of society is going to radically alter humanity's deep ties with tobacco are tragically deluded. This is an aberration, not the 'new trend'.

x,y|9.7.07 @ 9:19AM|#

If you read carefully enough you'll notice the government is attempting to solve a problem it created: the "public health burden."

The public should never have been on the hook for the smoking burden of those who chose to smoke.

|9.7.07 @ 9:30AM|#

The public should never have been on the hook for the smoking burden of those who chose to smoke.

The state is the ultimate anti-empath.

There is no pain of yours that is too great, especially those that are self-inflicted, for it to not force upon everyone else to share.

|9.7.07 @ 9:37AM|#

I agree with you guys, the areas on Earth where this pesky civilization thing doesn't burden us with having to look out for one another are by far the best places to live.

Episiarch|9.7.07 @ 9:45AM|#

public smoking bans were regarded as a uniquely American phenomenon - a puritanical gesture, held in ridicule by any self-respecting, Gauloise-puffing Frenchman

Guess not, Pierre--looks like it's a socialistic/paternalistic/nanny state phenomenon. Better suck it up while you can, because you asked for it.

|9.7.07 @ 9:46AM|#

H&R golf commentary:

(Dan T. once again confuses a voluntary moral duty to help one another in a time of need with a legal compulsion to do the same, punishable by forced confinement for a failure to do so.)

Let's get back to the game.

|9.7.07 @ 9:54AM|#

Le Mu[sée du Fu]m[e]ur.

This is an aberration, not the 'new trend'.
Not much is new as regards human behavior. At some point the current smoking bans (and global warming hysteria, etc.) will be considered quaint fads from the past.

1683: Massachusetts passes the nation's first no-smoking law. It forbids the smoking of tobacco outdoors, because of the fire danger. Soon after, Philadelphia lawmakers approve a ban on "smoking seegars on the street." Fines are used to buy fire-fighting equipment.

Rhywun|9.7.07 @ 10:29AM|#

At some point the current smoking bans (and global warming hysteria, etc.) will be considered quaint fads from the past.

Because at some point we're going to have better things to worry about.

|9.7.07 @ 10:39AM|#

(Dan T. once again confuses a voluntary moral duty to help one another in a time of need with a legal compulsion to do the same, punishable by forced confinement for a failure to do so.)

Yes, you're right. I forgot about all those countries that don't legally compel their citizens to behave in certain ways.

Seriously, though, you guys seem to be blaming various governments for not only trying to solve a problem that the private sector caused, but also for even recognizing that there was a problem in the first place.

Also, I think for most of human history, smoking didn't matter so much. People weren't living that long anyway so they were much more likely to die of something else long before smoking-related diseases kicked in. Now that modern life expectancies are reaching the 70's and 80's, this is no longer the case.

|9.7.07 @ 11:06AM|#

(Dan continues to fumble around today, folks. He now is conflating public standards of decorum and laws against violent crime with compulsory economic assistance. It's really sad to watch an up and comer unravel like this. He had such promise.)

rho|9.7.07 @ 11:07AM|#

Seriously, though, you guys seem to be blaming various governments for not only trying to solve a problem that the private sector caused, but also for even recognizing that there was a problem in the first place.

What?

People weren't living that long anyway so they were much more likely to die of something else long before smoking-related diseases kicked in.

IIRC, smokers tend to die sooner and therefore use less medical care than "healthy" codgers. (It's possible that they use less but more expensive medical care, so it's a wash.) As for me, when I hit 70 I'm going to smoke out of my mouth and asshole simultaneously.

|9.7.07 @ 11:18AM|#

People are responsible for their own behavior Dan T. No one ever forced a smoker to smoke a cigarette. Governments need to get out of the nanny business and stay out of it.

"Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now." Thomas Jefferson

|9.7.07 @ 11:23AM|#

Governments need to get out of the nanny business and stay out of it.

Tried that. Didn't work.

|9.7.07 @ 11:40AM|#

It worked early in our history. It can work again we just have to wean all the special interest groups off the governments teats. Of course it will be painful everyone loves something for nothing. But of course there is no such thing as something for nothing someone always pays.

|9.7.07 @ 2:02PM|#

When the initial steps of a public smoking ban took effect in Paris this February, French opinion polls reported that 70 percent of Parisians were in favor of the prohibition.

Not that the will of the majority always needs to be heeded, but these seem like pretty significant numbers to me.

|9.7.07 @ 3:33PM|#

The public should never have been on the hook for the smoking burden of those who chose to smoke.

Not only that but I'd love to see a study showing that criminalizing smoking in public does anything to reduce smoking related illnesses.

Tried that. Didn't work.

Humor the slower readers in the thread. Rather than the declarative statement feel free to actually say when and what was tried and failed.

|9.7.07 @ 4:10PM|#

Maybe they will put it next to the Museum of Liberties.

|9.7.07 @ 4:12PM|#

"""Governments need to get out of the nanny business and stay out of it.

Tried that. Didn't work."""

So you support the nanny government.