Home / Press review / Archive / Magazine / Society / Smoking bans / Debate

Smoking bans in the EU

Wide-ranging smoking bans are already in force in several EU member states, including Ireland, Italy, Malta, and Sweden. Now EU Health Commissioner Markos Kyprianou has proposed the introduction of legislation restricting smoking on a European scale.

Kyprianou's Green Paper containing recommendations "Towards a Europe free from tobacco smoke" has re-launched the debate about smoking bans. Up to now, the main goal has been bans at a national level. Now, however, discussion increasingly focusses on the question of whether uniform regulations for the entire EU are at all desirable. Shouldn't each nation be free to decide for itself where smoking is to be banned?

National Regulations

The number of countries to ban smoking in the workplace, in public buildings, or in restaurants and bars without any pressure from the EU is constantly growing. Smoking has been banned from Ireland's offices, public buildings and pubs since April 2004, and Italy, Spain, Sweden, Latvia and Malta have also introduced smoking bans.

In Scotland, a ban against smoking in public places entered force in March 2006, while England and Wales plan to follow suit in July of this year. Smoking in the workplace has been forbidden since 2 February 2007 in France, and smoking in bars, cafés, and restaurants is also to be prohibited starting 2008.

Attitudes in different countries

Initially, there has been tough opposition to such restrictions in all of these countries. The opposition didn't follow the traditional dividing lines between political parties. Instead, the discussion was dominated by emotionalism and personal attitudes. This is because hardly any other issue more clearly demonstrates the impact of politics on everyday life and the life of individuals than the question of where one should be allowed to smoke.

In those countries where the introduction of smoking bans has already been discussed, the debate reflected similar patterns and arguments. It was dominated by the critics of such legislation.

Firstly, the media attacked the politicians' lack of touch with reality. In an article published on 22 March 2006 in the British daily The Times, Scottish columnist Magnus Linklater made the following comments on the Scottish people's attitude towards the smoking ban: "They talked with a healthy mixture of ridicule and contempt about the politicians who rule their lives. These are not people who regard their health or longevity as the prime concerns of life; they put small pleasures first."

A second line of argument focussed on whether such sweeping smoking bans amount to discrimination against smokers. This was the stance adopted by a commentator in the 7 December 2006 edition of the German weekly Die Zeit. He talks of the "pruning of civil rights" and calls for smokers' restaurants with licenses for nicotine despite the fact that he considers the protection of non-smokers a justified cause. In an article in the British daily The Independent of February 15, 2006, a British columnist described the new smoking restrictions which are due to enter force in Britain this summer as disproportionately aggressive. He makes the point that it would be better to rely on smokers voluntarily putting aside their cigarettes.

On a third level, discussion revolved around whether the unique cultural atmosphere of Irish pubs and French cafés would disappear along with the smoke. "A world collapses", French writer Philipp Delerm lamented on January 31, 2007 in Le Monde, following the announcement of the introduction of a smoking ban in France pushed through by Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin.
In Germany, the debate about smoking bans prompted Claudius Seidl to write an obituary published in the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung of December 24, 2006 on the "drug of the 20th century", the cigarette, which, he says, opened a "parenthesis in harsh reality".

However, once restrictions for smokers in public places entered force, not much more has been said on the subject of smoking bans in the countries affected. There have been no debates or campaigns aimed at abolishing them.

Even smokers want smoking bans

Once such legislation is in place, it apparently meets with general acceptance. This is underscored by the fact that the number of citizens who favour the introduction of wide-ranging smoking bans is particularly high in countries that have already introduced restrictions.

According to a Eurobarometer survey carried out by the EU in autumn 2005, the majority of Europeans approve of smoking bans. 86 percent would like to see smoking banned in offices and other enclosed workplaces. The percentage of those who support similar measures in public buildings such as airports, train stations, and shops is almost as high.

However, when it comes to restaurants, bars, and pubs, the approval ratings for smoking bans fall. Here, too, certain distinctions must be drawn. In countries where smoking bans were already in force at the time of the survey, support for laws banning smoking in restaurants was particularly strong. In Ireland, 80 percent of respondents were in favour of such a measure. The majority of Czechs, on the other hand, oppose such a ban.

The same goes for bars and pubs. While over 80 percent of Italians, Swedes and Irish were in favour, few Eastern Europeans were enthusiastic about the idea of not being able to light up when they go out for a drink. Germans and Austrians also want to continue to be allowed to smoke in pubs and cafés, whereas the majority of the French say they can do without.

Recommendations from Brussels

Now the Green Paper presented by EU Health Commissioner Markos Kyprianou has interrupted ongoing national debates with a bang. In Germany, for example, it has revived the debate about a nationwide smoking ban which at the end of 2006 failed to be ratified in the German federalist system. For now, the Commissioner's proposals are just recommendations, but if individual states fail to agree on their own regulations, Brussels could impose a ban that transcends national borders.

Unlike previous anti-tobacco campaigns such as warning messages on cigarette packets and preventive campaigns like "Help", Kyprianou hopes the smoke-free zones will lead to the long-term "denormalisation" of smoking. According to the report, the aim is to make smoking no longer "socially acceptable".

Is it up to the EU to decide?

The discussion has taken a different turn now that debates on national smoking bans have been overshadowed by the prospect of an EU-wide ban. Particularly in Western Europe, commentators are no longer preoccupied with the question of whether introducing smoking bans makes sense or not. Now they're focussing on whether the EU has the authority to legislate in such matters. According to the principle of subsidiarity, the EU can only legislate in matters that cannot be adequately regulated by national policies.

In an article published on 30 January 2007 in the Berliner Zeitung, Gerold Büchner argues that the EU will only harm itself by trying to impose an EU-wide smoking ban, pointing out that each country has its "own bar and restaurant culture". His Spanish colleague, Ramón Pérez-Maura, adopts a similar stance on 31 January 2007 in the Spanish daily ABC. He argues that such legislation would only provide "a new reason for Eurosceptics to denounce the interventionism of Brussels", particularly in Spain, where far-reaching smoking restrictions were already introduced a year ago.

So far, only the Austrian daily Die Presse has spoken out in favour of "shifting the responsibility for a smoking ban to the EU". However, in Austria, where opposition to smoking bans is as great as in Eastern Europe, the new grand coalition government has its own plans for banning smoking, even in the country's renowned coffee houses.

Pleasant feelings forbidden

In the new EU member states of Eastern Europe, those countries where the idea of smoking bans - particularly for restaurants, bars and pubs, but also for the workplace - is least popular, doubts about the good intentions of the EU Commissioner prevail. Apparently, it is mainly this debate that is making the citizens of these nations aware of the extent to which the EU can interfere in everyday life.

In Romania, the press reacted with amusement to the Brussels initiative, which is perceived as an "anti-smoker campaign" rather than a campaign for the protection of non-smokers. "It's the classic case: pleasant feelings are forbidden," Costi Rogozanu wrote in the 31 January 2007 edition of the Romanian daily Cotidianul. Meanwhile, according to an article in Sega of 2 February 2007, Bulgarians see themselves as being robbed of their identity by regulations and recommendations from Brussels: "And now yet another threat is looming on the horizon: smoking is to be confined to the home. All these things are fundamental to the Bulgarian way of life. Without spirits, salad and cigarettes, life for Bulgarians is as boring and pointless as a cucumber."

Nina Diezemann

Nina Diezemann was an editor of euro|topics. She studied German philology and history, graduated from the Deutsche Journalistenschule in Munich, and then worked as a ...
» to author index

Further articles on the subject » Health Policy, » EU Policy, » Europe
More from the press review on the subject » Health Policy, » EU Policy, » Europe