HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Chapman, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Chapman, S.

Evidence, ethics, hubris and the future of second-hand smoke policy

Correspondence to:
Professor S Chapman
School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Edward Ford Building A27, Australia; sc@med.usyd.edu.au

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

The news that French bars and restaurants will be smoke free by the end of 2007 led to hundreds of headlines, impelled by a "myth turned on its head" subtext. The tedious cliché that every second French citizen’s birthright requires them to sit in cafes smoking Gauloises and sipping pastis while reading Jean-Paul Sartre is about as accurate today as the view that Ireland is a nation of potato diggers or that all Italians obey the Pope’s dictums on contraception. Smokers have long been a minority in all three of these countries. Nonetheless, an "if they can, anyone can" incredulity has made these three nations’ decisions to ban smoking in bars globally newsworthy. Californian leadership was vital, but discounted by reasoning that alluded to their reputation for having all sorts of eccentric proclivities when it comes to diet and health. If, as expected, France follows the Irish and Italian . . . [Full text of this article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. S. Magnusson Mapping the Scope and Opportunities for Public Health Law in Liberal Democracies J. Law Med. Ethics, December 1, 2007; 35(4): 571 - 587. [PDF]