Sat, Feb 11 2012

Smoking controversies in Macedonia, Serbia

Fri, Dec 25 2009 11:27 CET 4280 Views 43 Comments
Smoking controversies in Macedonia, Serbia

UP IN THE AIR: Airlines are smoke-free, but on the ground, smoking bans announced in a number of European countries are being challenged, sometimes successfully, much to the chagrin of those who prefer smoke-free air.

Photo: Kashif Mardani

A ban on smoking in public places takes effect in Macedonia at the stroke of New Year, but some MPs and the hospitality industry are fighting a last-ditch battle.
 
Like most European Union and candidate EU states, Macedonia has announced restrictions on smoking, but those who oppose the ban are citing precedents in other countries that have eased such bans.
 
In September 2009, Croatia eased restrictions, while subsequently Greece and Serbia reportedly were considering doing the same. In some countries, notably Bulgaria, the existing restrictions on smoking in public places are widely ignored – though, ironically, the Government in Sofia has announced that the ban will be widened in 2010.
 
In Macedonia, as of January 1 2010, smokers will not be allowed to smoke in eateries, cafes, nightclubs, disco-clubs, pubs, stadiums, including the outdoor dining areas in summertime.
 
Macedonia Radio and Television said on December 25 2009 that state inspectors had been dispatched to tell the owners of cafés and eateries that the smoking ban must be complied with in the first minutes of 2010, shortly after people finish wishing each other a happy new year.
 
"State Inspectorate crews will be working overtime during the New Year's holidays, including the New Year's Night, Saso Jakimovski, the head of the state market inspectorate, was quoted as saying.
 
The fine for places found in breach of the smoking ban is set at 2500 to 4000 euro, while individuals will be fined 150 to 300 euro.
 
However, Macedonia’s Dnevnik newspaper said that a group of MPs, led by Georgi Oroshavets and former prime minister Vlado Bucovski, was preparing an attempt to trim back the anti-smoking regulations before the end of January.
 
According to a report by Bulgarian news agency Focus, quoting Dnevnik, Bucovski said that Macedonians could not become "bigger Catholics that the Pope" and there was no need for Macedonia to have such a restrictive law, when – he said – there was a trend throughout Europe towards "loosening" the ban.
 
Retreats from smoking bans were being ordered because of the bans’ impacts on hotels and the restaurants, Buckovski said.
 
Media in Skopje reported Donco Tanevski, the Chairman of Hotel Association of Macedonia, as saying that the smoking ban will additionally hit tourism workers.
 
From Belgrade, Danas reported on December 24 2009 that the Serbian government had "abandoned" plans for a blanket ban on smoking indoors.
 
The daily said that this had followed a meeting between government officials and cigarette manufacturers in Serbia.
 
The government has agreed to the "protection instead of ban" principle, promoted by cigarette makers and restaurants, Danas quoted a source close to the Cevtković cabinet as saying.
 
In Greece in November, health minister Mariliza Xenogiannakopoulou said that there were "great gaps in the application of the smoking ban" because many establishments were simply not complying.
 
Athens-based daily Kathimerini reported that at the time that Greek officials said that they would launch a review of the law, which was approved earlier in 2009 following complaints from non-smokers at home and pressure from the European Union.
 

  • Print
  • Send via email
  • Translate to
  • Share:

Comments

Anonymous Dr Strangelove Tue, Jan 12 2010 18:41 CET

Yannis -

If, as you say , you suffer as follows:

<<Look: I don't even need the scientific evidence (though I kn ow it exists) because I can be sick for weeks after one night's exposure to your poison.>>

....if you are 'sick for weeks' after 'one night's exposure', you clearly have a moderate-to-severe clinical allergy.

If you were my patient, I would prescribe strong ant-histamines or else oral steroids, as well as the obvious advice to avoid bars, bus-stops, and generally the outside [...]

Read the full comment world.

Diesel fumes from road traffic carry many of the same carcinogens, and provoke much the same reactions in allergic sufferers that you describe.

But I am afraid that you cannot demand (a) that the rest of the world stop smoking, or (b) that the rest of the world stop driving diesel cars or trucks, just because of your personal allergy.


AnonymousYannisMon, Jan 11 2010 13:03 CET

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained off-topic content

Anonymous Kilroy Sun, Jan 10 2010 02:14 CET

Correction!

The belowed comment isn't from "1", but from me.

Sorry!

Anonymous1Sat, Jan 09 2010 18:56 CET

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained off-topic content

Anonymous Koinos Nous Wed, Jan 06 2010 14:09 CET

Nonetheless, Peggy, it can validly be argued that the only life-event to carry a 100% mortality prognosis is birth.

The second one, of course, scoring a mere 95% mortality prognosis, is to live in any of the countries bordering Serbia (like Bosnia and Srebrenice, for example).

Anonymous Peggy Mon, Jan 04 2010 10:01 CET


Koinos Nous

Sun, Jan 03 2010 22:13 CET

"Peggy - statistically I am (for once) entirely correct: there is a 100% correlation between birth and death.

So your efforts might better be targeted at preventing people being born in the first place (well, there is always the pro-abortion movement, but let's leave that on one side for the moment...)"
----------------------

No, that's your argument in favour of smoking.

You go ahead and argue this point [...]

Read the full comment and see how "clever" you look.
I will stick to my anti smoking argument.

Yes, being born means that we will die one day, but I am in no hurry to get there.

Why don't you leave birth/death argument for another topic. It has nothing to do with smoking ban and if you want to use that as your pro smoking in restaurants etc then go ahead. It will only make you look really stupid.

Anonymous Koinos Nous Sun, Jan 03 2010 22:13 CET

Peggy - statistically I am (for once) entirely correct: there is a 100% correlation between birth and death.

So your efforts might better be targeted at preventing people being born in the first place (well, there is always the pro-abortion movement, but let's leave that on one side for the moment...)

Anonymous Peggy Sun, Jan 03 2010 22:06 CET

Koinos Nous

Sat, Jan 02 2010 16:05 CET

"There is also, Peggy, a 100% correlation between eventual death and original birth.

In other words, the most dangerous phenomenon in life - with 100% mortality - is being born."
=======================

So let's get there faster by smoking.
Do you realise how ridiculous you sound?

Think about it...

Anonymous Koinos Nous Sun, Jan 03 2010 14:05 CET

Yannis - when you say:

<< I don't give a hoot about pubs or bars - let them all close >>

...you're just being a little nit of a fascist yourself, aren't you ?

In many rural communities in Northern Europe the village pub is about the only thing that keeps the rural community together. But - from your Greek name - you are now a northern European, so you wouldn't understand that.

Northern Europe still has that dreadful example of the Lithuanian Cardinal [...]

Read the full comment (still on the 2 litai banknote) who closed down all Lithuania's rural pubs on grounds of "public health" a hundred years ago.

The result is that Lithuania has the highest rate of alcohol-related violence in all of Northern Europe, as drinkers congregate in large Soviet-style "Alus Baras" beer bars in cities to get totally plastered (and violent).

Is this the future that you really want ? If so, you must be a fascist indeed.

Anonymous Yannis Sun, Jan 03 2010 11:06 CET

I don't give a hoot about pubs or bars - let them all close. They are a tiny part of the economy compared to the huge costs of treating smoke-related disease and the tragedy of long slow deaths from chronic illness caused by passive smoke. Lost jobs versus *death*. It simply doesn't compare.

Pubs are all useless to me anyway if full of smoke - one night in one of those can give me asthma for weeks or even months.

Besides - countries with total bans on smoking in pubs, such as [...]

Read the full comment Australia, still have plenty of pubs. No-one stops drinking beer. And these are much more pleasant to be in that the filthy smoke-filled cesspits of non-ban or failed ban countries.

Anonymous 1 Sun, Jan 03 2010 10:50 CET

PS: Oh and Kilroy - the abject failure of the new smoking bans in Greece and Spain proves that "choice", at least as so poorly implemented there, is not working to protect people from passive smoke. Compare that with the success of the more comprehensive bans in Italy.

Anonymous1Sun, Jan 03 2010 10:47 CET

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained off-topic content

Anonymous Kilroy Sun, Jan 03 2010 00:44 CET

Peggy. I don't claime, that 'first hand-smoke' cannot kill, but WHO and EU have, with the biggist lies in the World put into your optic, that second hand smoke kills you too! (Direct from the WHO = payed scientist from the medical industrie) The thruth has no chance today!

About restaurants. - Why don't allowe free choice? (With signs). - So you can join your non-smoking places and I mine!

Anonymous Koinos Nous Sat, Jan 02 2010 16:05 CET

There is also, Peggy, a 100% correlation between eventual death and original birth.

In other words, the most dangerous phenomenon in life - with 100% mortality - is being born.

Think about it...

Anonymous Peggy Fri, Jan 01 2010 01:51 CET


Kilroy

Thu, Dec 31 2009 03:36 CET

@Peggy.

"I don't smoke and I can assure you I do not stink of anything"?

I find, you stink of Anti-smokers, and that is bad enough."
========================

I can assure you that I don't hate smokers. You can smoke to your heart's delight. All I care about is that your smoking does not interfere with my enjoyment of a nice meal in a nice restaurant, as I do [...]

Read the full comment have a right to that, and that your smoking does not endanger my life in any way.

Yes, you do have the right to smoke, but I have the right to keep my lungs clean and my children's lungs clean.
You have no right to impose your life choices onto me in any way.

If you drink and get drunk that's ok as long as you don't start annoying other patrons or endangering them in some way. We have laws to protect others from your drunken behaviour. We have laws to protect other motorists if you drink and drive. Whay would forcing your smoke onto someone else not fit here as well?

Can an HIV positive person have unprotected sex with someone and say that he we cannot tell him not to do that because it's his body?

Doctors have proved a link between smoking and cancer. That is good enough for me.

Bottom line. Do whatever you like. I don't care and I won't hate you for it as long as nobody else gets hurt.

Anonymous Koinos Nous Thu, Dec 31 2009 15:04 CET

My point, Peggy, was that bodily proximity can kill as easily as "passive smoking" can, and I gave a few examples.

These are not just confined to the middle ages, as those millions who died in the 1919/20 influenza epidemic in Europe would confirm - if they weren't dead !

My syllogism is:

- Passive smoking involves bodily proximity

- Fatal threats to health such as influenza or plague involve bodily proximity.

-Conclusion: Passive smoking is therefore a Fatal threat [...]

Read the full comment to health.

Assessment: Syllogism INVALID, as the middle term is not "distributed"

I expect your compatriot Tim Themi to come back on this one, except that I have (for once) employed the rules of Formal Logic, and he would have difficulty in validating the syllogism that I have set out.

Chill out with the chilled article, sheila, in the good old Oz summer. Here it's freezing.

- Conclusion:

Anonymous Kilroy Thu, Dec 31 2009 03:36 CET

@Peggy.

"I don't smoke and I can assure you I do not stink of anything"?

I find, you stink of Anti-smokers, and that is bad enough.

Besides: NOBODY is killed by passiv smoking! Do yoy really believe in WHO's (and EU's) passiv-smoke lies?

Not one single proof do they have!

The Giants from the Medical industries are double-crossing us all!

A scandal!

Anonymous jed Wed, Dec 30 2009 22:36 CET

I really don't want some of the anti-smokers on here representing me. Having said that, hopefully the smoking bans will continue as it is an atrocious habit.

It is good to see that it is keeping so many people at home. Just as I don't want to be interfered with by irresponsible smokers, I certainly don't want to be interfered with by irresponsible drinkers. Then, if only the restaurateurs could get their act together and offer quality food at a reasonable price, business might start picking up for them and with a better quality customer (someone [...]

Read the full comment who gives a damn about the environment they are eating in and the people around them).

It amuses me that EU candidate countries are so outspoken against current EU legislation. Makes me wonder why we would want them to join. Still, anything to make it an easier trip GB-BG on the Serbia route.

Anonymous Peggy Wed, Dec 30 2009 22:24 CET

Koinos, it was not body odour which killed but bacteria and filth.
Surely you are not comparing those awful days of the plague to now?

You are not saying that bodoy odour today will kill the person sitting nearby but passive smoking will do no harm?

Please don't go off on one of your wild fantasies here. We are discussing passive smoking not the middle ages.

Anonymous Koinos Nous Wed, Dec 30 2009 19:54 CET

Peggy - you're wrong that body odour doesn't always kill. The "sicknesse of the sweats" / "bodily pestilence" was quite common in mediaeval and modern times up until the eighteenth century when "modern" water supplies meant that people started to wash.

The "sickeness"/ pestilence (or "Black Death" 1346-1350)was what we would now call bubonic plague, but some analysts say it could also have been animal diseases such as rinderpest, anthrax, or influenza.

The diseases were probably bacterial rather than viral, but what is certain is that people believed that, if you were [...]

Read the full comment close enough to smell another person's sweat(e), probably a metre or more away in those days !) you were close enough to catch the infection / pestilence.

Mortality was as high as 40% at times, and death could occur as quickly as 48 hours after exposure to the sweat(e).

Some of the "plague pits" used for mass graves are still being unearthed during London Metro excavations, and are heavily sealed off until all biological tests have indicated "all clear". (Anthrax is reputedly the worst, as the bacillus can live for over 500 years, but bubonic comes a close second.)

So there ARE worse fates provoked by bodily proximity than are caused by smoking, and their mortality (up to 40% within 48 hours)is somewhat worse than even the most hardened anti-smoking addict would claim.

Anonymous Peggy Wed, Dec 30 2009 09:34 CET

sabata

Sun, Dec 27 2009 11:53 CET

"non smocking people flare up again but the non smoker forget when they stink and smell of garlic and other food they eat lingers in the air a lot longer its like walking past a fish market in summer.onther yanky stupid law past and we follow everything they tell us to do like lemmings"
------------------------

Don't worry about garlic dear. It won't kill you, unless you are a vampire.
I don't smoke and I can assure you [...]

Read the full comment I do not stink of anything.
What sort of people do you come in contact with?

Besides, body odour is not going to kill you but the toxins in cigarettes will and what's really tragic the children have to endure this hell as well.
Smoking has been linked to many awful things including ear infections in babies and small children. Is this what you want to inflict on our young?
How dare you be so arrogant that you are willing to pass on all these toxins on innocent people around you.

If you want to kill yourself, go ahead, just do it away from others who don't want to die a slow death.

Anonymous Jeffery Wed, Dec 30 2009 08:56 CET

What the hell, in OZ all the Yugislavs I know all smoke so whats the big deal. Yugislavs smoke because Yugislavs smoke. You need some nicobate in those Yugislav countries mate.

Anonymous Koinos Nous Tue, Dec 29 2009 14:53 CET

Chas is quite right - the indoor smoking ban has hit UK pubs quite hard (despite the new outside smoking areas), and drink in the UK is a great deal cheaper from the supermarket. You pay more in a pub for the ambiance, service, heating, and beer on draught/tap. Also to meet people. But to have a quiet pint from a bottle or a can, it's much cheaper at home..

Two interesting "foreign" examples -

(a) Spain - massive construction of sealed-off indoor "smoking zones" has been going on in bars / [...]

Read the full comment tourist sites / restaurants for the past few years. So Spain intends to protect the non-smoker whilst allowing the smoker decent indoor facilities. Not such a bad idea...

(b) Lithuania. A prominent Catholic cardinal in the nineteenth century managed to close all the roadside inns and bars that otherwise (as in Germany, Czech Rep, and Poland) kept rural communities supplied with drinks without encouraging drunkenness, and which also supplied a social centre for the local village.

Result - in today's Lithuania, there are only gigantic "Alus Baras" (beer bars) in towns and cities, where the local male population travel to get pie-eyed / pissed / violent /totally blotto, rather than having just one pint of "alus" (beer) in their local village inn.

Was this really progress ? The Cardinal's picture is still on the 2 litai Lithuanian banknotes, which indicates that somebody high-up thought so, but many others might disagree.

Anonymous chas Tue, Dec 29 2009 00:15 CET

I have saved a small fortune since the smoking ban in England, as I now drink at home instead of the pub. Unfortunately 100,000 bar staff are now unemployed.

Anonymous John Tue, Dec 29 2009 00:09 CET

Im not a smoker and Ill tell you what- the nonsmokers who think EVERYWHERE should succomb to their wishes are simply selfish morons. Best way is to allow CHOICE between smoking venues and nonsmoking ones.

Anonymous 1 Mon, Dec 28 2009 17:57 CET

Well like I said before, this is SOCIALISM at its finest. This is just the government trying to run our lives. People need a better alternative to smoking, just like this....http://www.Crown7.com

Anonymous Yannis Mon, Dec 28 2009 13:01 CET

There is a vast amount of research that proves that inhaling other people's cigarette smoke is about as bad as smoking yourself. This is especially true for children. But I don't need to read the research since I have asthma and am extremely sensitive to smoke - it makes me sick. I'm fed up with assholes in Greece who don't give a damn about the fact that their smoking makes me sick. What selfish bastards smokers are. The problem is compounded by the fact that the Greek government doesn't bother enforcing the so-called "strict" smoking ban that came into effect [...]

Read the full comment in July. It's made a difference in some stores and offices but tavernas and cafes are still full of smoke. You all richly deserve to slowly die from the diseases that you will get from smoking but non-smokers do not deserve to die along with you. Bastards. Emphysema and cancer are too good for you.

Anonymous TO KIONOS NOUS Mon, Dec 28 2009 12:18 CET

YOU'RE CORRECT, YOU DO NEED TO KNOW.I'LL CLARIFY.
AS YOU HAVE QUITE CORRECTLY ALREADY MENTIONED, THE GROWTH OF THE EXTERNAL AREAS, ACROSS THE UK, TO ACCOMODATE THE CIGGARETTE SMOKING DRUG ADICTS, IS EVEDENCE THAT "THINGS WILL CHANGE WETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT" THE LAW HAS BEEN LAID DOWN AND THE SMOKERS HAVE TO COMPLY.

Anonymous Koinos Nous Sun, Dec 27 2009 16:12 CET

to our anonymous UPPER CASE correspondent -

What you mean by "YOU WILL CHANGE WEATHER YOU LIKE" ? Is this a reference to Climate Change, or to the UK growth of outdoor covered areas in pubs to accommodate smokers ?

I think we should be told.....

Anonymous TO KOINOS NOUS Sun, Dec 27 2009 15:29 CET

there, you idiot. i can type in lower case!

you all miss the point. IT'S A RIGHT TO HEALTH ISSUE.

PASSIVE SMOKING IS FORCED ON THE NON SMOKERS BY THE IRISPONSIBILITY AND FU*K YOU ATTUITUDE OF THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO DIFILE THERE BODIES WITH DRUGS.

RESTAURANTIERS AND PUB OWNERS HAVE HAD IT TOO GOOD FOR TOO LONG. THERE ARE MORE AND MORE ESTABLISHMENTS BEING FORCED TO PROVIDE SAFE AND CLEAN HEALTHY ENVIRONMENTS FOR THE NON SMOKERS.

YOU WILL CHANGE WEATHER YOU LIKE IT OR [...]

Read the full comment NOT.

Anonymous Koinos Nous Sun, Dec 27 2009 13:20 CET

There was certainly one example of the "Law of Unintended Consequences" in the UK when the smoking ban was introduced inside pubs and bars: a large increase in sales of body odour suppressants and deodorants !

Seemingly the aroma of tobacco smoke had disguised the fact that half the population didn't wash sufficiently !

Anonymous sabata Sun, Dec 27 2009 11:53 CET

non smocking people flare up again but the non smoker forget when they stink and smell of garlic and other food they eat lingers in the air a lot longer its like walking past a fish market in summer.onther yanky stupid law past and we follow everything they tell us to do like lemmings.

Anonymous Koinos Nous Sat, Dec 26 2009 19:27 CET

Whoever is POSTING IN CAPITAL LETTERS BECAUSE HE CANNOT READ OR WRITE THE USUAL ONES, please stop right now.

Aries is quite right: the effects of "passive smoking" - if they exist - are hard to document because they are so miniscule. Meanwhile, a lot of healthy "cafe life" in Continental Europe is prejudiced by the 'smoking ban' . Congratulations to Croatia for drawing back and not imposing it..

In the UK, where the ban applies, a lot of pubs and cafes have erected (expensive!) outdoor areas under shelter - and with [...]

Read the full comment heating - where smokers can legally congregate. The result is that in some pubs 70% of the drinkers stay outside in the "smoking" areas....

Good news for UK pubs, bad news for the new anti-smoking health fanatics.....this whole trend started off in the USA, and should be sent back whence it came !

(By the way, I am a non-smoker !)

Anonymous TO ARIES Sat, Dec 26 2009 18:28 CET

COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSIBLE EU
LEGISLATION, ON ALL FRONTS (FROM RESPONSIBLE WASTE MANAGEMENT TO SMOKING IN PUBLIC)IS HERE TO STAY. SO GET USED TO IT. YOU CAN KICK AND SCREAM ALL YOU LIKE. IT WILL HAPPEN!!!!!!!!! YOU WIL ALL HAVE TO FALL IN LINE AS THE REST OF THE EU STATES HAVE AND GO AND SMOKE YOUR DRUGS OUTSIDE.

Anonymous Kilroy Sat, Dec 26 2009 17:03 CET

Read this, all you holy Anti-Smokers!:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

Anonymous brycescu Fri, Dec 25 2009 22:13 CET

A normal 150 lv attic fan will draw the smoke right out..
A normal 200 lv attic fan will draw the curtains off the windows..
A low-cost alternative & more democratic than the neo-nazi approach..

Anonymous Aries. Fri, Dec 25 2009 18:56 CET

Ridiculous and triviality.

Anonymous TO ROBERT IN FRANCE. Fri, Dec 25 2009 18:21 CET

A NON SMOKERS CHOICE NOT TO SMOKE DOES NO HARM TO SMOKERS. THE OTHER WAY ROUND DOES. YOU MENTION MUTUAL RESPECT, SMOKERS SHOULD ACKNOWLAGE THEY ARE HARMING THE HEALTH CITIZENS AROUND THEM AND STOP BITCHING ABOUT THE BAN AND ACCEPT IT.
YOU'RE A SMOKER AREN'T YOU?

Anonymous film Fri, Dec 25 2009 18:13 CET

Well I agree on the ban of smoking. Imagine, u go to the club to have fun and u get out leter and smell like a smoked polish saussage. That was the case when I used to live in Macedonia and Bulgaria but not here in USA. Smoking should be banned in the public places so nonsmokers can live healthy life. If u wanna smoke go out & smoke & nock yourself out.

Anonymous robert in france Fri, Dec 25 2009 16:24 CET

restrictions regulations those people who want to point fingers love rules. Please be grown up and let people live their own lives Its just a matter of mutual respect. Nobody is perfect and its not fair to fine others because they re not like you.

Anonymous WS Fri, Dec 25 2009 14:26 CET

Interesting to see that the population in Macedonia is more concerned about the smoking ban that about the lack of the will for the Government to move the country towards EU integration.

Anonymous K.W. Fri, Dec 25 2009 12:22 CET

Most drug addicts think the same way and if you put a lot of them together it's always bad for the non addict.

Anonymous Non Smoker Fri, Dec 25 2009 12:03 CET

DON'T BACK DOWN ON THIS BAN. STOP THE SMOKING BAS**RDS FROM TAKING AWAY MY AND MY KIDS GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO A HEALTH ENVIORONMENT.


To post comments, please, Login or Register.


Please read the The Sofia Echo forum comments policy.

MPs propose that Macedonia eases smoking ban in summer

Ruling party MPs are asking parliament in Skopje to allow smoking at open-air parts of restaurants from March until the end of October.

Macedonia’s government vows no backdown on smoking ban

Places of entertainment will close for a day on January 22 in protest against the smoking ban that took effect in Macedonia at the start of 2010.

New smoking bans in force in Cyprus, Macedonia

Tougher restrictions imposed by governments in Nicosia and Skopje came into force on January 1 2010.

Bulgarians face cigarette price increases

Some foreign brands are already on sale at higher prices, media reports say.

Seventy per cent of Bulgarian smokers wanted to quit, survey says

Bulgaria ranks third in the world in terms of smoking, after Japan and Greece.

Six hundred people sanctioned for smoking inside trains

Those who refused to pay the 20 leva fine were taken off the trains.

Greece to re-evaluate smoking ban amid widespread resistance

Authorities will launch a review of the law that was passed earlier this year, following complaints from non-smokers at home and pressure from the European Union.

Macedonia to ban smoking in bars, restaurants from January 2010

Skopje’s plan to ban smoking in Macedonia’s restaurants and cafes from January 2010, with heavy fines for breaches, has ignited the now-familiar complaint from restaurateurs that their businesses will be ruined.

Weekend blog: Sinful cinema smoking

Most actors smoked during Hollywood's golden age but the time has come to stamp out smoking in films completely

Smoking on the beach ‘heightens cancer risk’

Team of scientists, including a Bulgarian professor, says that sunlight worsens the carcinogenic effect of tobacco.

Turkey bans smoking in bars, cafés and restaurants

Ban, taking effect on July 19 2009, extends an earlier ban issued in May 2008 on smoking in offices, public transport and other public places. Turkey’s health minister says that ban brought down smoking by seven per cent.

European Commission calls for smoke-free Europe by 2012

‘There is a wave of support from the general public,’ says European Health Commissioner.

More in this category

Greeks protest against austerity measures while EU stands firm: Photo Gallery

Clashes broke out in Athens on February 10, as Greeks went on strike for a second time this week against tough new austerity measures.

Anonymous attacks Croatian presidency website

Denial of service attack the latest by hacking collective as Eastern Europe governments back away from ACTA under public pressure.

Serbia rejects reports of pressure on it to reach deal with Kosovo

Situation in northern Kosovo and EU-facilitated dialogue between Belgrade and Priština discussed at the United Nations.

Reshuffle in Romania

New prime minister-designate faces task of rehabilitating image of ruling party with cabinet of second-stringers.

Greece reaches accord on austerity demands from its lenders

Greece needs the aid package from the European Union, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund in order to avoid defaulting on $19 billion in bond payments due in March.