Cyprus Smoking Ban 2010

Following the steps of Syria and Turkey, Cyprus introduced a law banning smoking from public places:
Cyprus and Macedonia have become, with effect from January 1 2010, the two latest European countries to toughen up their smoking bans.
In Cyprus, the new restrictions ban smoking in public places including hospitals, schools, theatres, public transport including taxis and in private cars with passengers younger than 16. Also banned is advertising of tobacco products and the sale of such products to people younger than 16.
Breaking the ban means fines of 2000 euro for smokers and owners of places where smoking takes place in violation of the law.
Meanwhile, what is happening in Lebanon?
Atef Majdalani promises us a new law that will ban advertising smoking, and selling cigarettes to minors, starting 1st of June 2010.
ولفت مجدلاني الى أننا “توافقنا مع شركات الاعلام والاعلان على عدم السماح ببث الاعلانات والدعايات ذات الصلة، وعلى ان المعنيين في حاجة الى التفتيش راهنا عن مصادر اخرى لتأمين المداخيل المالية اللازمة”.
Credit: picture
Update: The new law aims to ban smoking in public places, as mentioned in this article from المستقبل:
حتى اليوم يبدو لبنان بعيداً من خارطة السياسات الهادفة الى منع التدخين او حتى منع الإعلان عنه، التي ما زالت محصورة في النصوص دون النفوس، علماً ان دولاً عربية كثيرة قطعت في الفترة الاخيرة شوطاً في اتجاه منع التدخين في الاماكن العامة بدأ بحظر الاعلان عن التبغ لينتهي الى فرض منع التدخين في الاماكن العامة كما هو الحال في الاردن ودبي وسوريا.
ازاء هذه المعطيات يحاول لبنان اليوم اعادة وضع الخطى على سكة السياسة الصحية السليمة باعادة البحث في السبيل لاقرار مشروع قانون منع التدخين في الاماكن العامة. فمنذ العام 2005 وقّع مجلس النواب إتفاقية منظمة الصحة العالمية الإطارية بشأن مكافحة التبغ ونتيجة لذلك تمّ وضع مشروع القانون الذي مرّ في اللجنة الصحية النيابية التي درسته ليرسي أخيراً في لجنة الإدارة والعدل
بانتظار إقراره. وفي نيسان الفائت وبعد سنوات على إيداعه اللجنة الاخيرة تمّ تشكيل اللجنة الوطنية بموجب المرسوم الوزاري الرقم 39/2009 التي أوكل اليها وضع استشارات على مشروع القانون. تألفت اللجنة من مندوبين عن وزارات الصحة والعدل والداخلية ومندوب من الجامعات وجمعية الباتولوجيا وإعلاميين وجمعية المستهلك وجمعية “حياة حرة بلا تدخين”.

7 Responses so far »

  1. 1

    Government power the real health hazard

    The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of “second-hand” smoke.

    Indeed, the bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat, a cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved – the cancer of unlimited government power.

    The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or is in fact just a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. The issue is: If it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the “right” decision?

    Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than trying to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the bans are the unwanted intrusion.

    Loudly billed as measures that only affect “public places,” they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops and offices – places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don’t like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is negligible, such as outdoor public parks.

    The decision to smoke, or to avoid “second-hand” smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on.

    All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must be free because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only his own judgment can guide him through it.

    Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are a numerical minority, practising a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.

    That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the unlimited intrusion of government into our lives. We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour.

    Thomas Laprade

  2. 2

    harleyrider1978 said,


    Ask the anti-tobacco folks to tell you what truly is in second hand smoke…when it burns from the coal its oxygenated and everything is burned and turned into water vapor…thats right water…you ever burned leaves in the fall…know how the heavy smoke bellows off…….

    Thats the organic material releasing the moisture in the leaves, the greener the leaves/organic material the more smoke thats made..thats why second hand smoke is classified as a class 3 irritant by osha and epa as of 2006……..IN 1993 EPA decided to change the listing of shs to a carcinogen for political reasons ……because it contained a trace amount of 6 chemicals measured in picograms so small even sophisticated scientific equipment can hardly detect it.

    If the same standards to make shs/ets a carcinogen were applied to a glass of tap water, certain foods and most other things in the natural environment they would also be carcinogens. The failure of the EPA to use the dose makes the poison chart in this political decision makes their entire claim a moot point.

    However osha still maintains shs/ets as an irritant only and maintains the dose makes the poison position…….as osha is in charge of indoor air quality its decisions are based on science not political agendas as epa’s is. We can see this is true after a federal judge threw out the epa’s study on shs as junk science..What OSHA should be doing is applying the general duty clause and set indoor standards where limits of safe levels are set. But dog gone it,thats why OSHA didnt set a standard because there was just nothing in shs/ets that could be deemed harmful to humans. So it was left as it was a simple class 3 irritant.

    Wednesday, March 12, 2008 British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke “health hazard” claims are greatly exaggerated The BMJ published report at:

    concludes that “The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer are considerably weaker than generally believed.” What makes this study so significant is that it took place over a 39 year period, and studied the results of non-smokers who lived with smokers…..

    meaning these non-smokers were exposed to secondhand smoke up to 24 hours per day; 365 days per year for 39 years. And there was still no relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. In light of the damage to business, jobs, and the economy from smoking bans the BMJ report should be revisited by lawmakers as a reference tool and justification to repeal the now unnecessary and very damaging smoking ban laws. Also significant is the World Health Organization (WHO) study:

    Passive smoking doesn’t cause cancer-official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent ” The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: ‘There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.’ ” And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws, air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University proves that secondhand smoke is up to 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations.

    The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities if at all.This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke. (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms! (Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01). – (Excerpted from “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains” with permission of the author.)

    The Myth of the Smoking Ban ‘Miracle’ Restrictions on smoking around the world are claimed to have had a dramatic effect on heart attack rates. It’s not true.

    As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that: “Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

    Heres what the smoke free groups did to try and prove a connection to heart disease and second hand smoke….

    The “30 minute” experiments that the statement is based on have nothing at all to do with the exposures one might get on a park bench sitting next to a smoker or even with what one would normally get in any decently ventilated bar or restaurant.

    The exposures in the supportive experiments involve smoke concentrations at levels of 400% to 2,000% as high as what used to be measured in the middle of the smoking sections of pressurized airplanes!! (Which used to be held up as one of the worst smoking environments.)

    The experiments take nonsmokers who avoid smoke in all their daily home, social, and working life, force them to sign papers

    acknowledging the “danger” they are about to be put in, and then sealing them in smoke-choked chambers that nonsmokers would run screaming from if they weren’t being paid $100 to endure 30 minutes for science. . . . When the poor souls come stumbling out blood test measurement show small changes that could theoretically relate to heart disease.

    The changes are like ones other experimenters find when they feed subjects a bowl of corn flakes and milk…. but in the kooky world of antismoking research those results get twisted into representing an unusual and deadly threat.

    And remember: they only get those results in EXTREME conditions, nothing like normal restaurant/park or even decent bar/casino exposures. . . . The Antismokers today are lying just like Big Tobacco did back in the 1950s.
    Antismoking extremism needs to be put to rest. Smoking is unhealthy like a lot of other things, but the smoke from burning smokers at the stake smells a lot worse than Newports. . . .

    Cornflakes, White Bread Could Boost Heart Risk
    ‘High-glycemic’ carbs like these hamper blood vessel function, study shows.

    THURSDAY, June 11 (HealthDay News) — Eating a diet rich in carbohydrates that boost blood sugar levels — foods such as cornflakes or white bread — may hamper the functioning of your blood vessels and raise your risk of developing cardiovascular disease, a new study suggests.

  3. 3

    Armigatus said,

    I don’t know about your research, but I know that smoking stinks. I won’t elaborate more on that and state the obvious.

    And, it is not about a “few stray whiffs of tobacco,” rather about clouds of toxic chemicals wherever we go. You want to pollute, go do it at your place.

  4. 4

    Cyprus_Sun said,

    We are three smokers who decided once the smoking ban took effect in Cyprus, we would all quit smoking, which we did. However it is not so easy to give up when so many public places are just improvising by expanding the outside areas, where everyone is sitting smoking. To be honest I think we will go back to smoking because nobody else seems to have stopped.

  5. 5

    Jamie said,


    However you can smoke allllll you want just not around me and my friends in public places…. haha

  6. 6

    cho-cho said,

    Great post. I got new perspective after read this article.


  7. 7

    Ben Adams said,

    The government plays a very important role in helping smokers stop smoking. They have the power to fully implement anti-smoking campaigns. Sometimes we need to force people to stop smoking for their own good. I hope other countries would also take the wisdom to fully eliminate smoking. Take a look at how this site can be of great help for smokers:

Comment RSS · TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: