The country that made smoking sexy is breaking up with cigarettes
In France, cigarettes were never just cigarettes — they were cinematic statements, flirtations and rebellions wrapped in rolling paper.
Yet beginning July 1, if Bardot and Belmondo's iconic film scenes were repeated in real life, they would be subject to up to €135 ($153) in fines.
After glamorizing tobacco for decades, France is preparing for its most sweeping smoking ban yet. The new restrictions, announced by Health Minister Catherine Vautrin, will outlaw smoking in virtually all outdoor public areas where children may gather, including beaches, parks, gardens, playgrounds, sports venues, school entrances and bus stops.
'Tobacco must disappear where there are children,' Vautrin told French media. The freedom to smoke 'stops where children's right to breathe clean air starts."
If Vautrin's law reflects public health priorities, it also signals a deeper cultural shift. Smoking has defined identity, fashion and cinema here for so long that the new measure feels like a quiet French revolution in a country whose relationship with tobacco is famously complex.
According to France's League Against Cancer, over 90 percent of French films from 2015 to 2019 featured smoking scenes — more than double the rate in Hollywood productions. Each French movie averaged nearly three minutes of on-screen smoking, effectively the same exposure as six 30-second television ads.
Cinema has been particularly influential. Belmondo's rebellious smoker in Jean-Luc Godard 's 'Breathless' became shorthand for youthful defiance worldwide. Bardot's cigarette smoke wafted through 'And God Created Woman,' symbolizing unbridled sensuality.
Yet this glamorization has consequences. According to France's public health authorities, around 75,000 people die from tobacco-related illnesses each year. Although smoking rates have dipped recently — fewer than 25% of French adults now smoke daily, a historic low — the habit remains stubbornly embedded, especially among young people and the urban chic.
France's relationship with tobacco has long been fraught with contradiction. Air France did not ban smoking on all its flights until 2000, years after major U.S. carriers began phasing it out in the late 1980s and early '90s. The delay reflected a country slower to sever its cultural romance with cigarettes, even at 35,000 feet.
Strolling through the stylish streets of Le Marais, the trendiest neighborhood in Paris, reactions to the smoking ban ranged from pragmatic acceptance to nostalgic defiance.
'It's about time. I don't want my kids growing up thinking smoke is romantic,' said Clémence Laurent, a 34-year-old fashion buyer, sipping espresso at a crowded café terrace. 'Sure, Bardot made cigarettes seem glamorous. But Bardot didn't worry about today's warnings on lung cancer.'
At a nearby boutique, vintage dealer Luc Baudry, 53, saw the ban as an attack on something essentially French. 'Smoking has always been part of our culture. Take away cigarettes and what do we have left? Kale smoothies?' he scoffed.
Across from him, 72-year-old Jeanne Lévy chuckled throatily, her voice deeply etched — she said — by decades of Gauloises. 'I smoked my first cigarette watching Jeanne Moreau,' she confessed, eyes twinkling behind vintage sunglasses. 'It was her voice — smoky, sexy, lived-in. Who didn't want that voice?'
Indeed, Jeanne Moreau's gravelly, nicotine-scraped voice transformed tobacco into poetry itself, immortalized in classics such as François Truffaut's 'Jules et Jim.' Smoking acquired an existential glamour that made quitting unimaginable for generations of French smokers.
France's new law mirrors broader European trends. Britain, Spain and Sweden have all implemented significant smoking bans in public spaces. Sweden outlawed smoking in outdoor restaurant terraces, bus stops and schoolyards back in 2019. Spain extended its bans to café terraces, spaces still exempt in France—at least for now.
In the Paris park Place des Vosges, literature student Thomas Bouchard clutched an electronic cigarette that is still exempt from the new ban and shrugged.
'Maybe vaping's our compromise,' he said, exhaling gently. 'A little less sexy, perhaps. But fewer wrinkles too.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
14 nations join France in push to recognise Palestinian state
France and 14 other nations have co-signed a declaration that suggests a wave of future recognitions of an independent Palestinian state, including by Canada, New Zealand and Australia, could take place in the coming months. The New York Call, which was published by French foreign minister Jean-Noël Barrot on Wednesday, said that signatories 'have already recognised, have expressed or express the willingness or the positive consideration of our countries to recognise the State of Palestine'. The signatories include Andorra, Australia, Canada, Finland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Portugal and San Marino, each of which has not yet recognised an independent Palestinian state. They also include Iceland, Ireland, Malta, Norway, Slovenia and Spain, which have. Emmanuel Macron last week said that France would recognise Palestinian statehood in the near future. The statement, which was published before the conclusion of a three-day UN conference set on reviving a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, also said the states would 'reiterate our unwavering commitment to the vision of the two-state solution where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognised borders'. It stressed the 'importance of unifying the Gaza Strip with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority'. The remarks come amid growing pressure on Israel to end its military campaign in Gaza, which began in October 2023 in response to a Hamas raid that led to the deaths of 1,200 people, mainly Israelis, and the taking of more than 250 prisoners. More than 60,000 people have died in Gaza in the ensuing conflict, according to the Hamas-led health ministry in Gaza. Keir Starmer on Tuesday said that the United Kingdom would recognise the state of in September 'unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term, sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two-state solution'. Donald Trump had initially said he didn't 'mind [Starmer] taking a position. I'm looking for getting people fed right now.' But later he condemned the decision to recognise a Palestinian state, saying on board Air Force One that 'you could make the case that you're rewarding Hamas if you do that. I don't think they should be rewarded. So I'm not in that camp to be honest... because if you do that you are really rewarding Hamas. And I'm not about to do that.' Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese said this week that he wanted to time a recognition of Palestinian statehood to help deliver a breakthrough in negotiations. 'What we're looking at is the circumstances where recognition will advance the objective of the creation of two states,' Albanese said on Wednesday. 'My entire political life, I've said I support two states, the right of Israel to exist within secure borders and the right of Palestinians to have their legitimate aspirations for their own state realised. That's my objective.' Canadian state media have also reported that the government under prime minister Mark Carney is also weighing whether to recognise Palestinian statehood but that no decision has yet been made. Carney plans to hold a virtual cabinet meeting on the Middle East on Wednesday, Canada's national public broadcaster reported. Israel's ambassador to the UN Danny Damon condemned the declaration. 'While our hostages are languishing in Hamas terror tunnels in Gaza, these countries choose to engage in hollow statements instead of investing their efforts in their release,' said Damon. 'This is hypocrisy and a waste of time that legitimizes terrorism and distances any chance of regional progress. Those who truly want to make progress should start with an unequivocal demand for the immediate return of all the hostages and the disarmament of Hamas.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Britain is now the West's capital of sectarian politics
With a stagnant economy, talent fleeing the country and absolutely no hopeful plan for the future of Britain, naturally the Labour Government has decided to do the inevitable. It has had emergency meetings on recognition of a Palestinian state. In doing so they are following the lead of the French government of Emmanuel Macron. And for precisely the same reasons. Although it might come as news to them, it is no longer in the gift of the British or French governments to create states in the Middle East. That era is over, and close observers might have noticed that modern European Leftists tend to be opposed to such 'colonial' and 'orientalist' reflexes. But the Starmer Government, like their counterparts in Paris, are not making a priority of Palestinian statehood for foreign policy reasons. Even before October 7 2023 the leadership of the Palestinian people was hopelessly divided. Fatah and Hamas are divided because, among other things, Hamas make a habit of killing their fellow Palestinians if they happen to be from Fatah. So even before the current conflict, the idea of a 'two-state solution' in the Middle East was dead. At best, back then, there could have been some three-state solution. The state of Israel, some Hamas-run polity in Gaza and a Fatah-run territory in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). But that option is itself utterly dead for the foreseeable future because nobody knows how to run Gaza or who will run it, and no one could trust the Palestinian authority in the West Bank which has not had an election in two decades. Still, historians will note with some amazement that the present Hamas-started war led to Western countries scrambling to once again try a Palestinian-statehood option. Not least because if the years 2005-2023 showed anything in Gaza it is a glimpse of what a Palestinian state's actual objectives and ambitions would be: not coexistence, but rather the continued effort to wipe out the Jewish state. But the interesting thing today is why Starmer, Macron and others seem so intent on prioritising this issue. Why do they get before lecterns and issue stern warnings about Palestinian statehood? All while they have effectively zero capability to implement their grandiose policies? The answer is that Palestinianism is not a foreign policy matter. It is a domestic one. Starmer decided to rush out an announcement on the matter not because the time is ripe for the creation of another Palestinian state. He did it because time was running out for him in Westminster. The SNP and others have been pushing Starmer from his Left. Part of his own party are pushing him from within. If Starmer had not made his intervention this week it was possible that the SNP would have brought forward a debate on Palestinian statehood in the House of Commons which the Labour Government would have lost. So in order to placate the ranks Starmer has tried to take the initiative from those to his Left and show that he is doing something. None of this will make any difference on the ground in the Middle East. But it does give us a good glimpse of some of the terrain here at home. The Scottish Nationalists, like all mini-nationalist parties, have failed at their own agenda and so have become vacuum-like devices, hoovering up the other issues that the radical Left likes to push. If the Scots Nats can't get independence for Scotland, why not push hard for independence for Palestinians? Within Starmer's own ranks similar pressures reign. We now have a number of MPs who have been elected to Parliament purely for their ability to speak to the Palestinian issue, and they have done so because the issue is – as they know – one of the two foreign policy issues which most ignites opinion among Britain's growing Muslim electorate (the other issue being Kashmir). Much of the Muslim world – even those hailing from the Indian sub-continent – have imbibed anti-Israeli and indeed anti-Semitic views from birth. And they have decided that the creation of another Muslim state, and the eradication of the world's one Jewish state, should be a priority. As well as the 'Gaza independents' in Parliament, Starmer also needs to head off the considerable number of his own MPs who share much of their sentiment or pander to the same electorate. He also has to head off the new oddballs party which is being set up by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana – someone who is expert (as so many radical Leftists are) at playing both bully and victim at the same time. Although Corbyn's new movement may not be significant in the House of Commons at present, it is perfectly possible that at a future election a party like his which makes Palestinianism its first priority could hoover up dozens of seats. Starmer's Labour Party would then be squeezed not only by Reform that is leading them in the polls, but by this other force to his Left. Were these two forces to come at Labour simultaneously it is perfectly possible that they could push the air out of the inflated Labour majority and lead to the party losing its majority in Parliament. With the Conservatives not yet seeing any meaningful uplift in their own popularity, this messy outcome starts to look like the most likely way that Starmer's massive majority would deflate. Some people will think that what Starmer has done is clever politicking. It may be in the short term. But in the long term it is yet another demonstration of a dangerous trend in our country. That is the way in which religious, sectarian conflicts from abroad have been brought into the heart of our own nation, a trend which sees blocks voting along ethno-religious lines. Starmer may have no way to lead this country to a positive future. But this week he has given us another glimpse into a future which is just as fractured and divided as some of us long warned it could be.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Could the Palestinians become a full member of the United Nations?
UNITED NATIONS, July 30 (Reuters) - Momentum seems to be building for more countries to recognize a Palestinian state in Israeli-occupied territory after France said last week it would do so in September. Britain said Tuesday it would follow suit at the U.N. General Assembly unless Israel had taken steps to ease the Gaza crisis and bring about peace. The Palestinian Authority, which represents the Palestinian people at the United Nations, where the delegation is officially known as the State of Palestine, is not a full member and has no vote in the 193-member General Assembly. Here are some details about the status of the Palestinians at the United Nations: The Palestinians are a non-member, observer state at the United Nations - the same status as the Holy See (Vatican). The General Assembly approved the de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine in November 2012 by upgrading its observer status at the world body to "non-member state" from "entity." There were 138 votes in favor, nine against and 41 abstentions. In May 2024, the U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly backed a Palestinian bid to become a full member by recognizing it as qualified to join and recommending the U.N. Security Council "reconsider the matter favorably." That resolution also granted the Palestinians some additional rights and privileges from September 2024 - like a seat among the U.N. members in the assembly hall. The May vote by the General Assembly amounted to a global survey of support for the Palestinian cause to become a full member - a move that would effectively recognize a Palestinian state - after the United States vetoed the step in the Security Council in April 2024. The Palestinians remain a non-member observer state as the 15-member Security Council has not acted on the General Assembly recommendation. Countries seeking to join the United Nations usually present an application to the U.N. secretary-general, who sends it to the Security Council for an assessment and vote. A council committee of the 15 members first assesses an application to see if it satisfies the requirements for U.N. membership. The application can then either be shelved or put forward for a formal vote in the Security Council. Approval requires at least nine votes in favor and no vetoes by the U.S., Russia, France, China or Britain. If the council approves the membership request, it then moves to the General Assembly for approval. A membership request needs a two-thirds majority to be cleared by the assembly. A country cannot join the United Nations unless both the Security Council and General Assembly approve. A U.N. Security Council committee assessed the Palestinian application for several weeks to see if it satisfied requirements for U.N. membership. But the committee was unable to reach a unanimous position and the Security Council never formally voted on a resolution on Palestinian membership. Diplomats said the Palestinians lacked the minimum nine votes needed to adopt a resolution. Even if they had won enough support, the United States had said it would veto the move. The United States, Israel's most powerful and influential ally, has said a Palestinian state can only be established through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The latest round of those negotiations broke down in 2014 and the process remains frozen, with prospects for revival dimmed further by the ongoing, devastating war between Israel and Palestinian militant group Hamas in Gaza. Under U.S. law, Washington cannot fund any U.N. organization that grants full membership to any group that does not have the "internationally recognized attributes" of statehood. The United States cut funding in 2011 for the Paris-based U.N. cultural agency, UNESCO, after the Palestinians joined as a full member.
