logo
Smoke-free Piazza? Milan's outdoor smoking ban faces mixed reaction

Smoke-free Piazza? Milan's outdoor smoking ban faces mixed reaction

Yahoo21-04-2025

A stroll through Milan's iconic Piazza del Duomo looks very different today than it did two decades ago.
Back then, street cafés bustled with locals clutching cigarettes and newspapers. Smokers hurried across the square, and even tourists puffed away as they admired the cathedral.
Fast forward to present day: the ashtrays are gone, smartphones have taken over and only a pair of elderly men quietly smoke near a street lamp hiding their cigarettes in case police approach.
Fines of up to €240
Milan has enforced Italy's strictest smoking ban - one of the toughest in Europe.
Smoking is now prohibited both indoors and outdoors unless you're at least 10 metres away from others. Fines can reach up to €240.
The ban is part of an effort to combat Milan's chronic air pollution, among the worst in Italy. Authorities say cigarettes contribute around 7% of the region's particulate emissions.
Other cities, including Rome, are considering similar measures. Turin already enforces a "courtesy distance" rule, requiring smokers to get permission from nearby children or pregnant women.
Public divided, critics push back
The new rules have sparked a mix of support and criticism. In Milan, many are happy that they no longer have to inhale other people's smoke in playgrounds, at bus stops or outside restaurants.
But there are also many dissenting voices - from smokers, of course but also of a more fundamental nature.
Milan's conservative daily newspaper Il Giornale wrote: "The real problem is not the cigarette, but the loss of freedom."
"In a world that tries to control every aspect of our lives, where we are afraid of everything and everyone, smoking outdoors is not only a gesture of the social power of tobacco, but also an act of rebellion against conformity," it said.
In protest of the new law, some people placed a giant cigarette in the mouth of a statue of a former mayor, while leaflets mocking the current mayor, Giuseppe Sala, read: "You're not our dad. Let us smoke."
Smoking habits shift - but enforcement lags
Since Italy introduced its indoor smoking ban in 2005, the number of smokers has steadily declined. Today, only about 19% of Italians smoke, according to official data.
Yet in Milan, enforcement of the outdoor ban is still patchy. Cigarette butts are scattered across pavements, including in the upscale Galleria Vittorio Emanuele II near the cathedral.
Initially, nobody believed that Italians would abide by it. Cigarettes used to be as much a part of the end of a meal as an espresso.
It is now completely normal that cigarettes are no longer permitted in cafés, restaurants, schools and universities.
However, it would be quite wrong to assume that everyone in Milan is now adhering to the outdoor ban.
Restaurant staff have positioned themselves at the entrance of a café for a cigarette break. "The more they forbid it, the more we do it," says Alessia, one of the two waitresses puffing outside.
Grace period for tourists
So far, only a handful of fines have been issued, and tourists unfamiliar with the rules are generally let off with a warning.
At lunchtime and in the evening, groups of smokers can be spotted outside many restaurants. Hardly anyone bothers to hide it - especially as electronic cigarettes are still permitted under the city ordinance.
But with warmer weather approaching, city officials plan to crack down. Deputy Mayor Anna Scavuzzo warned: "Italians aren't Scandinavians who obey laws just because they exist."
Police officer prefers to chase pickpockets
However, the city council should not necessarily rely heavily on the police to crack down on rule breakers as not every officer is keen to enforce the ban.
One uniformed officer standing in front of the cathedral square watches two smokers quietly without doing anything.
"We've got enough to deal with - like pickpockets," he shrugs.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Report – Real Madrid Set To Activate Buyback Clause For Inter Milan Target Only To Sell Him To Bayer Leverkusen
Report – Real Madrid Set To Activate Buyback Clause For Inter Milan Target Only To Sell Him To Bayer Leverkusen

Yahoo

time2 days ago

  • Yahoo

Report – Real Madrid Set To Activate Buyback Clause For Inter Milan Target Only To Sell Him To Bayer Leverkusen

Report – Real Madrid Set To Activate Buyback Clause For Inter Milan Target Only To Sell Him To Bayer Leverkusen Real Madrid could re-sign Nico Paz from Como this summer, only to sell him to Bayer Leverkusen for a profit. Per German outlet Bild via FCInterNews, Los Blancos are about to trigger a buyback clause in their agreement with the Serie A club. Advertisement Nico Paz left the Santiago Bernabeu to join Como last year, with the Italians forking out €6 million to sign the youngster. However, Real Madrid can bring the 20-year-old back to La Liga for a measly €9m this summer. And that's what they intend to do. Real Madrid Set to Re-Sign Nico Paz Only to Sell Him to Bayer Leverkusen COMO, ITALY – JANUARY 20: Nico Paz of Como 1907 celebrates after scoring their team's fourth goal during the Serie A match between Como 1907 and Udinese Calcio at Stadio G. Sinigaglia on January 20, 2025 in Como, Italy. (Photo by) Despite a relatively meager release clause, Real Madrid could earn around €30m from Paz's sale to Bayer Leverkusen. Indeed, they are open to offloading the teenage sensation to the BayArena. It would be Xabi Alonso's way of thanking Die Werkself for helping him launch his senior managerial career. Meanwhile, it would leave Inter Milan empty-handed. Though the San Siro giants are Paz's long-term admirers, they cannot do anything to prevent this scenario.

Opinion - It's not just Trump: The right in Europe is also cracking down on citizenship
Opinion - It's not just Trump: The right in Europe is also cracking down on citizenship

Yahoo

time5 days ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion - It's not just Trump: The right in Europe is also cracking down on citizenship

President Trump's efforts to end birthright citizenship have not taken place in a vacuum. They are part of a growing pattern of incumbent leaders strategically changing who is allowed to vote and jeopardizing the quality of democracy in the process. This year, the governments of Hungary, Italy, and Germany have similarly proposed or attempted to institute sweeping changes to their citizenship laws. Efforts to reduce or remove citizenship rights are increasingly common. In each case, elected officials presented their efforts as necessary actions to resist the influence of foreign interests and outsiders while restabilizing domestic politics. In a way, it's a win-win for them. If their efforts fail, they have shown supporters they are committed to reshaping their countries around populist and nationalist sentiments that have grown in popularity. When they succeed, they give themselves a meaningful electoral advantage by removing voters who might oppose them. In March, Hungarian Máté Kocsis — a member of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's Fidesz Party — announced that Fidesz would propose legislation to revoke citizenship from dual citizens whose 'activities endanger the national sovereignty, public order, territorial integrity or security of Hungary.' The legislation was justified as a response to international non-governmental organizations and media outlets whose work was framed as interfering with Hungarian domestic politics. Two weeks later, the Italian government issued a surprise decree that would drastically limit diaspora Italians' ability to claim citizenship through the law that grants citizenship to ethnic Italians around the world. This rule change has been framed as a necessary corrective after an increase in citizenship applications from diaspora Italians in Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuela. It is also noteworthy because Italian voters abroad consistently support moderate-progressive parties, even as conservative and anti-establishment parties have been gaining a dominant role in parliament. A few days later, in Germany, the newly elected center-right government proposed stripping citizenship from 'terror supporters, antisemites, and extremists who call for the abolition of the free and democratic basic order' as part of their negotiations to form a new government. This proposal was criticized by Human Rights Watch for being 'unclear what, if any, safeguards would exist to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory application, and violations of human rights.' The events we currently see in Hungary, Italy, Germany and the U.S. align with an emerging global pattern of incumbents strategically and selectively pushing for formal changes to citizenship laws. Efforts to choose who votes are nothing new — U.S states in the Jim Crow South famously used a variety of techniques including poll taxes, literacy tests, and whites-only primaries to obstruct Black Americans from voting. Democratic countries have revoked citizenship before — in 1946, roughly 70,000 American citizens living in Canada all lost their citizenship after voting in Canadian elections. But the current trend of laws throttling citizenship started in the mid-2000s. The graph above shows that leaders around the world increased their attempts to decide who gets to vote via changes to citizenship laws around 2008, with substantial increases starting in 2010. Reforms of this type are part of an emerging playbook that incumbents have increasingly used since the fall of the Soviet Union to re-level the electoral playing field to their advantage while minimizing harsh condemnation from their powerful democratic allies. By altering who can access citizenship, incumbents can influence election outcomes by affecting who is allowed to vote in elections. Since the efforts pass through government, incumbents do not attract the same level of negative attention as they would receive for jailing or repressing their opposition or committing observable forms of electoral fraud. Incumbents' efforts to manipulate citizenship and election rules also create opportunities to capitalize on the growing support for populist, nationalist, and nativist sentiments by showing voters that they are willing to neutralize the influence of outsiders by permanently removing them from elections. By attempting to revoke citizenship status from members of their opposition, incumbent leaders can show their supporters that they are committed to obstructing voters who would otherwise influence the future of their countries to their supporters' discontent. In each of these cases, elected officials are taking steps to show their supporters that they are willing to try to incrementally shape the electorate in their image while keeping up the appearance of upholding democratic process. If the attempts fail or are blocked by courts, elected officials have demonstrated their willingness to act against the forces that their supporters oppose. In fact, if these leaders fail to pass these citizenship measures, it might even reinforce the idea that their opponents — outsiders, opposition parties, courts, NGOs, and international media — are too powerful. And of course, if they succeed, elected officials in Hungary, Italy, Germany, and the U.S. will have prevented potential opposition voters from accessing the franchise, which could help solidify their grip on political power in the future. Andrew Foote is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science at Binghamton University, State University of New York. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

It's not just Trump: The right in Europe is also cracking down on citizenship
It's not just Trump: The right in Europe is also cracking down on citizenship

The Hill

time5 days ago

  • The Hill

It's not just Trump: The right in Europe is also cracking down on citizenship

President Trump's efforts to end birthright citizenship have not taken place in a vacuum. They are part of a growing pattern of incumbent leaders strategically changing who is allowed to vote and jeopardizing the quality of democracy in the process. This year, the governments of Hungary, Italy, and Germany have similarly proposed or attempted to institute sweeping changes to their citizenship laws. Efforts to reduce or remove citizenship rights are increasingly common. In each case, elected officials presented their efforts as necessary actions to resist the influence of foreign interests and outsiders while restabilizing domestic politics. In a way, it's a win-win for them. If their efforts fail, they have shown supporters they are committed to reshaping their countries around populist and nationalist sentiments that have grown in popularity. When they succeed, they give themselves a meaningful electoral advantage by removing voters who might oppose them. In March, Hungarian Máté Kocsis — a member of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's Fidesz Party — announced that Fidesz would propose legislation to revoke citizenship from dual citizens whose 'activities endanger the national sovereignty, public order, territorial integrity or security of Hungary.' The legislation was justified as a response to international non-governmental organizations and media outlets whose work was framed as interfering with Hungarian domestic politics. Two weeks later, the Italian government issued a surprise decree that would drastically limit diaspora Italians' ability to claim citizenship through the law that grants citizenship to ethnic Italians around the world. This rule change has been framed as a necessary corrective after an increase in citizenship applications from diaspora Italians in Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuela. It is also noteworthy because Italian voters abroad consistently support moderate-progressive parties, even as conservative and anti-establishment parties have been gaining a dominant role in parliament. A few days later, in Germany, the newly elected center-right government proposed stripping citizenship from 'terror supporters, antisemites, and extremists who call for the abolition of the free and democratic basic order' as part of their negotiations to form a new government. This proposal was criticized by Human Rights Watch for being 'unclear what, if any, safeguards would exist to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory application, and violations of human rights.' The events we currently see in Hungary, Italy, Germany and the U.S. align with an emerging global pattern of incumbents strategically and selectively pushing for formal changes to citizenship laws. Efforts to choose who votes are nothing new — U.S states in the Jim Crow South famously used a variety of techniques including poll taxes, literacy tests, and whites-only primaries to obstruct Black Americans from voting. Democratic countries have revoked citizenship before — in 1946, roughly 70,000 American citizens living in Canada all lost their citizenship after voting in Canadian elections. But the current trend of laws throttling citizenship started in the mid-2000s. The graph above shows that leaders around the world increased their attempts to decide who gets to vote via changes to citizenship laws around 2008, with substantial increases starting in 2010. Reforms of this type are part of an emerging playbook that incumbents have increasingly used since the fall of the Soviet Union to re-level the electoral playing field to their advantage while minimizing harsh condemnation from their powerful democratic allies. By altering who can access citizenship, incumbents can influence election outcomes by affecting who is allowed to vote in elections. Since the efforts pass through government, incumbents do not attract the same level of negative attention as they would receive for jailing or repressing their opposition or committing observable forms of electoral fraud. Incumbents' efforts to manipulate citizenship and election rules also create opportunities to capitalize on the growing support for populist, nationalist, and nativist sentiments by showing voters that they are willing to neutralize the influence of outsiders by permanently removing them from elections. By attempting to revoke citizenship status from members of their opposition, incumbent leaders can show their supporters that they are committed to obstructing voters who would otherwise influence the future of their countries to their supporters' discontent. In each of these cases, elected officials are taking steps to show their supporters that they are willing to try to incrementally shape the electorate in their image while keeping up the appearance of upholding democratic process. If the attempts fail or are blocked by courts, elected officials have demonstrated their willingness to act against the forces that their supporters oppose. In fact, if these leaders fail to pass these citizenship measures, it might even reinforce the idea that their opponents — outsiders, opposition parties, courts, NGOs, and international media — are too powerful. And of course, if they succeed, elected officials in Hungary, Italy, Germany, and the U.S. will have prevented potential opposition voters from accessing the franchise, which could help solidify their grip on political power in the future. Andrew Foote is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science at Binghamton University, State University of New York.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store