2 July 2009 | Greece, the EU’s heaviest smoking nation, enacted a ban on smoking in public areas yesterday – a third attempt in the last decade and one that critics say has too many loopholes to be effective.

The new ban, which came into force on Wednesday, prohibits smoking in hospitals, schools, public vehicles and in all public spaces.

It is the third time in the last ten years that Greece tries to curb down its population’s tobacco consumption, though previous attempts were marred by a lack of enforcement by authorities and largely ignored by smokers.

Greece has the highest level of smokers of the EU’s 27 member states – according to statistics, nearly 40 per cent of people over the age of 15 smoke on a daily basis.

In addition to tobacco’s wide-spread use, many doubt the effectiveness of the new smoking ban because of its perceived ambiguity and the numerous loopholes it contains.

For example, although cafés and restaurants generally fall under the category of public spaces, they are in fact exempt from the ban. As BalkanTravellers.com reported recently, venues that have an area of over 70 square metres are allowed to have smoking areas, as long as they are totally separate and don’t take more than 40 per cent of their total area. Smaller establishments, under 70 square metres, can decide whether to cater entirely to smokers or non-smokers.

It remains to be seen whether Greece’s smoking ban will prove to be effective, which depends on both the will of authorities to enforce it and smokers’ willingness to respect it.

According to the new law, smokers could face fines up to 500 euro, and bar owners up to 2,000 euro. A poll earlier this year found that 95 per cent of non-smokers and 62 per cent of smokers backed a public smoking ban in the country.

Greece is the latest European country to ban the use of tobacco in public places and still one of the few in the Balkans. Though most of the states in the region have partial smoking bans, which prohibit cigarettes in places such as hospitals, schools and administrative buildings, for the most part they are largely ignored and rarely enforced, as are requirements to have separate smoking and non-smoking sections in bars, cafés and restaurants. As BalkanTravellers.com reported in May, bar and restaurant owners in Croatia – one of the few states where such a ban exists, protested against such restrictions as, they claimed, they were harming business.

Read more about Greece on BalkanTravellers.com
Use BalkanTravellers.com's tips to organize your trip to Greece

Readers' Comments: "Dear Editor, Government power 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. http://smokersclubinc.com http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com" Thomas Laprade Thunder Bay, Ont. Canada   "Firstly: There is real physical cancer and it's called - that's right - "cancer".   And you get it and thousands of other health problems from passive smoking.  You have no right to inflict your cigarette smoke and all that it can cause  on me.  Air is a shared resource. It's not your air.  Just because you like a dangerous and smelly habit like smoking is hardly a justification for damaging others' health. Secondly: Anyone who disputes the reality of the dangers of secondary smoke needs to consider that every single major health organization in the world has acknowledged the extreme risks.  Many countries, including Greece, have signed the WHO treaty on tobacco control.  This both formally accepts the *reality* of the health damage done by secondary smoking (yes, Greece has accepted that) and legally *obliges* signatory countries to protect people from exposure to secondary smoke. In other words, Greece has committed itself to passing these laws. Thirdly: I don't even need WHO to tell me about the dangers of passive smoking in order to believe them.  Why?  Because I am an asthmatic who has severe reactions to even small amounts of tobacco smoke.  I start coughing up large amounts of mucous, often get a lung infection, and can be sick and incapacitated for weeks at a time.  Now, in Greece, no-one give a sh*t and there are very few places non-smoking places I can go to eat or drink.  I cannot go to clubs or bars at all because of the 1950s levels of cigarette smoke inside.  Now, whose freedom is being curtailed here?  Mine, obviously, since there is little choice for me." Phil