More and more cities and states around the country are banning smoking in public places, much to the chagrin of smokers. Is this sort of strong, successful anti-smoking movement a new development? Hardly. Opposition to smoking has been around almost as long as smoking itself, and some of the historical measures to curb lighting up might surprise you.
1. The Pope Cracks Down on Smoke
Pope Urban VII’s papacy began on September 15, 1590. It ended with his death from malaria less than two weeks later. Although he didn’t spend much time as the head of the Catholic Church, Urban VII was around long enough to make his feelings on tobacco known. He banned all tobacco “in the porchway of or inside a church, whether it be by chewing it, smoking it with a pipe or sniffing it in powdered form through the nose.” The penalty for breaking his edict? Excommunication.
Urban VII’s crackdown is considered to be history’s first public smoking ban. Various papal bans on smoking stuck around until 1724, when tobacco-loving Pope Benedict XIII gave Catholics the thumbs-up to light up again.
2. King James’ Ideal Version of England is Smoke-Free
King James I of England was no fan of tobacco, but instead of whining about it, he picked up his pen. In 1604, James wrote the treatise A Counterblaste to Tobacco, and true to form for early 17th century pamphlets, the King didn’t pull any punches, writing, “What honour or policie can move us to imitate the barbarous and beastly maners of the wilde, godlesse, and slavish Indians, especially in so vile and stinking a custom?”
Ouch. Anti-Indian racism aside, James also warned of potential dangers from second-hand smoke and lung damage in addition to making a much simpler argument against tobacco smoke: it stinks. Later he refers to smoking as “a custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the black and stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomlesse.”
For someone with such strong feelings about smoke, James I amazingly didn’t ban tobacco altogether, though. He did, however, jack up excise taxes and tariffs on the weed by upwards of 4,000%. Interestingly, early 20th century tobacconist and writer Alfred Dunhill speculated in The Pipe Book that James’ hatred of tobacco may have stemmed from how much the monarch loathed Sir Walter Raleigh, who was often seen smoking a pipe and actually turned Queen Elizabeth I on to smoking in 1600.
3. The Sultan Puts Out Smokers
When Sultan Murad IV took over the Ottoman Empire in 1623, he inherited a land filled with corruption and decadence. He took care of it quickly, though, and by 1633 Murad had banned all tobacco, alcohol, and coffee from his empire. Murad IV made Pope Urban VII look like a pushover, too; his punishment for breaking the ban was death.
Murad IV didn’t leave enforcement to his minions, either. He supposedly walked the streets of Istanbul in plain clothes and used his mace to execute anyone he caught using tobacco. As many as 18 people a day met their demise for smoking until Murad’s successor, Ibrahim the Mad, lifted the ban.
At around the same time, Russia instituted a similar ban. First-time offenders would get a slit nose, take a beating, or be exiled in Siberia. Repeat offenders earned themselves an execution. These stiff penalties hung around until Peter the Great came to power in 1682.
4. French Smokers Head to the Doctor…for More Smokes
French tobacco enthusiasts found themselves on the receiving end of a bit of a curveball in 1635. They could still smoke, but they would have to buy their tobacco from an apothecary. They would also need a doctor’s prescription. Luckily for smokers, this restriction didn’t last too long. In 1637, King Louis XIII, a snuff man, repealed all of the anti-tobacco laws.
5. Colonists Turn on Their Cash Crop
Early American colonists may have been making some nice loot selling tobacco, but that doesn’t mean they were totally in favor of using it. In 1632, Massachusetts became wary of the fire danger from smoldering butts, so it banned outdoor smoking. Connecticut followed suit in 1647 when it dictated that citizens could only smoke once a day, and even then one couldn’t be a social smoker, since the law dictated that smokers could only burn one when “not in company with any other.” In the 1680s, Philadelphia joined in with a ban on smoking in the city’s streets.
6. States Butt Out of the Tobacco Business
Movies may depict the turn of the 20th century as a time of smoke-filled rooms, but in truth you couldn’t even pick up a pack of cigarettes in many states. By 1900, Washington, Iowa, Tennessee, and North Dakota had all banned the sale of cigarettes, and by 1920 11 other states had enacted similar bans.
Some states were so quick to ban cigarettes over a concern that customers might be getting more than they bargained for when they bought a pack. When a Tennessean challenged his state’s cigarette ban before the Supreme Court in 1900, the Justices upheld the prohibition partially due to concern over adulterated smokes, writing, “[T]here are many whose tobacco has been mixed with opium or some other drug, and whose wrapper has been saturated in a solution of arsenic.”
Did these bans put an end to American smoking? Not quite. Although buying cigarettes wasn’t legal in 15 states, cigars were a booming business. In 1901, four out of every five American men burned at least one stogie a day, and tobacconists sold 6 billion cigars a year. Like the prohibition of alcohol, these cigarette bans gradually fell out of favor, and after Kansas repealed its restrictions in 1927 none of the bans remained on the books.
7. Hitler Takes on Tobacconists
One thing you might not know about Hitler: he was a rabid opponent of smoking. German scientists were among the first to study the links between tobacco use and lung disease, and the Nazi regime aggressively sought to suppress tobacco use. In addition to implementing high tobacco taxes, Hitler banned smoking in German universities, government buildings, and Nazi party offices. After 1942, restaurants weren’t allowed to sell smokes to female customers.
But when the Nazis fell, their bans fell with them. After the party’s 1945 collapse, cigarettes actually became an unofficial currency in Germany’s war-ravaged economy.
Comments (26)
Comment
- subscribe /
- give a gift /
- terms of service /
- about /
- contact us /
- write for us /
- ad info /
- subscriber services /
- press /
- privacy policy /
- rss /
© 2012 Mental Floss Inc. All Rights Reserved. Mental Floss is a registered trademark owned by Felix Dennis. mentalfloss.com is a trademark owned by Felix Dennis.
Disclaimer: All submissions made to mental_floss become the property of Mental Floss Inc and may be used without further permission by the submitter and without compensation to the submitter. If you do not agree to these terms, please do not submit anything to mental_floss.
What are the chances that we’d both blog about historical smoking bans on the same day — and not even mention the same ban(s)?
weird.
posted by Ransom Riggs on 1-21-2010 at 11:49 am
Glad these bans are lifted haha. I just hope that they don’t end up coming back into effect. =/
posted by Cody on 1-21-2010 at 1:11 pm
Boo for smoking bans.
It should be the business owner’s choice. As an American, you don’t have the right to never smell smoke. You have the right to avoid smoke if you choose.
If a business can’t survive while allowing smoking (unlikely, they actually seem to do better) the owner will either close shop, or ban smoking of their own accord.
/soapbox
posted by Troy H. on 1-21-2010 at 1:41 pm
Troy H.: The same logic used to be used for banning minorities from restaurants.
Just sayin’
posted by Witty Nickname on 1-21-2010 at 2:25 pm
Witty Nickname: Perhaps, though in most cases “logic” wasn’t used at all, it wasn’t needed. However, there’s where the similarities end. A minority, be it race/religion/color, has the same basic rights as those in the majority. In such cases, demanding that a business allow them to be patrons does take away “freedoms” from the business, but it is in the favor of allowing the individual to exercise their rights. In the case of smoking bans, neither the business nor the individual wanting to smoke are being benefited vis-a-vis their rights. And those who don’t want to smell smoke aren’t, either, they’re just being given a smoke-free environment in that establishment, which is not a right.
I say this as a smoker who was surprised to be pretty okay with the smoking ban in Austin. It is nice in some places, and worth my having to step outside. But it has forced numerous businesses to close, and even if it hadn’t it’s still wrong.
posted by Jeff K. on 1-21-2010 at 3:14 pm
Witty Nickname: in theory, that wouldn’t be a problem (I would underline “in theory” if possible). A restaurant that made a policy of banning minorities, even if it were legal, certainly wouldn’t last long in the modern climate. Picketers and boycotts would be the least of their problems.
posted by Dave on 1-21-2010 at 3:25 pm
Boo for assult laws.
It should be the business owner’s choice. As an American, you don’t have the right to never get hit in the face. You have the right to avoid my fist if you choose.
posted by Zed on 1-21-2010 at 3:34 pm
Here in BC, smoking has been banned in all public places, including restaurants, pubs, bars, etc., for several years now. And it’s not enough to just step outstide to smoke — you must now be three metres away from any entrance or exit of a building. People who smoke in a vehicle containing children under the age of 16 are subject to a fine. I figure if it’s my tax dollars going to fund smokers’ health care because they’re ignoring the obvious and known risks of smoking, then it’s my right to not be poisoned by second hand smoke.
And for the record, I’m an ex-smoker, and when I did smoke, I always did so outside and away from other people who didn’t smoke. It’s only considerate.
posted by Beth on 1-21-2010 at 3:43 pm
I, for one, am a fan of the bans. Being a nonsmoker, I much prefer to frequent places where I don’t have to inhale smoke. The city I live in does not have a ban currently, so I do show my support of those businesses by trying to only frequent those which don’t allow smoking.
Troy H.- I have to disagree. It’s not the issue of simply smelling smoke that I have a problem with, it’s the danger of inhaling the second hand smoke. I think of it as if a business laced their drinks with arsenic and said it was legal because you always had the option to go to another business that didn’t lace their drinks. Sounds ridiculous that a business would ever do that, right? I believe others have the right to smoke if they want, but need to avoid others while they do, not the other way around.
Also, I disagree with the statement that businesses do better if they allow smoking. If they did, you would expect a decrease in business after a smoking ban. But that’s not what happens:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17984718?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=23
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17696050?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=24
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17259576?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=5
The last study above did show a short term decrease in business, but it quickly returned to normal levels.
posted by Moth on 1-21-2010 at 3:46 pm
“As an American, you don’t have the right to never get hit in the face. You have the right to avoid my fist if you choose.”
I don’t understand how racial discrimination and assault is equal to smelling smoke and being subjected to dubiously proven dangers due to second hand smoke.
If you know you are going to be punched in the face if you go somewhere, it is probably best for you to not go to that place… Second hand smoke, same thing. If you know a restaurant allows smoking, don’t go. You avoid health issues. Business owner’s rights aren’t impinged upon. Everybody wins.
“I think of it as if a business laced their drinks with arsenic and said it was legal because you always had the option to go to another business that didn’t lace their drinks. Sounds ridiculous that a business would ever do that, right? I believe others have the right to smoke if they want, but need to avoid others while they do, not the other way around.”
Just like “The Face-Punch Hut”, if you know that they put arsenic in their drinks, and you know that arsenic is poisonous (just like everyone knows about second hand smoke) people aren’t going to go there, and the business isn’t going to last.
You people can’t honestly equate a person smoking, to a person racially discriminating against a person, physically assaulting them or poisoning them?
By the same token, do we ban skydiving? Fatty foods? Anything that can possibly cause someone harm however long down the road?
You can’t legislate all of that.
If they can tell a business owner that they can’t allow smoking in their business, they can tell you that you can’t smoke in your house. If they can do that, they can forbid you from doing anything they want. Personal property rights are as important as any other rights.
These bans are PUTTING PEOPLE OUT OF BUSINESS! A scary number of them don’t even make allowances for tobacco based businesses. People who love selling tobacco products are losing their businesses because they can’t allow their customers (who, I’m pretty sure, understand that smoke is bad for you) to smoke in their establishments. What right do you have to steal someone’s livelihood so you can eat at the damn Taco Hut and not have to deal with smoke.
Once again, you don’t have the right to never be offended (freedom of speech out the window), or endangered (cars would be illegal if that was the case)or anything like that. You have the right to control what YOU do, not anyone else.
posted by Troy H. on 1-21-2010 at 6:00 pm
Troy H.-”You have the right to control what YOU do, not anyone else”
Basically you’re saying that the government and the police don’t have the right to control murderers and rapists! I know that’s an extreme case but if it applies to one thing then it should apply to everything right?
Also, I don’t see any positives to smoking that make it something to protect. It is going to kill you and it may kill the people around you! Why on earth would you want to protect something like that?
posted by Bekah on 1-21-2010 at 7:10 pm
ReCaptcha: politically Esteban
posted by this is not my name on 1-21-2010 at 7:39 pm
I like to think of myself as a curteous smoker, and as such i would never smoke around someone who wouldn’t like me to smoke around. Having said that allowing pubs etc. to choose whether they would allowing smoking is good for everyone.
I also can’t stand people who like to lecture me about the dangers of smoking. Why do people find this acceptable, first off i am not a complete imbecile, i am aware of the dangers, secondly, would anyone find it acceptable if i lectured them on how their obesity will kill them. NO of course this would not be acceptable so why do people think that is alright to speak like this to smokers.
posted by Kim on 1-21-2010 at 8:10 pm
I agree with Troy H. I think smoking areas should be a sealed glass box. that way all you smokers can get second, third, fourth, etc etc hand smoke and not even have to waste a cigarette when you need your nicotine fix. By smoking in a public place, you do impinge on the rights of others because these places are almost never well aerated and the dangers of smoke are well proven, including second hand, and have been suppressed by the tobacco industry since the 30′s.
Additionally, to an extent, fatty foods are being legislated. Any cities or states that ban trans fats or cooking in a certain type of oil are doing just that.
You most certainly can equate smoking to poisoning someone as well. blah blah blah 4,000 different chemicals in cigarettes with 50 being known carcinogens. I don’t know how else to describe poisoning.
The problem with allowing businesses to allow smoking is not that one or two of them will, but that they ALL will to not lose the smoking demographic. and we are right back where we were.
stick that in your dubious pack and smoke it.
posted by john m on 1-21-2010 at 8:26 pm
Oh, my gosh, people. Cigarette smoke is bad? Some people don’t like the smell of smoke? If I didn’t read _floss I guess I’d never be in the loop.
posted by Impressed on 1-21-2010 at 8:46 pm
I find the second-hand smoke argument to be idiotic. My boss, for instance, lives in NYC (poor air quality), and our office is 200 feet away from an eight-lane road with semis belching exhaust outside our windows all day. He frets about the dangers of getting so much as a tiny whiff of second-hand smoke, but doesn’t stop to consider the bad & nasties that he can’t smell, and ignores the real health consequences that are posed by his living and working environments. It is easy to carry on about second-hand smoke, because it has a strong odor, but ultimately, it does nothing to mitigate the repeated and persistent exposure people get from air pollution. If the folks who bash the smokers worked on the pollution that is not so easily detected by smell, we might see some improvement in the quality of the air we breath 24/7, not just while we’re in a restaurant for an hour or so.
posted by Rusty on 1-21-2010 at 10:44 pm
@ Rusty
You mean like the Clean Air Act, which resulted in vastly improved air quality in our country?
posted by Reality on 1-22-2010 at 12:46 am
thanks for putting things into perspective…
smoking is a bad nasty habit–i don’t think any sane person can deny that, but i can tell you as an ex-bartender in NYC that my income suffered terribly after 9/11 and was just starting to recover again when mother bloomberg decided to ban smoking in bars. almost immediately my income was cut by 50%. Why? because people who would normally stay for four drinks would go out to smoke after 2 and never come back. Instead of getting tipped for 4 drinks i got tipped for 2….and so on. i had to borrow money to pay my rent, and never got back to the pre-9/11 or pre bloomberg levels.
I just wonder when they’ll start trying to control the volume of music in clubs, which can also cause damage after prolonged exposure…
posted by Brian on 1-22-2010 at 5:47 am
The smoking debate is a hot topic!
I am a non smoker who dates a smoker. For years before the ban in our state, I sat in the smoking section of the restaurant with him, stayed in smoking rooms in hotels, and was subject to his and others’ secondhand smoke. Yes, I did agree to be put in these positions, there is no arguing that. I have to say though, that life is much better for me now that he must go outside to do this. Not only can I go to a bar or restaurant without my hair and clothes reeking afterwards, my lungs are much cleaner than before! These laws were created to cut down on second hand smoke. It not only benefits us nonsmokers, but also you smokers as well!
**I think the smoking in the car with children under a certain age law should be enacted nation/worldwide. It is fine if you want to smoke, but subjecting children to it who don’t have that choice is cruel.
posted by KayTee on 1-22-2010 at 10:35 am
john m. – I believe you are missing something. Privately owned businesses are not public places. You don’t have “the right” to walk into your corner bar and expect it to cater to your every whim. It should be the business owner’s choice. PERIOD.
I am an ex-smoker who does appreciate smoking bans in restaurants and PUBLIC places (ie banks, federal and state buildings, hospitals, schools, etc.) But I will never NEVER understand or support the ban being put into place in bars, taverns, or clubs. A person can step outside, yes, but it becomes a huge hassle to them as a customer when it’s 20 degrees outside.
If it’s supposed to be such a boon to business to be non smoking, why didn’t we see more bars go non smoking voluntarily?
posted by anon on 1-22-2010 at 12:16 pm
I appreciate the smoking bans. Before the bans, there were some bars that I avoided because they did not have proper ventilation. You knew that even if you just stepped in and stepped right out, you had a dry cleaning bill. The city where I am from did an evaluation of the effects of the ban on profits for restaurants and bars, and they found that no business suffered from it. It may be different in other cities, but I don’t see how.
I appreciate courteous smokers, but not every smoker is courteous. There is nothing worse than going out at night and waking up with stinky hair.
Perhaps it is condescending to preach to a smoker about the ill effects of tobacco, but I don’t see how it’s fair for me to have to pay higher insurance premiums and taxes because some idiot got cancer from using tobacco.
posted by steph on 1-22-2010 at 1:15 pm
Antismokers point to California’s 6% hospitality growth between smoke-friendly 1990 and smoke-banned 1998. They ignore the fact that growth in smoker-friendly states like NC and VA was 77 and 57%: a growth ten times greater! (See table on next page.)
And when one compares California to its bordering states and makes a rough but reasonable calculation based on these losses, a truly amazing figure emerges. While other factors may play some part, the raw data indicates California’s bans may have actually cost it over one hundred billion dollars of growth since 1995!
No wonder its economy is in trouble!
Full study available at http://www.smokersclubinc.com/economic.html
posted by harleyrider1978 on 1-22-2010 at 4:39 pm
I’m a longtime smoker and I can see both sides of this argument, having recently switched to electronic cigarettes or “vapes” (which do not burn tobacco and thus produce no smoke at all). I can now get my fix anywhere with absolutely no risk to anyone else, and a greatly reduced risk to my own health, so am no longer personally troubled by anti-smoking laws or policies.
I made the switch partly because I deeply resented being treated like a third-class citizen. I agree that the choice should be up to individual bar and restaurant owners and their patrons. I was appalled by the trend towards local councils taking it upon themselves to ban smoking in open-air public areas; a draconian over-reaction that truly smacks of archaic racial segregation policies.
Fortunately, I think that tobacco cigarettes are yesterdays news anyway and that this entire debate will be moot when vaping becomes the norm.
posted by Jeff on 1-22-2010 at 5:56 pm
@Reality
The Clean Air Act is dandy, absolutely dandy, and I’m glad you feel good about it. I’m saying that people tend to be more concerned about dangers that are obvious and less concerned about subtle dangers. Over-reaction vs under-reaction. Dig?
posted by Rusty on 1-22-2010 at 10:59 pm
Smoking is unhealthy and in fact the reality is its even more unhealthy to those that dont smoke and end up inhaling the fumes from the smoker.
In my opinion the bans in restaurants and other public places were long due, lets just hope that history does not repeat itself and we as humans grow and give up this worthless habit of puffing so our kids can grow in a cleaner and healthier environment free from addictions to substances that is robbing them from their health.
posted by Quit Smoking on 1-23-2010 at 6:08 pm
If some kind of providence made me ruler of the world, I would order all smoking banned on pain of death. Smokers are disgusting people with disgusting habits and should be shot with prejudice.
posted by Luis on 1-28-2010 at 2:00 am