When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

A Smoking Ban On Balconies? Warsaw Tests The Edges Of Freedom

Proposals to ban smoking on private balconies are led by activists trying to modify citizen’s lifestyles and fight 'ideologically different phenomena,' even when the real harm of these divergent behaviors is negligible.

A smoking ban on balconies has already been introduced in Lithuania
A smoking ban on balconies has already been introduced in Lithuania
Piotr Beniuszys


WARSAW — Could there soon be a ban on smoking cigarettes on balconies in Warsaw? Or maybe one day even smoking inside private apartments? A smoking ban on balconies has already been introduced in Lithuania, so there is a precedent and nothing seems to stand in the way of a Polish version. Renata Niewitecka, a council member of the city of Warsaw decided to consult the residents on the issue. If the majority wants to ban the minority from smoking on balconies, will the council democratically vote for such a ban? Only time will tell.

The majority voting to impose a ban that will only affect the lives of a minority and deprive them of certain rights, whether trivial or important, is a fundamentally debatable issue.

Liberal thinkers have long warned against a democracy based only on enforcing the opinion of the majority because it is just another form of dictatorship. It brings up two old ideas that need to be repeated time and time again. The first is that any democracy bearing the adjective "liberal" is a democracy where the inviolable rights of the minority put a limit on the power of the majority. The second is John Stuart Mill's definition of the scope of individual liberty. According to him, no one (including, of course, the democratic majority) can limit the liberty of a citizen as long as his actions in exercising that liberty does not affect the liberty of another citizen who has an identical scope.

And, regarding smoking cigarettes on a balcony, there is a dilemma that can be translated into the question: "What would John Stuart Mill say?" The limitation of the freedom to poison everyone around with cigarette smoke has been debated since times immemorial and it is indisputable that not only smoking poisons one's body but also that passive smoking is also a thing (that is, the smoker limits the freedom of another person by poisoning them). That is why smoking in enclosed public spaces (transportation, offices, clubs, pubs, stores, restaurants, railway stations, etc.) is unacceptable. But what about private spaces and open air? Since a complete smoking ban is unthinkable, it has to be allowed somewhere. Tenants often agree not to smoke inside their apartments: the balcony then seems like a reasonable choice.

So what would Mill say? He would probably point out that almost all of our behaviors affect other people in some way, and most of the time, neutrally. Though whether the effect is neutral or negative can depend on the sensitivity of the recipient. Whether something falls within the scope of legitimate freedom or goes beyond it depends not so much on the potential to create a negative impact (because that can always happen), but on an objective assessment of the real inconvenience imposed on another person.

That is a nuisance, but maybe harmless.

The case of the smoking ban on balconies is an important dilemma. Can the smoke from one balcony harm a neighbor on another one, or even get through an open window into the apartment and cause a stench there? Of course. And that is a nuisance.

But is it also possible that the smoke from another balcony, because of the way the building is designed, and of the direction of the wind, turns out harmless? Yes, this is also a possibility. Therefore, the validity of a total ban on the entire city is questionable.

No smoking sign at Hala Koszyki, Warsaw, Poland — Photo: Kgbo

The criterion of a real nuisance is crucial in assessing the idea of a ban—i.e. if it's limiting someone's freedom. It helps to identify situations in which there is an actual and serious limitation of one person's freedom by another one's behavior from situations where exaggeration, oversensitivity and hysteria prevail. The problem with this criterion, however, is that it can be utterly subjective, vary from case to case, and even escape the judgment of a potential Solomon.

What else to ban?

There are plenty of potential bans that are at the very least problematic in terms of deciding how real of a nuisance they are. How about a ban on talking on the phone on the bus, or one on "insulting religious feelings' at a ticketed event, on being shirtless in the street in hot weather for men who do not resemble Adonis, a ban on drinking alcohol in urban recreational spaces, the abolition of the first class in trains, an implementation of one day a week of forced veganism in canteens, a ban on meat sales at promotional prices, ads for candy and cars, the abolition of zoos, paintball, SUV sales, shops opening on Sundays (even online), underage dog walkers, balloon sales, strawberry sales in the winter (and tangerine in the summer), fishing at night?

Many of these ideas have not yet been mooted in Poland. But local activists in various parts of Europe have already raised them—like the Lithuanian activists banning smoking on private balconies.

The subjective nature of assessing the nuisance of a given phenomenon is, of course, related to the ideological motivations of the activists advocating particular bans. It is often the case that a given behavior hardly ever really bothers anyone, but the "pain" is caused by the very awareness that someone somewhere lives a different lifestyle based on values the activist considers contrary to his beliefs.

A better direction would be a certain tolerance.

The properness of an era is based on the fact that most activists consider certain phenomena ideologically correct (that are then privileged, and pointing out their real inconvenience is poorly looked upon, and even rude—how dare you criticize urban cyclists?!). Other behaviors are stigmatized as inappropriate, arousing the disapproval of activists (then every slightest pretext is used to exaggerate their alleged inconvenience—like smoking or eating meat). All these minor bans add up to a general idea of modifying the citizens' lifestyle, fighting the "ideologically different" and limiting the diversity of lifestyles of people in the community.

This is not the way to go. A better direction would be a certain tolerance, whether towards the heathen, the Jesus freak, the bougie or even the pinko.

We live together, side by side, sometimes close to each other. We are different, we like diverse things and dislike others. We make choices, sometimes stupid, sometimes wise (though some of us make stupid decisions more often than others). We watch each other and now and then we instinctively get hurt when we see someone choose what we consider to be more stupidly or just different from us. It hurts us, but it's not always bothersome enough to immediately wish that the other person would be forced by some authority to change their behavior.

"Live and let live" used to be the flagship principle of British society (though it has changed somewhat nowadays). It is worthwhile, for the sake of harmonious coexistence, to sometimes give it priority over the impulse of holy indignation or the desire to make things right.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

FOCUS: Russia-Ukraine War

How Vulnerable Are The Russians In Crimea?

Ukraine has stepped up attacks on the occupied Crimean peninsula, and Russia is doing all within its power to deny how vulnerable it has become.

Photograph of the Russian Black Sea Fleet headquarters with smoke rising above it after a Ukrainian missile strike.

September 22, 2023, Sevastopol, Crimea, Russia: Smoke rises over the Russian Black Sea Fleet headquarters after a Ukrainian missile strike.

Kyrylo Danylchenko

This article was updated Sept. 26, 2023 at 6:00 p.m.

Russian authorities are making a concerted effort to downplay and even deny the recent missile strikes in Russia-occupied Crimea.

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

Media coverage in Russia of these events has been intentionally subdued, with top military spokesperson Igor Konashenkov offering no response to an attack on Russian Black Sea Fleet headquarters in the Crimean city of Sevastopol, or the alleged downing last week of Russian Su-24 aircraft by Ukrainian Air Defense.

The response from this and other strikes on the Crimean peninsula and surrounding waters of the Black Sea has alternated between complete silence and propagating falsehoods. One notable example of the latter was the claim that the Russian headquarters building of the Black Sea fleet that was hit Friday was empty and that the multiple explosions were mere routine training exercises.

Ukraine claimed on Monday that the attack killed Admiral Viktor Sokolov, the commander of Russia's Black Sea Fleet. "After the strike on the headquarters of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, 34 officers died, including the commander of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Another 105 occupiers were wounded. The headquarters building cannot be restored," the Ukrainian special forces said via Telegram.

But Sokolov was seen on state television on Tuesday, just one day after Ukraine claimed he'd been killed. The Russian Defense Ministry released footage of the admiral partaking in a video conference with top admirals and chiefs, including Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, though there was no verification of the date of the event.

Moscow has been similarly obtuse following other reports of missiles strikes this month on Crimea. Russian authorities have declared that all missiles have been intercepted by a submarine and a structure called "VDK Minsk", which itself was severely damaged following a Ukrainian airstrike on Sept. 13. The Russians likewise dismissed reports of a fire at the headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet, attributing it to a mundane explosion caused by swamp gas.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has refrained from commenting on the military situation in Crimea and elsewhere, continuing to repeat that everything is “proceeding as planned.”

Why is Crimea such a touchy topic? And why is it proving to be so hard to defend?

Keep reading...Show less

The latest