• Swiss to vote on full smoking ban in enclosed public places
    28 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Swiss citizens are going to the polls to vote on a proposal to ban smoking completely in enclosed public places. Hotels, restaurants and bars are currently allowed to have rooms for smokers but critics say this harms the health of those who work in them. Restrictions introduced two years ago were watered down after lobbying from the catering trade and tobacco firms. Opinion polls show the Swiss - who smoke more than their neighbours - are likely to reject the proposal. The BBC's Imogen Foulkes says Switzerland is tackling the issue of passive smoking far later than its neighbours Germany, Italy and France, which long ago banned smoking in public places. The restrictions finally introduced in Switzerland two years ago were a compromise. Special smoking rooms were allowed in many public places following lobbying from the hotel and catering trade as well as major tobacco companies whose European headquarters are based in Switzerland. Critics say the restrictions have also been applied unevenly across Switzerland's 26 cantons. Eight cantons, including Geneva, have a total ban on indoor smoking in places of employment - like restaurants and bars - and public spaces - like hospitals - but the remaining 18 cantons apply the law less restrictively. Measures 'extreme' Jean-Charles Rielle, a doctor and member of the committee behind the proposal, told AFP news agency that they wanted to clear up the confusion. "In the cantons where these laws [banning smoking rooms] are already in effect, we saw immediately... a 20% drop in hospitalisation due to cardiovascular incidents, heart attacks and these kinds of problems," he said. Laurent Terlinchamp, president of Geneva's association of cafe owners, restaurateurs and hoteliers, says the proposed measures are extreme. "In Geneva, where the law came in two years ago, we were told that a new clientele would start to come back to establishments," he said. "But it's not the case today because profits are down 10% to 30% depending on the type of business." The latest opinion poll showed 52% of those questioned opposed the new initiative against 41% in favour and 7% undecided.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19690450[/url] Atleast there will be less cancer ( I hope ).
[quote]Swiss citizens are going to the polls to vote on a proposal to ban smoking completely in enclosed public places. [/quote] Massively misleading title, it's a restriction on smoking in public enclosed areas.
[quote]"In the cantons where these laws [banning smoking rooms] are already in effect, we saw immediately... a 20% drop in hospitalisation due to cardiovascular incidents, heart attacks and these kinds of problems," he said[/quote] Fucking outstanding, probably the best reason to ban smoking in public areas.
That is the most misleading title ever. Could an OP please change it :v
I still say businesses should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they want to allow smoking or not in their establishment.
good. I would vote for this if I could. public places shoudlnt smell like shit. if you want to smoke, do it at the comfort of your home.
I voted no.
[QUOTE=zombieslaya;37770897]I still say businesses should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they want to allow smoking or not in their establishment.[/QUOTE] I'm not even going to be surprised if businesses around the world allow people to smoke in door despite the law. I rarely see anyone even regulating it around here and people who report it would often go unheard of
'full smoking ban' was the BBC's own headline, I saw it on my phone and thought it was misleading too
It was rejected.
I guess we'll wait a little longer then.. maybe once smoking dies down a little more.
As a smoker, I'm completely ok with this. Smoking indoor around non-smokers is stupid and selfish. Oh and it also smells like shit.
It's a shame that it got rejected. But I like how those who vote "no" say it threatens freedom. Freedom of what, annoying, and possibly endangering other people with the smoke of a harmful, addictive substance?
It's been like this for the past 5 years in Britain and it's for the good, the only downside is when you go on a night out you have huge crowds of people smoking outside the pubs and clubs near entrances. We didn't get to vote on it though
[QUOTE=zombieslaya;37770897]I still say businesses should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they want to allow smoking or not in their establishment.[/QUOTE] Ideally I'd agree but that's how it always used to be and almost all restaurants and such had smoking sections, so this seems necessary to me.
[QUOTE=zombieslaya;37770897]I still say businesses should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they want to allow smoking or not in their establishment.[/QUOTE] I would say that too, if employees came to a consensus on that decision. Ultimately it should be up to the workers if they are willing to work in a smokey establishment, not the business owners, and not the government.
[QUOTE=ThisGuy0;37771591]Ideally I'd agree but that's how it always used to be and almost all restaurants and such had smoking sections, so this seems necessary to me.[/QUOTE] Actually here in the US, before there was a ban implemented on smoking in a workplace in Illinois, there was a pretty big push for restaurants and businesses and such to have their own smoking bans. There were actually quite a few who didn't allow smoking at all and the rest had separate sections for those who did. So, there was progress being made. But, still, I feel that since it is privately owned property, the owners and employees should be the ones to ultimately decide on the issue.
I think this ban isn't only good for health reasons, but also for people who are outright annoyed by getting smoke blown in their face, basically being forced to smoke even though they don't want to.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37771680]I would say that too, if employees came to a consensus on that decision. Ultimately it should be up to the workers if they are willing to work in a smokey establishment, not the business owners, and not the government.[/QUOTE] But what if 50% want to smoke and 50% don't? people shouldn't be made to leave their jobs because they don't want second hand smoke in their face for 8 hours a day when all they're asking is that the smokers stand outside to do it
Good. Its fucking annoying when malls smelled of fucking cigarettes
[QUOTE=matt.ant;37772096]But what if 50% want to smoke and 50% don't? people shouldn't be made to leave their jobs because they don't want second hand smoke in their face for 8 hours a day when all they're asking is that the smokers stand outside to do it[/QUOTE] I said consensus. If 9/10 employees vote for smoke and 1/10 employees votes against it, then the 1/10 should be the decision.
The problem with leaving it up to the businesses is that very few of them would ban it.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;37773751]The problem with leaving it up to the businesses is that very few of them would ban it.[/QUOTE] So basically, the problem with giving them a decision is that some of them might not make the decision you'd like?
[QUOTE=RichyZ;37776969]if it was up to the businesses nothing would change is what he is saying[/QUOTE] If people have a problem with it, they can just not go to that business, if it's a big enough problem the business will either die down from losing too many customers or stop allowing indoor smoking to gain the customers back.
[QUOTE=TamTamJam;37777619]If people have a problem with it, they can just not go to that business, if it's a big enough problem the business will either die down from losing too many customers or stop allowing indoor smoking to gain the customers back.[/QUOTE] This is so blatantly wrong it's not even funny. The free market does not work this way. You as a consumer cannot force change if nobody provides an outlet for you to voice your opinion. If you want a car with X feature, but cannot get it without features P, Q, and R that you don't give a shit about, you have two choices. Buy the car without X, or bend over and buy the car with X, P, Q, and R. <real world anecdote from the states> You know nutritional facts on food containers? Yeah those handy things that tell you the salt content in your can of soup. Consumers wanted those. Nobody provided them. The packaging industry was forced to add ingredients and nutritional information for the public good despite none of them wanting to. You can literally do a 1:1 comparison to this situation. </real world anecdote from the states> Government regulation exists for a reason. The free market invariably ends up pissing on you, the consumer, if allowed to do so.
I think it's good that the Swiss people were actually able to vote on this. I can't remember anything happening like this in the UK, we don't seem to keen on the whole democratic process lately.
I don't see why anyone would have a problem with this, we've had it in the UK for a couple of years now and I can say it's a hell of a lot more pleasant to go to restaurants without the horrible smell of smoke, then finding out that you smell of smoke once you leave. [editline]24th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=zombieslaya;37770897]I still say businesses should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they want to allow smoking or not in their establishment.[/QUOTE] On that same logic you could say that it should be up to businesses to decided whether they're allowed to adulterate your food with harmful substances as well, simply because a few people might enjoy it. [editline]24th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=TamTamJam;37777619]If people have a problem with it, they can just not go to that business, if it's a big enough problem the business will either die down from losing too many customers or stop allowing indoor smoking to gain the customers back.[/QUOTE] Yeah but the problem is that a huge majority of businesses DO allow it, so you either never go out anywhere or deal with the smoke, not really fair if you ask me. [editline]24th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=kebab52;37782239]I think it's good that the Swiss people were actually able to vote on this. I can't remember anything happening like this in the UK, we don't seem to keen on the whole democratic process lately.[/QUOTE] Referendums? Switzerland works on a direct democracy system which may sound good on paper, but really isn't all that great, especially since it allows for tyranny of the majority.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;37782336]I don't see why anyone would have a problem with this, we've had it in the UK for a couple of years now and I can say it's a hell of a lot more pleasant to go to restaurants without the horrible smell of smoke, then finding out that you smell of smoke once you leave. [editline]24th September 2012[/editline] On that same logic you could say that it should be up to businesses to decided whether they're allowed to adulterate your food with harmful substances as well, simply because a few people might enjoy it. [editline]24th September 2012[/editline] Yeah but the problem is that a huge majority of businesses DO allow it, so you either never go out anywhere or deal with the smoke, not really fair if you ask me. [editline]24th September 2012[/editline] Referendums? Switzerland works on a direct democracy system which may sound good on paper, but really isn't all that great, especially since it allows for tyranny of the majority.[/QUOTE] As far as I know, smoking in work places and places accessible to the public (bars, restaurants, hospitals, schools, public transport and such) is banned. There are exceptions, for example a restaurant can make a separate room for smokers only. Small restaurants can mark themselves as a smoking establishment. This initiative would have banned these exceptions as well. So, it's not like you really have to sit next to smokers in swiss restaurants today.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.