Excellent!!! When does the smoking ban begin?
Nir Ofek, Mar 3, 2008 @ 18:11

01 july 2008 ! :w00t:
silverwolf, Mar 3, 2008 @ 18:20

[quote][b]Nir_ (03/03/2008)[/b][hr]Excellent!!! When does the smoking ban begin?[/quote]



Yeah I had the same question. I lived through the change in Edinburgh, UK and it was great:) Being able to wear the same clothes more than once is something else:) I am afraid that it will take some time though, because a new law has to be formulated based on the initiative, if I am not mistaken. I am going to enjoy this one though:)
karios, Mar 3, 2008 @ 18:20

[quote][b]karios (03/03/2008)[/b][hr][quote][b]Nir_ (03/03/2008)[/b][hr]Excellent!!! When does the smoking ban begin?[/quote]

Yeah I had the same question. I lived through the change in Edinburgh, UK and it was great:) Being able to wear the same clothes more than once is something else:) I am afraid that it will take some time though, because a new law has to be formulated based on the initiative, if I am not mistaken. I am going to enjoy this one though:)[/quote]

01 JULY 2008 !!! :)
silverwolf, Mar 3, 2008 @ 18:32

What a pleasant day that will be!

How much I hate breathing in all that smoke when I go out. I sometimes avoid going out just because of it.

Come on, bring on July 1!
Nir Ofek, Mar 3, 2008 @ 18:35

I can't wait either. I ALSO hope for future bans/and or serious fines on spitting, littering and general rudeness.

And all the police force putting parking tickets in cars need to hang around the Gare de Cornavin to get rid of the muggers and druggies.

And then we need more cycling lanes all over the city.

And open up the lakefront to the public (it's too privatized).

Just a wish list. But smoking ban was on the top so GO GENF!
MarmarK, Mar 3, 2008 @ 20:31

What a great news, can't wait for 1st of july!!!

Now we don't have except lousy bar (like heaven) just for non smoking purpose.



I would be more happy if ppl would have voted for free TPG. It could help to reduce car from the city.
frdousi, Mar 3, 2008 @ 22:24

Some of the local businesses think the smoking ban will do to them what its doing to this place in the below picture. But I think it will be great for local businesses. I, for one, will go out more.

Nir Ofek, Mar 3, 2008 @ 23:33

[quote][b]Nir_ (03/03/2008)[/b][hr]Some of the local businesses think the smoking ban will do to them what its doing to this place in the below picture. But I think it will be great for local businesses. I, for one, will go out more.



[/quote]





Only if there are exceptions.

It's not the smoking-ban that kills bars, it's exceptions (because people flock to the exceptions-bars).



I just hope that one day, Zurich will also adopt this. Until then, I'm glad that at least I have a balcony where I can air the clothes.

And I've made it a habit of showering after going out...



I read in an article in the Geneva-version of 20 minutes recently (was heading back from the Wallis) that the smoke cothers body odours invariably present in rooms with 100 people dancing etc.

;-)

So, the local club will more likely smell like your schools changing room rather than an ashtray.



rainer_d, Mar 4, 2008 @ 04:08

With 80% of the voters supporting the initiative, it's not a fight between smokers and non smokers, but clearly a fight against passive smoke. Smokers will not stop going to bars because of a vote they supported! To the contrary, this ban will rather attract people who gave up going out because they were fed-up going back home smelling like an ash tray. I've got one concern though: There is a bar right across the street where I live and I can foresee that smokers will gather and chat on the sidewalk.
Free, Mar 4, 2008 @ 09:46

I for one will go out more TOO, and to places I had avoided till now, can't wait! :)

btw, countries who have already adopted a simillar law, had the same worries of empty bars and restaurants but the drop in number of customers never materialized...

[quote][b]Nir_ (03/03/2008)[/b][hr]Some of the local businesses think the smoking ban will do to them what its doing to this place in the below picture. But I think it will be great for local businesses. I, for one, will go out more.

[/quote]
Sylph, Mar 4, 2008 @ 11:57

And the 78th motor show is no-smoking too this year !!! (there will be specific places inside palexpo for the smokers!!!)
silverwolf, Mar 4, 2008 @ 12:07

I just read that once the law kicks in, the fine to venue owners will be up to CHF 10,000 if people smoke in their place. That is likely to ensure the law is followed...(-:

What a good move for us non-smokers!

To the smokers: enjoy your last indoor smokes now, in a few months it's all gone...Horay!
Nir Ofek, Mar 4, 2008 @ 12:10

Such good news and it will make people go out more as I avoided going out because I was sick of stinking of smoke :crying:

 

Mulligans Irish pub is ahead of all other pubs as Eoghan (irisheoghan) the great Irish singer has made his last 2 gigs no smoking, it was such a pleasure to go home and not smell of smoke. St. Patrick's Day is also planned to be non smoking :hehe:
Oonagh, Mar 4, 2008 @ 14:45

The right of brething clean air finally prevails over the right off polluting...

(Now the only EU country comparable to Africa is Spain where still smoking

food is still llowed...) xddd
masson, Mar 4, 2008 @ 15:01

[quote][b]masson (04/03/2008)[/b][hr]The right of brething clean air finally prevails over the right off polluting...

(Now the only EU country comparable to Africa is Spain where still smoking

food is still llowed...) xddd[/quote]







Smoking in public areas is not allowed in Spain since 1st January 2006.

:D:w00t:

Haflelou, Mar 4, 2008 @ 16:18

actually they can choose in Spain if they want to have smoking or non smoking if its a bar ao restaurant!
Oonagh, Mar 4, 2008 @ 16:58

Let's hope the ban will not extend to smoked salmon or smoked ham... :)
Free, Mar 4, 2008 @ 20:01

Trinagirl: thanks. 3 quick thoughts, would love to hear your feedback:

1. 'Le Darling' closed down, I assume, not only cos it went non smoking. The proof is in the fact that other places in Geneva - like Heaven - do a booming business while being non-smoking. (I assume the choice of name 'Le Darling' had something to do with people not showing up...:) 

2. Smoking is different than alcohol in atleast 1 main way relevant to this discussion: a person having a beer next to me doesn't damage my health, while a person smoking next to me does damage my health.

3. The smoking ban is actually a good example of democracy (since you brought up the personal freedom point).  It was not decided by politicians in their ivory tower. It was brought to public vote in Geneva, and got a huge majority of the population's vote.

What think?
SiteAdmin Oded, Mar 5, 2008 @ 00:53

Le Darling already tried it and lost to economics. Smoking is bad, of course, but as a family councilor i know alcohol certainly has far greater an impact on the lives of not only the individual but the family. So why not ban alcohol too? Nobody would dare suggest this. I would not either, I'm just thinking that if a place wishes to designate itself Smoking then the employees and the public would know if this is the place for them or not. They can make the choice. We are adults, we can make our own decisions, can't we? Its hypocritical to ban one dangerous "drug" and not them all. Or for that reason, ban the prostitute bars, which certainly destroy the lives of its workers (but who cares about poor eastern european women?)...of course one could argue they make this choice, but without demand there would be less supply. Perhaps someone will open an smoking 'club', non-public, members only, members who decide what they want. Anyway as a non-smoker I am happy but I just wonder if my favorite pub on the corner will still be there...I mind the smoke but I mind my own liberty of choice even more...



Hi Triangirl,



I understand your argument about "free of choice". I personally against on "ban". When you have choice normally (exception is always considerable) ppl don't become obsessed with things. In 1930-1940( not sure ) American govt. baned alcohol and it'd turned to be a disaster, simple ppl became criminal just to have a drink.



Anyway, In this case, I support "Ban smoke in public area (bar, restaurant)" because it's got different criteria. It doesn't concern "smoker" or "no smoker customer", it concerns about the worker. It will save the workers, who has to work 5-7 days par week from passive smoke. We should be thankful to state that it decided to do that instead of get corrupt by employer union or corporate lobby.



frdousi, Mar 5, 2008 @ 01:59

[quote]

Le Darling already tried it and lost to economics. Smoking is bad, of course, but as a family councilor i know alcohol certainly has far greater an impact on the lives of not only the individual but the family.

[/quote]



The immediate effects, maybe.

But the advantage of alcohol is, that unless I throw it up all over the place, my consumption of alcohol has zero physical impact on the people next to me.

By contrast, you can smell a cigarette burning even 25 meters away - and it offends you, if you're a non-smoker.

It even offends most smokers, that's why few smokers actually wanted to sit in the smoking-cabins in the trains (back when they existed) for the whole train-ride.

Smokers are addicts (some in denial, some not).

There's no point in trying to help them get rid of it if they don't want to (most want, but few _really_ want).

But I'm not going to tolerate that their addiction is impacting my life and the pleasure I have sitting in nice places and eating otherwise terrific food.



Also, as mentioned elsewhere, the people working in bars/restaurants hardly have a choice.



Yeah, based on the health-reasoning, one could also prohibit alcohol again. But this ban is not about protecting the smokers from the evil of the cigarette (which they like to ignore anyway until they cough blood) - it's about protecting the non-smokers!

Keep that in mind.





Sorry for the rant - but this topic is really greate for ranting/venting ;-)



cheers,

Rainer
rainer_d, Mar 5, 2008 @ 02:36

I agree with liberty of choice but if someone goes into prostitute bar it will not directly effect someone else, like passive smoking, the same applies to drugs, if you take drugs and I am in the same bar restaurant it will not directly effect my health. It is easy for the smoker to get up and go outside to smoke but if the non smoker has to get up and go outside every time a smoker lights up they would be running in and out all night!!
Oonagh, Mar 5, 2008 @ 09:29

Freedom of Choice is great, as long as these choices don't hurt other people. When someone's choice to smoke in an indoor restaurant means that the non smokers next to him will suffer, freedom of choice becomes less good.

And if we're talking big principles here, democracy is also a huge one. The smoking ban was reached by ultimate democracy:  a vote among Geneva's population. 80% of Geneva voters saying 'yes' to it.
Nir Ofek, Mar 5, 2008 @ 10:22

Hm, hmm...



There are a few philosophical/ethical points raised in this Votation (and in this following forum).



First of all, I totally understand that (smoking or non-smoking) people don't want to be exposed to second-hand smoke, for different and sometimes multiple reasons (such as cold-smoke stench, potentially harmful in long term effects, eye-soreness, and so on)



Nevertheless, in Bars (it's important here), I don't understand alcohol drinking people complaining about health problem due to smoke. These people, no matter the amount they drink, still consciously absorb poison. Bars were never known to be the best place to stay healthy.

However, the concerns about the permanently smoke inhaling bar-workers is sound and right.



Banning the smoke from other public areas sound fair for me, because one should not impose to others anything they don't want.



I would have preferred that places like bars had the choice to be smoking or not areas. For a few reasons:

-I seldom consume some tobacco (cigarillos and cigars). I try not to bother people with their strong smoke, though (normally).

-It's a question of personal freedom for me. As much as non willing people have the right to inhale smoke-free air, smokers should have the right to have their dosis of nicotine and/or pleasure

-The abscence of smell buffering smoke in traditional seduction areas such as night-clubs or bars will do harm to farters like me. We will not be allowed to let out a deadly one without consequences for the rest of the night :sick:. My anecdotic seduction potential will decrease to ridiculous level with a grin due to an overpressurized belly. I guess it's called darwinism; my farter genotype will be withdrawn from the gene pool.

-I'm afraid that the following measure would constrain sexual practices of genevan citizens

to homologated places.

-I'm a bit afraid for a guy like my, who offended half a dozen of federal laws without knowing and noticing it in one single day in California...



I think that living in society requires tolerance from anyside of opinions. Anyway, people are always afraid of change. It was quite an affair in UK, but now people seem satisfied. I hope it'll be the same in Geneva. I'll be satisfied anyway, because change is normal. Trust a geologist for this.



Cheers!



Syd.



PS:

Hoorray for Cholesterol!

Hoorray for the booze!

Hoorray for crude milk soft cheese!

Hoorray for corsican sausages!

Hoorray for sex! (nothing to do with the line above)

Hoorray for all the small pleasure in our too short life such as seeing an @ss#0l3 step on a dog-poop, parents kissing their child, seeing a crab/octopus, elders holding hands, stroking a dog, casting a line in the colours of the sunset (so many more)!

Syd_Brown, Mar 5, 2008 @ 11:00

Well said Syd, and always with a smile...(-:

One important question: the key thing i took out of your well structured reply is that for you, corsican sausages are linked to sex. Could you pls elaborate on that point? :)
Nir Ofek, Mar 5, 2008 @ 11:10

[quote][b]Nir_ (05/03/2008)[/b][hr]Well said Syd, and always with a smile...(-:



One important question: the key thing i took out of your well structured replyis that for you, corsican sausages are linked to sex. Could you pls elaborate on that point? :)[/quote]



Huh... Well... I'm corsican... :blink:
Syd_Brown, Mar 5, 2008 @ 11:24

First of all, alcohol and tabacco cannot be compared in the respect of public exposure. Sure, they are both drugs just as apples and oranges are both fruits. But we all know we can't compare apples and oranges. ANYTHING done in excess is bad - eating, sex, turning doorknobs (OCD), etc and alcohol is no exceptions, but tabacoo (even in small quantities) has ABSOLUTELY NO HEALTH BENEFITS. It kills people. It causes cancer. Period.



Second, I just quit smoking after 12 years of smoking (almost 6 months now) and it was one of the hardest things to do and one of the best things I've done in my life. Read up on the statistics of how many people are killed each year from smoking, and moreover from SECOND HAND smoke. Even as a smoker, I agreed that other people shouldn't be subjected to my personal choices. And even more importantly, smokers are addicts. Most can't admit they need to quit because they are addicted. You want to talk about personal choice? Whose personal choice are we considering, because it would be impossible for both non-smokers and smokers to co-exist in the same bar/restaurant and both be given personal choice. Unless of course we all live in glass bubbles.



Finally, smokers increasing sales? I'm not sure how that argument can even be validated. NYC is all non-smoking and it feels great. If you're a smoker, its a great way to go outside and meet people.
nancy, Mar 8, 2008 @ 04:25

MY CONCERN THOUGH IS: WHAT ABOUT SHISHA? NARGILA SMOKING?...













[quote]First of all, alcohol and tabacco cannot be compared in the respect of public exposure. Sure, they are both drugs just as apples and oranges are both fruits. But we all know we can't compare apples and oranges. ANYTHING done in excess is bad - eating, sex, turning doorknobs (OCD), etc and alcohol is no exceptions, but tabacoo (even in small quantities) has ABSOLUTELY NO HEALTH BENEFITS. It kills people. It causes cancer. Period.



Second, I just quit smoking after 12 years of smoking (almost 6 months now) and it was one of the hardest things to do and one of the best things I've done in my life. Read up on the statistics of how many people are killed each year from smoking, and moreover from SECOND HAND smoke. Even as a smoker, I agreed that other people shouldn't be subjected to my personal choices. And even more importantly, smokers are addicts. Most can't admit they need to quit because they are addicted. You want to talk about personal choice? Whose personal choice are we considering, because it would be impossible for both non-smokers and smokers to co-exist in the same bar/restaurant and both be given personal choice. Unless of course we all live in glass bubbles.



Finally, smokers increasing sales? I'm not sure how that argument can even be validated. NYC is all non-smoking and it feels great. If you're a smoker, its a great way to go outside and meet people.[/quote]
Good_One, Mar 27, 2008 @ 18:14

one of the first things I noticed on staying in Switzerland was how backward it seemed that they still allow smoking in public places, the worst being the Migros shopping centre near Crissier, so bad you can taste it. A step forward I think.
Tincrowdor, Jun 22, 2008 @ 01:48

I can't believe that there are people who actually question the ethics of this ban, such as these idiot lawyers who say they're going to keep smoking publicly.  Smokers have not had their right to smoke per se removed and can smoke themselves to death in their own homes or cars if they so choose (they'd be doing the rest of us a favour if they did!).  They've merely lost the "right" to inflict their vile smoke and hideous stench on others in public places.  I have to say that the prevalence of smoking in Switzerland has given me quite a bad impression of Swiss people over the past 5 years.  Logically I know this can't possibly be true, but my instinctive reaction to the tendency of people here to light up without any thought or care for the harm they do to others has been to assume that a lot of Swiss people are a) a bit stupid (the minority for smoking, the majority for tolerating it) and b) selfish.  This impression has been corrected to a significant extent by the ban, but I'll be watching its implementation very carefully, especially to see how many morons flout the law of the land on the basis they have a "right" to go on harming other people with their selfishness.    If they do - gloves off, I say.  If anyone lights up in a resto/public place after 1 July, who ever else is there and offended by it should not hold back in telling them to put it out or get out.  It's not just about smoking, it's about democracy.  The people have spoken and that's final.  There has been a decision in this country that the majority will rule and you can't just pick and choose which laws you're going to obey.  

Sorry about the rant, but it's an emotional issue!  I actually just wanted to ask a question - has anyone actually analysed the law?  If so, do you have a view on whether the ban would apply to people who smoke in the corridors of office buildings or the public spaces of an apartment building?  Or can you point me in the direction of the actual legislation?
Bella98, Jun 26, 2008 @ 13:20

Now I am all in favour of banning smoking in public places where people would otherwise be forced to suffer from it. That said, had they come up with an exception in the law where a bar or restaurant would be allowed a smoking room which is ventilated properly and it required the clients to go pick up their food/drink in the other room, I wouldn't be too bothered with it, but there seems to be a lot of 'we know whats good for you' in the process here.



What does get under my skin is the double standard of all of this. The same people who put in place the smoking ban, the ones who voted for it, and certainly also the ones who couldn't vote but are cheering for it all over, are still driving around in their huge polluting junk SUVs and people carriers filling the outside air with filth and pollution. Not to mention them making the roads unsafer for everybody else. Pedestrians, bicycle riders and people using buses and reasonable sized efficient cars still have to suffer from the monkeys messing up the air around us....



The fact the people are spending this much time cheering about the smoking ban, but doing nothing to address the far more serious health issues can only be described as double standard and hypocritical, but of course who wants to give up their 'lovely' Porsche Cayenne or Toyota Picnic to make the place better for everybody.....

hightower, Jun 26, 2008 @ 14:11

I have to say I find your logic a little strange.  80% of people in the canton voted for the ban.  Does 80% in the canton drives SUVs?  Demonstrably not.  I fail to see the correlation between the two groups.  I support the ban, obviously, drive a very old Golf once or twice a fortnight and bus or walk the rest of time.  My instinct is that the SUV driver are more likely be smokers, than the other way round...
Bella98, Jun 26, 2008 @ 14:46

Hightower:

Am with Bella here, and I don't get your SUV / double standard point.

I don't see how being happy about the smoking ban (which I am, very much) is any double standard, even if I'm not out in the street waving 'stop SUV' signs. I'm just real happy I won't have to smell the cigarette smoke anymore, regardless of SUVs or no SUVs, and of other issues.

You also raise a point about smoking corners: agree with you. If there's a sealed corner for smokers, where the smoke won't get out of, then I won't be against it. I just want to keep the smoke off me (like 80% of other folks in Geneva...).
Nir Ofek, Jun 26, 2008 @ 14:59

In the UK they do have a lot of alcohol control zones nowadays. An attempt to stop or slow down teen binge drinkers
Tincrowdor, Jun 27, 2008 @ 00:37

[quote]Well we first need to stop dependance on the oil, and go Hydrogen = 0% emmissions.



The loop hole you suggest for the bars, seems again making the non smoker getting his food in another room it treating them as second class.



Im really tired of going out and returning home smelling like a ash tray.



I think if the smokers were smart they should have arranged that there are 'Smoker clubs' that are also bars and restaurants. They pay a membership fee, and you can go in. So if someone goes to the place then they know its a club and not a public venue.[/quote]



Oh, I didn't mean to say non smokers should get their food in another room, I meant to say smokers should. The suggestion to make it a separate room is also to cover the staff so they are not exposed to it.



As for hydrogen why is that an issue? There is no reason today for driving any of those polluting junk cars in cities like Geneva. Where in this city do you need a 4 wheel drive to get round the corners? It's all about being pretentious and egoistic.



Using your argument from above, I am sick of getting out on the road not being able to breathe fresh air because the streets are full of polluting gas guzzlers....



What I am saying is simply that if anyone feels they have the right to pollute everybody's air outside, they really shouldn't have the right to demand that other people do not pollute their inside.



Personally I am quite keen on restricting smoking in public, but I'd be even more keen to see some action on the real issues affecting my health.

hightower, Jun 27, 2008 @ 12:46

[quote]



I have to say I find your logic a little strange. 80% of people in the canton voted for the ban. Does 80% in the canton drives SUVs? Demonstrably not. I fail to see the correlation between the two groups. I support the ban, obviously, drive a very old Golf once or twice a fortnight and bus or walk the rest of time. My instinct is that the SUV driver are more likely be smokers, than the other way round...[/quote]



Well I am not just after all the SUVs, take out those huge minivans too that you see piled up in front of the schools every morning. The people who like to drive around those huge things are also largely the noisiest and the ones who want it all but are unwilling to give, hence the ones who are out there with their banners.



I saw a similar ban go in when I lived in Canada some years ago. The arguments used by the people who put the ban in place were the same 'we must have fresh air' and 'it costs too much for the health system'. Of course, like here, nothing was done to solve the real air problems.



What I am saying is that this is one of these classic cases where someone picks a single problem, runs with it, causes a huge stir and gets everybody up on the barricades over it, but the real problems are ignored.

hightower, Jun 27, 2008 @ 12:54

Thanks - very helpful. 
Bella98, Jun 27, 2008 @ 15:58

[quote]LEGAL PROTECTION IN VAUD AGAINST SMOKERS



Hi!



Any lawyers out there?



[/quote]



IANAL.



Legal protection?

I don't think you can expect any.

If he had a loud dog or would be playing trumpet at 5 o clock in the morning...



You can

- hope that he dies soon (bad karma, though)

- hope that he moves away (unlikely)

- complain to the landlord (usually useless, if the landlord has allowed smoking there's no ground for terminating his contract)

- move to another place (recommended, if you hate smoke)



There are also no practical technical solutions. The only solution would be to make the air-pressure in your flat slightly higher, so no air from outside can come in. This is the reverse of a high-security haz-mat laboratory, where the pressure inside is lower than the surrounding so that nothing can come out of it ;-)

Of course, the air would have to come from somewhere....



rainer_d, Jul 22, 2008 @ 16:28