Switzerland gets to vote again on three issues September 23, 2012, the most relevant being the pro-health Lung League's proposal to extend the current rather limited smoking bans to include all restaurant areas and public zones.

As usual, there is a certain amount of empathy towards the whole issue from politicians in Bern, but I hope that this subject is picked up on in the media and given support so that we who choose not to kill ourselves and enjoy our air pollution free will be able to live smoke free.

An English language link to the three referendum issues here.

I fear it will be rejected. Possibly not by a NO of the people but rather by a NO of a majority of Cantons. A lot indeed will depend on the media. While a YES might be a good step ahead, the L-L may have to revert to a Canton-by-Canton Point-by-Point approach. Things like a smoking ban on all rail-stations of the Canton of Zürich.

I'm a bit split over this. I've always been a non-smoker and hate smelling of smoke when I come home from pubs and restaurants, so I was really pleased when they stopped people smoking indoors in public places. It also was a nod in the direction of protecting people from inhaling secondhand smoke.

However, I think it's perhaps going a bit far to prevent people smoking on this new wider scale. Much as it pains me to say it - smokers have rights, too, and I'm not sold on whether catching a whiff of someone's smoke on a railway platform is going to impact me much.

My feeling is that the efforts should be focussed more on stopping kids from taking up smoking in the first place, banning any form of advertisement, obscuring and bland-repackaging tobacco products in shops, etc.

Coming from Australia, where we have the most heavy anti-tobacco measures in the world.... I am amazed to see how much smoking advertising there is...

I am in favour of the "Fumoirs" as we have it in the Canton of Zürich, but against the smokers-restaurants as existing in some Cantons based on the Federal law. I am however in favour of the new initiative nevertheless.

Too many efforts have been focussed on things like trying to stop kids from taking up smoking and putting warnings onto packagings. It clearly was an "overkill" with a reverse-effect. If you overdo such things, it gives the kids the "romantic" idea that smoking is a way to oppose the "antiques"

I think the referendum will fail too. I'm going to vote against it just because I'm rarely in a situation anymore where people's smoke bothers me.

Next thing you know, meat will be banned too.

Strongly disagree. This isn't about people's individual right to smoke, it's about protecting those that don't want to inhale smoke but are still affected by second hand smoke as the existing law is too lax.

Whilst I agree that people should be able to abuse themselves as much as they like, I don't want to have any part of the fallout of their ridiculous smoking addiction. There's a clear distinction between drinking excessive alcohol, drug abuse or any other activity that endangers your health that doesn't affect third parties, smoking is indiscriminate in who it affects.

As Wolli points out, public transport stations are a particularly good example of why an extended smoking ban is necessary. Try the meeting point at Zürich HB if you need an example of how bad it currently is.

Oh gid, here we go again... Should i go get some popcorn?

Is such a ban coming? It would be great, most dirt at train stations today is from smokers …

Not from the trains?

The article says:

"The only cost-effective and simple way to prevent these health risks, say the initiators, is to impose a universal ban on smoking in enclosed spaces – a solution that has proved successful in many other countries."

But train stations aren't usually enclosed spaces, are they?

I don't think I've been in an enclosed space where someone has been smoking since the initial ban went into effect, so I'm not sure how much this new ban would really change things. (???)

This is exactly why I no longer arrange to meet-up with friends or colleagues there, although meeting under or close by the blue angel on the other side of the main concourse is also not an option but for other reasons.

What's wrong with the blue angel? Angel droppings?

Just me being silly superstitious about it crashing down whilst I'm stood under or by it. That's all.

Not to mention your name in lights in 20 Minutes, the next morning!

No. Some risks are simply not worth taking.

I'd much rather have them pass a law that makes non-smoking in offices much more strict. At the moment you can smoke in your office if noone else works there "permanently". So if your coworkers just come and go in your office, it's their problem that they stink

Issue is, I think, even in public on streets, second hand smoke is everywhere, at least in Basel. It would be fantastic if smoking was made illegal, period. I, for one, am tired of crossing streets to avoid walking behind a smoker.

That is a shame...

I am behind that idea... Why do people need to eat meat? And please don't tell me "protein"

Smelly as it can be, though, is there any evidence that catching a whiff of smoke in the open air is in anyway as harmful as breathing it in a confined space (such as a restaurant)?

I'm not disagreeing it's unpleasant, I hate the stink, but from a scientific point of view, is it actually harmful? Any more harmful, for example, as a car exhaust passing you by or even waiting at traffic lights.

I think we have to be careful about legislating things with such a stranglehold when it's not necessary. It loses a kind of credibility.

Someone farting in a lift or at the bus stop is unpleasant but it's not necessarily a health hazard.

As a non-smoker, I will definitely vote no against this nonsense!

First, cigarettes, then the meat-smoker on my balcony.

Where will it end!

Tom