No.

No, me.

Yes u

For all you smoke lovers out there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyYLrVNKE68

Well, well, you just reminded me that I do love this song while driving https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R7l7nDuj1o - so folks stay off the roads the next few nights

I tend to agree strongly with the live and let live sentiment.
Platforms are outdoors afterall and at the risk of being blunt I think we have allowed society to become very snowflakish and whiney Imo.

Get on with your life, move away.
I don't smoke and never have but some smoke wafting through the air iny direction or indeed in the direction of my kids won't kill anyone and might teach some tolerance of others differences.

Ignorance is bliss!

+1, Horatio Gonzales.

Is the society more and more whiney and silly, in general, or is the EF - the epitome of snowflakesness? I really have my doubts. How many times did you hear people in real life complaining about smokers or other insignificant inconveniences. If I hadn't travelled quite a lot so far I would believe that EFers come from paradisiac countries, where angels live not people, and everybody behaves considerately at all times. I think some countries, which shall be not named, forbid the commerce with mirrors.

An outdoor platform?





The recent introduction on bans on smoking in bars and restaurants
in New York, Ireland and Norway has given fresh impetus
to the debate on how best to reduce the toll of premature
smoking-related deaths in the United Kingdom. The Scottish
first minister, after returning from a visit to Ireland, has raised the
real possibility of implementing a ban in Scotland.1
This debate has long been characterized by the public health
and tobacco control communities on one side and the tobacco
industry, supported by hospitality industry organizations, many
of which have been established by tobacco companies to voice
opposition to a ban. The alignment of forces is, however, changing
as the voice of the general public is at last being heard. Contrary
to the myths that have been peddled by the tobacco industry,
public consultations are revealing the true extent to which the
British people oppose being subjected to second-hand smoke. For
example, the ‘Big Smoking Debate’ organized by the London
Health Commission involving over 30 000 respondents indicated
that the vast majority (76 per cent) wanted completely smoke free
public places, including both smokers and non-smokers.2
These findings are unsurprising, given the unpleasant physical
effects of exposure to concentrated tobacco smoke. However,
public opinion is also being galvanized by growing recognition of
the adverse health effects of second-hand smoke, something the
tobacco industry has striven hard to refute as part of a campaign
sustained over many years to prevent the introduction of bans on
smoking in public places. There is now an overwhelming consensus
among independent tobacco researchers that exposure to
second-hand smoke causes many deaths, with recent research
using more precise measures of exposure revealing how exposure
to second-hand smoke is considerably more dangerous than was
previously believed.3 This is consistent with recently discovered
tobacco industry documents showing that second-hand smoke is
even more harmful, volume for volume, than directly inhaled
smoke.4 Yet the industry continues to place the highest priority
on preventing the introduction of restrictions on smoking in public
places and has been especially active in spreading misinformation
about the effects of the bans in Ireland and New York.
The main reason it has pursued this policy with such tenacity
is clear; bans, together with increased taxation, are the most
effective ways of reducing smoking overall.5 However, it is also
concerned that to concede that second-hand smoke is harmful
would undermine its argument that smoking is a matter of
personal choice.
The strategy pursued by the industry has several elements.
One, now largely discredited, has been to attack the link between
second-hand smoking and disease has included commissioning
research, some of which was fraudulent and some simply designed
to mislead, undermining the communication of research showing
the harm caused by second-hand smoke, and lobbying governments
and regulators.6,7
Another is to argue that any irritation (again denying the
possibility of harm) can be dealt with by ventilation. This too is
incorrect, with extensive evidence that the force of ventilation
that would be required is far beyond the capacity of existing
systems and would be similar to sitting outside during a gale.8 It
is important to be aware that many harmful components of
tobacco smoke are odourless and the tobacco industry has put
much effort into masking the smell and visibility of environmental
tobacco smoke.9
The third argument, and one with which it has had some
success so far in the United Kingdom, is that the introduction of
smoking bans in bars and restaurants will reduce takings, and
thus sales tax and employment. To sustain this, it has engaged in
a wide-ranging campaign directed at the hospitality industry.
Yet, like its other arguments, this too is false. The most recent
evidence is from New York where, in the 9 months after a ban on
smoking in public places was introduced, sales tax receipts on
food and drink increased by 12 per cent and employment in the
hospitality industry increased.10 However, the most convincing
evidence comes from a systematic review of research on the
impact of bans on bar and restaurant revenue.11 The details
results merit study. The authors examined 97 studies of the
economic impact of smoking bans. Every one of the 37 studies
Why we need to ban smoking in public places
now
Martin McKee, Helen Hogan and Anna Gilmore
Journal of Public Health Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 325–326
doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdh187 Printed in Great Britain
Journal of Public Health vol. 26 no. 4 © Faculty of Public Health 2004; all rights reserved.
1
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street,
London WC1E 7HT, UK and 2
North East London Strategic Health Authorit

I'm not ignorant at all, I'm well informed and as such I understand that breathing second hand cigarette smoke ocassionally will not harm me. I'm more resilient than that as I'm sure are you.

But my main point is live and let live and tolerate our fellow man so if that's your position then I respect that I just won't support it in the train platform context.

You do realise that's not actually the issue? Whatever made you think it was?

The fact the if there's smoking occurring in public places (and there's lots of it in Switzerland), it normalises smoking, making it more difficult for people to stop and smoking becomes a rite of passage for younger, more impressionable people.

And you do appreciate that smoking causes many, many premature deaths and dibilitating diseases.

So why wouldn't it be a good idea to limit smoking in public places?

The phrase 'live and let live' really wasn't intended to be used in those situations where the behaviour pattern directly or indirectly affected the health of others, you do realise that too, don't you?


It appears that you are.

You appear a bit conceited too but that's okay as 'live and let live' (and this is the kind of situation where it does apply not where peoples' behaviour affects the short or long term health of others).

The title and content of the opening thread made me think that was the issue.

Your point about harm and death caused by smoking is also an issue no doubt it's just not the issue I was referring to.

Similarly to your point about right of passage I was not referring to it.

I stand by my assertion that society is growing ever more fragile to the differences of others.

Lastly thank you for sharing your opinion of my character.

H.

Well the non-smoking experiment at Nyon station appears to be a failure. One or two signs about, well hidden, but smokers abound on the platforms, on the ramp/stairs, in the tunnel and outside the bar.

FAIL!

That's okay -

"Live and Let live" : - you should tolerate the opinions and behaviour of others so that they will similarly tolerate your own.


Of course I have no idea about your character and wasn't trying to offend instead merely making a point.

I do concur with you that society is getting more fragile and people are getting far too sensitive but I don't think keeping smoking going in public spaces has any benefits whatsoever.

"The recent introduction on bans on smoking in bars and restaurants
in New York, Ireland and Norway has given fresh impetus
to the debate on how best to reduce the toll of premature
smoking-related deaths in the United Kingdom. The Scottish
first minister, after returning from a visit to Ireland, has raised the
real possibility of implementing a ban in Scotland..."


This is 11 + years old...since then many places have slackened or tweaked the law to allow some form of covered/indoor smoking.

My wife was in New York a couple of weeks ago. In three days she said she didn't see a single person smoking, inside or out.

Probably one of my biggest pet peeve, this.
In the UK, smoking is banned within the campus; here, the students light it out the moment they step out of the building. Didn't help my allergies and I'd usually have to hold my breath and run for my life whenever I spotted one near me.

I wonder if they'd ever enforce a ban like in Japan; I remember reading a sign painted on the pavement in Tokyo saying that it's illegal to smoke in the streets from 9AM to 11PM. They even have special designated areas for smokers, which often is in a corner and quite cramped. Ahh... If only they'd do that here.

Yes the smokers have it too easy here in Switzerland

Here's what its like in Melbourne

Common fines on the public transport network
Transport offence Fine for adult

Failing to produce a valid ticket $238

Smoking in or on a vehicle, tram stop shelter, bus stop shelter, train platform, designated area, tram stop platform, or where there is a notice (from 1 August 2017, no smoking includes e-cigarettes) $238

Littering on a vehicle or premises $238
Placing feet on anything other than the floor, or a part of a public transport vehicle designed for the placement of feet, without a reasonable excuse $238 $79
Trespassing $317
Behaving in an obscene, offensive, threatening, disorderly or riotous manner $317
Interfering with gates or doors on a vehicle or premises without a reasonable excuse $396
Travelling on part of a vehicle not meant for travel $396
Leaving a motor vehicle parked in a public transport parking area without using public transport $95 n/a

The smoking is definitely well banned in Japan---but still very prevalent and popular. What I did find interesting there is the big campaign to warn about the risks of smoking and accidentally burning someone---namely children, this really seems like a big motivator for the smoking areas.
That being said, as of last July, I would say a third-to-half of people cramped into these smoking areas, were smoking IQOS heated tobacco vaporizers---they adopted that technology very quickly. They also have some more interesting flavours than other countries.

If all these other countries can manage, I can't see why the Swiss are so proud of their meagre anti-smoking efforts.

I mean, I appreciate the people voted on this all by themselves and they seem pretty pleased with the result but I'm thinking that perhaps they ought to devote their energies to something a little bit more worthwhile than a lost and indecent cause.