Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Living in Switzerland > Daily life  
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 20.08.2012, 17:15
sashimiso's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: riehen
Posts: 549
Groaned at 58 Times in 30 Posts
Thanked 414 Times in 224 Posts
sashimiso has an excellent reputationsashimiso has an excellent reputationsashimiso has an excellent reputationsashimiso has an excellent reputation
Re: Protecting Non-smokers - Referendum Sep 23, 2012

Quote:
View Post
Why does this logic not apply to fat people? They have tried and tried, but people are still getting really fat.

I prefer smokers over fat people, both smell, but I get more of a seat and less sweat.
i prefer fat people over smokers...

the difference, you clearly are failing to see is... (and first, nothing like a blanketed statement that all fat people smell), many fat people have the same addition problems as smokers, and no doubt it is yet another disease that should be treated. But, fat people are not harming others around them, they are just harming themselves. Smokers and that stinky smoke IS harming people around them, and yes, I would say by a rate of 10 to 1, out stink any fat person.
The following 3 users groan at sashimiso for this post:
  #102  
Old 20.08.2012, 17:18
sashimiso's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: riehen
Posts: 549
Groaned at 58 Times in 30 Posts
Thanked 414 Times in 224 Posts
sashimiso has an excellent reputationsashimiso has an excellent reputationsashimiso has an excellent reputationsashimiso has an excellent reputation
Re: Protecting Non-smokers - Referendum Sep 23, 2012

Quote:
View Post
You really need to stop reading the Daily Mail.

Ignoring passive smoking for the moment, nobody can disagree that smoking isn't bad for the health of the smoker.

Smoking is an incredibly difficult habit to stop.

Removing smoking from the public eye does make it easier for smokers who wish to stop to actually do so and continue to do so.
It also reduces the number of young people who may be inclined to start smoking.
I think this is a really good point. Part of the problem smokers continue to fail to want to see is, others learn by example. The less they see people smoking the less likely they would be to take it up themselves.... and for those who say it is unfounded, just look at the television ad's from the 60's, 70's and early 80's. There was Joe Cool, remember him? Smoked up a storm. Why is it, if smoking isn't bad for anyone that he isn't still out there campaigning? When my parents were kids, smoking was not only cool, but never had a hint of problems. In fact, look at the old footage of sportsman, they all smoked. Today????
  #103  
Old 20.08.2012, 17:20
Tom1234's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Kanton Luzern
Posts: 16,524
Groaned at 582 Times in 457 Posts
Thanked 24,740 Times in 9,960 Posts
Tom1234 has a reputation beyond reputeTom1234 has a reputation beyond reputeTom1234 has a reputation beyond reputeTom1234 has a reputation beyond reputeTom1234 has a reputation beyond reputeTom1234 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Protecting Non-smokers - Referendum Sep 23, 2012

Quote:
View Post
Why does this logic not apply to fat people? They have tried and tried, but people are still getting really fat.
Because it's not the same:

If a dieting fat person sees another fat person, they don't get a desire to have a doughnut.
(I may be wrong on this)
The following 2 users would like to thank Tom1234 for this useful post:
  #104  
Old 20.08.2012, 17:26
mirfield's Avatar
Moddy Wellies
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 8,728
Groaned at 53 Times in 47 Posts
Thanked 9,937 Times in 3,652 Posts
mirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Protecting Non-smokers - Referendum Sep 23, 2012

Quote:
View Post
Sooner or later the smokers will get sicker and sicker and unable to make it out to vote.
I wouldn't bet on it. They like to start 'em young here.


Quote:
View Post
If a dieting fat person sees another fat person, they don't get a desire to have a doughnut.
(I may be wrong on this)
Did somebody mention doughnuts? I need me a doughnut!

Mmmmm.... Doughnuts....
The following 3 users would like to thank mirfield for this useful post:
  #105  
Old 20.08.2012, 17:29
st2lemans's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lugano
Posts: 32,246
Groaned at 2,468 Times in 1,785 Posts
Thanked 39,343 Times in 18,544 Posts
st2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Protecting Non-smokers - Referendum Sep 23, 2012

Quote:
View Post
we all know already that passive smoking is harmful
No, we don't.

We only know that some people believe it to be harmful, and others not.

Tom
This user groans at st2lemans for this post:
  #106  
Old 20.08.2012, 17:31
sashimiso's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: riehen
Posts: 549
Groaned at 58 Times in 30 Posts
Thanked 414 Times in 224 Posts
sashimiso has an excellent reputationsashimiso has an excellent reputationsashimiso has an excellent reputationsashimiso has an excellent reputation
Re: Protecting Non-smokers - Referendum Sep 23, 2012

Quote:
View Post
No, we don't.

We only know that some people believe it to be harmful, and others not.

Tom
correction.... we know that smokers believe it isn't harmful to others....

but, lets play your game for a minute: if you knew that your smoke was harmful to others, would you continue to do it?
  #107  
Old 20.08.2012, 17:34
Assassin's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chasing clouds
Posts: 4,023
Groaned at 180 Times in 123 Posts
Thanked 11,560 Times in 3,148 Posts
Assassin has a reputation beyond reputeAssassin has a reputation beyond reputeAssassin has a reputation beyond reputeAssassin has a reputation beyond reputeAssassin has a reputation beyond reputeAssassin has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Protecting Non-smokers - Referendum Sep 23, 2012

Quote:
View Post
No, we don't.

We only know that some people believe it to be harmful, and others not.

Tom
Of course it is harmful Tom. Particles of poisonous and carcinogens substances in your close vicinity aren't going to be neutral to your health are they?
The following 3 users would like to thank Assassin for this useful post:
  #108  
Old 20.08.2012, 17:35
JBZ86's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Zurich and various mountains
Posts: 3,709
Groaned at 520 Times in 337 Posts
Thanked 4,258 Times in 1,944 Posts
JBZ86 has a reputation beyond reputeJBZ86 has a reputation beyond reputeJBZ86 has a reputation beyond reputeJBZ86 has a reputation beyond reputeJBZ86 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Protecting Non-smokers - Referendum Sep 23, 2012

Quote:
View Post
here we are again... we all know already that passive smoking is harmful but yet, fact-less banter continues....

hopefully, the day will come when it is no longer legal to smoke and you have to stop or face fines.

yes, only the Swiss can vote on the measure, we all know this. So, it will be difficult to get a ban passed, but, there is always hope. Sooner or later the smokers will get sicker and sicker and unable to make it out to vote.

in the meantime, I would appreciate it if all of you smokers brought a giant trash bag with you and every time you wanted to smoke, you pulled the bag over your head, then pulled it tight around your waste... then, stand there looking foolish and smoke it up. When you are done, keep the bag on until the air inside is clean again. Thank you for taking these measures in advance.
Quote:
View Post
i prefer fat people over smokers...

the difference, you clearly are failing to see is... (and first, nothing like a blanketed statement that all fat people smell), many fat people have the same addition problems as smokers, and no doubt it is yet another disease that should be treated. But, fat people are not harming others around them, they are just harming themselves. Smokers and that stinky smoke IS harming people around them, and yes, I would say by a rate of 10 to 1, out stink any fat person.
Quote:
View Post
I think this is a really good point. Part of the problem smokers continue to fail to want to see is, others learn by example. The less they see people smoking the less likely they would be to take it up themselves.... and for those who say it is unfounded, just look at the television ad's from the 60's, 70's and early 80's. There was Joe Cool, remember him? Smoked up a storm. Why is it, if smoking isn't bad for anyone that he isn't still out there campaigning? When my parents were kids, smoking was not only cool, but never had a hint of problems. In fact, look at the old footage of sportsman, they all smoked. Today????
Here we go again, more nonsense from the Sash. Did another 30 year expert give you all this good stuff to drivel about?

So and so told me something and you know nothing bla bla bla. They know more cause it said they are an expert and they have 30 years experience, and they have a website and a book bla bla bla

Keep hoping sweety pie.

"Sicker and sicker", you have a really warped mind of what happens to a small fraction of smokers. The irony being, seeing as you didnt like my fat comment, is the smokers are more mobile than the fatties, lol

I am not sure whats funnier, your gullible nature or the fact you think the air is clean when cigarette smoke isnt around.

Do go read those studies, maybe you can learn something yourself, instead of believing what you are told al the time
__________________
Small minds are concerned with the extraordinary, great minds with the ordinary, Blaise Pascal
This user would like to thank JBZ86 for this useful post:
This user groans at JBZ86 for this post:
  #109  
Old 20.08.2012, 17:37
st2lemans's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lugano
Posts: 32,246
Groaned at 2,468 Times in 1,785 Posts
Thanked 39,343 Times in 18,544 Posts
st2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Protecting Non-smokers - Referendum Sep 23, 2012

Quote:
View Post
correction.... we know that smokers believe it isn't harmful to others....

but, lets play your game for a minute: if you knew that your smoke was harmful to others, would you continue to do it?
Well, as I'm not a smoker, I really couldn't say what smokers believe.

Tom
This user groans at st2lemans for this post:
  #110  
Old 20.08.2012, 17:39
st2lemans's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lugano
Posts: 32,246
Groaned at 2,468 Times in 1,785 Posts
Thanked 39,343 Times in 18,544 Posts
st2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Protecting Non-smokers - Referendum Sep 23, 2012

Quote:
View Post
Of course it is harmful Tom. Particles of poisonous and carcinogens substances in your close vicinity aren't going to be neutral to your health are they?
At such low concentrations?

My living room has a volume of 50m3, so 1 liter of second hand smoke will be reduced in concentration by more than five orders of magnitude!

I certainly inhale far more smoke when cooking or BBQing than from someone else's cigarettes!

Tom
The following 2 users would like to thank st2lemans for this useful post:
  #111  
Old 20.08.2012, 17:40
JBZ86's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Zurich and various mountains
Posts: 3,709
Groaned at 520 Times in 337 Posts
Thanked 4,258 Times in 1,944 Posts
JBZ86 has a reputation beyond reputeJBZ86 has a reputation beyond reputeJBZ86 has a reputation beyond reputeJBZ86 has a reputation beyond reputeJBZ86 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Protecting Non-smokers - Referendum Sep 23, 2012

Quote:
View Post
Of course it is harmful Tom. Particles of poisonous and carcinogens substances in your close vicinity aren't going to be neutral to your health are they?
Radiation is harmful too and you are getting it every day from every angle
The following 3 users would like to thank JBZ86 for this useful post:
This user groans at JBZ86 for this post:
  #112  
Old 20.08.2012, 17:45
JBZ86's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Zurich and various mountains
Posts: 3,709
Groaned at 520 Times in 337 Posts
Thanked 4,258 Times in 1,944 Posts
JBZ86 has a reputation beyond reputeJBZ86 has a reputation beyond reputeJBZ86 has a reputation beyond reputeJBZ86 has a reputation beyond reputeJBZ86 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Protecting Non-smokers - Referendum Sep 23, 2012

Quote:
View Post
correction.... we know that smokers believe it isn't harmful to others....

but, lets play your game for a minute: if you knew that your smoke was harmful to others, would you continue to do it?
But its not, so pointless argument
This user would like to thank JBZ86 for this useful post:
This user groans at JBZ86 for this post:
  #113  
Old 20.08.2012, 17:46
Assassin's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chasing clouds
Posts: 4,023
Groaned at 180 Times in 123 Posts
Thanked 11,560 Times in 3,148 Posts
Assassin has a reputation beyond reputeAssassin has a reputation beyond reputeAssassin has a reputation beyond reputeAssassin has a reputation beyond reputeAssassin has a reputation beyond reputeAssassin has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Protecting Non-smokers - Referendum Sep 23, 2012

Quote:
View Post
Radiation is harmful too and you are getting it every day from every angle
I don't need a list of harmful or potentially harmful items to make me feel better about second hand smoke. Fact is, those who wish to eat or drink in the establishments concerned in the referendum without having to breathe in tobacco and chemicals associated with smoking should have the right to breathe smoke free air. It's really pretty simple.

Just because people post their opinions here, doesn't mean they always have to refer to a Harvard sponsored study to back up their arguments when the issue is about their choice. I haven't read any official statistics about how many squirrels would love to try base jumping over windsurfing given a choice either .....
__________________
Crash your karma into little bits of happiness
  #114  
Old 20.08.2012, 17:49
mirfield's Avatar
Moddy Wellies
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 8,728
Groaned at 53 Times in 47 Posts
Thanked 9,937 Times in 3,652 Posts
mirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Protecting Non-smokers - Referendum Sep 23, 2012

Quote:
View Post
I haven't read any official statistics about how many squirrels would love to try base jumping over windsurfing given a choice either .....
Speaks for itself, really.

The following 4 users would like to thank mirfield for this useful post:
  #115  
Old 20.08.2012, 17:50
JBZ86's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Zurich and various mountains
Posts: 3,709
Groaned at 520 Times in 337 Posts
Thanked 4,258 Times in 1,944 Posts
JBZ86 has a reputation beyond reputeJBZ86 has a reputation beyond reputeJBZ86 has a reputation beyond reputeJBZ86 has a reputation beyond reputeJBZ86 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Protecting Non-smokers - Referendum Sep 23, 2012

Quote:
View Post
I don't need a list of harmful or potentially harmful items to make me feel better about second hand smoke. Fact is, those who wish to eat or drink in the establishments concerned in the referendum without having to breathe in tobacco and chemicals associated with smoking should have the right to breathe smoke free air. It's really pretty simple.

Just because people post their opinions here, doesn't mean they always have to refer to a Harvard sponsored study to back up their arguments when the issue is about their choice. I haven't read any official statistics about how many squirrels would love to try base jumping over windsurfing given a choice either .....
Is there establishments that this still happens then? New to me. Where can I go to smoke in these places? I thought all smoking was outside now, or within smoking rooms.

Why do you want to go to places where the management encourage/allow smokers? They obviously prefer these customers if they are the majority of their clientele.

You are not one of those people who gets a main and shares it between 5 people at your favourite establishment that you go to once a month and moan about the smoke you can smell there are you?
This user would like to thank JBZ86 for this useful post:
  #116  
Old 20.08.2012, 18:02
speakeron's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: 2.72548 K
Posts: 1,638
Groaned at 40 Times in 31 Posts
Thanked 1,623 Times in 805 Posts
speakeron has a reputation beyond reputespeakeron has a reputation beyond reputespeakeron has a reputation beyond reputespeakeron has a reputation beyond reputespeakeron has a reputation beyond reputespeakeron has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Protecting Non-smokers - Referendum Sep 23, 2012

Quote:
View Post
I don't need a list of harmful or potentially harmful items to make me feel better about second hand smoke. Fact is, those who wish to eat or drink in the establishments concerned in the referendum without having to breathe in tobacco and chemicals associated with smoking should have the right to breathe smoke free air. It's really pretty simple.
And here we get to the issue: you want smoking banned because the smell of smoke annoys you. It annoys me as well and I prefer to be in non-smoking bars and restaurants; but last time I looked (that would be last night...), there are plenty of options already in Switzerland for that. Can't we just have some tolerance for other people's lifestyles?

As to other posts about the risks of second-hand smoke (and in the open, this risk is totally non-quantifiable), let me play another game (I'm talking to sashimiso here): would you stop driving if there was risk that you if didn't you might a kill a child?
The following 2 users would like to thank speakeron for this useful post:
  #117  
Old 20.08.2012, 19:19
Peg A's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 4,422
Groaned at 158 Times in 125 Posts
Thanked 5,428 Times in 2,510 Posts
Peg A has a reputation beyond reputePeg A has a reputation beyond reputePeg A has a reputation beyond reputePeg A has a reputation beyond reputePeg A has a reputation beyond reputePeg A has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Protecting Non-smokers - Referendum Sep 23, 2012

Quote:
View Post
Why does this logic not apply to fat people? They have tried and tried, but people are still getting really fat.

I prefer smokers over fat people, both smell, but I get more of a seat and less sweat.
Quote:
View Post
The irony being, seeing as you didnt like my fat comment, is the smokers are more mobile than the fatties, lol


Argue your stance and leave us fatties out of it, thanks!



And, to answer Tom1234, no, seeing a fat person doesn't make me want a doughnut, SMELLING fresh hot doughnuts on the other hand...


Thinking about it though, let more people smoke inside, it will ruin my appetite and I won't eat as much (I'll be too busy coughing, which in turn, will ruin the appetites for other patrons as well).
  #118  
Old 20.08.2012, 19:38
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Zurich Unterland
Posts: 3,315
Groaned at 145 Times in 99 Posts
Thanked 4,850 Times in 1,930 Posts
smoky has a reputation beyond reputesmoky has a reputation beyond reputesmoky has a reputation beyond reputesmoky has a reputation beyond reputesmoky has a reputation beyond reputesmoky has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Protecting Non-smokers - Referendum Sep 23, 2012

Quote:
View Post


Argue your stance and leave us fatties out of it, thanks!



And, to answer Tom1234, no, seeing a fat person doesn't make me want a doughnut, SMELLING fresh hot doughnuts on the other hand...


Thinking about it though, let more people smoke inside, it will ruin my appetite and I won't eat as much (I'll be too busy coughing, which in turn, will ruin the appetites for other patrons as well).

Gosh! We have gotten THIS far with this thread - and some people still think smokers are allowed to smoke inside restaurants?
No no .... they are smoking OUTSIDE. Problem is, it seems, that the other half are now wanting the outside part of restaurants as well - and want the smokers to be enclosed INSIDE somewhere!
Poor restaurant owners. First they go to the expense of setting up outdoor smoking areas, and now are, maybe, going to be expected to provide an air-tight compartment inside somewhere?
So, when there`s this air-tight compartment for smoking - the non-smokers are also gonna want an air-tight compartment, because ...... why?...... they`ll think of some reason, I`m sure...... car-fumes, radiation exposure, farting by-passers, freezing winter conditions, lack of conversation, or jealousy, or something.
This user would like to thank smoky for this useful post:
  #119  
Old 20.08.2012, 19:42
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Zurich Unterland
Posts: 3,315
Groaned at 145 Times in 99 Posts
Thanked 4,850 Times in 1,930 Posts
smoky has a reputation beyond reputesmoky has a reputation beyond reputesmoky has a reputation beyond reputesmoky has a reputation beyond reputesmoky has a reputation beyond reputesmoky has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Protecting Non-smokers - Referendum Sep 23, 2012

Oh, I forgot to mention - fat people disturb me when I`m eating in a restaurant. Why? Because I`ve always wanted to order one of those big huge Parfait desert things with lots of cream/ice-cream/chocolate drizzles .... but there seems to always be a couple really fat people eating them. And it makes me feel somehow like I don`t want to look like that, so I order just 2 little round things of water ice. Then I feel thin and virtuous.
One day, when there are NO fat people around, I`m going to order one of those over-the-top-dessert things!
This user would like to thank smoky for this useful post:
  #120  
Old 20.08.2012, 19:51
Peg A's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 4,422
Groaned at 158 Times in 125 Posts
Thanked 5,428 Times in 2,510 Posts
Peg A has a reputation beyond reputePeg A has a reputation beyond reputePeg A has a reputation beyond reputePeg A has a reputation beyond reputePeg A has a reputation beyond reputePeg A has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Protecting Non-smokers - Referendum Sep 23, 2012

Quote:
View Post
Gosh! We have gotten THIS far with this thread - and some people still think smokers are allowed to smoke inside restaurants?
No no .... they are smoking OUTSIDE. Problem is, it seems, that the other half are now wanting the outside part of restaurants as well - and want the smokers to be enclosed INSIDE somewhere!
Poor restaurant owners. First they go to the expense of setting up outdoor smoking areas, and now are, maybe, going to be expected to provide an air-tight compartment inside somewhere?
So, when there`s this air-tight compartment for smoking - the non-smokers are also gonna want an air-tight compartment, because ...... why?...... they`ll think of some reason, I`m sure...... car-fumes, radiation exposure, farting by-passers, freezing winter conditions, lack of conversation, or jealousy, or something.

No no. I live in Basel, you live in Zürich. Some establishments in Basel have made "good use" of a loophole within the smoking ban.

Private "Smoking Only" Clubs

Maybe you're missing out on this "joy" in Zürich?
Closed Thread

Tags
health, non-smoker, referendum, restaraunts




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Should we as non-smokers advise the police ? Wollishofener Complaints corner 254 19.09.2012 18:51
Chinese New Year 2012 ( 23.01.2012 Year of the Dragon ) bettomor Social events 4 08.01.2012 15:31
Sep 2012 Refugee Worker cum MBA Student gregd Introductions 4 07.01.2012 03:38


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 17:40.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0