Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Living in Switzerland > Daily life  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #601  
Old 04.05.2010, 21:20
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Smoking bans to be effective 1st May 2010

Quote:
View Post
PS, the us will get the names
... of people who smoke in doorways?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank for this useful post:
  #602  
Old 04.05.2010, 21:21
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Basel
Posts: 83
Groaned at 9 Times in 3 Posts
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
baldrick has annoyed a few people around herebaldrick has annoyed a few people around here
Re: Smoking bans to be effective 1st May 2010

First off, I don't smoke.

However I do think that just because someone smokes does not mean they forfeit all rights to their health. Smokers know they stand a good chance of dying younger than they would have if they did not smoke. They also bear the cost of smoking, increased taxes, health insurance and life insurance (even though in theory they should cost less as they'll die earlier?).

Perhaps the increased insurance charges are because theya re more likely to contract pneimonia from being forced to stand outside in the cold, rain and snow in order to indulge in their vice?

Alternately should a smoker be entitled to ask a non smoker to move from an oitside table in the summer? After all he cannot go inside whereas the non smoker can?
Reply With Quote
This user groans at baldrick for this post:
  #603  
Old 04.05.2010, 21:23
rrs rrs is offline
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Zuerich
Posts: 986
Groaned at 91 Times in 54 Posts
Thanked 348 Times in 226 Posts
rrs is considered unworthyrrs is considered unworthyrrs is considered unworthyrrs is considered unworthy
Re: Smoking bans to be effective 1st May 2010

Quote:
... of people who smoke in doorways?
Yes they will
Reply With Quote
  #604  
Old 04.05.2010, 21:28
rrs rrs is offline
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Zuerich
Posts: 986
Groaned at 91 Times in 54 Posts
Thanked 348 Times in 226 Posts
rrs is considered unworthyrrs is considered unworthyrrs is considered unworthyrrs is considered unworthy
Re: Smoking bans to be effective 1st May 2010

Quote:
View Post
First off, I don't smoke.

However I do think that just because someone smokes does not mean they forfeit all rights to their health. Smokers know they stand a good chance of dying younger than they would have if they did not smoke. They also bear the cost of smoking, increased taxes, health insurance and life insurance (even though in theory they should cost less as they'll die earlier?).

Perhaps the increased insurance charges are because theya re more likely to contract pneimonia from being forced to stand outside in the cold, rain and snow in order to indulge in their vice?

Alternately should a smoker be entitled to ask a non smoker to move from an oitside table in the summer? After all he cannot go inside whereas the non smoker can?
the increased taxes are spread through the system, so people that don't smoke end up paying also. The increased insurance charges have nothing to do with them catching pneumonia either.
If a smoker is polluting the air outside then he has no rights to ask the non-smoker to move inside. There is nothing good coming from smoking inside or out. It just adds to the cost of the medical and health system, and damages everyone's health all around.
Reply With Quote
  #605  
Old 04.05.2010, 21:30
the_clangers's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: St. Louis, MO was St Prex, VD
Posts: 1,999
Groaned at 17 Times in 14 Posts
Thanked 1,185 Times in 697 Posts
the_clangers has a reputation beyond reputethe_clangers has a reputation beyond reputethe_clangers has a reputation beyond reputethe_clangers has a reputation beyond reputethe_clangers has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Smoking bans to be effective 1st May 2010

Quote:
View Post
Maybe it should hold you back. this aint the F.ing US of F.ing A it is s
Switzerland. The Swiss decide the rules!!
I am sorry that you think I give rats ass.
Which ironically, I do, as I am very sympathetic to addicts. As I am a Stage Hand and am borderline addicted to Mountain Dew myself.

I would like if the Swiss would actually follow the rules that they decide.
Reply With Quote
  #606  
Old 04.05.2010, 21:31
the_clangers's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: St. Louis, MO was St Prex, VD
Posts: 1,999
Groaned at 17 Times in 14 Posts
Thanked 1,185 Times in 697 Posts
the_clangers has a reputation beyond reputethe_clangers has a reputation beyond reputethe_clangers has a reputation beyond reputethe_clangers has a reputation beyond reputethe_clangers has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Smoking bans to be effective 1st May 2010

Quote:
View Post
Yes and look where it's gotten them, The core of their economy , banking secrecy is in shambles, they need a high percentage of foreigners to fill jobs that they can't local hires to fill. They've flouted basic human rights in regards to Minaret building. They've been quite successful at building a rightist xenophobic closed minded society, so great job.
But at least some of them did have the brains to come up with a no-smoking law. Is it perfect, no but it's a start.

PS, the us will get the names
Are you talking about the USA or Switzerland?


Sorry 'bout that.

Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank the_clangers for this useful post:
  #607  
Old 04.05.2010, 21:44
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Basel
Posts: 83
Groaned at 9 Times in 3 Posts
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
baldrick has annoyed a few people around herebaldrick has annoyed a few people around here
Re: Smoking bans to be effective 1st May 2010

Quote:
View Post
the increased taxes are spread through the system, so people that don't smoke end up paying also. The increased insurance charges have nothing to do with them catching pneumonia either.
If a smoker is polluting the air outside then he has no rights to ask the non-smoker to move inside. There is nothing good coming from smoking inside or out. It just adds to the cost of the medical and health system, and damages everyone's health all around.

Perhaps but non smokers live longer therefore costing more in state pensions and increased medical and care requirements as they age. This increases tax to pay for it.

UK raises 11bn GBP from smoking related taxes every year. According to the below this greatly outstrips the cost of NHS costs for treating smoking related health issues. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7654153.stm

So give the 8.3bn "contribution" that smokers make and do not consume, plus that they handily (and economically) die earlier, perhaps non smokers should pay an addittional 1% income tax to make up the difference? or smokers pay less tax to save them subsidising, healthy, long living, non smelly, non pariah non smoking people.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank baldrick for this useful post:
  #608  
Old 04.05.2010, 22:01
rrs rrs is offline
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Zuerich
Posts: 986
Groaned at 91 Times in 54 Posts
Thanked 348 Times in 226 Posts
rrs is considered unworthyrrs is considered unworthyrrs is considered unworthyrrs is considered unworthy
Re: Smoking bans to be effective 1st May 2010

Quote:
View Post
Perhaps but non smokers live longer therefore costing more in state pensions and increased medical and care requirements as they age. This increases tax to pay for it.

UK raises 11bn GBP from smoking related taxes every year. According to the below this greatly outstrips the cost of NHS costs for treating smoking related health issues. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7654153.stm

So give the 8.3bn "contribution" that smokers make and do not consume, plus that they handily (and economically) die earlier, perhaps non smokers should pay an addittional 1% income tax to make up the difference? or smokers pay less tax to save them subsidising, healthy, long living, non smelly, non pariah non smoking people.
Is that also taking into account the loss productivity costs, costs to the environment, social costs as new young people take up smoking etc, extra costs that the government has to spend to educate people in the dangers of smoking etc.
Reply With Quote
  #609  
Old 04.05.2010, 22:19
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Basel
Posts: 83
Groaned at 9 Times in 3 Posts
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
baldrick has annoyed a few people around herebaldrick has annoyed a few people around here
Re: Smoking bans to be effective 1st May 2010

Quote:
View Post
Is that also taking into account the loss productivity costs, costs to the environment, social costs as new young people take up smoking etc, extra costs that the government has to spend to educate people in the dangers of smoking etc.
They dont "have" to inflict these charges on themselves, they choose to. Even so 8.3 bn buys a lot.

Do fat people have to extra pay for anti obesity ads and campaigns? They cost more also in all the other areas yet contribute nothing. At least smokers don't add to fuel consumption, increased tyre wear, flatulance levels in public places ect, etc. Seems governments are less inclined to tax fatty foods and greedy people. It would be v. interestingf to see how peope reacted to a minimum price of say 10 gbp for a burger to fund the extra costs for obese people.

Lost productivity could be comapred to that of maternity leave, which is after all generally avoidable. Perhaps we should restrict the number of children people can have or at least tax them heavily on more than the average .
Reply With Quote
  #610  
Old 04.05.2010, 22:20
the_clangers's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: St. Louis, MO was St Prex, VD
Posts: 1,999
Groaned at 17 Times in 14 Posts
Thanked 1,185 Times in 697 Posts
the_clangers has a reputation beyond reputethe_clangers has a reputation beyond reputethe_clangers has a reputation beyond reputethe_clangers has a reputation beyond reputethe_clangers has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Smoking bans to be effective 1st May 2010

Quote:
View Post
Perhaps but non smokers live longer therefore costing more in state pensions and increased medical and care requirements as they age. This increases tax to pay for it.

UK raises 11bn GBP from smoking related taxes every year. According to the below this greatly outstrips the cost of NHS costs for treating smoking related health issues. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7654153.stm

So give the 8.3bn "contribution" that smokers make and do not consume, plus that they handily (and economically) die earlier, perhaps non smokers should pay an addittional 1% income tax to make up the difference? or smokers pay less tax to save them subsidising, healthy, long living, non smelly, non pariah non smoking people.
Actually, there was a study done a decade or so ago that showed the amount of money that smokers cost the system in lost productivity, work days, and medical costs is offset by the amount of money that is saved because they don't live to be as old and don't use up their pensions and medical benefits.

I.E. It's a wash.
Reply With Quote
  #611  
Old 04.05.2010, 22:24
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Basel
Posts: 83
Groaned at 9 Times in 3 Posts
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
baldrick has annoyed a few people around herebaldrick has annoyed a few people around here
Re: Smoking bans to be effective 1st May 2010

Quote:
View Post
Actually, there was a study done a decade or so ago that showed the amount of money that smokers cost the system in lost productivity, work days, and medical costs is offset by the amount of money that is saved because they don't live to be as old and don't use up their pensions and medical benefits.

I.E. It's a wash.

Bonza, Ta for that
Reply With Quote
  #612  
Old 04.05.2010, 22:25
rrs rrs is offline
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Zuerich
Posts: 986
Groaned at 91 Times in 54 Posts
Thanked 348 Times in 226 Posts
rrs is considered unworthyrrs is considered unworthyrrs is considered unworthyrrs is considered unworthy
Re: Smoking bans to be effective 1st May 2010

Quote:
View Post
They dont "have" to inflict these charges on themselves, they choose to. Even so 8.3 bn buys a lot.

Do fat people have to extra pay for anti obesity ads and campaigns? They cost more also in all the other areas yet contribute nothing. At least smokers don't add to fuel consumption, increased tyre wear, flatulance levels in public places ect, etc. Seems governments are less inclined to tax fatty foods and greedy people. It would be v. interestingf to see how peope reacted to a minimum price of say 10 gbp for a burger to fund the extra costs for obese people.

Lost productivity could be comapred to that of maternity leave, which is after all generally avoidable. Perhaps we should restrict the number of children people can have or at least tax them heavily on more than the average .
only fat people have high flatuence levels, I'm thin and my wife would beg to differ. 10 gbp for a burger in London, is not really that outrageous.
You haven't mentioned the pollution costs, Also there is the cost to society in lost brain power of the smokers that would have good ideas for society but they died to young. Saving your government money by dying early doesn't seem very patriotic to me.
Reply With Quote
  #613  
Old 04.05.2010, 23:01
Wollishofener's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Glattbrugg
Posts: 18,978
Groaned at 332 Times in 257 Posts
Thanked 11,715 Times in 6,858 Posts
Wollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Smoking bans to be effective 1st May 2010

Quote:
View Post
So what you're saying is, we're going to wish there was no smoking ban if you enter a bar, as there will no longer be anything to mask it?

The first thing I noticed in pubs in GB when it was introduced was the smell of toilets and body odour...

Got to say, I'm a bit disappointed. Up until now I'd always thought the Swiss were great rule followers, like the Germans. It seems as if they might be prepared to be a bit French when it comes to the smoking ban...

Since when does the inside of a train station, that has a roof and four walls, constitute as outside?
To start at the bottom.
* The smoking ban fully applies to all areas below the surface and to all restaurants
* Until now, general wisdom was that the main hall had a smoking ban, based on regulations of the SBB/CFF/FFS, but that the non-covered outer areas of the perrons were "outside"
* Which lead to the restaurants being smoke filled
* Now, it looks as if many people simply regard the main hall as "open air", making this a lawyers' business with some additional rules and regulations being brought into effect by SBB. You see, the rail stations are SBB property and so subject to SBB regulations

In short, Switzerland is waiting for some books about "Smoking/Non-Smoking", with titles like "The Smoking Ban for Dummies" or "Where to smoke and where not to smoke" or "199 rules around the Smoking Ban"
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Wollishofener for this useful post:
  #614  
Old 04.05.2010, 23:15
Wollishofener's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Glattbrugg
Posts: 18,978
Groaned at 332 Times in 257 Posts
Thanked 11,715 Times in 6,858 Posts
Wollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Smoking bans to be effective 1st May 2010

Quote:
View Post
Looks like I'm going to have to join a private club then.
It will be quite funny really when everyone who wants a meal in Zurich needs to join a club
No, most restaurants will remain restaurants, and most restaurants will take care of the non-smoking majority. And non-smokers will abstain from those smoking clubs anyway. While many smokers will go to real restaurant.
Reply With Quote
  #615  
Old 04.05.2010, 23:27
Wollishofener's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Glattbrugg
Posts: 18,978
Groaned at 332 Times in 257 Posts
Thanked 11,715 Times in 6,858 Posts
Wollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Smoking bans to be effective 1st May 2010

Quote:
View Post
You have your law and I didn't break it!! I can as Swiss law permits sit upstairs at the HB and have a ciggie and there is sod all you can do about it. I would add put that in your pipe and smoke it but you don't smoke!
It is a legal question. You at present can say that "ground level" in HB in open air , but I expect SBB to hit back. Either their lawyers can get a court decision that Zürich HB is a building and that the central hall is NOT open air, or they can pass through a new SBB rule that all rail-stations with a roof have a smoking prohibition. The rail-stations are SBB property, and SBB did do such things in the past and most presumably WILL do such a thing in a not too distant future. You see, most of what is SBB today in the late 19th Century was purchased from Alfred von Escher, and whenever union owned stayed a corporation.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank Wollishofener for this useful post:
  #616  
Old 05.05.2010, 00:26
the_clangers's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: St. Louis, MO was St Prex, VD
Posts: 1,999
Groaned at 17 Times in 14 Posts
Thanked 1,185 Times in 697 Posts
the_clangers has a reputation beyond reputethe_clangers has a reputation beyond reputethe_clangers has a reputation beyond reputethe_clangers has a reputation beyond reputethe_clangers has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Smoking bans to be effective 1st May 2010

Quote:
View Post
They dont "have" to inflict these charges on themselves, they choose to. Even so 8.3 bn buys a lot.

Do fat people have to extra pay for anti obesity ads and campaigns? They cost more also in all the other areas yet contribute nothing. At least smokers don't add to fuel consumption, increased tyre wear, flatulance levels in public places ect, etc. Seems governments are less inclined to tax fatty foods and greedy people. It would be v. interestingf to see how peope reacted to a minimum price of say 10 gbp for a burger to fund the extra costs for obese people.

Lost productivity could be comapred to that of maternity leave, which is after all generally avoidable. Perhaps we should restrict the number of children people can have or at least tax them heavily on more than the average .
Let's be reasonable, seriously obese people do pay more in increased wear on almost everything that they own and pay for, but an obese person doesn't waft fatness molecules or chemicals onto nearby people. If you want to be upset about it, then you should pick up the banner of those who are calling for a control on airplanes as there is a concern about space allocation in coach seating. Don't worry, eventually, the airlines will start charging for any passenger above a certain maximum nominal body mass.

As far as your bad food tax goes, I keep hearing the UK officials talking about taxing or banning foodstuffs that they deem inappropriate.
__________________
Many men, of course, became extremely rich, but this was perfectly natural, and nothing to be ashamed of, because no one was really poor -- at least no one worth speaking of. - Douglas Adams
Reply With Quote
  #617  
Old 05.05.2010, 00:29
krlock3's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Zürich
Posts: 3,099
Groaned at 48 Times in 35 Posts
Thanked 2,411 Times in 1,145 Posts
krlock3 has a reputation beyond reputekrlock3 has a reputation beyond reputekrlock3 has a reputation beyond reputekrlock3 has a reputation beyond reputekrlock3 has a reputation beyond reputekrlock3 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Smoking bans to be effective 1st May 2010

was in a previously quite smoky bar tonight....

it was quite shocking how strong the smell of stale smoke, imprinted into the walls and ceilings, was in this place.... almost overpowering...

i guess the actual smoking hid this smell before.

hopefully it will go away after a little time.
Reply With Quote
  #618  
Old 05.05.2010, 01:08
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Manchester
Posts: 806
Groaned at 38 Times in 26 Posts
Thanked 305 Times in 188 Posts
menace has a reputation beyond reputemenace has a reputation beyond reputemenace has a reputation beyond reputemenace has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Smoking bans to be effective 1st May 2010

Quote:
View Post
It is a legal question. You can say at present that "ground level" in HB is in open air , but I expect SBB to hit back.
HB has a roof. And walls. Big ones. How is the air open? How is this outdoors? If you can't see the sky, or the landscape around you, obviously you're indoors. Even if its a f*çk!ng big indoors, its still indoors.
Please don't be pedantic. Lets talk facts. If that was your house, would you call it indoors, or outdoors? Would you consider the inside of the hall of HB to be outdoors in your garden? Of course not, because it's not outdoors.

English
Adverb
outdoors
1) Not inside a house or under covered structure; unprotected; in the open air.
They went outdoors to light up their cigarettes.

I wish they b100dy would
Reply With Quote
  #619  
Old 05.05.2010, 01:18
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Smoking bans to be effective 1st May 2010

Quote:
View Post
HB has a roof. And walls. Big ones. How is the air open? How is this outdoors?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank for this useful post:
  #620  
Old 05.05.2010, 01:20
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Manchester
Posts: 806
Groaned at 38 Times in 26 Posts
Thanked 305 Times in 188 Posts
menace has a reputation beyond reputemenace has a reputation beyond reputemenace has a reputation beyond reputemenace has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Smoking bans to be effective 1st May 2010

Quote:
View Post
Actually, there was a study done a decade or so ago that showed the amount of money that smokers cost the system in lost productivity, work days, and medical costs is offset by the amount of money that is saved because they don't live to be as old and don't use up their pensions and medical benefits.

I.E. It's a wash.
What about the extra productive working years they live as a result, the taxes they pay and the wages they spend, quite apart from the fact that the money wasted on healthcare for self-inflicted injuries that would be better spent on other things.

If this study was true, you would get economic growth from mass genocide
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
smoking




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
ANZAC DAY 2010 (April 22-26 2010) - ex Zurich millane42 Commercial events 0 22.09.2009 15:43
ANZAC DAY 2010 (April 22-26 2010) - ex Zurich millane42 Commercial events 1 17.09.2009 13:29


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:35.


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