nisakiman

The "War on Drugs" was instigated some 80 years ago, when the problem was fairly local and (almost) controllable at a local level. All that prohibition has achieved in that 80 years is to create a multi-billion global industry that spawns violence and mayhem wherever it's found.

The whole concept of drug prohibition has comprehensively failed. In fact, it has not only failed, it's been an unmitigated disaster.

Prohibition exists in the minds of its supporters as an idealogical utopia that ever more draconian action will eventually deliver. This is completely divorced from reality, but they cling to the concept nevertheless. To the cost of all around them.

Man has been using mind-altering substances since the dawn of time. He's not about to stop now.

The "War on Drugs" is, and always has been, an exercise in futility.

Anti smoking laws were brought in because big Pharma companies wanted to make a killing on smoking cessation aids that don't work or have side effects that are worse that the effects of tobacco - like Chantix (look at who funds these campaigns).

Just.... wow.... yea... umm.... that is why.

"In 1991, the US government approved the sale of nicotine patches on prescription and it was in that year that the Johnson foundation began funding anti-smoking projects. Since then it has given $450 million to anti-smoking projects including $84 million to the Centre for Tobacco-Free Kids, $10 million towards a campaign to raise the price of cigarettes and $99 million to the Smokeless States initiative. "

From here:

http://velvetgloveir...g-movement.html

That is just J&J in the USA. Pfeizer also funds anti-smoking initiatives to the tune of millions. Likewise Wellcome.

Worldwide.

A billion here, a billion there - pretty soon you're talking real money.

Of course, they spend all this money promoting smoking bans for altruistic reasons, don't they PoodMaiDa? Because they care, just like they say in the adverts. Nothing at all to do with the multi-billion dollar market in NRT and smoking cessation products. I mean, nothing so grubby as a profit motive there, is there! Not like the tobacco companies, are they...

Ah, PoodMaiDai, your naívity shines through.

Google is your friend. Do a search on Chantix / Champix side effects. See how much the Big Pharma care about people. Then do a search on their balance sheets, and see how much they care about profit.

Then you might realise how inane your comment (quoted) was.

Smokers stink, smoking is the equivelent of never bathing, smokers and the unwashed smell equally nasty. That is why we hate to be in rooms wth tobacco addicts.

One of the first things I mentioned on the recent thread about cigarette confiscations at the airport was that I'd noticed time and time again how thoroughly offensive and unpleasant anti-smokers can be.

They adopt a holier-than-thou, self-righteous stance, and think it gives them the right to launch insulting and objectionable attacks on anyone who doesn't agree with them. They seem to think that all and sundry should adhere to their warped morality.

I have to say, rabid anti-smokers are the most unpleasant people I've ever encountered. I put them in the same classification as the worst kind of bigots and racists. Just intolerant, narrow minded fools.

The above quote is a classic example of an anti-smoker's attitude. Not clever, not pertinent, just grossly offensive.

What you have to keep in mind, Jayman, is that the medical profession lie. This was amply demonstrated just recently when the BMA were pushing to ban smoking in cars. Their "facts" turned out to be from a speculative article in some unknown Canadian local rag written by an avowed anti-smoker, and had never even had a sniff of research. When they were caught out in their lie, they rapidly backed down, but it was mission accomplished for them. The original lie made the headlines. The retraction of that lie got two column inches on the back page. That's how the anti smoking lobby operate. They lie.

I will not argue with you that many industries lie in order to forward their own agenda. I fully agree on this point. But I don't need a degree in medicine to know that smoke of any kind is unhealthy to inhale. I also fully understand that the smoke from a cig has many many many toxins in it and all you have to do is look at an old smoker to see the negative effects it's had on their bodies. So you will have a hard time convincing me that children that inhale cig smoke are better off than kids that don't. That is just complete and utter rubbish mate. You seem like a smart fellow just use your common sense on this one.

You might find this of interest then:

Smoking as good for asthmatics–2 studies:

Treatment of Asthma by Nicotinic Acid – 1943 50-100 mg by shot or intravenous; aborted attacks, led to fewer and less frequent attacks in half the subjects.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2282923/

This 2008 paper concludes that nictotine and therefore active and passive smoking leads to less asthma and explains the biologial process by which it does;

“Nicotine Primarily Suppresses Lung Th2 but not goblet cell or muscle cell responses to allergens.”

Mishra et al, Lovelace Respiratory Research Inst, Alburquerque,

Journal of Immunology, 2008; 180

http://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/abstract/180/11/7655

From the study: “Nicotine is an anti-inflammatory, but the association between smoking and asthma is highly contentious and some report that smoking cessation increases the risk of asthma in ex-smokers….

“The results unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung …[Additionally] it significantly decreased mucus content in bronchoalveolar lavage,These results suggest that nicotine modulates allergy/asthma primarily by suppressing eosinophil trafficking and suppressing Th2 cytokine/chemokine responses without reducing goblet cell metaplasia or mucous production and may explain the lower risk of allergic diseases in smokers. To our knowledge this is the first direct evidence that nicotine modulates allergic responses.”

"The problem is this perfect world you speak of doesn't exist. If given the choice then the bar owners would all allow smoking and there is no non smoking bars. Before this ban how many non smoking bars were there? The choice of most biz owners is to make as much money as possible with out much thought of who is impacted negatively.this it's why laws are created to protect workers. And my point which i will make yet again is that these anti smoking laws are for the benefit of the employers rather than the customers.

I bet if you went around and did a poll of workers in smoking environments if they would rather work in a non smoking/smoking/don't care environment you would quickly see the reason for these mandatory bans."

If I was a bar owner (and I have been, before the bans were rolled out), and the majority of my customers wanted a non-smoking venue, then non-smoking it would be, regardless of my personal feelings on the subject.

In business, you provide what your customers want or you die.

I don't know how the figures pan out in Thailand, but in the UK, although only something like 22% of adults smoked overall, of the people who were regular pub-goers the figure was over 60%. Which is why 9000+ pubs have closed since the ban.

Had it been left to market forces (as it should have been), then there would have been a minority of pubs that went non-smoking, which would have reflected their customer base. As it is, the supposed hordes of non-smokers who were going to fill the pubs once the ban came into force never materialised. And I have to laugh (somewhat bitterly) when I read in comments sections on the subject people saying things like "it's not fair, we can't sit outside in the pub garden without smelling smoke from all the smokers out there..."! And people think that smokers are selfish!

And as for bar employees, in my experience, the vast majority smoke. There is no automatic right to a job. If you don't want to work in a noisy factory, do you insist that the factory reduces its noise levels so you can work there? Of course not. Either you find another, quieter job, or you put up with the noise.

The simple fact is that there is not, and never has been any risk from SHS. On the contrary, it has been noted that children from smoking households have a significantly lower risk of asthma, and are much less likely to suffer from allergy.

What you are saying here is utter nonsense...

http://www.surgeonge.../smokeexposure/

In the UK in 1970, 55% of the adult population smoked. By 2010, that figure had dropped to 21%.

"15 Years Prevalence. In 1973 a survey was conducted among 12 year old children living in a defined area of South Wales. In 1988 the survey was repeated in the same area, again among 12 year old children. Questionnaires were completed for all 965 children in the population sample; peak expiratory flow rates were performed on them all, and repeated (except for five children) after an exercise provocation test. The prevalence of a history of wheeze at any time had increased from 17% to 22%, while that of a history of asthma at any time had increased from 6% to 12%. Current asthma had increased from 4% to 9%, but wheezing in the past year not attributed to asthma had remained at 6%. The exercise provocation tests suggested that both mild and severe asthma had become more common. Increases had also occurred in the frequencies of a history of eczema (from 5% to 16%) and of hay fever (from 9% to 15%). It seems that the prevalence of asthma has risen, and that this cannot be wholly explained by a greater readiness to diagnose the disease."

http://childrenaller...tatistics-2010/

As you can see, in the same period, prevalence of childhood asthma and allergy virtually doubled, despite advances in medical knowledge on the subject.

And your explanation for this juxtaposition is?

What you have to keep in mind, Jayman, is that the medical profession lie. This was amply demonstrated just recently when the BMA were pushing to ban smoking in cars. Their "facts" turned out to be from a speculative article in some unknown Canadian local rag written by an avowed anti-smoker, and had never even had a sniff of research. When they were caught out in their lie, they rapidly backed down, but it was mission accomplished for them. The original lie made the headlines. The retraction of that lie got two column inches on the back page. That's how the anti smoking lobby operate. They lie.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Joseph Goebbels - Hitler's Propaganda Minister

Interestingly, Hitler was a manic anti-smoker, and started many of the trends so enthusiastically followed by the anti-smoking lobby today.

And so it is that you will read about how successful the smoking ban has been in the UK. They don't mention the 9000 pubs that have closed since the ban, or the tens of thousands who no longer have a job because of the ban, or how the war veterans, (who laid their lives on the line so we could enjoy freedom from Nazi tyranny), no longer have any social contact, because they don't want or are unable to stand outside the British Legion Club in the freezing rain when they want a smoke. But as Goebbels so astutely points out "The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie." Hence the newspaper headlines telling us all how wonderful the smoking ban is and how even the smokers love it.

Smell a rat? I certainly do, but then I've never believed everything I read in the papers.

I guess my point with regard to cigarette smoke and car exhaust is to show the hypocritical nature of many non-smokers.

The fallacy that non-smokers are good and smokers are bad. The way cigarette smokers are now basically made to feel like social outcasts; virtual lepers.

Is there anything more ironic than an anti-smoker insisting on a smoker putting out their cigarette, then leaving by jumping into an air polluting machine called a car?

Just for the record, I'm an ex-cigarette smoker.

Well for the record.. I'm an ex smoker as well.. And I do drive a car. But comparing the smoke from a cigarette burning right next to you in an enclosed area and a car in the great outdoors is a bit of a stretch. Please remind us all what the yearly deaths per year from car exhaust are and we can compare those to smoking and 2nd hand smoke.

Ok, put this in your pipe and smoke it:

Lung cancer risk in never-smokers: a population-based case-control study of epidemiologic risk factors

"Cases and controls did not vary significantly in the total hours exposed to ETS during childhood or adulthood at home (data not shown). Among never smokers in our population, we observed no association between either exposure to ETS at home or at the workplace and lung cancer risk.."

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2927994/

The simple fact is that there is not, and never has been any risk from SHS. On the contrary, it has been noted that children from smoking households have a significantly lower risk of asthma, and are much less likely to suffer from allergy.

The reason we are led to believe that SHS is harmful (lethal, according to the more hyperbolic zealots!) is that the single-issue anti-tobacco lobby years ago identified it as being the holy grail in their drive for tobacco prohibition, and so put all their efforts into convincing the ever gullible politicians that it was deadly.

It didn't deter them that out of more than a hundred studies into SHS over the last 50 odd years, something like 80% found no significant results (null hypothesis), 12% found a positive result (a protective effect), and a mere 8% found a barely significant negative result (harmful effect). What they did was a "meta-analysis", which basically involved cherry-picking the bits they wanted, and ignoring all the stuff which didn't suit their agenda. With massive funding from the government (via the "tobacco settlement") and Big Pharma, they mounted a sustained campaign of lobbying governments, and combined it with an avalanche of press releases from supposed "experts" over a period of years.

They have been very successful with their lies. They are well on the way to denormalising and marginalising smokers. They have successfully driven a carriage and eight through the concept of liberty and freedom of choice. They have created what is fast becoming one of the most socially divisive pieces of legislation since prohibition in the US.

But that doesn't make it right.

Nor does it make it true.

Study after study has shown that the level of promiscuity of both men and women varies little from culture to culture excepting some outlier cultures where the consequences of promiscuity offer extremely heavy penalties or where promiscuity is the accepted cultural norm. But even when adultery can be punished by death, people still do it. I think that says something about the human condition.

In my experience, I have found little difference in the levels of promiscuity anywhere in the world. Only the wrapper might change. While, say, a Norwegian woman, an American woman, and Thai woman might all say things differently in the work-up, I don't find any difference in the ratio of women who are "promiscuous" (and that is a relative term) and those who are not within any given culture.

For men, I can only go by what I am told by others, but I don't see any difference in male promiscuity based on culture, either.

Same as that. I haven't ever noticed any difference in my travels (apart from the islamic countries, that is, where a woman risks getting stoned to death for that kind of thing) in the average time it took to bed a woman. We men tend to be brainwashed into thinking that women only tolerate sex. Rubbish. Women enjoy sex just as much as men. They do, however, need to be a bit more circumspect than us chaps, being the (physically) weaker sex. And they are perhaps a bit more fussy about the type of chap they will sleep with than men are about women. Thai women are no different than European women in that respect.

Wales, but left for the bright lights of london in the swinging 60s, i then went on to make money and spent it on wine women and illegal substances.

the rest i wasted

+1

I enjoy a Thai massage, Not so much at the time, but it's a bit like a workout - after it's all over, and you've showered and you're sitting down with a nice cold beer, it feels great. When I was younger I used to play a lot of squash, and the feeling after the event was similar - a relaxed glow.

Ah, "DRUGS".

The very word conjures up images of depravity and misery in the minds of those who have no knowledge. And it is generally the ones who are clueless (that is to say, the ones who read the newspapers and believe everything that is written therein) who are most vociferous about the subject. They are the ones who subscribe to the "Reefer Madness" version of events, and who condemn all who don't agree with them.

I first smoked weed back in the sixties, and since then I've taken just about every drug under the sun, sometimes in industrial quantities. I've had a ball and I don't regret any of it.

And I've never been a wreck. Now in my 60s, I'm fit and healthy (and still enjoying my cigarettes and wine and the occasional spliff when it comes along), I have four clever adult children, I've had a number of good businesses and I still think life is to be lived to the max.

As Kingsley Amis once said:

“No pleasure is worth giving up for the sake of two more years in a geriatric home at Weston-super-Mare”

I get so tired of all these self-righteous moralists who think anything beyond their limited experience should be banned. Do what you want with your life, but don't seek to impose your morals on me. I don't need them.

They have indeed, that reason being that the pharmaceutical companies have invested millions funding the anti-smoking lobby groups with a view to getting bans enacted worldwide. The NRT and smoking cessation products market is potentially huge, and the more bans there are, the more money Big Pharma makes. It's nothing to do with health. That's why they are banning E-cigs too. No money in them for Big Pharma.

I'm a little skeptical since the money to be made in treating smoking related illnesses dwarfs the market for smoking cessation products. But I'm open to any information that may change my mind. Perhaps end-of-life treatment for healthy folks that just get old is a better market than treating smoking related diseases?

"In 1991, the US government approved the sale of nicotine patches on prescription and it was in that year that the Johnson foundation began funding anti-smoking projects. Since then it has given $450 million to anti-smoking projects including $84 million to the Centre for Tobacco-Free Kids, $10 million towards a campaign to raise the price of cigarettes and $99 million to the Smokeless States initiative. "

From here:

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2010/10/anti-smoking-movement.html

And that's just the USA.

Read the whole article. It's an eye-opener.

I'm sure countries around the globe have introduced these laws for a reason.

They have indeed, that reason being that the pharmaceutical companies have invested millions funding the anti-smoking lobby groups with a view to getting bans enacted worldwide. The NRT and smoking cessation products market is potentially huge, and the more bans there are, the more money Big Pharma makes. It's nothing to do with health. That's why they are banning E-cigs too. No money in them for Big Pharma.

No sympathy for smokers though obnixious breed.

Has anybody else noticed that anti-smokers tend to be rude, uncouth, intolerant prohibitionists? (And I make the difference between non-smokers and anti-smokers here - the majority of non-smokers don't believe all the propaganga pumped out, and adopt a rational live-and-let-live approach to life). I know that the type has always been with us, but the fact that some (several billion) people like smoking seems to have escaped them, and the subject of smoking really does bring them out of the woodwork. I can honestly say that I have never read such bigoted, intolerant rantings as those the anti-smokers deploy. Not on any other subject have I seen such ad hominem attacks and spiteful vitriol. And I get around a lot of blogs, forums and online newspapers.

Big Pharma has done its job well.

Get over it moe666 (666?). Some people enjoy tobacco, and it is not in your gift to impose your own particular brand of morality on them.

Ha! The 's' a-pect of this thread i- much more intere-ting than the original po-t! (Apologies to the OP ) Had a good chuckle!

Saw a recent television show where they 'claimed' import duty on wine was 400%. I have no way of vlidating the accuracy of said information....... id true then thats bloody steep.

It was 430% when you added it all up a few years ago when I was looking into importing wine into Thailand commercially.

I'm currently putting 100,000 baht a month away and will continue to do so for the next 15 years. Money is going to be the last thing on my mind when I kick back and enjoy my golden years with my family. Its the least I can do for them.

That is assuming, of course, that you are still alive in 15 years time.

Life is a lottery, and sometimes you just have to grab the moment, and to hell with the (unknown) future.

No mention of wine at all in this article apart from the title that is, but then how could anywhere with a 200% tax on wine be a top 10 wine destination in asia..............

It's about 440% tax actually, all told, so a recent Big Chilli article said.

Yes, that's about right.

I looked into the possibility of importing bulk wine into Thailand a few years ago, but taxes / duties made it a non-starter, even though I can source very cheap, very drinkable wine.

I've never understood why the tax on wine is so punitive. It's not as if they have a domestic wine industry they're trying to protect.

Brilliant! And let the paedophils, rapists, thieves, killers et al, also have their fun! Why should only you be allowed your fun? Most laws are there for a reason. To control those who do not understand basics in human cohabitants.

First you need to understand the difference between 'me' and 'you'.

The government shouldn't be involved as long as your actions only affect 'you'. It is however reasonable that there are laws limiting your rights to infringe on my rights, i.e. negatively affect 'me'.

Your suggestion is therefor ludicrous.

Correct.

Using drugs, like smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol, is a victimless 'crime'. (And don't bring up the old 'second-hand smoke' baloney - I can provide dozens of links to prove that the SHS/ETS scam is based purely on junk science and manipulated statistics). The only reason it has become a social problem is because it is illegal.

Why shouldn't fasteddie smoke a spliff whenever he wants?

Does it impact on you?

No.

Does it impact on me?

No.

Does it impact on society?

No.

So apart from taking a self-righteous moral standpoint (which is, of course, completely subjective), there is no reason for any drugs to be illegal. It merely heaps misery on everyone.

The users, who are forced to pay black-market prices for goods of dubious provenance and be criminalised into the bargain.

The people upon whom addicts prey to feed their illegal, thus expensive habit.

The authorities, who have (or choose) to spend obscene amounts of money and manpower on a campaign which will never end, since it will never be won.

And all this because of a hard-core section of society have a prohibitionist mindset and want to control what others do, regardless of the collateral damage.

To quote H.L. Mencken:

"Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

And that's what it's all about. "I don't like it, so nobody should be allowed to do it".

If someone wants to go to hell in a handcart then that is their affair. Not yours, not mine, and not the government's.

I arrived in Bangkok from Calcutta in November 1970, on a Thai Airways flight that I'd managed to get half price thanks to a dodgy student card I'd bought in Istanbul on my way through. It was hot! Even though Calcutta had been hot, it had been a dry heat. When I got off the plane and stepped on the tarmac (you walked to the terminal in those days) it felt like someone had thrown a hot, wet blanket over me. After the turmoil of customs and immigration, and courtesy of one of the touts, I found myself in a taxi bound for the Malaysia Hotel - new and airconditioned, special offer $1 for the first two nights and $2 per night thereafter.

It was aircon sure enough - bloody freezing in there! Which was quite delicious at first, but led to problems when you went out again. Must have been about 22C in the hotel and about 38C outside. Phew!

Within an hour of checking into my room, the in-house dope dealer was knocking on my door. "Wanna buy some Buddha Sticks?"

I can't remember how much he was selling them for, but I was shocked at the price, I remember that. I'd just been in Calcutta where you could buy a carrier-bag full of (crap) grass for next to nothing. I ummed and aahhed a bit, so he rolled a little spliff for me to sample.

Well, the price wasn't an issue any more. "I'll take ten", I told him. I appreciate quality, and this stuff was the mutz nutz. Stunning.

.....................................................

It's 1 am and I have a busy day tomorrow, and this is turning into a bit of a saga, so perhaps I'll continue at a later date. There's a lot to write about, and I'll be here until this time tomorrow if I carry on!

Yes, looks rather ominous, doesn't it!

Maybe they've worked out some sort of clever recycling scheme to keep the prices down...

The thing about language is that it carries culture. If you understand a language you have a better chance of understanding comedy, class conflicts, stereotyping, prejudice and other useful traits of the locals. If all you can do is directly translate your own language and culture, you'll find it harder to integrate and get along with locals. But if that's not your goal, my comments are at best, academic.

Succinctly put and very true.

Unless you learn the language of your host country, you will never do more than scrape the surface of the place. Language communicates so much more than words. To learn another language successfully, you must adopt the mindset of that culture for it to make sense. And by so doing, you will start to understand what makes the people what they are. And why they do what they do.

I don't care how good the software on our hypothetical translating machine is, it will never deliver true meaning. Not like knowing the language.

Average incomes here in Greece are much lower than in UK, but where I live we are paying around 1.65 / l. for benzine and € 1.54 / l. for deisel. About 18 months ago, a litre of deisel was costing me about 80 cents. It's getting tough for everyone.

I would never go back to using just toilet paper again.

When I was in India last year the hotel I stayed at in Delhi had a setup I'd never seen before. It was a nozzle that was placed at the rear of the toilet seat, built into it actually, with a tap on the wall next to the cistern. When you're finished your business you simply turn the tap on and water gushes out - look Mum, no hands!

This is actually better than a bum gun as nothing can get on the floor, everything falls into the bowl. Plus no hands! Never seen them anywhere else, but I hear they also have them in China and Japan.

I first came across that system in Istanbul, Turkey in 1969, so they've been around for quite a while. Not nearly as sophisticated as the ones flying posted pics of, though!

I am pretty sure pipe fittings in Thailand are metric sizes.........

Will they match in the US?

I think you'll find that all plumbing threads worldwide are imperial. I live in Greece (totally metricated), but for some bizarre reason plumbing pipework is in inches. I brought a couple of bum guns back here with me, and the threads were compatible. Half inch, if I recollect.

Once you get used to the Asian way, using paper to wipe your bum just isn't acceptable. I really can't understand why westerners still cling to such a disgusting habit.

I first started using water in India in '67 (no paper available in most loos, just an aluminium teapot shaped affair and a tap to fill it), and have never been able to go back to paper since.

The Malaysia Hotel, 54 Soi Ngam Duplee, Sathorn (telephone 02-679-7127) has very clean, air-conditioned rooms with a private 4 pc. bathroom at about 800 baht per night for rooms not facing the swimming pool. Their website is: www.malaysiahotelbkk.com The rooms have a queen bed and a single bed in them. The place is nothing fancy, but clean and safe.

Although the rooms in the hotel are worn, it is very good value, and about two or three blocks from the BTS.

Crikey, is that place still going!?!? That was the first hotel I stayed in when I arrived in BKK early 1971! It was $1 a night then. The aircon did for me, though. They kept it at about 20C, and it was 40C outside - I got a bronchial infection, so moved to a little Chinese hotel near Hualamphong station (if I remember, it was called Hualamphong Hotel) with overhead fans. Cheap, cheerful and much better for my health. (Apart from the lovely young lady who infected me with "Vietnam Rose"...Ah well, can't get everything right...)

My favourite budget hotel is the Krung Kasem, just over the khlong (a minute walk) from Hualamphong station and MRT. Cheap, clean, all en suite and a great little cafe/restaurant downstairs. Close to Yaowarat, too.