Midweek rant: Why pander to smokers? Just “cough up” 2,000 baht and don’t come back

[joeyg]

23 hours ago, USPatriot said:

I couldn't smoke enough in a lifetime to put out as much pollution that a jet puts out taking off.

 

Yes let's all complain about smokers, but how many on here drink and drive.

I ran a poll on this question last year.  If I recall correctly the majority do drink and drive.  The poll got closed.

[habanero]

On 10/20/2017 at 8:58 AM, gr8fldanielle said:

how about a ban on smoke? There is nothing I hate more than having to breath the toxic smoke from someone grilling meat.

Why is it acceptable to force people to breath second hand smoke from those parked on sidewalks and other areas just because they want to sell something? People grilling meat is way more smoke and therefore probably way more toxic than someone sitting outside smoking a cigarette.

Smoking is gross anyway you look at it, but lets not be stupid just because you think one is aroi and the other mai aroi.

Move to California. Smoke caused by lighter fluids and  self starting charcoal for barbeque grills is actually illeagal in some jurisdictions.

Edited October 21, 2017 by habanero

[MyFriend You]

22 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

"Cannabis has now officially been shown to cure cancer."

 

No, it hasn't.

Willy Nelson has been touting this for 30 years:  Smoking Marijuana all day hasn't done him any favors.

[Kieran00001]

16 minutes ago, TunnelRat69 said:

Willy Nelson has been touting this for 30 years:  Smoking Marijuana all day hasn't done him any favors.

 

Hasnt done all that much bad either though, he's 90 and smoked 5 packs of cigarettes a day, he's done pretty well if you ask me.

[joeyg]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Hasnt done all that much bad either though, he's 90 and smoked 5 packs of cigarettes a day, he's done pretty well if you ask me.

Yes everyone should do it.  Thank you.

[MyFriend You]

2 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Hasnt done all that much bad either though, he's 90 and smoked 5 packs of cigarettes a day, he's done pretty well if you ask me.

He just turned 84, but you're right about the excessive smoking, both tobacco and herb

[Kieran00001]

15 minutes ago, TunnelRat69 said:

He just turned 84, but you're right about the excessive smoking, both tobacco and herb

 

Ah, I saw a headline and didn't even read it properly, I thought it said Willie had turned 90, it was his roadie!

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, joeyg said:

Yes everyone should do it.  Thank you.

 

Of course they should, it would be a beautiful world.

[travelingman1959]

Barb wire the beaches off. Problem solved Thai style.

No smoker detectors mines on the beaches .if the do gooders had there own way.the do gooders society all coming out ov the cupboards now .there nought wrong with smoking .its the winging dickheads thats the problem.leave people aloan who smoke and stay out ov sight

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

[dick dasterdly]

21 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

I remember as a youngster before I was a smoker, the smell of tobacco smoke was actually quite nice.  In fact I'd say the smell of tobacco smoke outside is much nicer than inhaling the stuff. And on a big open air beach what are the chances of getting more than a faint whiff of smoke?

 

I can only imagine the OP has other issues in his life to make him so unhappy and intolerant.

 

I would suggest they rope off an area on the beach for over-sensitive snowflakes like the OP to sit and fester, while trying to think of something else to moan about.

The OP wrote a 'mid-week rant' that was clearly tongue-in-cheek and a 'click bait' article.

 

Did anyone bother to read the sentence

"They should be told to go home – abroad if they are foreigners – if they want to smoke. And if Thai they should be made to build sealed rooms in their houses – or underneath in dungeons – so their children are protected."

before starting their own rant??

Edited October 21, 2017 by dick dasterdly

[White Christmas13]

On ‎20‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 12:00 PM, robertthesculptor said:

Only proving he author is just a popularity pig. You rant a tobacco and ignore all other as bad or worse pollutants. And I am not even a smoker. 

You are just out wanting to pick the farang pockets. Like many other laws this will be used to fleece forgners. 

My suggestion to  the author is to go sit in a bus station in BKK and breathe deep

[ukrules]

On 20/10/2017 at 7:48 AM, Oziex1 said:

The real smoke problem in Thailand is the burning of the fields and piles of rubbish much of which is plastic packaging, causing significant health problems to the locals.

 

Also the smoke from these new beach shelters where does it go? 

 

You will get freeloaders, people who go into these enclosed spaces with no intention of somking one of their own cigarettes, they merely walk in and leech off of the second hand smoke by inhaling all the air in the room.

 

 

 

[mommysboy]

6 hours ago, transam said:

I like a ciggy the same as I like a beer...I never annoy anyone when having a fag..

I find it funny when non smokers come on here slagging smokers off just because they don't smoke. Yet many of the moaners drive diesel rides, use BBQ's and burn horrendous amounts of cheap fuel on cheap flights which to them is OK..

I don't particularly like looking at obese folk, but l don't tell them this is 2017 and the info is out there to become a normal size do l...

Folk should mind there own business and let folk live their own life..

 

Live and let live!

 

If there is one thing that is certain to kill it is a miserable life.

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

The OP wrote a 'mid-week rant' that was clearly tongue-in-cheek and a 'click bait' article.

 

Did anyone bother to read the sentence

"They should be told to go home – abroad if they are foreigners – if they want to smoke. And if Thai they should be made to build sealed rooms in their houses – or underneath in dungeons – so their children are protected."

before starting their own rant??

Telling that some people took it hook, line, and sinker, and agree whole heartedly.

[nisakiman]

6 hours ago, transam said:

I like a ciggy the same as I like a beer...I never annoy anyone when having a fag..

I find it funny when non smokers come on here slagging smokers off just because they don't smoke. Yet many of the moaners drive diesel rides, use BBQ's and burn horrendous amounts of cheap fuel on cheap flights which to them is OK..

I don't particularly like looking at obese folk, but l don't tell them this is 2017 and the info is out there to become a normal size do l...

Folk should mind there own business and let folk live their own life..

Standing next to a BBQ cooking an average BBQ meal for half an hour exposes you to the equivalent of 200,000 cigarettes worth of carcinogenic smoke.

And as for wood smoke:

 

...wood smoke 30 times more potent than cigarette smoke.

 

http://woodsmoke.3sc.net/wood-vs-cigarette-smoke

[joeyg]

10 minutes ago, nisakiman said:

Standing next to a BBQ cooking an average BBQ meal for half an hour exposes you to the equivalent of 200,000 cigarettes worth of carcinogenic smoke.

And as for wood smoke:

 

...wood smoke 30 times more potent than cigarette smoke.

 

http://woodsmoke.3sc.net/wood-vs-cigarette-smoke

I don't know the smoking ban can help things or not.  Personally,  I feel anything that can reduce smoking around non smokers is a step in the right direction.  If they want to kill themselves with cigarettes I think that's up to them but others shouldn't be subject to their secondhand smoke and nasty leftover butts  and filters. I started smoking when I was 13 years old and quite when I was 20.

 

Cigarette smoking has been banned on many of the most popular Public parks and beaches in the USA And in other places in the world for many years.  I'm not sure again with the "news flash" here is.  I think everyone will agree it's a filthy, dirty and disgusting habit that non-smokers should not have to be forced to be anywhere near. Just have designated smoking areas, right?

Edited October 21, 2017 by joeyg

[nisakiman]

Standard smoker-hater rant, completely devoid of fact, just lots of Tobacco Control propaganda soundbites. The author knows nothing at all about the subject apart from what he's read in the tabloids. It just illustrates how easily some people can be indoctrinated with the current Politically Correct meme. The same type of propaganda (almost exactly) was used in Germany in the 1930s to turn people against the Jews.

 

"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it..."

 

Winston Churchill.

[joeyg]

18 minutes ago, nisakiman said:

Standing next to a BBQ cooking an average BBQ meal for half an hour exposes you to the equivalent of 200,000 cigarettes worth of carcinogenic smoke.

And as for wood smoke:

 

...wood smoke 30 times more potent than cigarette smoke.

 

http://woodsmoke.3sc.net/wood-vs-cigarette-smoke

Well I haven't a barbecued or eaten meat since 1974.  Air travel and road travel More I think in this day and age pretty much impossible to avoid. Smokers should just have their designated areas case closed.

Edited October 21, 2017 by joeyg

[transam]

6 minutes ago, joeyg said:

I don't know the smoking ban can help things or not.  Personally,  I feel anything that can reduce smoking around non smokers is a step in the right direction.  If they want to kill themselves with cigarettes I think that's up to them but others shouldn't be subject to their secondhand smoke and nasty leftover butts  and filters. I started smoking when I was 13 years old and quite when I was 20.

 

Cigarette smoking has been banned on many of the most popular Public parks and beaches in the USA And in other places in the world for many years.  I'm not sure again with the "news flash" here is.  I think everyone will agree it's a filthy, dirty and disgusting habit that non-smokers should not have to be forced to be anywhere near. Just have designated smoking areas, right?

So is farting....

[mommysboy]

8 minutes ago, joeyg said:

I don't know the smoking ban can help things or not.  Personally,  I feel anything that can reduce smoking around non smokers is a step in the right direction.  If they want to kill themselves with cigarettes I think that's up to them but others shouldn't be subject to their secondhand smoke and nasty leftover butts  and filters. I started smoking when I was 13 years old and quite when I was 20.

 

Cigarette smoking has been banned on many of the most popular Public parks and beaches in the USA And in other places in the world for many years.  I'm not sure again with the "news flash" here is.  I think everyone will agree it's a filthy, dirty and disgusting habit that non-smokers should not have to be forced to be anywhere near. Just have designated smoking areas, right?

 

"I started smoking when I was 13 years old and quite when I was 20."

 

And if you are honest you'll probably admit missing it, or you wouldn't be so hung up about it.   That's the problem with the tabs.  Once you are a smoker, you are a smoker.

Edited October 21, 2017 by mommysboy

[nisakiman]

1 minute ago, joeyg said:

  I think everyone will agree it's a filthy and disgusting habit that non-smokers should not have to be forced to be anywhere near. Just have designated smoking areas, right?

No, I don't think everyone will agree at all, not by a long shot. I certainly don't.

 

This is a fairly recent phenomenon, driven by relentless propaganda from people with a financial and ideological vested interest in persecuting smokers. Back when I was a lad, nobody took any notice if someone was smoking - they hadn't been indoctrinated with all sorts of rubbish about 'passive smoking' and similar junk science.

 

Neither of my parents smoked, but they always had a box of various brand cigarettes (and ashtrays) to offer guests. My mother said on several occasions how much she liked the smell of tobacco smoke, particularly pipe tobacco. But she, of course, had never been subjected to anti-smoking propaganda, so her opinions were her own.

[joeyg]

1 minute ago, mommysboy said:

 

"I started smoking when I was 13 years old and quite when I was 20."

 

And if you are honest you'll probably admit missing it, or you wouldn't be so hung up about it.   That's the problem with the tabs. 

No not true.  Honestly not at all.  It was good while standing watches.  Actually I never really liked it.

 

[joeyg]

2 minutes ago, nisakiman said:

No, I don't think everyone will agree at all, not by a long shot. I certainly don't.

 

This is a fairly recent phenomenon, driven by relentless propaganda from people with a financial and ideological vested interest in persecuting smokers. Back when I was a lad, nobody took any notice if someone was smoking - they hadn't been indoctrinated with all sorts of rubbish about 'passive smoking' and similar junk science.

 

Neither of my parents smoked, but they always had a box of various brand cigarettes (and ashtrays) to offer guests. My mother said on several occasions how much she liked the smell of tobacco smoke, particularly pipe tobacco. But she, of course, had never been subjected to anti-smoking propaganda, so her opinions were her own.

I think it's nice that your family offered cigarettes to guest.  Fascinating really... 

 

[transam]

 

[joeyg]

6 minutes ago, transam said:

 

LOL!!! Good one!!! 555

[joeyg]

29 minutes ago, nisakiman said:

Standard smoker-hater rant, completely devoid of fact, just lots of Tobacco Control propaganda soundbites. The author knows nothing at all about the subject apart from what he's read in the tabloids. It just illustrates how easily some people can be indoctrinated with the current Politically Correct meme. The same type of propaganda (almost exactly) was used in Germany in the 1930s to turn people against the Jews.

 

"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it..."

 

Winston Churchill.

I just hope cutting back on smoking in public areas will save some lives. Tobacco Control propaganda?  Seriously? it's not just my opinion.  it's a fact.  How can you build a "rational" argument for smoking period? https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/index.htm

[nisakiman]

53 minutes ago, joeyg said:

I just hope cutting back on smoking in public areas will save some lives. Tobacco Control propaganda?  Seriously? it's not just my opinion.  it's a fact.  How can you build a "rational" argument for smoking period? https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/index.htm

 

I'm sorry to disillusion you, but all anti-tobacco organisations lie. Either directly or by omission. They take the attitude that the ends (that is, their ideological ends) justify the means, and if they have to bend the truth to make a point, then they will.

 

From your link:

 

Secondhand smoke is the combination of smoke from the burning end of a cigarette and the smoke breathed out by smokers. Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer.1,2,3,4

Since the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report, 2.5 million adults who were nonsmokers died because they breathed secondhand smoke.1

There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

 

Ok, we'll take this point by point.

 

Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals

 

Here they are more or less telling the truth. However, what they aren't saying is that the vast majority of those 7000 chemicals are present in such minute amounts that they can't even be measured, only theorised. They also don't mention that most of the remainder that can be measured are present in normal exhaled breath of a non-smoker. They then fail to mention that the toxic / carcinogenic elements unique to tobacco smoke are measured in femtograms (0.000 000 000 000 001 grams), nanograms (a millionth of a femtogram) and picograms (one thousandth of a nanogram). You see what they did there? "7000 chemicals!" Scary, eh? But that's a normal day in the office for Tobacco Control. It's standard MO. They do a lot of that sort of stuff, like telling you how much arsenic is in tobacco smoke; and of course everyone knows how poisonous arsenic is. However, they fail to mention that an average glass of drinking water contains eight times more arsenic than a packet of Marlboro. Tricky, eh?

 

Hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer

 

Again, not exactly a lie. Hundreds are indeed toxic and / or carcinogenic. However, see my point about arsenic above. They will NEVER tell you that the first rule of toxicology is "The dose makes the poison". Sure those chemicals can be toxic - if you take enough of them. Even water is toxic if you drink too much.

 

Since the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report, 2.5 million adults who were nonsmokers died because they breathed secondhand smoke

 

Now here they are really stretching things. There aren't actually 2.5 million body bags. In fact, there aren't any body bags at all, because nobody has actually died from being exposed to second-hand smoke. They get those figures by feeding theoretical data into a computer model known as SAMMEC (Smoking Attributable Mortality, Morbidity, and Economic Costs), same as they get their figures for 'smoking related deaths'. They are all 'virtual' deaths. Nobody has ever actually checked any death certificates to come up with the figures. It's all theoretical, based on estimated figures and calculated by a computer program written by people who have a visceral hatred of smoking and fed theoretical data by people who also have a visceral hatred of smoking, so I think we can safely assume that there will be a massive bias involved in both the programming and the estimates fed to it. And as they say in computing: "Garbage In, Garbage Out".

 

There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

 

This is a favourite soundbite of Tobacco Control, because it conveys the impression that SHS is dangerous. The sentence is in fact meaningless. It only means they haven't tested for a 'safe level', and even if they could, it would still be meaningless. You can say with equal certainty that there is no safe level of coffee, or no safe level of bacon, or no safe level of shower gel. All those statements are as meaningful as 'no safe level of SHS'.

 

Someone wrote a truly inspired web page to illustrate how the Tobacco Control propaganda machine works. I urge you to read it, as it will open your eyes as to how easy it is to fool people into thinking that something completely harmless is really, really dangerous:

 

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

 

 

 

 

[joeyg]

1 hour ago, nisakiman said:

 

I'm sorry to disillusion you, but all anti-tobacco organisations lie. Either directly or by omission. They take the attitude that the ends (that is, their ideological ends) justify the means, and if they have to bend the truth to make a point, then they will.

 

From your link:

 

Secondhand smoke is the combination of smoke from the burning end of a cigarette and the smoke breathed out by smokers. Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer.1,2,3,4

Since the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report, 2.5 million adults who were nonsmokers died because they breathed secondhand smoke.1

There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

 

Ok, we'll take this point by point.

 

Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals

 

Here they are more or less telling the truth. However, what they aren't saying is that the vast majority of those 7000 chemicals are present in such minute amounts that they can't even be measured, only theorised. They also don't mention that most of the remainder that can be measured are present in normal exhaled breath of a non-smoker. They then fail to mention that the toxic / carcinogenic elements unique to tobacco smoke are measured in femtograms (0.000 000 000 000 001 grams), nanograms (a millionth of a femtogram) and picograms (one thousandth of a nanogram). You see what they did there? "7000 chemicals!" Scary, eh? But that's a normal day in the office for Tobacco Control. It's standard MO. They do a lot of that sort of stuff, like telling you how much arsenic is in tobacco smoke; and of course everyone knows how poisonous arsenic is. However, they fail to mention that an average glass of drinking water contains eight times more arsenic than a packet of Marlboro. Tricky, eh?

 

Hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer

 

Again, not exactly a lie. Hundreds are indeed toxic and / or carcinogenic. However, see my point about arsenic above. They will NEVER tell you that the first rule of toxicology is "The dose makes the poison". Sure those chemicals can be toxic - if you take enough of them. Even water is toxic if you drink too much.

 

Since the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report, 2.5 million adults who were nonsmokers died because they breathed secondhand smoke

 

Now here they are really stretching things. There aren't actually 2.5 million body bags. In fact, there aren't any body bags at all, because nobody has actually died from being exposed to second-hand smoke. They get those figures by feeding theoretical data into a computer model known as SAMMEC (Smoking Attributable Mortality, Morbidity, and Economic Costs), same as they get their figures for 'smoking related deaths'. They are all 'virtual' deaths. Nobody has ever actually checked any death certificates to come up with the figures. It's all theoretical, based on estimated figures and calculated by a computer program written by people who have a visceral hatred of smoking and fed theoretical data by people who also have a visceral hatred of smoking, so I think we can safely assume that there will be a massive bias involved in both the programming and the estimates fed to it. And as they say in computing: "Garbage In, Garbage Out".

 

There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

 

This is a favourite soundbite of Tobacco Control, because it conveys the impression that SHS is dangerous. The sentence is in fact meaningless. It only means they haven't tested for a 'safe level', and even if they could, it would still be meaningless. You can say with equal certainty that there is no safe level of coffee, or no safe level of bacon, or no safe level of shower gel. All those statements are as meaningful as 'no safe level of SHS'.

 

Someone wrote a truly inspired web page to illustrate how the Tobacco Control propaganda machine works. I urge you to read it, as it will open your eyes as to how easy it is to fool people into thinking that something completely harmless is really, really dangerous:

 

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

 

 

 

 

The facts are pretty clear.  If your a smoker I recommend doubling or Tripling you intake.  It's one of the best things you can do.

 

[nisakiman]

2 hours ago, joeyg said:

The facts are pretty clear.  If your a smoker I recommend doubling or Tripling you intake.  It's one of the best things you can do.

 

 

Why on earth would I do that? Whatever makes you think doubling or tripling  ones consumption of cigarettes would be 'the best thing you can do'?

 

Or was that an attempt at sarcasm?

 

Whatever, everything I've written above is fact. I can find the links to all that info if you like, although I suspect you're uncomfortable with having your belief system challenged.

 

I could fill pages of this forum with examples of the chicanery employed by Tobacco Control. They are completely amoral. They care not one iota for the huge amount of economic and social damage they cause. It stopped being about health decades ago. It's all about money and ideology now, and has been for years, even more so since the big pharmaceutical companies realised they could make fortunes out of punitive smoking legislation. That's why they fund the WHO's FCTC. The more countries that introduce smoking bans, the more massively overpriced (and useless - 98% failure rate) nicotine patches and gum they can sell. It's a multi-billion dollar global business now, and the few millions a year they throw to the avidly anti-smoking WHO is small change compared to the profits they make from the persecution of smokers. It's a good investment.

 

[anon467367354]

13 hours ago, habanero said:

Move to California. Smoke caused by lighter fluids and  self starting charcoal for barbeque grills is actually illeagal in some jurisdictions.

Move to California, you must think I'm an idiot, only an idiot would move to California. Then again, only an idiot would stay in California with someone like Governor Moonbeam at the helm. Now it's illegal to stop a school shooting with a gun. It's legal to donate HIV infected blood or even knowingly infect someone with HIV. It's illegal to use the wrong pronoun. California? I think not!

Just because I don't like something, doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. I don't like the smell of flesh being grilled, but I don't think it should be illegal.