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

[transam]

9 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

I agree with your statement but with a big caveat .  Smoking and smokers impinge on others to an unacceptable degree.  They pollute the air around me regularly,  even walking past them, they litter by throwing away their buts anywhere they please, they are selfish and inconsiderate.  I have seen a child burnt by a cigarette carrying idiot who  had no concept of the danger  posed to low lying kids.  By all means people must live their own lives, but anything that stops others enjoying theirs must be stopped. 

So you don't drive a diesel ride....?

[Pilotman]

4 hours ago, transam said:

So you don't drive a diesel ride....?

That is an entirely different argument to the inconsiderate and anti social  nature of smoking. 

[transam]

2 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

That is an entirely different argument to the inconsiderate and anti social  nature of smoking. 

So you do and the consequences of diesel particles dumped into the air by you is different to a bloke having a fag.....

[CG1 Blue]

2 hours ago, Pilotman said:

That is an entirely different argument to the inconsiderate and anti social  nature of smoking. 

Perhaps Thailand isn't for you?  There are plenty of countries that restrict these freedoms and are therefore more sanitised. Singapore is a good example.

I enjoy all the freedoms Thailand offers in contrast to my home country, and I'd hate that to change.

[mommysboy]

4 hours ago, Pilotman said:

That is an entirely different argument to the inconsiderate and anti social  nature of smoking. 

 

Is it?

[mommysboy]

8 hours ago, Pilotman said:

I agree with your statement but with a big caveat .  Smoking and smokers impinge on others to an unacceptable degree.  They pollute the air around me regularly,  even walking past them, they litter by throwing away their buts anywhere they please, they are selfish and inconsiderate.  I have seen a child burnt by a cigarette carrying idiot who  had no concept of the danger  posed to low lying kids.  By all means people must live their own lives, but anything that stops others enjoying theirs must be stopped. 

That's really a bit over-sensitive imo, especially when one compares smoking over what one is subjected to in any major town or city.  Burning the kid was a stupid bit of negligence imo, but how does it compare to knocking one over.  And a puff of smoke compared to pollution, which is caused in a number of ways, but especially by vehicles.

 

There are now rules to protect people from being subject to cigarette smoke.  And many smokers go out of their way to be considerate to non-smokers.

[Pilotman]

13 hours ago, mommysboy said:

 

Is it?

Yes. Linking the anti social elements of smoking to worldwide transport pollution is a facile argument. You may as well say that because I abhor public smoking I should have got to LOS by walking, Angel Wings or teleportation, rather than by a polluting aircraft. 

[Pilotman]

On 22/10/2017 at 3:25 PM, mommysboy said:

Yes I saw my dad die.  He was a heavy smoker for many decades.  Smoking was in the mix for sure but there were other factors too, not the least of which was standing at a lathe for twenty years or more which gave him leg problems.  It was harrowing for him, and us.  Later, I reflected he died of death, something which will get us all.  Of course smoking is dangerous.

 

The worst of it for me was that they just kept him going long past a time when it was best to just fill him full of drugs and allow him to slip away.  It was cruel- wouldn't treat a dog like that!  I know do gooders mean well, but they don't half inflict sheer misery on others.

There's none so blind as those who cannot see. !

[transam]

16 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

Yes. Linking the anti social elements of smoking to worldwide transport pollution is a facile argument. You may as well say that because I abhor public smoking I should have got to LOS by walking, Angel Wings or teleportation, rather than by a polluting aircraft. 

So you weren't thinking of others then because it suited you, just smokers because you don't smoke...?

[tominbkk]

I'm ok with their glass houses.  Just don't put any ventilation in.  They'll get their fix faster that way.

[impulse]

23 hours ago, Pilotman said:

I agree with your statement but with a big caveat .  Smoking and smokers impinge on others to an unacceptable degree.  They pollute the air around me regularly,  even walking past them, they litter by throwing away their buts anywhere they please, they are selfish and inconsiderate.  I have seen a child burnt by a cigarette carrying idiot who  had no concept of the danger  posed to low lying kids.  By all means people must live their own lives, but anything that stops others enjoying theirs must be stopped. 

 

The flipside of that is the drinkers who impinge on everyone around them.  Yet I doubt we'll see a call for prohibition here on TVF.  You certainly won't hear it from me, in spite of the fact that I haven't had a drink or a drag in almost 30 years.  But I'm sure I have behaviors that are just as dear to me and as irritating to those around me.  (Gassy in elevators springs to mind...)

 

The reality is that we all impinge on other people.  Just like it's not wise to have a picnic on the 9th fairway, or drive golf balls in a picnic area.   But banning golf and picnics isn't a very satisfactory solution.

 

We just have to share the limited resources, including limited space.  And practice a little bit of the "live and let live".

 

Edited October 26, 2017 by impulse

[mommysboy]

2 hours ago, Pilotman said:

Yes. Linking the anti social elements of smoking to worldwide transport pollution is a facile argument. You may as well say that because I abhor public smoking I should have got to LOS by walking, Angel Wings or teleportation, rather than by a polluting aircraft. 

I am not saying anything.  As for this being a facile argument- eh! anything but.  However, it can be reduced to a simple comparison: walking along the street and the occasional, and these days it is occasional, puff of smoke  versus a constant stream of fumes from cars.

 

Of course, smokers would not have a leg to stand on imo if vaping wasnt illegal in Thailand.  Even this safe method of nicotine inhalation gets the anti-smoking lobby full on treatment.  So, yes, you have to wonder what it is all about, because this and your sensitivity is simply not rational or in perspective.

 

I still say people like yourself are fighting yesterday's war. If it was 1970, or even 2010, then you might have a point.

[nisakiman]

8 hours ago, mommysboy said:

I am not saying anything.  As for this being a facile argument- eh! anything but.  However, it can be reduced to a simple comparison: walking along the street and the occasional, and these days it is occasional, puff of smoke  versus a constant stream of fumes from cars.

 

Of course, smokers would not have a leg to stand on imo if vaping wasnt illegal in Thailand.  Even this safe method of nicotine inhalation gets the anti-smoking lobby full on treatment.  So, yes, you have to wonder what it is all about, because this and your sensitivity is simply not rational or in perspective.

 

I still say people like yourself are fighting yesterday's war. If it was 1970, or even 2010, then you might have a point.

 

He, like many others these days has been thoroughly indoctrinated by the relentless propaganda pumped out by the Tobacco Control propaganda machine. There is no respite from it, so it's unsurprising that so many people have succumbed to the constant barrage. I read so many comments under articles castigating and denigrating people who enjoy smoking, and in nearly every case, they will include one of the Tobacco Control propaganda soundbites, like 'smokers stink', and 'smokers are addicts', and ' you don't have the right to poison my air' etc etc etc. And they're all soundbites that have been used in advertising campaigns demonising smokers. And the indoctrinated trot them out parrot fashion, because that's what you have to think and say nowadays if you want to be accepted into mainstream, PC, non-smoking society.

 

Years ago, it would never have occurred to anyone to say something like 'smokers stink', because the thought would never have occurred to them. Nor would they have 'avoided tobacco smoke in the street'. What on earth for? That's just plain silly! Nobody took any notice of whether someone smoked or not. It was a non-issue.

 

But propaganda is a powerful tool, and when you have countless billions of dollars available to spend on propaganda campaigns, it's not that difficult to inculcate a feeling of intense dislike, even hatred, in one section of society for another section of society. Do you think the ordinary German people hated the Jews before the propaganda campaigns started in the 1930s? Of course they didn't. They lived next door to them, they bought their groceries from them, they chatted to them on the street corner. The Jewish Germans were just other people, unremarkable and unremarked on.

 

As Goebbels said:

 

“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.”