Jump to content

Smoking ban at public beaches in Thailand aims to protect visitors' health


webfact

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

Is vaping a carcinogen? Does it smell people's hair and clothes to the point where they have to launder it to be rid of it? Do vapors throw their vape things everywhere and create the number one trash item world wide? If no to all that, i probably don't have too much of a problem with it. although i would respect the fact that others find it distasteful and irritating. 

No to most of the above.

 

Although some report finding it distasteful, that is subjective opinion and might apply to a whole raft of activity that some like while others don't.

 

Anyway, I'm off to the gym- need all my strength to clamber over the mounds of fag ends?.  Not to mention the endless laundry.  When I come back, my nose will be running and it won't be because I passed a smoker. When I was in Bangkok I used to suffer awful sinus issues, and still do down here when the AQI red lines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bearpolar said:

I will definitely get an officer every time someone smokes.

 

They stopped people from smoking and drinking on the public beach in my city back in Canada and it's the only fking beach in the whole world ive been to(that wasnt empty in a remote area) that was completely clean with no loud jersey shore type trashy people.

 

Keeping smokers away from any place ups the quality by 70% at least.  

 

Yes, smokers are trashy weak minded people, also they litter and smell bad.

Ive just had a cigarette (in my own garden i hasten to add)... fancy a quick kiss??

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, webfact said:

Thailand's ban on cigarette smoking at all public beaches is not only meant to reduce waste but also protect visitors' health, a senior government official said on Tuesday.

What a load of rot that is,, What about all the filth that's floating around the beach and the drains /streets/houses/yards/burning all sorts of crap/Plastic & rubbish.Get real .

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, webfact said:

Smoking ban at public beaches in Thailand aims to protect visitors' health

yes now for health reasons on an open air beach, then if that is the case,  create sections of the beach for smoking and non smoking and see where most people go 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, smedly said:

yes now for health reasons on an open air beach, then if that is the case,  create sections of the beach for smoking and non smoking and see where most people go 

The topless areas....?

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bearpolar said:

I will definitely get an officer every time someone smokes.

 

They stopped people from smoking and drinking on the public beach in my city back in Canada and it's the only fking beach in the whole world ive been to(that wasnt empty in a remote area) that was completely clean with no loud jersey shore type trashy people.

 

Keeping smokers away from any place ups the quality by 70% at least.  

 

Yes, smokers are trashy weak minded people, also they litter and smell bad.

you are so perfect - right ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bearpolar said:

Yes, smokers are trashy weak minded people, also they litter and smell bad.

 

Aww, poor old trashy weak minded Albert . .

 

albert.jpg.f1d4f152450f4899227c3d22ab49cc36.jpg

 

I am a non smoker who only gets worked up about tobacco smoke when it reduces visibility.

Undesirable particles released from local industrial process and nuclear accidents worry me more than Joe with a smoke in his hand.

 

Ex smokers seem to be the biggest whingers which is most likely down to second hand smoke triggering enjoyment receptors leading to them desperately wanting a lung full. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mommysboy said:

No to most of the above.

 

Although some report finding it distasteful, that is subjective opinion and might apply to a whole raft of activity that some like while others don't.

 

Anyway, I'm off to the gym- need all my strength to clamber over the mounds of fag ends?.  Not to mention the endless laundry.  When I come back, my nose will be running and it won't be because I passed a smoker. When I was in Bangkok I used to suffer awful sinus issues, and still do down here when the AQI red lines.

You still aren't addressing the issue. What you are doing is like when xyz politician lies, then abc polictician lies and people's comeback is "well, xyz politicial lied too". So it is now ok he lied just because someone else lied?! That is not an argument. That is not even a valid position.

 

Tell us why smoking should be allowed in public. What is your argument? You have mentioned tax money. Ok. I do not think that is very compelling. You are saying "we get money from them so we should let them do bad things". Remember, there is no safe exposure level to second hand smoke. I will link it, with scientific references.

 

Smokers' litter is the most prominent in the world. Do you have anything to say about this? Should this fact influence policy in favor of smokers? Should this fact alone be enough to ban smoking regardless of its health effects?

 

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/protection/improve_health/index.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

You still aren't addressing the issue. What you are doing is like when xyz politician lies, then abc polictician lies and people's comeback is "well, xyz politicial lied too". So it is now ok he lied just because someone else lied?! That is not an argument. That is not even a valid position.

 

Tell us why smoking should be allowed in public. What is your argument? You have mentioned tax money. Ok. I do not think that is very compelling. You are saying "we get money from them so we should let them do bad things". Remember, there is no safe exposure level to second hand smoke. I will link it, with scientific references.

 

Smokers' litter is the most prominent in the world. Do you have anything to say about this? Should this fact influence policy in favor of smokers? Should this fact alone be enough to ban smoking regardless of its health effects?

 

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/protection/improve_health/index.htm

You are being a bit silly, as I have already stated that cigarette smoking should not be allowed at the beach imo.

 

And you are referencing a posting I made about vaping!

 

Although there is no safe level of cigarette smoke- a measure that only applies to mountain air- there is no doubt that it is not carcinogenic as experienced by a bystander at the beach.  For that matter, it is likely not carcinogenic even within a house shared by one moderate smoker.

 

My argument is about the hypocrisy of picking on smokers when there are truly huge pollution problems elsewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DoctorG said:

I do not smoke but I also try not to be judgemental.

You edited your post yet you still decided to keep that last line.

Smokers negatively impact every person unlucky enough to be near them. They also affect people long after they are gone with their improperly discarded trash. They seem to be one of the most disrespectful groups on the planet based on percentage of litter items world wide. 

 

When people do "bad" things, and constantly negatively impact every person around them to the point of death via second hand smoke, how can we not judge this? We judge theifs, rapists, and tax evaders, and that seems fine with everyone. I honestly do not even know how smokers can luve with themselves, the ones who smoke in public anyway. It is a known carcinogen. There is no rationalizing this. The cdc has reported "there are no safe levels of second hand smoke". Judging is the least of our worries. We need to stop this behavior in public places.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People can't see what is right in front of their face. This is the reason there is no change. 

 

Wht happens if we banned smoking in public places worldwide tomorrow? 1) the world is cleaner 2) the world is healthier. 

 

What are the negative impacts? Nothing. Not a single one. If stopping smoking in public places is not a no brainer policy, i do not know what is. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

You are being a bit silly, as I have already stated that cigarette smoking should not be allowed at the beach imo.

 

And you are referencing a posting I made about vaping!

 

Although there is no safe level of cigarette smoke- a measure that only applies to mountain air- there is no doubt that it is not carcinogenic as experienced by a bystander at the beach.  For that matter, it is likely not carcinogenic even within a house shared by one moderate smoker.

 

My argument is about the hypocrisy of picking on smokers when there are truly huge pollution problems elsewhere.

I am sorry, but I do not even think you know what carcinogenic means. It is a carcinogen, it is a proven fact. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

People can't see what is right in front of their face. This is the reason there is no change. 

 

Wht happens if we banned smoking in public places worldwide tomorrow? 1) the world is cleaner 2) the world is healthier. 

 

What are the negative impacts? Nothing. Not a single one. If stopping smoking in public places is not a no brainer policy, i do not know what is. 

It is banned in UK for example. And theoretically in most places in Thailand.  Do you mean banning someone walking down the road with a tab on the go?

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

I am sorry, but I do not even think you know what carcinogenic means. It is a carcinogen, it is a proven fact. 

I think you are trolling...This thread is about an open air beach, not a bus, not a restaurant.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, transam said:

I think you are trolling...This thread is about an open air beach, not a bus, not a restaurant.

 

 

And i think you are trolling. What is your argument for smoking in public again? 

 

Here are some stats for you in support of my argument. Smoking accounts for about 1 in 5 deaths. 

 

16% of the population smokes, but it is by far and away the number one trash/litter item worldwide. You know why this is? I can guess. Because smokers dread dealing with their own disgusting trash. This also explains why some of these pieces of work don't like to smoke in their own cars or homes, but they do not mind getting it in everyone else's face. 

 

Also, it is the leading cause of preventable death. Ie if we banned it in public let us just say a lot of people would live instead of dying. 

 

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/index.htm

 

What was your sterling argument again as to why we should continue to allow it in public? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

It is banned in UK for example. And theoretically in most places in Thailand.  Do you mean banning someone walking down the road with a tab on the go?

Ban it everywhere, beaches included. We are already sering this. In Laguna beach California you can only snoke in your car or at home. Anywhere else is off limits. I may have left a couple spots out, but basically any public place it is against the law. Welcome to a city with a clue. I have been saying this should happen for the last 20 years. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

I am sorry, but I do not even think you know what carcinogenic means. It is a carcinogen, it is a proven fact. 

Let me clarify as you are indeed partly right.  Yes it is carcinogenic in the sense that it contains chemicals that cause cancer.  This is proven in smokers. But in order to cause cancer the unfortunate sufferer must have been exposed consistently, over a long time period, and at a certain concentration.

 

Certainly, smoking at a beach could not possibly result in cancer, since exposure is minimal, and of short duration, not repeated day upon day, and year upon year.  Here is a report of the most recent respectable study on passive smoking; it's an eye opener:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/#dab710065d49

 

Note: the only statistical significant link came about after 30 years close living with a smoker. Even then it could not be described as causational.  This is thought to be the most reliable study of its kind since the base data is much more reliable.

 

Smoking is of course an irritant. and is particularly irritating to those who already suffer allergies, but you have to ask what really has caused those allergies in the first place.

 

There is another unfortunate consequence of people giving up smoking though it is difficult to ascertain to what extent it is complicit in the spread of obesity.  Smokers are generally slimmer than non smokers, and until the chronic effects of smoking take hold (usually after 25 years) they often have lower blood pressure.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, mommysboy said:

Let me clarify as you are indeed partly right.  Yes it is carcinogenic in the sense that it contains chemicals that cause cancer.  This is proven in smokers. But in order to cause cancer the unfortunate sufferer must have been exposed consistently, over a long time period, and at a certain concentration.

 

Certainly, smoking at a beach could not possibly result in cancer, since exposure is minimal, and of short duration, not repeated day upon day, and year upon year.  Here is a report of the most recent respectable study on passive smoking; it's an eye opener:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/#dab710065d49

 

Note: the only statistical significant link came about after 30 years close living with a smoker. Even then it could not be described as causational.  This is thought to be the most reliable study of its kind since the base data is much more reliable.

 

Smoking is of course an irritant. and is particularly irritating to those who already suffer allergies, but you have to ask what really has caused those allergies in the first place.

 

There is another unfortunate consequence of people giving up smoking though it is difficult to ascertain to what extent it is complicit in the spread of obesity.  Smokers are generally slimmer than non smokers, and until the chronic effects of smoking take hold (usually after 25 years) they often have lower blood pressure.

 

 

 

 

You can't go to the beach everyday and be exposed to smoke? You are not making any sense. I am sorry but just giving it to you straight. Also, why are you assuming one can't be exposed everyday at home, then be exposed at places like the beach and then increase the risk. Again, you are assuming a single day at the beach i just don't understand how you are concluding you arguments based on such a flawed assumption. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

It is banned in UK for example. And theoretically in most places in Thailand.  Do you mean banning someone walking down the road with a tab on the go?

Probably will happen ,the war against smoking has been well and truly won, and when the NHS is semi or totally privatised smokers will be at the back of the queue for any treatment and that's only the beginning,you won't be allowed to  smoke or be in any space where other people are and that means everywhere.bring it on.and clean up your mess around the bus stop outside my flat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

Ban it everywhere, beaches included. We are already sering this. In Laguna beach California you can only snoke in your car or at home. Anywhere else is off limits. I may have left a couple spots out, but basically any public place it is against the law. Welcome to a city with a clue. I have been saying this should happen for the last 20 years. 

Go live there then.  Banning it outright is a violation of personal freedom in my view.  Yes, make it unlawful to chuck the butt away.

 

 If we follow the same logic, we would also ban eating candy since the wrapper can be chucked, and just about anything else really that has the potential to litter or cause small annoyance to someone else.

 

You have a real bee in the bonnet over this; and that sort of behaviour is a bit disturbing.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

To the last point about obesity, that is just essentially taking the position that it is better for smokers to molest the world with their litter, and infect the lungs of others with their smoke before they themselves should take on the responsibility of being fat. You see how the obese problem becomes theirs and not the problem of others? That is how it should be... smoking is smokers' problem. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Go live there then.  Banning it outright is a violation of personal freedom in my view.  Yes, make it unlawful to chuck the butt away.

 

 If we follow the same logic, we would also ban eating candy since the wrapper can be chucked, and just about anything else really that has the potential to litter or cause small annoyance to someone else.

 

You have a real bee in the bonnet over this; and that sort of behaviour is a bit disturbing.  

I do not need to live there, this change is coming. That is the point of the article. The benefits in these cities has been outstanding. Honestly, read up on what is happening in cities who have completely banned smoking in public. 

 

Candy is not a carcinogen that affects all around it. Candy is not the number ine litter item twice over from a group of people making up 16% of the population. Honestly you are being argued under the table and i feel like you do not even know it. 

 

I disturb you, but it does not distrub you that innocent people die every day because they had to inhale other people's second hand smoke. That is rich. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

You can't go to the beach everyday and be exposed to smoke? You are not making any sense. I am sorry but just giving it to you straight. Also, why are you assuming one can't be exposed everyday at home, then be exposed at places like the beach and then increase the risk. Again, you are assuming a single day at the beach i just don't understand how you are concluding you arguments based on such a flawed assumption. 

We are talking about an activity at the beach, thus, we do not need to discuss any other place or arena.

 

The amount of cigarette smoke one would be subjected to at the beach could only be described as minimal.

 

The frequency with which one would be subjected to that smoke would also be minimal.

 

Even if you lived on the beach, you would not be at any risk whatsoever.  As it is, typical people only visit the beach from time to time, perhaps at the weekend in the summer, or on vacation for a couple of weeks.

 

No danger of cancer whatsoever.

 

Imo, one must respect the rights of non smokers however.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

Candy is not a carcinogen that affects all around it. Candy is not the number ine litter item twice over from a group of people making up 16% of the population. Honestly you are being argued under the table and i feel like you do not even know it. 

 

I disturb you, but it does not distrub you that innocent people die every day because they had to inhale other people's second hand smoke. That is rich. 

Re candy: I was obviously talking about the wrapper that will get chucked in the same manner as a cigarette butt.

 

I do not believe passive smoking causes cancer, except when one lives with exceptionally heavy smokers.  Previous studies have been proven wrong imo.

 

Living with a smoker will cause other problems though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

We are talking about an activity at the beach, thus, we do not need to discuss any other place or arena.

 

The amount of cigarette smoke one would be subjected to at the beach could only be described as minimal.

 

The frequency with which one would be subjected to that smoke would also be minimal.

 

Even if you lived on the beach, you would not be at any risk whatsoever.  As it is, typical people only visit the beach from time to time, perhaps at the weekend in the summer, or on vacation for a couple of weeks.

 

No danger of cancer whatsoever.

 

Imo, one must respect the rights of non smokers however.

I have posted studies indicating scientifically how harmful smoke can be. Post one aboit your assertion about folks "not being able to be subjected to enough smoke in outdoor public places" to cause ill health effects or cancer. I will read it over i promise you, but you wont find it is the problem. 

 

Who am i supposed to believe on the effects of second hand smoke, you or scientists who say there is no safe level of exposure? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bearpolar said:

I will definitely get an officer every time someone smokes.

 

They stopped people from smoking and drinking on the public beach in my city back in Canada and it's the only fking beach in the whole world ive been to(that wasnt empty in a remote area) that was completely clean with no loud jersey shore type trashy people.

 

Keeping smokers away from any place ups the quality by 70% at least.  

 

Yes, smokers are trashy weak minded people, also they litter and smell bad.

Thanks to inconsiderate smokers I suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from second-hand smoke. Considering the other places I visited I think Thailand is doing a very good job. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gamini said:

Thanks to inconsiderate smokers I suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from second-hand smoke. Considering the other places I visited I think Thailand is doing a very good job. 

Sorry to hear that. I too was very happy to hear Thailand is being very proactive about this. I do not even care aboit their motivations to be honest, the more places they put a stop to it, the better. I actually think Thais have their heads screwed on well straight on a number of matters, evidence being the safety and low crime rates here. They do not get enough credit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in Surat Thani. Today, I looked up and down my road and couldn't see a cigarette butt. And I didn't notice any in town. Moreover, I didn't even see anyone smoking.  There wasn't anyone at the gym smoking, nor at the restaurant where I routinely eat. I certainly have not seen smokers deliberately hanging around non smokers blowing smoke at them.  And the occasional whiff of cigarette smoke is only annoying in as much as it reminds me of what I'm missing by not smoking.  In contrast I am frequently bothered by car fumes.

 

Outside of TV, I have never met anyone who believes it is possible to develop cancer from walking past a smoker, or at the beach, etc.  Quite frankly, that is hysteria.

 

Maybe we are talking solely about Pattaya.  Well, move for heaven's sake.  Everyone knows Pattaya is sex, drugs, and rock and roll!

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

Sorry to hear that. I too was very happy to hear Thailand is being very proactive about this. I do not even care aboit their motivations to be honest, the more places they put a stop to it, the better. I actually think Thais have their heads screwed on well straight on a number of matters, evidence being the safety and low crime rates here. They do not get enough credit. 

You seem to have a blind spot regarding traffic problems, including air pollution!

 

Are you a keen motorist by any chance?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...