Thailand makes HUGE changes to its laws on smoking in public

[Chou Anou]

It's quite clear that the new law will only be enforced erratically, and when it is, it will be enforced against white people...certainly not Japanese or Chinese, as that would hurt tourism.

 

Mind you, I'm not one of those pathetic whining white guys, you know those snowflakes, "boo-hoo, reverse racism" (which is something that does NOT exist, btw), I'm just stating the facts. At any rate, it will most certainly never be enforced against Thais.

[Commercial Diver]

17 hours ago, pmh2009 said:

So what's next... prohibiting  of laughter???

Laughter is good .. Duh, Cigarettes are an absolute ignorant & stupid choice 

Of lifestyles .. what good does smoking cigarettes bring .. ?

 Foolish, insecure people enriching tobacco companies .. (Why) to ensure poor health, wracking coughs and a dim-witted image for themselves  .. Please .. if you insist on your right to such a moronic habit, then Smoke over there somewhere ????‍♂️

If you’re serious, read ... Alan Carr’s “The Easy Way to Stop Smoking” 

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

41 minutes ago, direction BANGKOK said:

In my estimation, you need to explian or argue, why someone would take your word over the science. Why should someone listen to you, over the scientists if they are trying to do what is best for their health and family's health? 

 

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

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

 

You can write them and tell them to change that wording if you would like, but to say "secondhand cig smoke will have no affect on you" is a position that is false based on the scientists recommendations. Again, why should we listen to you and not them, that is the point you must address. 

 

 

https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/105/24/1844/2517805 -

 

quoted from the above:

 

'However, among women who had never smoked, exposure to passive smoking overall, and to most categories of passive smoking, did not statistically significantly increase lung cancer risk. The only category of exposure that showed a trend toward increased risk was living in the same house with a smoker for 30 years or more. In that group, the hazard ratio for developing lung cancer was 1.61, but the confidence interval included 1.00, making the finding of only borderline statistical significance.'

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/#39eb0a6c65d4

 

quoted from the above:

 

'A large-scale study found no clear link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, undercutting the premise of years of litigation'

'The study found no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke, however.'

 

No one has to take my word for it, there are plenty of studies that run counter to the one you have referenced. The jury is out on this one, you shouldn't pretend otherwise. That's disingenuous. Also - it very much depends who is funding said studies - or polls, as to what the findings are likely to be.

 

The other argument I make is the one you should try to counter - which undermines the whole passive / 2nd hand smoking argument - especially when outdoors in a town or city of any size.

We all know smoking is a bad habit and unhealthy, no sane person would argue otherwise. It is, however, one of many. If the government really cared for people's health they would prohibit the use of certain chemical agents in our daily lives and drastically limit the pleasurable pass-times we engage in. Drinking alcohol in anything more than moderation, eating unhealthy food, taking pharmaceutical medicines etc. - the list goes on.

 

Point is, people enjoy smoking, drinking and eating unhealthy food. Always will and always have. Chemicals/hormones/additives in foods and beverages is a vastly more important issue than second hand smoke - yet it isn't even addressed by most governments. This argument and the laws surrounding it (ie: smoking outside - except places where people are eating) is a highly flawed and perfunctory one for the reasons I have stated. EITHER ban smoking altogether or allow it as it currently stands. By the way, I'm not against smoking bans in indoor areas, I understand that cigarette smoke smells and can seep into hair/clothes etc. if in a contained area. We have laws to deal with that already though, how about considering the right of a smoker to enjoy a cigarette and be left in peace. Smokers are already hectored enough as it is. As I said EITHER go the whole hog and ban it on the grounds of a public health issue or leave the issue alone. BUT, if the government and its sheepdogs don't want to run the risk of being seen as totally inept / hypocritical then they should also consider banning alcohol, processed foods and a whole range of pharmaceuticals whilst there at it. Live and let live (within reason) or continue to transform society into some kind of Stalinist dystopia. Which would you prefer?

 

Edited November 7, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[0815]

17 hours ago, transam said:

You have an electric car...?

But with solar power please !

[Nielsk]

33 minutes ago, direction BANGKOK said:

In my estimation, you need to explian or argue, why someone would take your word over the science. Why should someone listen to you, over the scientists if they are trying to do what is best for their health and family's health? 

 

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

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

 

You can write them and tell them to change that wording if you would like, but to say "secondhand cig smoke will have no affect on you" is a position that is false based on the scientists recommendations. Again, why should we listen to you and not them, that is the point you must address. 

 

Nothing have to be changed. In the link they talk about indors, not out in the free.  Get Your facts right !!

Edited November 7, 2018 by Nielsk

[orchis]

Good.

[MaxYakov]

17 hours ago, transam said:

In the UK they banned smoking in pubs etc, but you could stand outside and have a puff, in this case it seems you have to stand in the middle of the road..????

Behind the pub in a separate smoking area, ideally. An attack by lymphoma cancer cured my smoking habit two years ago - cold turkey. However, if you want to stand in the middle of the road (as a protest?) have at it, it may be safer to do that than to smoke!

 

Some of the cigarettes smell really bad and cigarette smoke can go right through my PM 2.5 respirator mask because smoke particles (and many other particles, bacteria and viruses) are smaller than 2.5 microns. 

Edited November 7, 2018 by MaxYakov

[Boombum]

My my... I’ve always been a Non Smoker... I hate the stale Stench of others smoke on my clothes... 

I do feel that smoking outdoor is fine as the smell dissipates into the air... I’m from UK and the Disgusting concentration of filthy smoke in doorways really pisses me off...

unlike UK 90% of bars here are outdoor, where smoking won’t cause any harm to anyone... this sounds as ambiguous as ALL Thailand’s “Statute Rules” unfair on smokers... and probably unpoliceable... 

As for “ Electric Cars” they burn fuel to create electric to power them ?? Henry Ford designed his model T to run on Ethenol and built from Hemp ...thee BANKSTERS forced him to use Petrol and Steel .. people blame others when the culprit for evils is the Banks.

[RabCNesbitt]

So..... at my Cafe/Pub I have a smoking area at the back.... but in order to get 5m away from the door you would have to be sitting on the fence at the back of the property.... ????

In the unlikely event that a member of the BIB happens to pop in with a tape measure to check out the smokers, will I get fined or the smoker if they are within 5m of the back door?? ????

[mindfulness]

Remind me to constantly fart right next to these smokers, and their allies. Or even better any smokers & Co out their just tap me on the shoulder and say hey dude just drop those fart bombs right next to me. 

[TMNH]

17 hours ago, PatOngo said:

Is this to bring smokers in line with prison inmates? Will Big Joke be promoted to Head of the Fun Suppression Squad?

No- it's the "marginal"  authorities taking directives from some <deleted>. Look at your country before you deflect "anything".

 

 

Yes- regards,

 

Tim

[Howard]

Once more the posts from a significant percentage degenerate into mud-slinging against anything Thai. Seems that many on this forum can never see anything positive ever being done. Maybe they should look more closely at the situations in their countries of origin...

[yogi100]

6 minutes ago, Commercial Diver said:

Laughter is good .. Duh, Cigarettes are an absolute ignorant & stupid choice 

Of lifestyles .. what good does smoking cigarettes bring .. ?

 Foolish, insecure people enriching tobacco companies .. (Why) to ensure poor health, wracking coughs and a dim-witted image for themselves  .. Please .. if you insist on your right to such a moronic habit, then Smoke over there somewhere ????‍♂️

If you’re serious, read ... Alan Carr’s “The Easy Way to Stop Smoking” 

 

In reality very few people are going to take your advice and go out and purchase a copy of said publication or even send off to Amazon for one. Folk are simply not going to do it and it's probably a load of waffle that's been printed simply to make money.

 

If it's such a boon to those wishing to quit tobacco as you seem to imply could you kindly take the trouble to explain in a couple of paragraphs the main points that are made in Carr's book. If your doing so results in just one smoker becoming an ex smoker then you will have made a valuable contribution to that individual's future well being.

[TMNH]

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

Thailand currently has a law already prohibiting to smoke at places serving food. The new law just extends this law to other places and adds a 5m radius to the entrances.

and?

[DLock]

1 hour ago, transam said:

I reckon there are more drinkers that are yellow and stinky than smokers in LOS...????

 

...they are welcome in the little glass rooms as well.

[TMNH]

3 hours ago, watcharacters said:

 

Phew, I'm glad you got that off your chest, JimmyJ

 

And I don't smoke!

He who is without sin, cast the first stone. here we have a lame-brain castigating people who smoke. Go find some other cause when it is not none of your business.

[johnarth]

18 hours ago, pmh2009 said:

So what's next... prohibiting  of laughter???

yes the PM could consider you are laughing at him

[DLock]

2 minutes ago, TMNH said:

He who is without sin, cast the first stone. here we have a lame-brain castigating people who smoke. Go find some other cause when it is not none of your business.

 

As long as I don't have to smell your smoke, or you, you're right, it's none of my business...lets just agree to keep it that way.

[TMNH]

28 minutes ago, HappyAndRich said:

Nice to read that you really are so confused that you believe you have the right to blow your smoke in the same place as non smokers.

No- cognizant smokers have a boundary because they know it upsets people. However, if you think you can control that boundary, then stay home:)

 

[jackdd]

6 minutes ago, TMNH said:

and?

The existing law is followed by most Thais, but there seem to be quite a few foreigners who don't. So there is a good chance that the new law will also be followed, and the foreigners who don't might be fined.

Edited November 7, 2018 by jackdd

[Geordieabroad]

18 hours ago, transam said:

In the UK they banned smoking in pubs etc, but you could stand outside and have a puff, in this case it seems you have to stand in the middle of the road..????

Standing in the middle of the road is probably safer as they have a tendency to ride motorbikes on the pavements here

[TMNH]

Just now, jackdd said:

The existing law is respected by most Thais, but there seem to be quite a few foreigners who don't. So there is a good chance that the new law will also be respected, and the foreigners who don't might be fined.

what the hell are you talking about?

 

[baboon]

5 minutes ago, DLock said:

 

...they are welcome in the little glass rooms as well.

And how about families with kids running around the place, yelling and getting under people's feet...?

[cookieqw]

Smoking in bars etc has been against the law for a few years in Thailand but I’ve never seen it enforced

 

[Baerboxer]

18 hours ago, pmh2009 said:

So what's next... prohibiting  of laughter???

 

Laughter is good for your health. Smoking harms your own health and that of those who have to breath your smoke. 

 

About time all countries clamped down on those who think it's ok to have a quick smoke and pollute others.

 

Well played Thailand!

Edited November 7, 2018 by Baerboxer

[TMNH]

Just now, TMNH said:

what the hell are you talking about?

 

Have you not seen Thai natives smoking?  Your logic is deficient to say the least.

[DLock]

1 minute ago, baboon said:

And how about families with kids running around the place, yelling and getting under people's feet...?

 

...in the room.

[jackdd]

2 minutes ago, TMNH said:

what the hell are you talking about?

 

I recommend you read the thread before posting

[gamini]

18 hours ago, pmh2009 said:

So what's next... prohibiting  of laughter???

What a selfish attitude. Thanks to second-hand smoke I'm suffering from a fatal lung disease. I really admire Thailand for its bans on smoking.

[TMNH]

1 hour ago, janhkt said:

Do you seriously claim that you will die from briefly inhaling diluted second hand smoke from people smoking outside buildings? And that this is a bigger health risk than traffic pollution in big cities?

Exactly!