Thailand makes HUGE changes to its laws on smoking in public

[HAKAPALITA]

8 minutes ago, HooHaa said:

I would have told you where to put it. Non smokers are almost worse than vegans. 

And they ride Bicycles in funny tight ladies clothes , shouting at Motorists.

[morrobay]

10 minutes ago, vogie said:

There's one thing apparent from reading this topic that the smokers are massively in denial and that by mentioning another bad habit justifies theirs. 

Smokers have 3 categories :     1. Ignorant . 2 in state of denial. 3 obnoxious lowlifes. 

                       

[KenKadz]

Really? Worried about a little cigarette smoke outside buildings?

The air is already putrid from vehicle emissions, gasses from organic rot (garbage - sewage) and other pollutants.

And if that does not kill you the bad drivers will.

[sanemax]

12 minutes ago, natway09 said:

Just gotta love em !!!\

It is also illegal to ride a motorbike without a helmet but ?????????

Ask any brain surgeon in Thailand & he/she will tell you that if they didn't have to spend so

much time on stupid unnecessary motorbike accidents they could get on & do some real work.

Whilst I consider myself a considerate smoker (always go out of a bar to have a puff) I think that Thailand has more pressing policing requirements like the slaughter on the roads (which must be costing this country billions) rather than pick up on some first world countries rules on smoking

Yes, we all agree that road laws in Thailand should be enforced , no need to state the obvious 

[juice777]

Depends how many times they walk past there.. what if they don't want to walk past the smokers but want to stay in the area where the smokers are filling the air with smoke? Say waiting for a bus, or whatever, I don't need a reason for standing somewhere.

I stopped smoking 6 years ago and I now hate the smell of smoke. I agreed with the no smoking in public indoor places even when I was a smoker. I thought it was fare enough. But now I can't say once in the last 6 years when people smoking outside of a building has bothered me.Everone is just making a mountain out of A Dunhill.I don't believe anyone has died from second-hand smoke from outside of a building or got ill for that matter.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[sanemax]

6 minutes ago, KenKadz said:

Really? Worried about a little cigarette smoke outside buildings?

The air is already putrid from vehicle emissions, gasses from organic rot (garbage - sewage) and other pollutants.

And if that does not kill you the bad drivers will.

Not sure where you live , but where I live , the air is quite clean , and when people smoke near me , I just breath in fresh air and smoke from cigarettes 

[Syduan]

22 hours ago, HappyAndRich said:

That a very good step to promote public health and to get rid of all the bad smelling spews of all smokers.
If you want to smoke, get away from people and show some dignity and respect for other that don´t want your tobacco smoke in their lungs.

 

Same like a factory can´t dump their shit anywhere, due to that it´s bad for nature. You smokers can´t dump your dangerous smoke into other peoples lives and surroundings.

Thank You!

Do you drive?

[DLock]

Just now, juice777 said:

I stopped smoking 6 years ago and I now hate the smell of smoke. I agreed with the no smoking in public indoor places even when I was a smoker. I thought it was fare enough. But now I can't say once in the last 6 years when people smoking outside of a building has bothered me.Everone is just making a mountain out of A Dunhill.I don't believe anyone has died from second-hand smoke from outside of a building or got ill for that matter.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
 

 

So, your logic is, as long as it doesn't kill me, or make me sick, I should have to put up with it?

 

Dumb logic.

[sanemax]

Just now, Syduan said:

Do you drive?

I do know what you are getting at , but that point is irrelevant and has been addressed previously in this thread

[dick dasterdly]

27 minutes ago, DLock said:

 

You miss the point.

 

Smokers are always "I'm considerate" and "it's not me", but it just takes that one smoker that is inconsiderate, thinks that he can smoke anywhere to ruin it for both sides.

 

No doubt those little yellow rooms were horrible....but now smokers don't even have those little yellow rooms...but the airport is smoke free.

 

Smokers just don't get it...and that's why we are where we are.

Have to admit that I gave up on returning to the UK when (last time, many years ago) I discovered that Heathrow had decided to ban smoking altogether.

 

The 'glass rooms' provided previously were horrendous, and disliked by smokers as there was bugger all in the way of adequate ventilation.  Adequate ventilation could have been provided, but for their own reasons they decided not to do so....

 

If it took one, seriously annoyed smoker, to result in the ban of those awful, glass enclosures - then it only goes to show they (and others) were looking for an excuse to ban smoking entirely IMO.

[sanemax]

3 minutes ago, juice777 said:

.I don't believe anyone has died from second-hand smoke from outside of a building or got ill for that matter.

Yeah , just like the song "Whatever doesnt kill me makes me stronger "

Smokers smoke , give me your smoke to make me stronger 

[grumpy 4680]

      This topic has now reached out to many crackpot comments, bars should simply have the choice to allow smokers or not, and then you would have the choice of where to go or not.

      Since the industrial revolution, and the beginning of the nuclear age, there's no telling what we have to breath, there are far greater issues than smoking here, which governments won't admit to, but smoking is just an easy target for the do-gooder nancy boys to complain about. The hospitals blame every illness as smoking related, but we all have some form of cancer in the genes, it just depends what aggrievates it to become full blown.

      I have smoked for 55 years with no ill affects, and stopped using UK pubs as a result of the stupid ban, Hence thousands of UK pubs have now closed (not all due to beer prices) but the atmosphere has changed.       This country will also change for the worse, all the time Thais allow crazy dictatorial governments to continue with vote rigging schemes. 90 days till these laws come in to effect, might have a sensible democratic government shortly around then.

[sanemax]

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Have to admit that I gave up on returning to the UK when (last time, many years ago) I discovered that Heathrow had decided to ban smoking altogether.

 

The 'glass rooms' provided previously were horrendous, and disliked by smokers as there was bugger all in the way of adequate ventilation.  Adequate ventilation could have been provided, but for their own reasons they decided not to do so....

 

If it took one, seriously annoyed smoker, to result in the ban of those awful, glass enclosures - then it only goes to show they (and others) were looking for an excuse to ban smoking entirely IMO.

Gotta laugh , smokers complaining about having to breathe other smokers smoke in .

Why didnt they just go and stand in those cubicles without a cigarette and just breathe the smoke in ? 

[DLock]

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

Gotta laugh , smokers complaining about having to breathe other smokers smoke in .

Why didnt they just go and stand in those cubicles without a cigarette and just breathe the smoke in ? 

 

I thought the same thing. Irony.

 

Now they understand how we feel.

[Redline]

Next-bars close at 9 pm

[sanemax]

7 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

People get munted at a bar or at home and then create havoc in the streets (or at home) - physical violence, damage to property, breaching the peace, making a general nuisance of themselves and of course the cost to the NHS / taxpayer in the form of poor health and causing poor health in others in the form of violence or accidents

Some people do behave in such a manner , but most people do not behave like that .

That kind of behavior is illegal and will lead to getting arrested and charged .

  (P.S. I dont want to hear about your drunken mate who got drunk and went on a rampage and didnt get arrested and escaped without getting into any trouble) 

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

9 minutes ago, DLock said:

 

You been schooled Son.

 

Your arguments are reaching, irrelevant and weak.

 

You got nothing.

 

Wow! ????????

 

Keep believing that fella, I'm sure it must be a comfort.

 

Yet you STILL offer NO counter to my points. 'Weak' doesn't being to cover your rhetoric. 

 

I've wasted enough time getting sucked in to this argument. You won't change your mind, and I won't change mine. Unfortunately for me the law is increasingly on your side, for the moment. 

With that in mind - perhaps I'll try to give up the occasional ciggy I have and not have this issue affect me at all. Even once I have I would still advocate the personal liberty of someone to light up outdoors though, I believe in personal freedoms, unlike certain trolls on here.

[sanemax]

1 minute ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

 

Maybe I'll try to give up and not have this issue affect me, even once I have I would still advocate the personal liberty of someone to do light up outdoors, I believe in personal freedoms, unlike certain trolls on here.

Do you believe in other peoples personal freedoms not to breathe in smoke from other peoples cigarettes or are you just concerned about your own personal freedom to smoke ? ?

[Farrows3399]

Your freedom stops where my health starts

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

Do you believe in other peoples personal freedoms not to breathe in smoke from other peoples cigarettes or are you just concerned about your own personal freedom to smoke ? ?

Both, of course.

 

No one is making anyone breathe in 2nd hand smoke - thats the whole point here. IT IS ILLEGAL INDOORS and restricted outdoors! 

[juice777]

 
So, your logic is, as long as it doesn't kill me, or make me sick, I should have to put up with it?
 
Dumb logic.

No I am saying I find it hard to believe it's a big problem for anyone so why make the smokers life hell.

I mean this is a real problem for some smokers who now can't smoke outside where they work, But in my opinion nothing more than a minor inconvenience for some of the non-smokers. And it sounds like they are just out for blood anyway because of the years they had to put up with indoor smoke( which was wrong without a doubt).







Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

5 minutes ago, DLock said:

 

Your alcohol arguments are irrelevant.

 

I don't care if you smoke, as long as it doesn't affect me in any way. 

 

Just like I'm not going to drink beer outside your building and spit beer on you every time you walk past.

 

Thats fair.

OK. I don't wish for this to devolve any further. I think its a very fair and logical comparison to make re: alcohol and smoking. You disagree - fine. I never once said (to be fair) that smoking is a good idea or something to advocate taking up or that I'm in favour of banning alcohol in turn. All I'm advocating here is personal freedoms. This new law seems to be a step too far and a further impingement on those freedoms. Perhaps that's enough said. 

[tropo]

22 hours ago, CLW said:

Just implementing rules others developed countries have introduced since a few years.
I'm not against smoking, it is everyone's decision but I don't like the smell.

And there you have it. Smoking takes away a non-smokers right to breathe fresh air. Unless there are strong laws, the non-smoker is ever the loser in this battle of rights.

[Farrows3399]

1 minute ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

Both, of course.

 

No one is making anyone breathe in 2nd hand smoke - thats the whole point here. IT IS ILLEGAL INDOORS and restricted outdoors! 

Bullshit. Anyone in area of these smokers is forced to inhale cigarette smoke 

[DLock]

2 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

OK. I don't wish for this to devolve any further. I think its a very fair comparison to make re: alcohol and smoking. You disagree - fine. I never once said (to be fair) that smoking is a good idea or something to advocate taking up. All I'm advocating here is personal freedoms. This new law seems to be a step too far and further impingement on those freedoms. Perhaps that's enough said. 

 

I'm cool with that.

 

...as long as I don't have to smell smoke.

 

Shake.

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

Just now, Farrows3399 said:

Bullshit. Anyone in area of these smokers is forced to inhale cigarette smoke 

 

Erroneous nonsense yet again. See the many above arguments re: pollution etc. and banning of indoor smoking / restriction of outdoor smoking that already exists, before commenting. Ta.

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

5 minutes ago, DLock said:

 

I'm cool with that.

 

...as long as I don't have to smell smoke.

 

Shake.

Just to be clear, I would never force anyone to 'smell my smoke' - that's an imposition on someone else and if I were for it I'd be as bad as someone who is for imposing a total ban of smoking on me and others.

 

I smoke rollies too, not straights, so the smoke created is less acrid / chemically and smaller in volume - and I always make an effort not to blow it near others whilst I'm outdoors having a little toot.

 

Shake.

 

????

[DLock]

5 minutes ago, juice777 said:

 

 

No I am saying I find it hard to believe it's a big problem for anyone so why make the smokers life hell.

I mean this is a real problem for some smokers who now can't smoke outside where they work, But in my opinion nothing more than a minor inconvenience for some of the non-smokers. And it sounds like they are just out for blood anyway because of the years they had to put up with indoor smoke( which was wrong without a doubt).







Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
 

 

 

You are looking at this backwards.

 

A non smoker causes no inconvenience to a smoker by not smoking. None. So why should I even have even a "minor inconvenience" of smelling your smoke that just came out of your lungs? And trust me, it's never a minor inconvenience - its continual

 

I shouldn't.

 

I don't care if people smoke. Just find places far enough away that it doesn't affect me, but if it does affect me, then I have no issues with restricting your rights further so that it doesn't.

 

I don't think I am being too demanding to breathe "smoke free" air in my daily life.

[sanemax]

1 minute ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

Both, of course.

 

No one is making anyone breathe in 2nd hand smoke - thats the whole point here. IT IS ILLEGAL INDOORS and restricted outdoors! 

These new rules are making it illegal for people to smoke in the vicinity of others .

Smoking one step outside a bar forces passers by or people inside the bar to breathe in the smoke (depends on which way the wind is blowing)

[JimmyJ]

49 minutes ago, grumpy 4680 said:

     

      I have smoked for 55 years with no ill affects

 

Listen Up People:

 

Proof positive - Cigarettes do not cause lung cancer.

 

OK grumpy - You showed dem dumb scientists up bigtime!