Thailand makes HUGE changes to its laws on smoking in public

[JimmyJ]

Cigarette smokers told to stay 5 paces away from the door when puffing their cancer sticks, and the result is 27 pages and counting of denial, whataboutery, whining and sniveling, and the end of the world.

 

A true statement of the pathetic depths of their addiction.

Edited November 7, 2018 by JimmyJ

[Shaunduhpostman]

If they were sincerely interested in people's health instead of just attacking people, or creating more pretexts to fine people they'd also be trying to manage the country's waste problems which are largely, out in the countryside, dealt with by burning the waste on site, ie, at people's homes. The smoke from plastic waste can be overwhelming, sickening and linger for hours, especially when people start burning altogether, which often happens. No doubt the very poor health of even quite young people in the villages is caused by the several hours spent daily inhaling the cocktail  of toxins from burning refuse. Cigarette smoke outdoors is nothing by comparison.

Edited November 7, 2018 by Shaunduhpostman

[sambum]

"Other Thai media reported that people contravening the new regulations would be fined 5,000 baht."

 

Not "a fine up to 100,000 baht and/or a year in jail"? 

[marko kok prong]

will never be enforced,more piffle.

[direction BANGKOK]

5 hours ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

 

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?

 

Just a cursory response to you post, we can all stipulate dying is a pretty high bar. If there is any risk whatsoever, we do not want our families, especially newborns, exposed any more than possible. 

 

But, forget that. Let's just say you are right and babies and others can inhale as much second hand smoke as they want and never get cancer. You know what, it is STILL absolutely intolerably just going by the smell of it and the litter it produces alone. Cigs are by far and away the number one litter item worldwide. Not to mention fires caused by it. This stuff alone is more than enough, WAY more than enough. 

 

In the end, even if you are right, which I do not believe you are and it is up for debate, but even if you are, you are still wrong. Why should people be able to cloud up a families clothes with cigarette smoke just because they walked out of a restaurant or building?

Edited November 7, 2018 by direction BANGKOK

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and the replies have been removed. 

 

Inflammatory posts and the replies have been removed. 

[Media1]

Just another rort during a green and brown envelope meeting lol

[tropo]

1 hour ago, DLock said:

 

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.

I love seeing smokers squirm whenever their rights to blow smoke in my face are suppressed.  

[sambum]

1 hour ago, 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
 

I stopped smoking 5 years ago, after smoking for more than 50 years, and without making a mountain out of a "Dunhill" (I like that, by the way!) people smoking near me doesn't bother me in the slightest! If they purposely blew it in my face it would be a different matter, and even when I smoked, that would have upset me!

Anyway, my point is that (for the most part!) there is nothing worse than a reformed smoker for churning out statements about "their rights" and "the evil, obnoxious weed" "filthy habit" etc etc etc. "Compromise" seems to be a word that non smokers do not comprehend!

 

Smokers, (for the most part) are normally prepared to be reasonable about the issue, and like yourself, realise that smoking in public places, bars, restaurants etc can be a nuisance/health problem to some people, and act accordingly.

 

Personally, I would like to see "Smoking Only" rooms in pubs where drinkers/workers could enjoy a "fag and a pint" as they have done for years, without inconveniencing others. It might even help the pub trade which in my neck of the woods  has had a massive downturn over the last few years.

 

And standing outside, or waking down a busy street inundated with exhaust fumes can surely be just as dangerous to your health, as a bit of smoke emanating from a smoker's cigarette? (And I just KNOW that someone is going to say"But I have to walk down the street to get to work - but there are pros and cons in that logic as well)

 

 

 

 

[direction BANGKOK]

6 hours ago, Nielsk said:

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

They are right. In the link they state "there is no safe level of secondhand smoke exposure". That means indoors or outdoors. 

[ukrules]

2 hours ago, HooHaa said:

This is actually more true than you know. 

 

The Philippine government imposed this ban and an area by my condo, which was a thriving mecca for outside dining and patio drinking died to the point where businesses actually had to ignore the law or close doors. 

 

The venues that remain in business, about 60 percent, are smoker freindly, but only outside on the patio. 

I've seen it happen twice already. Once in Ireland and then in the UK, years apart.

 

From a few months after a smoking ban was introduced pubs started to close down.

 

[DrTuner]

I quit smoking over a decade ago but seeing how many get their knickers in a twist about seeing someone light up I'm getting quite a craving. Maybe they'll pop a vein and ease the global overpopulation.

[balo]

The good thing about this is when the heavy smokers from China comes her and get fined 5000 baht, that will keep the Chinese away from Thailand.

[sanemax]

1 minute ago, car720 said:

has anyone linked the coincidence of this to the fact that they are just about to legalize grass?

No one has, no .

[Retiredandhappyhere]

23 hours ago, Misterwhisper said:

I have nothing against sensible anti-smoking laws. But this is ridiculous and unfortunately just as little thought-through as many other laws here that seem to have been concocted by over-zealous bureaucrats who have lost grip with reality.

 

This law is simply unenforceable in densely built-up Thai cities:

 

Okay, so you move down the sidewalk five meters away from the pub entrance... only there will be a hair salon. Move five meters further again. Alas, there's a karaoke bar. Five meters onward there'll be the entrance to a condo or a school or a massage parlor. Before you know it you'll be in Samutprakarn. And when you think you can finally light up (while your beer back in the pub has already evaporated, of course), you are going to realize that you in fact cannot, because you're standing right in front of a temple.  

No need to worry.  Just remember what happened to the "no riding in the backs of pick-ups"?   And as for enforcement, well.................      How's the law about not riding m/cs on the wrong side of the road going?  Every day I see scores of m/c riders with no helmets and in the evening on a short 10 km journey can spot at least 6, including one or two with sidecars and kids on board, with no back lights.  

 

In a few days, you can expect the 5 metre rule to be changed to something like 5 cms, after protests from pubs and other such establishments.

[hobz]

1 hour ago, Shaunduhpostman said:

If they were sincerely interested in people's health instead of just attacking people, or creating more pretexts to fine people they'd also be trying to manage the country's waste problems which are largely, out in the countryside, dealt with by burning the waste on site, ie, at people's homes. The smoke from plastic waste can be overwhelming, sickening and linger for hours, especially when people start burning altogether, which often happens. No doubt the very poor health of even quite young people in the villages is caused by the several hours spent daily inhaling the cocktail  of toxins from burning refuse. Cigarette smoke outdoors is nothing by comparison.

They are trying to deal with this. Before in Chiang mai there was mostly burning in March,., they made it illegal in march so now its happening all year around instead.... They have failed so far but they are trying! 

[tropo]

13 minutes ago, sambum said:

 "Compromise" seems to be a word that non smokers do not comprehend!

You're got that twisted around the wrong way... 

 

I'm not a reformed smoker, but a person who has never smoked. All my life I've had to compromise with smokers by inhaling their smoke in areas where they were allowed to smoke. It's actually the smell that bothers me more than the inhaling of smoke. It's not so much a health issue for me, but an unpleasant experience. In any enviroment where people are smoking in the presence of non-smokers, the only people compromising are the non-smokers. The smokers are breathing what they choose to breathe, the non-smokers don't have a choice.

 

 

[johng]

After the smokers maybe they'll go after the "faties" or those who are exercise shy...or eat to much meat...and not enough fruits and veg but probably it'll be alcohol.

[hobz]

3 hours ago, juice777 said:

Yeah and apparently 10 000 people die a year in London form diseases brought on form pollution.So God knows how many in BKK, but hay lets worry about a little bit of second-hand smoke form the smokers.

I agree with no smoking indoors but this is just ridiculous.




Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
 

Pollution is really bad in Chiang Mai as well certain times of the year. Many people die. And the government is not doing enough to stop it. Just like they won't enforce this smoking ban.

 

Don't worry. You will be able to smoke outside. You might have to walk 5 meters but it will all be ok.

[mommysboy]

1 minute ago, hobz said:

Pollution is really bad in Chiang Mai as well certain times of the year. Many people die. And the government is not doing enough to stop it. Just like they won't enforce this smoking ban.

 

Don't worry. You will be able to smoke outside. You might have to walk 5 meters but it will all be ok.

So, I did actually see a guy sitting down smoking on the street.  I was in the gym on one of those cross country ski machines, and he was opposite outside a pharmacy, where there was a little bench for customers.

 

About half a dozen people walked by during that time- not one batted an eyelid as far as I could tell. Meanwhile, I gave up counting the number of vehicles that passed- 100, 200, maybe 300.

 

I'd say some people on this thread really need to get some perspective.

[mommysboy]

10 minutes ago, tropo said:

You're got that twisted around the wrong way... 

 

I'm not a reformed smoker, but a person who has never smoked. All my life I've had to compromise with smokers by inhaling their smoke in areas where they were allowed to smoke. It's actually the smell that bothers me more than the inhaling of smoke. It's not so much a health issue for me, but an unpleasant experience. In any enviroment where people are smoking in the presence of non-smokers, the only people compromising are the non-smokers. The smokers are breathing what they choose to breathe, the non-smokers don't have a choice.

 

 

But they can only smoke outdoors these days.  So, I don't see how you are compromised in any way whatsoever.

 

If its the go-go bars or such like- well anything goes in there- not really a place for the sensitive.

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, DLock said:

 

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.

 

Blimey, don't live anywhere near cars then!

[FritsSikkink]

On ‎11‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 4:27 PM, 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.

I don't like the smell of your bike / car

[sanemax]

2 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

I don't like the smell of your bike / car

That is why they are not allowed into bars and restaurants 

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

1 hour ago, direction BANGKOK said:

Just a cursory response to you post, we can all stipulate dying is a pretty high bar. If there is any risk whatsoever, we do not want our families, especially newborns, exposed any more than possible. 

 

But, forget that. Let's just say you are right and babies and others can inhale as much second hand smoke as they want and never get cancer. You know what, it is STILL absolutely intolerably just going by the smell of it and the litter it produces alone. Cigs are by far and away the number one litter item worldwide. Not to mention fires caused by it. This stuff alone is more than enough, WAY more than enough. 

 

In the end, even if you are right, which I do not believe you are and it is up for debate, but even if you are, you are still wrong. Why should people be able to cloud up a families clothes with cigarette smoke just because they walked out of a restaurant or building?

 

I take your point that the smell is bad and the litter aspect is the one area where I'd agree with you - which is why I mentioned it in my previous (1st) post.  As I (and many others) have said however, there is way more of a cost paid by society from the ills of alcohol - I am not about to list them all here again as it's beginning to feel like Groundhog day - feel free to look over previous posts from myself and others for that argument. Does this mean we as a society should ban alcohol? I personally think no, because - as I have said so many times, the real crux of this issue is the 'freedom of personal choice' / civil liberties debate. Smokers don't have the right to impose their habit on you (and most do not do so) - they can't do in any indoor setting - that is already illegal and rightly so. But you and non-smokers similarly don't have the 'right' to impose your distaste and intolerance for smoking on people who do smoke responsibly and follow the law. SIMPLE AS THAT! 

 

If you walk by a bar or group of people smoking and get a momentary waft - a second or two - of smoke wash over you it wont harm you, it might smell, but hey - walking around any big city you get plenty of worse smells invade your sinuses than a bit of tobacco smoke. It also won't hurt you, the polluted air you (and your family perhaps) are breathing in is contaminated by all manner of real pollutants created in an urban environment and is far worse for you, so this is a moot point.

 

If you're FOR banning ciggies altogether on the 'public health risk' grounds you have to be FOR banning alcohol and a few other items too. I notice hardly anyone is. That is a double standard and there's room for them in this world. There are enough as it is.

Edited November 7, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[federico]

something I really liked about Thailand is this feeling of freedom you can feel especially when you come from a western country. I don't smoke anymore but I like the idea of being rid off all those rules we have in Europe...

[sanemax]

24 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

Smokers don't have the right to impose their habit on you (and most do not do so) - they can't do in any indoor setting - that is already illegal and rightly so. But you and non-smokers similarly don't have the 'right' to impose your distaste and intolerance for smoking on people who do smoke responsibly and follow the law. SIMPLE AS THAT! 

And the law will soon state that you cannot smoke near anywhere , do follow that law, when it comes into force

[wabothai]

I would be all for it if they would include the burning of fields and forrests and the blue plumes from cars and motocys.

[hobz]

2 minutes ago, wabothai said:

I would be all for it if they would include the burning of fields and forrests and the blue plumes from cars and motocys.

All those things are illegal already.

Just not enforced properly. Ofcourse the smoking laws will not be enforced properly either.

[hobz]

6 minutes ago, sanemax said:

And the law will soon state that you cannot smoke near anywhere , do follow that law, when it comes into force

That's never gonna happen. It has been tried multiple times and it just creates a huge untaxed black market and smoking doesn't decrease.