New laws target people in Thailand who smoke at home

[chang1]

10 minutes ago, bizboi said:

I dont smoke but i respect the rights of others to smoke in their own homes THAT is the point!

The point of this law is to protect anyone else in a smokers home who's rights to clean air are not respected. If the house is only occupied by smokers I doubt that they will be affected in any way until they have visitors. 

[connda]

4 hours ago, smedly said:

I agree that no one should smoke in enclosed spaces especially in the presence of children but this law is unenforceable, especially since general air quality in Thailand is as bad as it is, cigarette smoke is way down the list when it comes to air pollution in Thailand

Every time some Thai walks outside an sets a flame to a forest floor, a sugarcane field, or corn field, or starts their smoke belching vehicle - it's just as bad if not worse than subjecting others to second-hand smoke.  

And during those times of the year when you can cut the air with a knife how often do you hear that a Thai has been arrested and prosecuted for arson or violating a burn ban?

Key flaw to the law like so many others -- Enforcement

[Matzzon]

On 6/21/2019 at 12:39 PM, overherebc said:

Can my wife and me sue each other?

PS  No kids. Before someone jumps in. ????????

Only if you contract cancer or any other evil or life threatening disease. Still wanna sue? ????????

[Time to grow]

6 hours ago, balo said:

I welcome the new law. Anyone smoking today are living in the stone age. And I don't want to die of cancer related to smoking. 

When you support laws that define what someone can or can't do in their own home, you set a dangerous and troubling precedent.

[transam]

7 minutes ago, chang1 said:

The point of this law is to protect anyone else in a smokers home who's rights to clean air are not respected. If the house is only occupied by smokers I doubt that they will be affected in any way until they have visitors. 

Clean air in LOS....?

[remorhaz]

I am not a smoker and never have been however I do know what happens everywhere anytime some drug is made illegal that people want - something worse takes its place.  Can't smoke?  More yabba ... count on it.  

[Cheops]

It's always good to try protecting children, but if something cannot be enforced and/or proven it's pretty useless.

 

What kills and hurt more children: 2nd hand smoke or not wearing helmets on motorcycles? Enough said!

[Cheops]

11 minutes ago, Time to grow said:

When you support laws that define what someone can or can't do in their own home, you set a dangerous and troubling precedent.

Yes and no.

This law is about protecting children where possible. 

 

How about the law that defines you cannot abuse children in your domestic environment? 

[BadSpottedDog]

2 hours ago, Jim Brantley said:

If their concern is for physical and mental health then they have more laws to pass.  I mean, bug spray is bad for you, foods containing sugar are bad, and I won't even go into all the chemicals found in the average house which are not only just bad, but out-and-out poisonous.  Then there are the things which can scar a child mentally:  loud arguments, video games, bad cooking, violence on TV...the list of things which need to be banned is incredibly long.  They should get busy and start passing more laws. 

Good point! But I think laws won't work on uneducated parents. Lack of education is the root cause. It's incredible to see all these kids getting their dinners at 7 Eleven, and CANDY! Omg, the candy! I see many kids' teeth just rotten. Is that abuse? It's gotta hurt, and it's so sad. 
Hopefully, they will at some point see that unenforceable laws are a waste, but educating the people and families on health practices would go so much further. 

[FarFlungFalang]

22 minutes ago, Time to grow said:

When you support laws that define what someone can or can't do in their own home, you set a dangerous and troubling precedent.

Murder,rape,imprisonment,child,pornography,plotting terrorist attacks are some of the things you can't do in your home and you find this a dangerous and troubling precedent?

[Machiavelli]

On 6/22/2019 at 11:01 AM, sambum said:

I finally stopped after the 3rd attempt (6 months each time) 6 years nicotine free now after more than 50 years, and before quitting completely was down to half a cig a day - seems sad now! My tip - slowly! First step, not in the house, second step not on the balcony, last step - not in the bar with your booze! (That was the hardest part!)

Not everybody has to quit. Your health issues are not universal. They are yours. 

[BadSpottedDog]

12 minutes ago, Cheops said:

Yes and no.

This law is about protecting children where possible. 

 

How about the law that defines you cannot abuse children in your domestic environment? 

I know a woman who is addicted to yaba, and has a one year old baby. She is abusive and police have been called multiple times. They do nothing. Apparently, if there is a law on the books in Thailand, it may or may not be enforced. Make rules and be consistent. 

As for health ... education is the key!! Teach the people about junk food and sugar and burning and littering ... etc etc. 

[Machiavelli]

2 hours ago, chang1 said:

Smokers generally think they have a right to smoke wherever they want regardless of how it affects other people or the litter left behind. 

People smell more than any cigarette. People stink. I rather stand next to someone lighting up than sit in Bangkok bus. 

[Percy P]

18 hours ago, sharpjwe said:

This to protect the children 

how can parents poison their own offspring 

good law for sure 

Perhaps you have statistics of people who have died due to them being brought up in a family of smokers. I have never smoked in my life nor ever s shall but our age no objection to people who want to smoke even in my presents. I'm 80 yo and in the next of health. 

I read 7000 people have been kill in car accidents in Thailand and that not including people who die after. It is estimated that 24,000 people will be killed long he road this year and only 6 months have gone.. Don't you think banning driving would help save lives 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Percy P
Mistake

[chang1]

10 minutes ago, BadSpottedDog said:

Good point! But I think laws won't work on uneducated parents. Lack of education is the root cause. It's incredible to see all these kids getting their dinners at 7 Eleven, and CANDY! Omg, the candy! I see many kids' teeth just rotten. Is that abuse? It's gotta hurt, and it's so sad. 
Hopefully, they will at some point see that unenforceable laws are a waste, but educating the people and families on health practices would go so much further. 

Although unenforceable this law sends a powerful message (if it gets enough publicly) that will highlight the health risks and therefor go some way to educate where other methods would fail.

[chang1]

11 minutes ago, Machiavelli said:

People smell more than any cigarette. People stink. I rather stand next to someone lighting up than sit in Bangkok bus. 

The smell is unpleasant but the toxins are the main problem smelly people won't kill you tobacco smoke can. But Bangkok buses are also pretty toxic.

[Percy P]

7 hours ago, balo said:

I welcome the new law. Anyone smoking today are living in the stone age. And I don't want to die of cancer related to smoking. 

I didn't realise they had cigarettes in the stone age 

[Humpy]

Smokers smell. Try sitting next to one who has just panicked smoked a few in the 'kipper room' before boarding a long haul flight........ yuk.

[FarFlungFalang]

1 minute ago, Percy P said:

Perhaps you have statistics of people who have died due to them being brought up in a family of smokers. I have never smoked in my life not ever s shall but our age no objection to people who want to smoke even in my presents. I'm 80 yo and in the next of health. 

I read 7000 people have been kill in car accidents in Thailand and that not including people who die after. It is estimated that 24,000 people will be killed long he road this year and only 6 months have gone.. Don't you think banning driving would help save lives 

Statistically speaking you will die wether you breath cigarette smoke or not.

[Percy P]

1 minute ago, Percy P said:

I didn't realise they had cigarettes in the stone age 

 

20 minutes ago, BadSpottedDog said:

I know a woman who is addicted to yaba, and has a one year old baby. She is abusive and police have been called multiple times. They do nothing. Apparently, if there is a law on the books in Thailand, it may or may not be enforced. Make rules and be consistent. 

As for health ... education is the key!! Teach the people about junk food and sugar and burning and littering ... etc etc. 

 

17 minutes ago, Percy P said:

Perhaps you have statistics of people who have died due to them being brought up in a family of smokers. I have never smoked in my life nor ever s shall but our age no objection to people who want to smoke even in my presents. I'm 80 yo and in the next of health. 

I read 7000 people have been kill in car accidents in Thailand and that not including people who die after. It is estimated that 24,000 people will be killed long he road this year and only 6 months have gone.. Don't you think banning driving would help save lives 

 

5 minutes ago, Humpy said:

Smokers smell. Try sitting next to one who has just panicked smoked a few in the 'kipper room' before boarding a long haul flight........ yuk.

Agree but I don't object to people who want to smoke. That's there chose they no the riskes

[Gabor]

3 hours ago, ChrisKC said:

I don't think it is violence but it IS a violation to expose dirty used smoke from cigarettes to innocents living in the home with a smoker. it is a violation as it relates to all individuals that have the right to breathe in fresh air. Oh, I know about the pollution but the smoking aspect adds to the problem and to some extent, people saying that staying indoors maybe escape the pollution outside - but can't stay inside for three months, no!.

 

It is never right to state that its (perceived) importance is at the expense of greater needs and therefore do nothing. Many thousands die everywhere in the world from the effects of smoking - what's wrong with doing something really positive? Will it work? I don't know - wait and see!

 

When I discovered in 1980 the irrefutable proof that passive smoking is harmful to my family, I immediately gave up - it just seemed to be the caring and responsible thing to do. I do not expect to be criticised for it or being thought of as "holier than Thou".

 

I have some (not much) sympathy with those who believe this measure by the Government is a violation of their human rights and another nail in the coffin of freedom to choose.

 

It's a bit like wearing a crash helmet or your safety belt. Not because it's the law but because it affords protection from more serious effects in the event of accidents - caring and being responsible!

"  This could lead to a court injunction to protect the health of family members, with the smoker being sent to a rehabilitation centre to kick the habit,” Lertpanya said. " Sounds like Khmer Rouge.... 

[Misab]

I am a non-smoker I have been Diagnosed COPD with only 20 % lung capacity left, therefore I welcome the new law but there is something much worse and that is pollution from diesel cars. You see them every day they lay out a smoke cloud  properly because oil and oil filters haven’t been changed for a very long time.  Also, you see busses and other diesel cars parked with the motor running because of air-condition but it kills other people when they have to inhale all the particles which is cancer causing.

Fighting pollution from diesel cars ought to have 1. Priority

[Percy P]

1 minute ago, FarFlungFalang said:

Statistically speaking you will die wether you breath cigarette smoke or not.

If it's the intention of the smoking law is to save children's lives why don't the government ban children riding as a million on a motercycle. I've seen as many as 4 presumably with there parents it can't be safe. I'm a motorcyclist myself and I know the possible dangers.

[marquis22]

19 hours ago, sharpjwe said:

This to protect the children 

how can parents poison their own offspring 

good law for sure 

You obviously do not live anywhere near Chiang Mai

[Cheops]

4 minutes ago, Percy P said:

the intention of the smoking law

I'm all for laws to protect children, but the intention of this new law is to make the officers in this ministry look like they are doing their job. There will be some example set and that's it. 

 

If they REALLY cared about the welfare of children they COULD implement a series of laws and measures with enforcement and follow ups. But they only care about their careers.

[bri1guy]

Smoking in the home isnt the same as smoking out on the balcony away from Children or family members correct ?

[Phaser]

Wow very forward looking...smoking at home can constitute a form of domestic violence. Now who can I sue for the air pollution in Chiang Mai??

[TKDfella]

4 hours ago, Geoffggi said:

Let me start by saying I am a none smoker, having said this I do agree with the above comment, this law is stupid and unenforceable, as also stated above within confined spaces smoking should be banned but lets be a little bit sensible when placing restrictions......

Unenforceable yes...unless the next step is that all smokers will be required to install, at their own expense of course, police security cameras...or smokers will have to 'register'...I'm not really serious about those alternatives, just thinking aloud. I am a non smoker and I guess a leaning towards 'anti-addiction' since most smokers are addicted to it. Having said that, there was a time when smoking cigarettes was almost 'advertised' as the adult thing to do...movies of the last century are witness to that. If the Thai government (may others too) really wanted to stop any ill health from smoking why not just ban it altogether...give smokers the option of 'treatment'. After that they could start on sugar confectionery then....ha! No I guess not, too much money involved in the industry. Some on the forum have mentioned the air pollution, a valid point I agree with... and the authorities can start with the family a couple of houses from me. Once or twice a week they collect all their (many) dog excreta, pour petrol on it and set it on fire. First the petrol fumes but the smog that comes after that...

[marko kok prong]

But you can still beat your wife,yes?

[stevefloyd]

They should enforce smoking in bars too, the times I have had to move to prevent some ignorant <deleted> gassing me and especially where food is... I am not a holier than though person but it really does annoy me...I don't want to be choked on their filthy habit