World No Tobacco Day, May 31 this year, highlights the detrimental impacts of tobacco on the environment. (photo by Freepik.com)

 

Smoking and second-hand smoking not only cause cancer and other respiratory diseases but tobacco use also has a negative impact on the environment, both of which place a significant burden on public health and the economy.

 

“Tobacco is killing our planet. Every stage of the production and use of a cigarette – from farming to manufacturing and from selling to smoking and littering contributes significantly to environmental pollution,” said Dr. Olivia Nieveras of World Health Organization (WHO) Thailand. She was speaking at a hybrid seminar held last week to mark World No Tobacco Day on May 31, which this year highlights the detrimental impacts of tobacco on the environment.

 

Keep up to date with all things Thailand - Join our daily ASEAN NOW Thailand Newsletter - Click to subscribe

 

Smoking costs Thailand over 350 billion baht per year in health-care expenses and lost productivity or around 2.1% of the country’s GDP.

 

Full story: https://www.thaipbsworld.com/tobacco-is-bad-for-the-planet-and-the-health/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2022-05-28

 

- Cigna offers a range of visa-compliant plans that meet the minimum requirement of medical treatment, including COVID-19, up to THB 3m. For more information on all expat health insurance plans click here.

Smoking is the one (and only) vice I don't have.

 

I was lucky enough to be introduced to smoking by "Big Boys" behind the bike-sheds.

 

I was maybe 12 and was given a Woodbine, a UK brand which I'm 100% certain contained the floor sweepings from the factory, no filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodbine_(cigarette). After a couple of tentative puffs I was told to "take it down", a deep drag later I was puking all over.

 

Never was tempted again. Thankyou "Big Boys".

but.. but.. but..

Yeah, no joke.

41 minutes ago, Crossy said:

Smoking is the one (and only) vice I don't have.

 

I was lucky enough to be introduced to smoking by "Big Boys" behind the bike-sheds.

 

I was maybe 12 and was given a Woodbine, a UK brand which I'm 100% certain contained the floor sweepings from the factory, no filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodbine_(cigarette). After a couple of tentative puffs I was told to "take it down", a deep drag later I was puking all over.

 

Never was tempted again. Thankyou "Big Boys".

 

Your experience sounds strangley like mine, even down to the bicycle sheds, never smoked since that one puff. 

Perhaps Dr. Olivia Nieveras of World Health Organization (WHO) Thailand would like to come to Issan and see how much smoke goes up during the burning season, a tad more than cigarette smoke I can assure the Doc.

 

Will soon be in the "Gazette".
All kind of smoking and vaping soon forbidden.

Guys, get prepared. Soon the fun of ... out of order.

39 minutes ago, Rimmer said:

 

Your experience sounds strangley like mine, even down to the bicycle sheds, never smoked since that one puff. 

Imagine the first affair with a girl behind the bicycle shed.
Good that this has never stopped.
What would we do with our freetime?

What doesn't have a negative impact on something.

 

Until we all become subsistence farmers, we'll all be part of destroying what we need to live.  Some more than others of course.

 

Planet itself is fine, has been before we were here and will survive long after we extinct ourselves.

Don't you just love articles stating the bleeding obvious,

 

regards Worgeordie 

2 hours ago, kotsak said:

but.. but.. but..

May 31st. Non Smoking Day. A day introduced by Non Smokers in a Non Smoking group for Smokers.

Most smokers will probably smoke more that day. I probably would have, before I gave them up.

2 hours ago, webfact said:

“Tobacco is killing our planet. Every stage of the production and use of a cigarette – from farming to manufacturing and from selling to smoking and littering contributes significantly to environmental pollution,” said Dr. Olivia Nieveras of World Health Organization (WHO) Thailand.

This is laughable.

 

What about the systematic burning down and slashing of rainforests everywhere? If we go with Dr. Nievera's argumentation, the resulting mono-cultures of oil palms, sugar cane, maize, rice etc. etc. are therefore "bad for the planet", too, and should be eradicated. And I don't even want to begin mentioning the practice of burning fields post-harvest. If you live in Southeast Asia, you know exactly what I am talking about.

 

As per manufacturing: Have you actually seen the thick black fumes emanating from sugar factory and palm oil refinery smoke stacks? By contrast, there are NO noxious fumes wafting from tobacco manufacturing plants. 

 

Last but not least, if you're living in one of Asia's mega cities such as Bangkok, for example, I would dare claim that you are harming your health considerably more by simply breathing the toxic air on a daily basis than by occasionally getting exposed to "second-hand [tobacco] smoke. Is Dr. Nievera's solution that we therefore should just bulldoze down all large cities in the world because they're bad for peoples' health? 

 

In any case, the much touted and controversial "deadly second-hand smoking hazard" appears to be far from scientifically proven, with most studies standing on very shaky ground:  https://www.tobaccoasia.com/features/q-a-simon-clark-the-passive-smoking-myth/

 

I am not defending tobacco here. But what I am doing is pointing out that tobacco - once again - is demonized as some sort of a global scourge -- because it fits the political agenda.

 

God knows there are countless other agricultural products that collectively would fit that "bad for the planet" bill and in fact cause considerably MORE harm on multiple levels than tobacco ever will.

 

And if Thailand allegedly "loses" 350 billion baht per hear in healthcare expenses related to tobacco use, the expenditure for treating diseases and ailments caused by overconsumption of sugar, salt, MSG, unhygienic food in general and the exposure to polluted air and water, airborne dust, pesticides etc. etc. certainly must dwarf those supposed 350 billion.

 

Yet nobody constantly raps on about that for the simple reason that tobacco apparently has been selected as the sole devil that needs to be wiped off the face of the earth.

 

And while I DO advocate for and indeed welcome smoking bans in certain public places, I still opine that the operators of restaurants, bars, clubs, etc. should be accorded the CHOICE whether they want to designate their venue as "smoke-free" or "smoking permitted". And if you are a rabid anti-smoker... instead of complaining that everybody around you is trying to kill you, just DON'T frequent places where you KNOW that you're going to be exposed to smoke.  

      

   

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

What doesn't have a negative impact on something.

 

Until we all become subsistence farmers, we'll all be part of destroying what we need to live.  Some more than others of course.

 

Planet itself is fine, has been before we were here and will survive long after we extinct ourselves.

Can't remember who said it but it was on the lines of   every time you start to think you're important just consider that you are one small part of the greatest infestation that is poisoning this once pristine planet.

21 minutes ago, Misterwhisper said:

This is laughable.

 

What about the systematic burning down and slashing of rainforests everywhere? If we go with Dr. Nievera's argumentation, the resulting mono-cultures of oil palms, sugar cane, maize, rice etc. etc. are therefore "bad for the planet", too, and should be eradicated. And I don't even want to begin mentioning the practice of burning fields post-harvest. If you live in Southeast Asia, you know exactly what I am talking about.

 

As per manufacturing: Have you actually seen the thick black fumes emanating from sugar factory and palm oil refinery smoke stacks? By contrast, there are NO noxious fumes wafting from tobacco manufacturing plants. 

 

Last but not least, if you're living in one of Asia's mega cities such as Bangkok, for example, I would dare claim that you are harming your health considerably more by simply breathing the toxic air on a daily basis than by occasionally getting exposed to "second-hand [tobacco] smoke. Is Dr. Nievera's solution that we therefore should just bulldoze down all large cities in the world because they're bad for peoples' health? 

 

In any case, the much touted and controversial "deadly second-hand smoking hazard" appears to be far from scientifically proven, with most studies standing on very shaky ground:  https://www.tobaccoasia.com/features/q-a-simon-clark-the-passive-smoking-myth/

 

I am not defending tobacco here. But what I am doing is pointing out that tobacco - once again - is demonized as some sort of a global scourge -- because it fits the political agenda.

 

God knows there are countless other agricultural products that collectively would fit that "bad for the planet" bill and in fact cause considerably MORE harm on multiple levels than tobacco ever will.

 

And if Thailand allegedly "loses" 350 billion baht per hear in healthcare expenses related to tobacco use, the expenditure for treating diseases and ailments caused by overconsumption of sugar, salt, MSG, unhygienic food in general and the exposure to polluted air and water, airborne dust, pesticides etc. etc. certainly must dwarf those supposed 350 billion.

 

Yet nobody constantly raps on about that for the simple reason that tobacco apparently has been selected as the sole devil that needs to be wiped off the face of the earth.

 

And while I DO advocate for and indeed welcome smoking bans in certain public places, I still opine that the operators of restaurants, bars, clubs, etc. should be accorded the CHOICE whether they want to designate their venue as "smoke-free" or "smoking permitted". And if you are a rabid anti-smoker... instead of complaining that everybody around you is trying to kill you, just DON'T frequent places where you KNOW that you're going to be exposed to smoke.  

      

   

But have you given the matter any thought?

Maybe it's all the chemicals added to the product. The chemicals in the papers. Vape with nicotine in the juice for those addicted as nicotine is the primary addictive agent in cigs and things will be better. Mate of mine in Oz hasn't had a cig since he started vaping but he has to get the nicotine juice from NZ. This is what I would like to do. I'm addicted but would prefer not to smoke cigs. I should be allowed the choice. See plenty of Thais vaping even BIB (not in uniform) but it's illegal and I'm a farang so the law will be applied differently. Vaping should be legal and having a joint (not this <deleted> 0.2% or 1.0% whatever it is) should also be legal. 

5 hours ago, webfact said:

Smoking and second-hand smoking not only cause cancer and other respiratory diseases but tobacco use also has a negative impact on the environment, both of which place a significant burden on public health and the economy.

So Thailand bans Vaping.

2 hours ago, Misterwhisper said:

This is laughable.

 

What about the systematic burning down and slashing of rainforests everywhere? If we go with Dr. Nievera's argumentation, the resulting mono-cultures of oil palms, sugar cane, maize, rice etc. etc. are therefore "bad for the planet", too, and should be eradicated. And I don't even want to begin mentioning the practice of burning fields post-harvest. If you live in Southeast Asia, you know exactly what I am talking about.

 

As per manufacturing: Have you actually seen the thick black fumes emanating from sugar factory and palm oil refinery smoke stacks? By contrast, there are NO noxious fumes wafting from tobacco manufacturing plants. 

 

Last but not least, if you're living in one of Asia's mega cities such as Bangkok, for example, I would dare claim that you are harming your health considerably more by simply breathing the toxic air on a daily basis than by occasionally getting exposed to "second-hand [tobacco] smoke. Is Dr. Nievera's solution that we therefore should just bulldoze down all large cities in the world because they're bad for peoples' health? 

 

In any case, the much touted and controversial "deadly second-hand smoking hazard" appears to be far from scientifically proven, with most studies standing on very shaky ground:  https://www.tobaccoasia.com/features/q-a-simon-clark-the-passive-smoking-myth/

 

I am not defending tobacco here. But what I am doing is pointing out that tobacco - once again - is demonized as some sort of a global scourge -- because it fits the political agenda.

 

God knows there are countless other agricultural products that collectively would fit that "bad for the planet" bill and in fact cause considerably MORE harm on multiple levels than tobacco ever will.

 

And if Thailand allegedly "loses" 350 billion baht per hear in healthcare expenses related to tobacco use, the expenditure for treating diseases and ailments caused by overconsumption of sugar, salt, MSG, unhygienic food in general and the exposure to polluted air and water, airborne dust, pesticides etc. etc. certainly must dwarf those supposed 350 billion.

 

Yet nobody constantly raps on about that for the simple reason that tobacco apparently has been selected as the sole devil that needs to be wiped off the face of the earth.

 

And while I DO advocate for and indeed welcome smoking bans in certain public places, I still opine that the operators of restaurants, bars, clubs, etc. should be accorded the CHOICE whether they want to designate their venue as "smoke-free" or "smoking permitted". And if you are a rabid anti-smoker... instead of complaining that everybody around you is trying to kill you, just DON'T frequent places where you KNOW that you're going to be exposed to smoke.  

      

   

What a load of <deleted>. And links a pro tobacco website to counter second hand smoke

6 hours ago, webfact said:

Smoking costs Thailand over 350 billion baht per year in health-care expenses and lost productivity or around 2.1% of the country’s GDP.

Is that after the taxes are taken into account? Usually tobacco sales make profits for a country, even after health care costs are deducted.

 

"Each year, Thai Health has the budget around US$ 120 million from surcharged tax from tobacco and alcohol products."

https://tobaccotax.seatca.org/country/thailand/#:~:text=Each year%2C Thai Health has,from tobacco and alcohol products.

29 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Is that after the taxes are taken into account? Usually tobacco sales make profits for a country, even after health care costs are deducted.

 

"Each year, Thai Health has the budget around US$ 120 million from surcharged tax from tobacco and alcohol products."

https://tobaccotax.seatca.org/country/thailand/#:~:text=Each year%2C Thai Health has,from tobacco and alcohol products.

It's very rare I see a thai smoking.

 

Mayber the ladies smoking cigars but otherwise.

25 minutes ago, RafPinto said:

It's very rare I see a thai smoking.

 

??? In Pattaya about 80% oof males are cigarette smokers. In the country about 42 ,% 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/732857/thailand-male-smoking-rate/#:~:text=Prevalence of smoking for males Thailand 2012-2018&text=In 2018%2C the proportion of,rate was around 47.10 percent.

Never smoked in my life, but my annuity says i'm on 20-40 a day for the last 30 years!

1 hour ago, RafPinto said:

It's very rare I see a thai smoking.

 

Mayber the ladies smoking cigars but otherwise.

Try getting out into the countryside, loads of Thai men smoke....Mostly roll your own cigs.......

The truth of the matter is its the chemicals they put in manufactured cigs that's really bad for health.......Pure tobacco does not give you a even smooth burn in a cigarette without a bunch of nasty added chemicals....

7 hours ago, kotsak said:

but.. but.. but..

those were the days...

1 hour ago, RafPinto said:

It's very rare I see a thai smoking.

 

Mayber the ladies smoking cigars but otherwise.

Really ... I'm actually surprised with the amount of Thais I see smoking.  Opposite of my peers, growing up, and think all but 1 quit decades ago, and folks I knew in the workplace, before coming here.  Very few smoked actually.

7 hours ago, Crossy said:

Smoking is the one (and only) vice I don't have.

 

I was lucky enough to be introduced to smoking by "Big Boys" behind the bike-sheds.

 

I was maybe 12 and was given a Woodbine, a UK brand which I'm 100% certain contained the floor sweepings from the factory, no filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodbine_(cigarette). After a couple of tentative puffs I was told to "take it down", a deep drag later I was puking all over.

 

Never was tempted again. Thankyou "Big Boys".

My father, who smoked a cigar maybe once a month, did me the favor to offer it to me to try.

I tried, I definitely didn't like it, and I never did it again.

Thanks for that.

Tobacco is utterly heinous, and one of the filthiest habits any person can pick up. It is unbelievably unpleasant for most non smokers to be around these highly addicted, weak willed individuals. 

 

Tell the Thai government to stop getting people addicted, through its highly profitable franchise. Such an abomination. 

Many moons ago a fellow apprentice smoked a pipe, his favoured baccy was "Clan" a highly aromatic blend. It actually smelled pretty good, it certainly wasn't unpleasant (unlike the roll-ups the other chaps smoked).

 

I was never actually tempted to try it.

 

Still available https://www.smoke-king.co.uk/clan-pipe-tobacco-50g-packet although at 18 quid for 50g I will continue to give it a miss.

1 minute ago, spidermike007 said:

Tobacco is utterly heinous, and one of the filthiest habits any person can pick up. It is unbelievably unpleasant for most non smokers to be around these highly addicted, weak willed individuals. 

 

Tell the Thai government to stop getting people addicted, through its highly profitable franchise. Such an abomination. 

Agree, but you could have left out 'weak willed' ????

 

EC was doing an interview one time, and stated cigs were the hardest habit for him to break, of all the substances he had issues with.  That's pretty telling.