Crackdown On Smoking In Night Entertainment Venues

[philliphn]

I applaud the Thai government for the anti smoking law. I implore them to stricktly enforce it every where!

Just because a smoker chooses to smoke does not give them the right to impose their filthy habit on every one else.

It is a proven fact that second hand smoke is more dangerous than primary smoke from tobaco fumes. If you want to harm your health by stupidly smoking tabaco up to you. But you do not have the right to harm any one elses health. In fact a very high cost is also paid by society in all countries due to tobaco smokers. They are burden on many societies in the world because tax payers have to pay for the cost of tobaco smoking related illneses.

Contrary to what some posters here think, many tabaco smokers are very inconsiderate of other people when it comes to their disgusting habit. Many seem to think that they have a right to harm other people by emiting noxious gasses. If you object your objection is met by hostility because of their drug addiction.

Edited September 8, 2007 by philliphn

[TAWP]

I'm quite sure it's volontary to go to a club too...

[Mighty Mouse]

so why we need in this beautiful capitalist world a law that bans smoking in all places. why don't let the market regulate himself and let the people, the customer make the decision.

The people decided a long time ago that they wanted clean air to breathe. The Govt's around the world finally did something positive about it.

our smoker work hard all day and in the evening he want bring that money that is left after being taxed by a bureaucratic complex in a pub and have a cigarette.

If the smoker is so hard working, as you suggest, what is wrong with the smoker working that little bit harder and walking outside the pub/club to indulge in his life threatening habit?

He/she can take their drink with them to sip along whilst they blow their toxic fumes into the atmosphere.

That way the non smokers in the pub/club don't have to be assaulted by the smokers' fumes and we can all have an enjoyable time. Simple, isn't it?

[palm]

so why we need in this beautiful capitalist world a law that bans smoking in all places. why don't let the market regulate himself and let the people, the customer make the decision.

The people decided a long time ago that they wanted clean air to breathe. The Govt's around the world finally did something positive about it.

our smoker work hard all day and in the evening he want bring that money that is left after being taxed by a bureaucratic complex in a pub and have a cigarette.

If the smoker is so hard working, as you suggest, what is wrong with the smoker working that little bit harder and walking outside the pub/club to indulge in his life threatening habit?

He/she can take their drink with them to sip along whilst they blow their toxic fumes into the atmosphere.

That way the non smokers in the pub/club don't have to be assaulted by the smokers' fumes and we can all have an enjoyable time. Simple, isn't it?

Can we please also have a law banning the playing of really crappy music in clubs?

[TAWP]

And then I would like to see a law against overuse of after shave by some men, that gives me a headache and can provoke an asthma attack on a bad day. No?

[John K]

I can agree with the statement early on that there are non smokers that have stopped going to some venues because of the smoke. I myself have done that and in discussion with other non smokers we found that to be common. Seeing is non smokers are the majority, I guess after a short downturn business should pick up substantially.

[lazeeboy]

Born again bible thumpers are a VERY distant second as compared to reformed smokers.

i agree with that

[mrbojangles]

Just because a smoker chooses to smoke does not give them the right to impose their filthy habit on every one else.

And just because someone likes to drive a 6 litre petrol guzzling 4x4 or Hummer etc doesn't mean they have the right to impose their filthy polluting habit on every one else either. Ban everything i say, even the steam off a hot cup of coffee can be dangerous, if poured down your nose.

Seriously though, what is wrong with the owner of an establishment declaring it smoking or smokefree. If he / she wants it a smoking venue, signs clearly stating the fact it is a potential death zone should be sufficient. Everyone has a choice as to where they want to go and work then.

[BalthazarBeefheart]

Born again bible thumpers are a VERY distant second as compared to reformed smokers.

i agree with that

Yes reformed smokers have seen the light and are no longer conned by the heinous myth propagated by tobacco companies that there are any benefits to be gained from smoking.

Incidentally, I wouldn't worry about enforcement of this ban when there are reformed smokers around.

Cheers BB

[permanent_disorder]

so why we need in this beautiful capitalist world a law that bans smoking in all places. why don't let the market regulate himself and let the people, the customer make the decision.

The people decided a long time ago that they wanted clean air to breathe. The Govt's around the world finally did something positive about it.

mhm, you didn't grab the concept of the beautiful capitalist world i am talking about. why all the clean air lovers don't go to a non smoker pub instead? why do the clean air loving people spend money in a evil private run business avenue full of smokers? thats my question you didn't respond. can someone give me an answer? are non smokers so weak and can not have their own mind and make their decisions that they need the help from big brother the government?

our smoker work hard all day and in the evening he want bring that money that is left after being taxed by a bureaucratic complex in a pub and have a cigarette.

If the smoker is so hard working, as you suggest, what is wrong with the smoker working that little bit harder and walking outside the pub/club to indulge in his life threatening habit?

He/she can take their drink with them to sip along whilst they blow their toxic fumes into the atmosphere.

That way the non smokers in the pub/club don't have to be assaulted by the smokers' fumes and we can all have an enjoyable time. Simple, isn't it?

of course, he would do if he visit one of those stylish, cutting-edge and so successful non smoking avenue, no problem. but he is kinda oldschool and backward and would rather go to his pipe smokers club full of bad smelling losers. a pipe smokers club should be not really in the interrest of a non smoker. it's a private run business and not the government hospital or any kind of a public place that is run by tax payers money. so why do you now call for the government to spoil the smokers enjoyable time in the pipe smokers club/pub and tell the pipe smokers club/pub owner how he have to run his business?

i understand when you say that smoke is smelling and you don't like it. i know that from my own experience, i have been to places where i could not stand the amount of cigarette smoke in the air. i just left the place. my own decision. and i do reward restaurants with a non smoking policy, pay a visit as a paying customer.

i don't need the government help with that. and i would prefer to live in a more free world where the role and influence of government should be minimal as possible. and i don't mind if our smoker continue his own life-threatening habit in his favourite pipe smokers pub around the corner. actually he do the society a favour, he pay all his working life into the old-age pension fund but will die before he collect his pay out.

[permanent_disorder]

Seriously though, what is wrong with the owner of an establishment declaring it smoking or smokefree. If he / she wants it a smoking venue, signs clearly stating the fact it is a potential death zone should be sufficient. Everyone has a choice as to where they want to go and work then.

yes, that's the way to go. and do some useful with the money what don't have to spend as salary on law enforcement officers.

[bkkbaz]

This is not news. Smoking was banned in air conditioned places back in 2003. Thailand being Thailand, it hasn't made a bit of difference. I like Thailand.

To the amusing rabid anti-cigarette brigade, if you really think smoking is worse than exhaust fumes then I have a proposition for you:

I will go and sit in a car, close all the windows, and chain smoke cigarettes.

You go and sit in a car, run a hose from the exhaust pipe into the car, and start your engine.

We'll soon see which is the more harmful...

[Choscura]

Great to hear but as always all talk no action.

Smoking is disgusting as are smokers

gee, someone's never smoked before.

smoking is an addiciton, and while I don't think it something that should be encouraged, saying something is 'disgusting' as a reason to rule it out is pointless. coffee tastes disgusting to everyone the first time they drink it, but it's one of the most popular drinks on earth.

no, it's not the smoking- or the taste of coffee- that's disgusting here, it's small minded people that lump everyone that does/is something into a category without asking any questions, simply because society says something is bad. sound familiar...?

:edit: I guess I should go into detail about this.

I smoked for almost a year, hated every minute of being a smoker but treasured every second of smoking. it really is an enjoyable addiction, which is why it's supposedly harder to kick the habit of smoking than it is to kick the habit of, say, heroin. to anyone addicted, the taste and smell of cigarette smoke isn't disgusting, it's actually quite pleasant. like the smell of coffee in the morning. when i smoked a good cigarette (I just recently quit smoking) and inhaled, the taste of the smoke- on my tongue- would be comparable to sugar. what I think happens is your brain says "okay, I want more of this stuff (cotinine, the active chemical that causes addiction in cigarettes- not nicotine, I'll post up some sources if anybody is interested), so I need a way to detect it." and thus it adjusts your sense of smell to find cigarette smoke pleasant to taste and smell. mostly just smell. even after you quit, it's still quite a pleasant smell because of that adjustment, which is why reformed smokers hate it so much- because it's so tempting to have a cigarette again when they smell that.

so for all you non-smokers, now you've got some basic perspective on why smokers smoke. and when you tell a smoker he can't smoke, his first instinct is usually to light up another cigarette. kind of funny, right? it shouldn't be hard to see why- "I can't smoke in there? okay, better smoke before I go in there!" or "this is stressfull (they're depriving me of something I 'need'), what will calm me down? oh! a cigarette."

there you go, theres the details. some of them, anyway.

people who don't understand this and are unwilling to ask the questions about why people would smoke if it's bad for them have disgustingly small minds.

Edited September 9, 2007 by Choscura

[jackspratt]

This is not news. Smoking was banned in air conditioned places back in 2003. Thailand being Thailand, it hasn't made a bit of difference. I like Thailand.

To the amusing rabid anti-cigarette brigade, if you really think smoking is worse than exhaust fumes then I have a proposition for you:

I will go and sit in a car, close all the windows, and chain smoke cigarettes.

You go and sit in a car, run a hose from the exhaust pipe into the car, and start your engine.

We'll soon see which is the more harmful...

You are joking, aren't you?

If people start backing their cars up to enclosed spaces (eg clubs, discos, workplaces) and firing off their exhausts, I am sure that will also lead to bans on such unsafe and selfish behaviour.

In the meantime, while I am sure no-one disputes that vehicle pollution causes problems, I am unaware of any evidence that it is a direct cause of massive death around the world.

[fsuthai]

Great to hear but as always all talk no action.

Smoking is disgusting as are smokers

I'm a 70 y.o. smoker (since age 16) and have ALWAYS tried to be considerate around non-smokers. I am definitely not going to spend the last few years of my life in the misery of "craving nicotine"! Especially to please some Ass H. that thinks I'm 'disgusting'. I don't like being addicted to nicotine but I'm not nearly as nice a person when I can't smoke!

[Ieyuhrah]

I agree with the previous poster who said that it should be the choice fo the owner to decide what type of business they wish to have. You are not forced to patronize the establishment nor are the workers forced to work there. We have had a number of cities in this area ban smoking in most everywhere, including public parks (and in some cases in the home if there are children living in it. Goes back to the arguement that if it is sooooo bad then ban it entirely. I am a nonsmoker (except for one that I shared in a movie theatre in BKK in 1967) and I gave up my pipe in 1973 when I no longer needed the 'image' as a college freshman. I still believe in the rights of the individual (up to a point, in this case) and the rights of the businessman. I have a list of the cities that have passed the bans and will not go to restaraunts there. In some cases I will drive through a couple of cities before stopping at the same type of place passed several times. I guess that when the 'bacconazis controll all the venues I'll start cooking every meal at home. BTW, I have yet to see unbiased/credible scientific parers proving the dangers of second hand smoke. Much the same as global warming. 'Consensus' does not a proof make........ Wishing I was there in spite of all the problems.........

[somtaamgaiyang]

I applaud the Thai government for the anti smoking law. I implore them to stricktly enforce it every where!

Just because a smoker chooses to smoke does not give them the right to impose their filthy habit on every one else.

It is a proven fact that second hand smoke is more dangerous than primary smoke from tobaco fumes. If you want to harm your health by stupidly smoking tabaco up to you. But you do not have the right to harm any one elses health. In fact a very high cost is also paid by society in all countries due to tobaco smokers. They are burden on many societies in the world because tax payers have to pay for the cost of tobaco smoking related illneses.

Contrary to what some posters here think, many tabaco smokers are very inconsiderate of other people when it comes to their disgusting habit. Many seem to think that they have a right to harm other people by emiting noxious gasses. If you object your objection is met by hostility because of their drug addiction.

Lets not start the tax debate because that is definitely one you cannot win. Why does no goverment tell you exactly how much road tax they take? Because they don't spend even 30% of it on roads. Total tax take in 99% of all goverments from taxation on cigarettes far outweighs the spend on smoking related diseases.

[gburns57au]

The Oz government a number of years ago announced the cost of smoking related illness on the community.....Unfortunately for them, the tax collected from ciggies far exceeded that figure. So in reality Smokers are paying their own way.

The problem is.....when the goverment loses the revenue from cigarette sales because they have forced everyone to give up......what will they increase the tax on to recoup the loss...my guess is that Alcohol will be the next thing.

I support non smoking in enclosed areas.....A non smoker shouldnt have to breathe in smoke from a smoker.....and I am a smoker.

[somtaamgaiyang]

The Oz government a number of years ago announced the cost of smoking related illness on the community.....Unfortunately for them, the tax collected from ciggies far exceeded that figure. So in reality Smokers are paying their own way.

The problem is.....when the goverment loses the revenue from cigarette sales because they have forced everyone to give up......what will they increase the tax on to recoup the loss...my guess is that Alcohol will be the next thing.

I support non smoking in enclosed areas.....A non smoker shouldnt have to breathe in smoke from a smoker.....and I am a smoker.

I am a smoker too, and actually like non smoking places because I smoke less. I was simply answering the idea that was quoted before about taxpayers paying for smokers. The biggest farce of all was the settlement in the states where the states securitised all the future payments from the tobacco companies to pay for everything except smoking related illnesses.

We could sit here and have a debate about relative social damage and whilst everyone has decided that smoking is individually dangerous, why on earth are people allowed to get drunk, eat macdonalds until obese, drink as much cola as they like, drive SUV's, listen to music too loud, even at the extreme; play contact sport? As for the combustion engine not contributing for lung related illness it is amazing what a few million dollars a year of support can buy in terms of keeping public health studies at bay.

All of these pursuits have massive social costs that are not taxed to cover the externalities. They got the tobacco industry to pay up, alcohol,refined sugar and paper are next.

[yoshiwara]

no smoking in soi 6

[CTM]

Another law that will be "selectively enforced".

Just look out of the window of any non-smoking pub, bar, restaurant, etc; and watch 40 y/o trucks roaring by, belching blue smoke...

Its like; "Let's look at what developed countries are doing and blindly follow suit".

Look at this clipping about China from Yahoo. But don't worry the anti smoker zealots will attribute all their deaths and then some to the one smoke they had after work to relax. Never mind there is no scientific evidence backing the claims that second hand smoke is a significant health hazard.

Plus I prefer the smell of smoke to the smell of obese sweaty farangs any day.

I vote we ban all private automobiles. The real cause of global climate change (which is going to kill us all!!!) and health related deaths. Everyone should have to ride a bike, walk, or use public transport.

BEIJING (Reuters) - Chinese city traffic police have an average life expectancy of just 43 years because of the dire working conditions and pollution, state media said on Tuesday.

And nearly every traffic policeman in the booming southern Chinese city of Guangzhou suffered nose or throat infections caused by dirty air.

Xinhua news agency said a survey of eight cities found that police officers who had worked the streets for more than 20 years were the most at risk.

Pollution was the chief culprit, but stress, traffic noise and standing long periods in the sun were also to blame.

Chinese cities are battling to clean their polluted skies, especially the capital, Beijing, a year before it hosts the Olympic Games.

More than 90 percent of the 2,746 traffic police who underwent a check-up in Guangzhou had infections, the China Daily quoted the Guangzhou Hospital of Vocational Disease Control and Prevention as saying.

The incidence of lung, heart and respiratory tract diseases and arthritis was also higher among traffic police than the public as a whole, the newspaper added.

"Vehicle emissions and excessive heat were the major contributors to the condition," Liu Yimin, vice-president of the hospital, was quoted by a newspaper as saying.

"Traffic police have to work in a polluted environment for many hours a day, so their health is bound to be affected."

Guangzhou, with a population of about 10 million, is home to 1.8 million cars and other vehicles, and the number is increasing by 16 percent annually, according to the government Web site (www.gd.gov.cn).

Some 150,000 new vehicle licenses were approved in the city each year, and more than 3,000 traffic police need to work surrounded by them, the China Daily said.

[JimsKnight]

Smoking ban due soon

BANGKOK: -- Smoking will soon be banned in night entertainment venues, once a new Health Ministry regulation takes effect, a seminar in Bangkok was told yesterday.

But Dr Seri Hongyok, a deputy head of the Department of Disease Control, said patrons of karaoke bars, pubs, nightclubs and cafes would still be allowed to smoke in designated areas.

"Smoking will be barred only in air-conditioned areas or in other public places where non-smokers are."

The department would enforce a regulation under which violators would face fines up to Bt20,000.

He said there were now 10 countries that impose no-smoking rules in night entertainment venues.

Seri said the rule was needed to cope with new marketing strategies employed by tobacco companies to lure more young people to smoke, as there were about 200,000 new smokers every year.

A study by the department found the number of woman smokers aged 15-24 had risen to third place on a top-10 ranking of smokers in Thailand, he said.

The number of night entertainment venues, meanwhile, has risen to 6,853 last year from 5,249 in 2005.

Songsak Watthanaphoon, owner of a popular venue in Chiang Mai, said his premises imposed a ban on smoking three years ago and had won praise from customers with young friends or children. Smoking customers had suffered minimally, he said.

-- The Nation 2007-09-07

Sign of the times folks. I'm hoping this is a wind-up or a one-off.

As a casual smoker and someone dead against the state taking away civil liberties I do hope this non-smoking ban is just 'smoke on the water' and comes to nothing. The nanny-state laws coming to Thailand is something I and many other expats fear.

In the UK now you just have every smoker in the pub stood outside, freezing to bits and then subjecting passers-by to

If you want to smoke in a bar or club thats not serving food (most of them don't) then you should be given the freedom to do it and not have the state breathing down your neck.

It's funny because I've lived on the Continent (France, Germany, Yugoslavia for nearly 6 years where civil liberties are a lot more relaxed and smoking was certainly not a dirty word that its become in some of the 'decent' countries.

[JimsKnight]

1/2 OT. While I'm on the soap box lets not forget the asbestos (white/chryso varient) lined brake pads that are so beloved across Asia! Stuck in a hot city center with zillions of cars hitting the brakes and you've got a major cause of cancer related diseases that often get mistaken for, you guessed it, smoking cigarettes!

You start inhaling lung-fulls of that stuff over the course of a day and you've just increased the risk of lung cancer by a large degree!

Smoking cigarettes is nothing compared to asbestos.

Want to cut cancer in Thailand, start using non asbestos lined brake pads, whoops, that'll mean the price of brake-pads will jump up and cost more, asbestos brake pads are cheaper so rule the roost across Asia.

Rant over.

[Chelseafan]

Had it over here in the SMOKE for a couple of Months now and guess wot...No Problem......

The Real HEAVY Smellies "badger off" outside somewhere and the whole Pub/Restaurant scene now is pretty good....

I dont stink like Fag Ash Lil ...or Arfur ...any more when I stagger back from the Boozer and I am saving a fortune on Dry Cleaning Bills ....another Business Trip to LOS maybe.....

Those Arggg....KOFF Koff....Days have Happily..GONE.......

Nope you just stink of booze and start fights with innocent people on the way home.....I wish those days were gone

[Chelseafan]

no smoking in soi 6

Thats funny

[Mighty Mouse]

I'm a 70 y.o. smoker (since age 16) and have ALWAYS tried to be considerate around non-smokers.

That assurance of "consideration" to others is probably all the non-smokers really want but seldom get, hence the need for laws.

It only takes one arrogant smoker in an enclosed, or air-conditioned room, to make the whole place very unpleasant for other patrons.

It only takes a few minutes to smoke a cigarette but it takes much, much longer for the smoke from that one cigarette to dissipate.

A "considerate" smoker would walk outside for those few minutes and smoke where he won't offend others. Unfortunately, considerate smokers are few and far between.

[BalthazarBeefheart]

Smoking ban due soon

BANGKOK: -- Smoking will soon be banned in night entertainment venues, once a new Health Ministry regulation takes effect, a seminar in Bangkok was told yesterday.

But Dr Seri Hongyok, a deputy head of the Department of Disease Control, said patrons of karaoke bars, pubs, nightclubs and cafes would still be allowed to smoke in designated areas.

"Smoking will be barred only in air-conditioned areas or in other public places where non-smokers are."

The department would enforce a regulation under which violators would face fines up to Bt20,000.

He said there were now 10 countries that impose no-smoking rules in night entertainment venues.

Seri said the rule was needed to cope with new marketing strategies employed by tobacco companies to lure more young people to smoke, as there were about 200,000 new smokers every year.

A study by the department found the number of woman smokers aged 15-24 had risen to third place on a top-10 ranking of smokers in Thailand, he said.

The number of night entertainment venues, meanwhile, has risen to 6,853 last year from 5,249 in 2005.

Songsak Watthanaphoon, owner of a popular venue in Chiang Mai, said his premises imposed a ban on smoking three years ago and had won praise from customers with young friends or children. Smoking customers had suffered minimally, he said.

-- The Nation 2007-09-07

Sign of the times folks. I'm hoping this is a wind-up or a one-off.

As a casual smoker and someone dead against the state taking away civil liberties I do hope this non-smoking ban is just 'smoke on the water' and comes to nothing. The nanny-state laws coming to Thailand is something I and many other expats fear.

In the UK now you just have every smoker in the pub stood outside, freezing to bits and then subjecting passers-by to

If you want to smoke in a bar or club thats not serving food (most of them don't) then you should be given the freedom to do it and not have the state breathing down your neck.

It's funny because I've lived on the Continent (France, Germany, Yugoslavia for nearly 6 years where civil liberties are a lot more relaxed and smoking was certainly not a dirty word that its become in some of the 'decent' countries.

I think you are missing the point - what about the civil liberties of the staff who have to work long shifts inhaling others smoke. The nanny state is protecting these people whose health is put at risk by others addiction to nicotine.

I gather from the UK since the smoking ban the odours of stale beer and unclean customers has become a real problem in pubs - I think in this climate the ladies working in pubs that have complained to me of secondary smoking may have much worse gripes in the future.

Cheers BB

[jumnien]

Nicotine is a drug and as such should be injected for maximum effect and concern for one's fellow man.

[John K]

Bottom line to the smokers. When you smoke near someone smoker or not you are assaulting them. For people with asthma that assault is much more serious. Having asthma myself I can honestly say it is the same as getting punched in the stomach. The effects are exactly the same, where did the air go? When you can’t breath nothing else matters. If exposed long enough the attack can become sever requiring heading off to get emergency treatment. Claiming civil liberty to smoke or punch someone in the stomach, I think not. However the nicotine will make you simply blow off this fact and find some excuse to keep smoking.

Yes I do avoid venues that I would like to go to simply because I don’t enjoy getting punched in the stomach. I am also very sure the majority feels the same.

[larvidchr]

Dividing people into class A people and second rate people class B, has always been one off the things that appeal most to the human inner pig, it has happened before in history, Jews, Gipsy s, aso. It is ugly to observe and some off the comments here is more "disgusting" than any anti social habit.

The real interesting question here, that none of the anti smoking lobby is answering, is why is there no more non smoking establishments opening up, profit makers are the most astute people in the world when it comes to lining their pockets, if it really was such a good idea, why is there almost nobody doing it of their own free will??

The bars I visit certainly always have a lot more smoking costumers than non smoking, maybe because people addicted to nicotine also is more prone to like a drink.

It should be left to the non smokers to create a demand for non smoking venues, not regulated by law, but the problem is that they haven't been able to do that, their false claim to be a goldmine for bars and other venues of entertainment is nothing but hot air from small minded people who have no room for diversity among humans.

Ask any bar owner who his best paying costumer is, and then ask if it is a smoker????

Offcourse I think that some consideration should be taken by smokers, and I do fell sorry for invalids with asthma, but it is as good as impossible to make the whole world take every precaution to cater for every kind off disability, people with diabetes have themselves, to consider what they eat aso.

I really hope that the Thailand I love, don't change from the funny place with surprises and idiosyncrasies around every corner. The holy'er than thou, have plenty off places where they can bore each other to death.

Regards

Edited September 10, 2007 by larvidchr