Crackdown On Smoking In Night Entertainment Venues

[meemiathai]

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.

Sorry John. According to some of the people here, you are the one who is responsible to stay away from the punches. They say in a free society, people should be allowed to throw punches in every direction they like. When they go into a restaurant or a bar, they should be allowed to throw punches in every direction, and if you don't like it you either leave and stay home or accept it that you have to be punched. Oh yes, let the owners decide, and if the owners think it makes more money to open places where free punches are allowed and that every place becomes a punch-throwing-free venue, you guys better take care of your ownselves and stay at home for the rest of your lives. And for those who don't like getting punched but have to coz they work there, you have a choice of staying at home and starve!

Oh btw, I am a person who enjoys throwing punches occasionally, but I do it with a sandbag in a private place.

Edited September 10, 2007 by meemiathai

[bkkmadness]

I remember an old Jack Dee routine with this great one liner.

He meets an anti smoking campaigner wearing a badge that says 'You smoke, I choke.'

"Sounds like a fair deal to me."

[Mighty Mouse]

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.........

I suggest that the Anti-Discrimination laws would play a big part in the answer to your question.

[meemiathai]

Also, bear in mind, when a society becomes free enough, it will be bullets instead of punches we are talking about.

People should be allowed to enjoy the freedom of shooting a gun they carry in all directions when they are out in the streets.

And if you think it is dangerous, you have to realize it that you have a better chance of being knocked down by a car than being hit by a bullet. And we ain't going to ban all cars, are we? And that surely justifies enough for their right to shoot!

Ridiculous? No! That is logic!

Well done guys! You bend things better than prisms do to light!

[John K]

Actually meemaithai you are almost right. The logic you refer to is actually the nicotine talking. Ask a smoker after they have just finished a smoke and their answer will more reflect the point of view of non or ex-smokers that it is a disgusting and nasty habit. It is unfortunate they allow nicotine to dictate their actions. The nicotine forces them to justify smoking and they will accept even the most seemingly ridiculous excuse to smoke.

Here are a few excepts from my website. All of them are true.

If a Smoking client is more than 15 minutes late for their first appointment I will call them asking them where they are.

Here are some excuses I have heard. You may laugh but they are actually true. All of them never showed even when rescheduled.

I had to do my nails. (Priorities?)

I thought it was tomorrow. (I always call the day before to confirm their appointment.)

My mother is sick. (Her mother lives over 10 hours away with her father.)

My dog made a mess on the carpet. (That should take 5 minutes to clean. What did he eat?)

I got lost. (He lived 2 blocks away from my office.)

My car had a flat tire. (I rescheduled 2 times and he still did not show up.)

This message was on my answering machine.

My boss called and I have to go in early today. (I called 3 hours later to leave a message to reschedule, he was at home.)

I was up coughing all night and I did not get a goods night sleep. (I wonder why?)

My bird is sick. (Yes smoke can make your bird sick too.)

My son is sick. (Her son was 35 years old at the time and married.)

I had another appointment I forgot about. (Lunch with a friend.)

There was a sale at the store. (I actually saw her pull in then out of my parking lot.)

I am too busy to make time. (This is the most common excuse.)

I broke my nail. (So?)

I did not have a new dress for my appointment. (No comment!)

I knew I would be 5 minutes late so I did not even bother going. (This took guts to say.)

[agudbuk]

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

So Thailand is following the lead of other countries.

Will Dr Seri Hongyok, a deputy head of the Department of Disease Control be advocating following the UK 's proposal to pass legislation enabling the prosecution of men who pay for sex (Daily Telegraph 10th Sept)? . Could be a money spinner in the Land of Smiles

Edited September 10, 2007 by agudbuk

[meemiathai]

prosecution of men who pay for sex

Does that mean all men are going to be prosecuted? Except male prostitutes?

Sorry for being off topic!

[TAWP]

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.

No-one is forced to work in a club for smokers if they don't want to.

[TAWP]

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.

Better to have smokers standing outside the pub and blowing the smoke at passers by than instead away from those that don't wish to visit pubs with smoke...right.

[John K]

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.

No-one is forced to work in a club for smokers if they don't want to.

A club for or with smokers?

[meemiathai]

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.

No-one is forced to work in a club for smokers if they don't want to.

You are wrong!

No one is forced to work if they don't want to!

[meemiathai]

Bartenders are not forced to work in bars, they can work in a church.

[Lucifer]

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.

No-one is forced to work in a club for smokers if they don't want to.

You are wrong!

No one is forced to work if they don't want to!

Try telling that to all the bargirls.

Ya wally.

[TAWP]

Also, bear in mind, when a society becomes free enough, it will be bullets instead of punches we are talking about.

People should be allowed to enjoy the freedom of shooting a gun they carry in all directions when they are out in the streets.

And if you think it is dangerous, you have to realize it that you have a better chance of being knocked down by a car than being hit by a bullet. And we ain't going to ban all cars, are we? And that surely justifies enough for their right to shoot!

Ridiculous? No! That is logic!

Well done guys! You bend things better than prisms do to light!

As usual you cannot even pretend to maintain a logical debate but have to reduce it to a joke since you have failed to grasp the fundamentals of the issue at hand.

You cannot shoot on public streets since that would be a violation of another persons freedom and right not to be the subject of violence, abuse or imposed fear.

You can however open a club where you shoot in ranges. And pacifists can choose not to go there.

What the crackdown above does is in effect trying to force the opposite from what I typed above. People will smoke in public space but not allowed to smoke in private venues where people can choose not to go.

[Mighty Mouse]

No-one is forced to work in a club for smokers if they don't want to.

A short sighted statement.

An employee may well be prepared to endure second hand smoke in order to maintain employment. What happens when that employee suddenly develops a life threatening illness caused by breathing in second hand smoke in the workplace?

Does that employee say, "Oh well, it was my fault for working there?" No way!!!

That employee then engages the services of a legal representative and sues the employer for negligence....and in most of these cases a ruling goes against the employer.

Therefore the employer is always responsible for the welfare of employees and the laws ensure that this responsibility is never ignored.

It seems that Thailand is catching up, or has already caught up, with Western legislation.

[TAWP]

Yes, it's the employers fault even if the conditions was known before to the employee... *sigh*

You call it progress, I don't.

[somtaamgaiyang]

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.

Smoking sections are where smokers should sit. I have absolutely no problem with that at all. If you asked politely to a smoker, to stop on the reasons of your extreme asthma most would.

I would say however, that the reasons that the minister cracking down are complete misnomers. Reducing youth smoking? How can they be targetting kids in a nightclub? I am sorry, but if you suffer from extreme asthma, I would suggest that living in Bangkok, (I am assuming you do), is far more dangerous for your health.

[permanent_disorder]

It seems that Thailand is catching up, or has already caught up, with Western legislation.

ahh, the big good role model.

finally someone raised that topic

Germany had the world's strongest antismoking movement in the 1930s and early 1940s, supported by Nazi medical and military leaders worried that tobacco might prove a hazard to the race. Many Nazi leaders were vocal opponents of smoking. Anti-tobacco activists pointed out that whereas Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt were all fond of tobacco, the three major fascist leaders of Europe--Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco--were all non-smokers. Hitler was the most adamant, characterising tobacco as "the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man for having been given hard liquor." At one point the Fuhrer even suggested that Nazism might never have triumphed in Germany had he not given up smoking.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1450

okay, i admit looks like i am playing a bad card, not fair. i don't want calling you a nazi. but i don't praise everything from the "superior" western world. and the article is still an interesting reading German smoking rates rose dramatically in the first six years of Nazi rule, suggesting that the propaganda campaign launched during those early years was largely ineffective. German smoking rates rose faster even than those of France, which had a much weaker anti-tobacco campaign. ...Smith et al suggested that smoking may have functioned as a kind of cultural resistance. laissez faire vs. authoritarian state with a law for everything.

and nobody answer my question why don't let the people decide by themself if the go to that club with the big "achtung, stench & death, smokers inside" sign on the door or just to the other ones with the "verboten, no smoking" sign. and in the end, smoking or not, drinking alkohol in that pub is also not the latest health professional recommendation.

and your employee, now proctect by the law from second hand smoke, is still exposed to the danger to develop a other nasty addiction under the peer-group pressure of alcoholics. Does that employee say, "Oh well, it was my fault for working there?" No way!!! That employee then engages the services of a legal representative and sues the employer for negligence....and in most of these cases a ruling goes against the employer. let's call the police. let's make a law! catching up with the bright future.

[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.

Smoking sections are where smokers should sit. I have absolutely no problem with that at all. If you asked politely to a smoker, to stop on the reasons of your extreme asthma most would.

I would say however, that the reasons that the minister cracking down are complete misnomers. Reducing youth smoking? How can they be targetting kids in a nightclub? I am sorry, but if you suffer from extreme asthma, I would suggest that living in Bangkok, (I am assuming you do), is far more dangerous for your health.

Ok so let us say I wanted to go out and dance at a disco, and the person dancing next to me is smoking. Besides dodging the smoke, I also must dodge getting burned. That very quickly puts dancing out of one of the enjoyable things I can do for entertainment.

This is actually getting ridiculous because I am not debating with a person, I am debating with a mindless drug.

Oh and my asthma is not extreme, in fact it is far from it so don’t try to find false comfort in that. I can do most any activity if the air is not filled with smoke. Bangkok is tolerable though admittedly not the best air.

Bottom line smoking is out and people are in.

[DrDave]

When a similar ban was enacted in California several years back, is was positioned as a labor issue, which effectively shut down most of the pro-smoking arguments posted here.

The basic premise was that all service employees have the right to work in a healthy, non-hazardous environment. Note that "right" is the operative word here - they have the *right* (not just the *choice*) to work in a healthy environment. This was the cornerstone of the law - not the numerous other cases that can be made for banning smoking in public places.

Positioned as a labor issue, the law actually met very little resistance. Sure, there were a few bar owners that weren't happy, and continued to allow their customers to smoke. However, this was a very small minority, the law was enforced, and these bar owners were fined. Today, it's extremely rare to see anyone smoking in a bar, and smoking in a restaurant is unheard of.

[Firefan]

Brilliant idea - hope it will be enforced. Doubt it though. Cheers!

[lazeeboy]

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!

well said ,if someone comes to my house and does'nt like the smoke ,tough titty...........

[Mighty Mouse]

and nobody answer my question why don't let the people decide by themself if the go to that club with the big "achtung, stench & death, smokers inside" sign on the door or just to the other ones with the "verboten, no smoking" sign. and in the end, smoking or not, drinking alkohol in that pub is also not the latest health professional recommendation.

Exclusive smoking clubs have also been banned. We now have outdoor smoking sections, within the club premises, for smokers.

Before that people did decide for themselves. The non-smokers stayed away from the clubs. Now that smoking in enclosed areas is taboo, those same non-smokers are returning in numbers. Me included.

Just to take your hypothetical question a step further, what if you have two clubs side by side. (such as in Walking Street, Pattaya) One club is for smoking, the other for non-smoking.

How do you stop the smoke from the smokers club drifting into the non-smokers club?

If your answer is with industrial strength exhaust fans in the smokers club, how do you stop that extracted stench from finding its way into nearby hotel rooms, restaurants etc.?

The outdoor smoking sections in some of the clubs here in Australia are now creating this concern for people living next door to the clubs. Second hand smoke from the outdoor smoking areas drifting into their homes.

Some clubs situated in densely populated areas may soon face a total smoking ban.

If smokers can contain their second hand smoke so that it doesn't drift into another persons breathing space, nobody would complain.

[TAWP]

I'm so happy some of you farangs don't have any power to vote, with your love for the nanny-state. Wasn't this what you moved from?

[Maigo6]

Ok so let us say I wanted to go out and dance at a disco, and the person dancing next to me is smoking. Besides dodging the smoke, I also must dodge getting burned.

John, I for one would like to see that Dance, it might start off a new craze.

[snowy]

I'm so happy some of you farangs don't have any power to vote, with your love for the nanny-state. Wasn't this what you moved from?

Here, here. I moved here because, like so many of us were fed up with too many rules being imposed.

[mikethevigoman]

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

Are you a smoker,? i assume so ,thats a very good but flawed argument,unfortunatly a lot of smokers couldnt care less about what non smokers think, these are why laws are invented ,the bottom line is choice as you say, and im all for non smoking and smoking pubs,.we would all then know the places to go/avoid,.and its not just invalids and ashma sufferes, we walked out of royal garden the other day and all the smokers were outside and my 5 year old was down wind of the smoke and began to cough, do you consider thats ok ? i consider it a filthy stupid habit, and for that i make no apolagies,.

[BalthazarBeefheart]

I'm so happy some of you farangs don't have any power to vote, with your love for the nanny-state. Wasn't this what you moved from?

Here, here. I moved here because, like so many of us were fed up with too many rules being imposed.

Now we have the nanny state argument - a duty of government is to protect its citizens and with the knowledge of the health hazards of secondary smoking they are merely performing that duty. If it was a nanny state they would be doing something to help people with their nicotine addiction.

Cheers BB

[meemiathai]

I am now going out for a football match. Wonder if that is a smoking or non-smoking football pitch.

I can imagine all 22 players holding a cigarette in his hand running around. Wow looks like paradise!

[John K]

Am interesting story comes to mind, but I can’t exactly remember were it was, but I think in Africa some place.

A gold mining company that was extracting gold from a river had workers in the river collecting the gold. Upstream the company was using cyanide to loosen the gold. About once a week or so one of the workers in the river simply dropped dead as they were poisoned with the cyanide.

In the USA they have a little thing called OSHA. It is there simply to protect the employees from companies who would carelessly expose their employees to unnecessary risk. Simple things like safety glasses, and other protective gear came of it. When you go into surgery, the doctors are not wearing masks so much to protect them, it is more to protect you from infection.

The smokers argument simply caries no weight. This law simply levels they playing field. The smokers will complain for a while, but when they get tired of nicotine making them have a temper tantrum and depriving them of a night out, they will either go out and deal with the restrictions or give up smoking.