Crackdown On Smoking At Pubs, Enteratinment Venues

[BangkokWildcat]

But traffic related air pollution gets into my 6th floor apartment, hits me on the way to 7-Eleven to buy food, makes it impossible for me to do a morning jog around the block and has me coughing since last year October!!

If you are silly enough to put up with living in an apartment that fills up with vehicle exhaust and coughing for the last four months as a result of breathing in these fumes, then you are too silly to be criticizing those who don't want to put up with cigarette smoke in a bar.

It really is a piss poor argument to try and compare cigarette smoke in an enclosed area with vehicle exhaust out on the street. I have yet to be in a bar and have cars, trucks and buses driving through the middle of the bar adding exhaust fumes to the cigarette smoke.

The authorities continue to address pollution caused by vehicles. Leaded petrol is being phased out. Hybrid vehicles are now becoming common and pointing the way to a future with cars contributing less to air pollution.

The same authorities are now addressing second hand tobacco smoke in enclosed areas.

With consumer co-operation, many of the toxic evils that exist today will be much less of a problem tomorrow.

I concur with the above. Man, if you had (don't know if you did or not) lived here in the early 90's you would see how much improved it really is (yeah, I know it's still very bad). In those days, you couldn't even walk down a busy street without a handkerchief covering your face.

I think Thanh-BKK's comment to stay out of bars isn't fair. Why should visiting a bar require inhaling someone else's waste. In other words, what am I doing in a bar to cause harm (or even offend) others? If I start puking, fighting, spitting, urinating or even being obnoxious I would be asked to leave in a heartbeat. My basic point is that why should nonsmokers / employees be subjected to someone else's secondhand smoke when we all know what dire consequences it is most likely to have on our health? ESPECIALLY in this heavily polluted city, it's a challenge to maintain one's health.

Some others have suggested all bars could choose to be either Smoking or Nonsmoking. I think this isn't a valid argument because they have already decided this! All bars would choose to be smoking and they know that nonsmokers who want to go out and have fun will ultimately put up with smokers because they have no (or very little) choice. Before the law, was there actually a "nonsmoking bar" in bangkok? Just curious if anyone knows.

Today, I just had a biopsy for skin cancer....they cut a hole out of my back....not fun I can assure you. I'm only 40 BUT I was / still am an avid sunbather. It's my choice and therefore am not complaining at my own stupidity if I get cancer. I do get upset though when I suck in a night's worth of smoke and feel like crap afterwards!

I think someone implied that I'm a rabid anti-smoker.....actually I'm not (or wasn't before now). I was very laid back about it because I didn't have a choice until this godsend of a law came into effect. Man, I'm so impressed with the Thai Gov't on this one. Thaialien8 has me pegged.....if I am being a bit rabid (hope I'm not that bad but rather 'extremely passionate' as someone else observed) is that now is the critical time to support this legislation!

One final comment....I do support the Smoking Policy of Lolita's. In that case, the secondhand smoke does NOT cause lung cancer

PEACE.

Edited February 29, 2008 by BangkokWildcat

[Thanh-BKK]

Hello.

What i wanted to express is the fact that it is the easiest thing in the world to avoid receiving second-hand smoke - just simply don't go where smokers are, fullstop. If you live in a bar, YOUR problem.

But vehicle fumes or industrial pollution you can NOT escape except for moving into a hut somewhere in the jungle.

Who said that "hybrid vehicles become common", do you live in Thailand? I have so far in SEVEN YEARS seen a SINGLE ONE Prius and a few stationary hybrid vehicles at the Bangkok Motor Show. And, what a coincidence, TWO Lexus hybrids just today on the way to work, on red plates and left-hand steered so certainly not meant for the Thai market, my guess is that they will soon run around with those blue embassy-plates. And apart from those two Lexus i came across maybe 10.000 regular cars and a good 150 smoke-belching buses on my 26-Kilometer journey to the office across Bangkok. Hybrids are quite common, yes sure, specially in Bangkok

Folks, get that - you can CHOSE to be exposed to cigarette smoke or not, but you can NOT chose to be exposed to traffic pollution, THAT is forced onto you - and you don't give a hoot about THAT. Bashing smokers is just that much easier.

Go ahead. I don't smoke anyway and never will, i just can't stand a minority being bashed as i belong to a minority too that's been bashed long enough.

Best regards.....

Thanh

PS a common method of committing suicide in Japan is to let the exhaust fumes of a car into it's passenger compartment. Ever heard of anyone dying from smoking cigarettes inside a car??? See any difference as to the imminent dangers between the two kinds of "pollution"..????

[mrbojangles]

I don't fart in their faces, sneeze on their mouths, cough up their noses, shit on their heads, throw up on their clothes, etc.

Change the record, cos that one has been played too many times already.

[Mighty Mouse]

What i wanted to express is the fact that it is the easiest thing in the world to avoid receiving second-hand smoke - just simply don't go where smokers are, fullstop. If you live in a bar, YOUR problem.

Folks, get that - you can CHOSE to be exposed to cigarette smoke or not

Non smokers no longer have to choose. The law now states that certain establishments are to be run as 'smoke-free' premises.

It's the smokers who have to choose. Either obey the law and not smoke or if they choose to smoke, face the consequences for breaking the law.

This is not a matter of bashing the minority group, as you have implied, it's a matter of laziness on the part of the minority smoking group, in that walking outside to have a smoke seems to be far too difficult for some of them.

[mrbojangles]

This is not a matter of bashing the minority group, as you have implied, it's a matter of laziness on the part of the minority smoking group, in that walking outside to have a smoke seems to be far too difficult for some of them.

I have yet to have seen anywhere on here, a smoker mention that point. The issue is that whilst cigarrettes are still legal in their own right, WHY should we have to go outside?

The main argument seems to be about having choice, you know that word "choice". Something that people who live in democratic societies take for granted. I'm in the UK and as you know these laws where introduced over here last july. I actually don't mind it, as when i go for a beer i don't smoke as near as much as i did before the ban. But that is not the point, establishments should be able to choose wether they want to be smoking or smoke free.

The problem with most non-smokers is that they only see this single issue and think "yeah great, we win, disgusting smokers etc. etc." Just wait until something else comes out that affects you and stops you having a freedom of choice. The noose is tightening and people can't feel it.

[Thanh-BKK]

Thank you for that last one, mrbojangles.

I for one hope that some day we see a total and complete ban on alcohol in any way, shape or form. Let's see who THEN cries. You can actually see it already now if news is announced about yet-another election which means a Saturday evening without booze. the big whining and complaining starts.

Sometimes when reading the topics i really get the impression most of the expats in Thailand are alcoholics (as in addicted, unable to live without it).

And ironically the very same people, who's seemingly only hobby is to sit in a bar/pub and drink, keep complaining about the "disgusting" smokers.

I have yet to meet a smoker able to disgust me as much as the drunkard American who puked right onto my feet in a disco at Silom.

But hey, he didn't smoke!!

Which is why i compare this activity ("smoker bashing") with a crusade to exercise absolute control - from a government view. They start with the easiest target - smokers, as anti-smokers are known to be militant and very supportive of such laws. Next they may target alcohol (i hope so!!) and next? And next?

There was a text somewhere which i can't remember exactly and i'll modify a little:

First, they came for the smokers, and i did not care because i don't smoke.

Then, they came for the drinkers, and i didn't care because i don't drink.

Then, they came for the gays, and i didn't care because i'm not gay.

Then, they came for the bikers, and i didn't care because i'm no biker.

Then, they came for me. And there was no-one left to care.

Best regards.....

Thanh

[BalthazarBeefheart]

I feel it won't be long before in Europe smoking in all public places is banned anyway.

As far as I am concerned I don't give a toss about the freedom of choice of smokers being curtailed.

My concern is for the staff who have to work very long shifts in pubs - you see enough people complain here of smokers in pubs but they don't spend ten hours 6 days a week breathing in others fumes.

It must be very galling for these staff when they know their pub is flouting the law especially if they have ample seating outside.

Cheers BB

[BalthazarBeefheart]

There was a text somewhere which i can't remember exactly and i'll modify a little:

First, they came for the smokers, and i did not care because i don't smoke.

Then, they came for the drinkers, and i didn't care because i don't drink.

Then, they came for the gays, and i didn't care because i'm not gay.

Then, they came for the bikers, and i didn't care because i'm no biker.

Then, they came for me. And there was no-one left to care.

Best regards.....

Thanh

Wasn't there also a saying "Not the sharpest tool in the box"

Cheers BB

Edited February 29, 2008 by BalthazarBeefheart

[Mighty Mouse]

I have yet to have seen anywhere on here, a smoker mention that point. The issue is that whilst cigarrettes are still legal in their own right, WHY should we have to go outside?

The main argument seems to be about having choice, you know that word "choice". Something that people who live in democratic societies take for granted.

Yes, cigarettes and smoking is still legal, provided you smoke in a place where it is legal to do so. This is the crux of the matter. The places where you can legally smoke are quickly disappearing.

In Australia, the next no-no place for smoking will be in your own vehicle. We already have beaches, certain council owned outside properties, indoor sections of pubs and clubs, inside buildings....and the list goes on.

Thailand is catching up fast with the rest of the world.

So, your question was: 'Why should smokers go outside to smoke?' The simple answer to that is because that regulations now says that to smoke inside is unlawful.

If smokers smoked smokeless cigarettes, or injected nicotine into their veins to get their hit, then I'd be quite happy to have them stay inside whilst 'having a smoke.'

Non-smokers have absolutely nothing against the vast majority of people who happen to be smokers. Smokers are wonderful, friendly human beings but unfortunately when they smoke conventional cigarettes, they fill the air with toxic chemicals that non-smokers (up until recent times) had to inhale.

Prior to the 'no-smoking' law, non-smokers had the choice of whether to remain in the smoked filled bar or to leave. Now the tables have turned. Smokers are the ones that have to leave if they want to smoke.

It takes less than five minutes to smoke a cigarette but the second hand smoke from just one cigarette remains in an enclosed room for much longer than five minutes.

Walk outside to an isolated area, have a five minute smoke and the second hand smoke drifts off into the atmosphere without causing harm or irritation to any other person in the near vicinity.

To obey the no-smoking laws by walking outside to have a smoke should now be simply regarded as being considerate and good manners.

[mrbojangles]

MM, did my earlier post go over your head?

I am well aware that smokers have to go outside as it's the law. That wasn't the point i was making

[thailien8]

"The main argument seems to be about having choice, you know that word "choice". Something that people who live in democratic societies take for granted. I'm in the UK and as you know these laws where introduced over here last july. I actually don't mind it, as when i go for a beer i don't smoke as near as much as i did before the ban. But that is not the point, establishments should be able to choose whether they want to be smoking or smoke free."

Yes, I agree with your point. When smokers ruled all the Thai bars, I often thought that if I were a bar owner, I would choose to run my bar as a non-smoking establishment. Actually, it surprised me that there did not seem to be any such venue in Thailand, or at least I never found one. Maybe I could have made a ton of money by owning the only such bar. But maybe not. A bar owner who chose to exclude the legions of smokers would likely lose money because I doubt that any smokers would patronize such a bar, even though they would be free to choose to come in, buy a drink, and not smoke. So, since all Thai bars used to be smoking bars, the only choice for a non-smoker was to endure the smoke, or stay away. Of course, by staying away, a non-smoker had to forfeit the pleasures of Thai nightlife, not a choice that I could make. So I chose to suffer the smoke, and enjoyed the lovely ladies.

I would have greatly appreciated having a choice. But there was no choice. All bars allowed smoking. There were no non-smoking bars. Understandably, all bar owners chose not to exclude any smoking customers. This was the norm.

Now the Thai government has stepped in, in its typically heavy-handed way, and banned smoking in all bars. Yes, this is draconian, and is anti-choice. But maybe smokers can think of this as a step toward needed compromise. After some time, hopefully the ideal world will be reached, wherein there are nightlife venues for smokers, and for those of us who prefer oxygen.

[Mighty Mouse]

MM, did my earlier post go over your head?

I am well aware that smokers have to go outside as it's the law. That wasn't the point i was making

You have made a few "points" in your posts, I was merely addressing your question.

If the important "point" that you are suggesting is that bars should be allowed to trade as "smoking" or "non-smoking" venues, then you shouldn't wait for an answer from me.

The fact of the matter is that the authorities have not included this option in their legislation. Discussing it is therefore futile.

[mrtoad]

MM, did my earlier post go over your head?

I am well aware that smokers have to go outside as it's the law. That wasn't the point i was making

You have made a few "points" in your posts, I was merely addressing your question.

If the important "point" that you are suggesting is that bars should be allowed to trade as "smoking" or "non-smoking" venues, then you shouldn't wait for an answer from me.

The fact of the matter is that the authorities have not included this option in their legislation. Discussing it is therefore futile.

If the discusion is futile, then shouldn't this thread be closed? In fact, lets not just stop there, why not close the whole forum down?

[mrbojangles]

MM, did my earlier post go over your head?

I am well aware that smokers have to go outside as it's the law. That wasn't the point i was making

You have made a few "points" in your posts, I was merely addressing your question.

If the important "point" that you are suggesting is that bars should be allowed to trade as "smoking" or "non-smoking" venues, then you shouldn't wait for an answer from me.

The fact of the matter is that the authorities have not included this option in their legislation. Discussing it is therefore futile.

If the discusion is futile, then shouldn't this thread be closed? In fact, lets not just stop there, why not close the whole forum down?

Yep

MM, the main point i was making was about non-smokers thinking this is a win for you. Well fine, but just wait until something else comes out that affects you and stops you having a freedom of choice. The "nanny state" noose is tightening.

[Cromarty]

Well fine, but just wait until something else comes out that affects you and stops you having a freedom of choice. The "nanny state" noose is tightening.

oh please

this is the usual whining noises coming from smoker, going on and on about rights and freedom of choice.

How about the habitual drink driver? Does he have the right, the freedom of choice to continue without fear of reproach? Why is drink driving illegal? Because it causes harm to others. Why has smoking in public been banned? Because it causes harm to others.

So by your rationale, drink driving and other despicable acts should be allowed, because otherwise it takes away a persons freedom of choice.

some people need to grow up.

[mrbojangles]

Well fine, but just wait until something else comes out that affects you and stops you having a freedom of choice. The "nanny state" noose is tightening.

oh please

this is the usual whining noises coming from smoker, going on and on about rights and freedom of choice.

How about the habitual drink driver? Does he have the right, the freedom of choice to continue without fear of reproach? Why is drink driving illegal? Because it causes harm to others. Why has smoking in public been banned? Because it causes harm to others.

So by your rationale, drink driving and other despicable acts should be allowed, because otherwise it takes away a persons freedom of choice.

Are you for real.

Just in case you aren't aware, smoking is still legal, albeit not inside establishments but it is still legal. To compare smoking with drink driving, is absolutely ridiculous. Look back at my original post, i'm not whining, i said i don't mind the ban. I'm just saying watch out for the next item on the agenda to face a ban, it could be something you currently enjoy.

some people need to grow up.

Indeed you do, if that is your basis for a reasoned discussion

[twschw]

I have yet to have seen anywhere on here, a smoker mention that point. The issue is that whilst cigarrettes are still legal in their own right, WHY should we have to go outside?

The main argument seems to be about having choice, you know that word "choice". Something that people who live in democratic societies take for granted.

Yes, cigarettes and smoking is still legal, provided you smoke in a place where it is legal to do so. This is the crux of the matter. The places where you can legally smoke are quickly disappearing.

In Australia, the next no-no place for smoking will be in your own vehicle. We already have beaches, certain council owned outside properties, indoor sections of pubs and clubs, inside buildings....and the list goes on.

Thailand is catching up fast with the rest of the world.

So, your question was: 'Why should smokers go outside to smoke?' The simple answer to that is because that regulations now says that to smoke inside is unlawful.

If smokers smoked smokeless cigarettes, or injected nicotine into their veins to get their hit, then I'd be quite happy to have them stay inside whilst 'having a smoke.'

Non-smokers have absolutely nothing against the vast majority of people who happen to be smokers. Smokers are wonderful, friendly human beings but unfortunately when they smoke conventional cigarettes, they fill the air with toxic chemicals that non-smokers (up until recent times) had to inhale.

Prior to the 'no-smoking' law, non-smokers had the choice of whether to remain in the smoked filled bar or to leave. Now the tables have turned. Smokers are the ones that have to leave if they want to smoke.

It takes less than five minutes to smoke a cigarette but the second hand smoke from just one cigarette remains in an enclosed room for much longer than five minutes.

Walk outside to an isolated area, have a five minute smoke and the second hand smoke drifts off into the atmosphere without causing harm or irritation to any other person in the near vicinity.

To obey the no-smoking laws by walking outside to have a smoke should now be simply regarded as being considerate and good manners.

Now what would be the rational behind this ban? It is my car, I paid for it, it is my personal space. Once the banning starts it is hard to stop. What will be next?

[Mighty Mouse]

Now what would be the rational behind this ban? It is my car, I paid for it, it is my personal space. Once the banning starts it is hard to stop. What will be next?

It depends whether you drive and smoke with children in the car.

The same laws apply to whether or not you drive wearing a seat belt. It's your car, your personal space, you paid for it, it's your life, so why wear seat belts?

When a law is proclaimed, you don't have a choice.

[Mighty Mouse]

MM, the main point i was making was about non-smokers thinking this is a win for you.

It's a win for everybody's health. It's a win for the environment. It's a win for my hair and my clothes. It's a win for common sense.

If smokers disagree, citing that it is a loss for them, then perhaps they should make the effort to turn what they perceive as a 'loss' into a 'win' by quitting, or significantly reducing, their smoking habit.

[DirkGently]

I was in the Uk recently where a similar ban is in FORCE. It's great.

Being in a bar or having a meal without people smoking is very pleasent.

Smokers will proberbly be thankful in the long run too. From my observations people smoke less if it means standing outside.

[Rinrada]

Agree....on the BAN ... our local boozer has built a nice little pig sty ...oops dedicated smokers lounge at the back of the pub where they can all go out to enjoy their addiction in comfort... ....

[Cromarty]

Just in case you aren't aware, smoking is still legal, albeit not inside establishments but it is still legal. To compare smoking with drink driving, is absolutely ridiculous.

just to spell out my point for those who are struggling... drinking is legal. Driving is legal. It is illegal to do them together as they harm others. Same now with smoking in public.

And for the love of *** stop with the purile "just wait untill they ban something you enjoy"

You harm others with what you do. It has been banned, end of story.

[Thanh-BKK]

And you alcoholics who can't live outside a bar and hence need to complain about the smoking in bars do something harmful to others too! Next time a drunkard vomits on my feet i'll punch his lights out and the next drunk who rams my car gets a bullet between the eyes, how's that for a change?????

I hope and pray and bribe the officials so that the next ban will be alcohol.

See who laughs THEN.

Thanh (non smoker and non drinker)

[Cromarty]

erm, thanks Thanh, for that informed contribution.

[Ijustwannateach]

It's way over the top to compare Nazi persecution to a public smoking ban, Thanh... just to offer some perspective.

[MJo]

It's way over the top to compare Nazi persecution to a public smoking ban, Thanh... just to offer some perspective.

Agree, does not apply to ban itself. Applies quite well for the comments here. Against of supporting the ban.

For me it's shame that asia is following europe with banning culture. For long there has been non smoking bars and restaurants in Bangkok as well as those where you can smoke.

Now what's wrong making separate smoking sections where ventilation is handled so that smoke does not escape to non-smoking areas? In europe this was in use in several countries and working well. Next step was to introduce separate smoking rooms that guarantees the smoke is kept inside. Now i'm a smoker and can live with these, he_l can even live with total ban if needed. Just will visit bars less and prefer outdoor places...

From experience from europe i can tell you that very soon this will result as all out war here on forums and other media people complaining about crowds of smokers bloking the entrance and road in front of popular night spots. Not to even mention the noise pollution coming from crowd of drunken smokers and non-smokers taking over the streets.

Others to suffer are bars, meaning smaller places that sell only alcohol. Within a year many place is out of business due smokers visit less often or prefer bigger places where smoking is more convenient. And surprise ! Non smokers do follow with the smokers. Sad but true based on latest research from europe...

Anyone ever asked what average Thais think about this? It's their country in the end. Do they agree with the ban ?

[Thanh-BKK]

That may well be.

But it's also way over the top to keep complaining about the smoking in bars and pubs - citing such reasons as "i can't stand the smell in my clothes" or "you smokers put me into danger". Those who complain are the ones that frequent such places - i.e. people who drink alcohol. I have been to a LOT of restaurants to eat food and nowhere was smoking allowed - and nobody complained as they were restaurants, places to, well, eat.

People go to pubs/bars in order to DRINK, a habit that is just as dangerous as smoking. For themselves as well as for others! Drink driving is an example, one of which i have been victim several times. And if the guy in the disco last time would have hit my shirt instead of my feet with his puke my clothes would have smelled worse than after exposure to smoke, plus i would have had to leave the place immediately to change clothes, having wasted my time and money for entry fee.

Yet still they keep going on and on and on trying to tell the smokers how "disgusting" the smoking habit is, all the while not understanding how disgusting their own drinking habit is! THAT is what i am all about, this screaming unfairness towards the smokers who are now banned from pubs and bars and whatnot while the drinkers still may endanger bystanders and traffic participants.

Understand that i do NOT smoke but don't mind it the least because i have yet to see a smoker start a fight or mow down innocent people with his vehicle while "under the influence of cigarettes". I have been rinking at parties etc when i was younger but i stopped the day i got my driving license, only to find out that i can enjoy a party just as much drinking only Pepsi or similar non-alcoholic stuff.

And if i don't want to get exposed to smoke i don't go to a place where smokers are, fullstop!

But then some here seem to be so addicted to alcohol/bar life that they just can't live without it and hence must keep complaining about smoking at such places.

The "Nazis" here are in the government making such laws that ban smokers from such places. And once they see that their fascist measures work they'll continue, see other countries where they are banning more and more (i.e. Australia - smoking in one's own car). Do you really think they stop at smoking?

Wait and see.

Best regards....

Thanh (who doesn't care if smoking is allowed or not but who doesn't accept unfairness)

[twschw]

Now what would be the rational behind this ban? It is my car, I paid for it, it is my personal space. Once the banning starts it is hard to stop. What will be next?

It depends whether you drive and smoke with children in the car.

The same laws apply to whether or not you drive wearing a seat belt. It's your car, your personal space, you paid for it, it's your life, so why wear seat belts?

When a law is proclaimed, you don't have a choice.

You said nothing about children in the post I quoted. Now, are you saying that one will not be allowed to smoke in one's own car when alone or when there is a child in the car?

Edited March 3, 2008 by twschw

[mrbojangles]

MM, the main point i was making was about non-smokers thinking this is a win for you.

It's a win for everybody's health. It's a win for the environment. It's a win for my hair and my clothes. It's a win for common sense.

If smokers disagree, citing that it is a loss for them, then perhaps they should make the effort to turn what they perceive as a 'loss' into a 'win' by quitting, or significantly reducing, their smoking habit.

MM, i am only going to repeat myself again this final time. You keep on taking snippets of what i have said and not the full context in what i am actually saying.

I have already said i don't really mind the ban which we have in the UK. It has helped me cut back on ciggies when i am out and so it will also do when i'm back in Thailand. However, when you look at the principles of it, it is taking away peoples freedom of choice and the freedom of establishments to choose their customer base.

Take away your personal feelings about smoking and smokers and step out of the box for a minute. The main crux of what i am saying is, what about when they start to focus on another topic. Cos it certainly doesn't end here.

For instance, over the last few years, they have already reduced the licensing hours in Thailand. Will it stop there? Or will there be more reductions? All of these Buddha days and Election days when the bars can't open. I can never remember there being so many. And will it stop there?

[thailien8]

"For instance, over the last few years, they have already reduced the licensing hours in Thailand. Will it stop there? Or will there be more reductions? All of these Buddha days and Election days when the bars can't open. I can never remember there being so many. And will it stop there?"

Well bojangles, neither you nor I know if "it" will stop "there". Could you clarify your paranoia a little for those of us who are delighted about the new anti-smoking law? What do you mean by "over the last few years, they have already reduced the licensing hours in Thailand."? Are you talking about the bar closing hours varying between 1 am. to 3 am.?

The Buddhist holidays have stayed pretty consistent over the two decades I have been in Thailand. I respect Buddhism and suggest you do also.

The election days, when selling alcohol is prohibited, have increased of late. I agree that this is a ridiculous, worse-than-useless law, alienating tourists and pissing off bar owners. But you are wrong to state that "the bars can't open." They can and do open. When they do, they present us non-smoking alcoholic bar addicts with a problem similar to the problem that the nicotine addicts must face every day from now on in Thailand. We are free to choose to enter a bar, and not drink alcohol (horrors) or smoke (joy). The girls are still there for us to enjoy. I do. So I guess my question is: Are you smokers able to enter a bar, not smoke, and enjoy the girls anyway? Or does the nicotine fit get in the way when you are starting to have fun? Is a cigarette more important to you than a girl?