Crackdown On Smoking At Pubs, Enteratinment Venues

[John K]

As per my not to long ago post the police have stop watching politics and will focus on us now. I have it from a very reliable source that the police have restarted drug tests at clubs and bars. Nana Plaza was on the list last night with at least 1 bar submitting to police drug tests.

I think this is significant in that the last time I can recall this type of activity was before July 2006. It reflects that they feel there is closure in the political issues. I guess the party is over and we can expect crackdowns all over again. So yes I guess they will be in checking the bars for smokers.

Not sure if you get out very often, but in Pattaya the drug tests have continued unabated over the last 2 years, and I am sure they would have in Nana.

To suggest that the police are suddenly going to change their behaviour due to the political situation sounds either sensationalist or paranoid to me.

You could be right, but usually that would be covered in one of the nightlife columns. I guess we shall see if Stickman covers it Sunday in his column.

I think I have been vindicated

The below quote is from Today's Stickman.

Spanky's staff were dong the pee in the cup thing with the boys in brown this past Friday. Never a bad thing to test the girls for drugs, in my opinion. I truly believe that drugs, particularly methamphetamines, are the bane of the 21st century, the root of so many crimes.

And with that in mind, we should be aware that with the election behind us, the police will be looking in new directions. Expect more drug testing and a crackdown on smoking in bars (from February 11).

Regarding smoking, this is a prediction JK it's not fact yet, but I agree where there is a few juicy bt to be earned your stance seems rock solid.

Surely they'll have to catch people in the act so to speak. After all taking amphetamines is a crime full stop, smoking outside of designated areas isn't. The mind boggles!!! I wonder if the smell of smoke in the air, plus a packet of cigs,. in the pocket will result in anybody being 2000bt the lighter.

Well if you think about it a urine test is the rough equal to a dirty ashtray. The Police did not see the person take the drugs but the evidence is there in the urine. The police did not see the person smoking but there are ashes in the ashtray. Also it is a lot easier to spot the ashtray, no special equipment required.

[ThaiAdventure]

"Smokers are the sons of satan."..yada, yada, yada.

Reminds me of Stans mother from Southpark

For all you UK smokers.....

Fighting The UK Smoking Ban

for all you American smokers:

Smokers Club Inc.

Lets start a new website:

Fighting The Thai Smoking Ban

Edited January 27, 2008 by ThaiAdventure

[DLock]

I have enjoyed the debate...but it has been somewhat hijacked by diversionary tactics.

Bottom line is that I don't like cigarette smoke and don't see why a person should make me suffer because of their addiction. Drug addicts will always defend their addiction of choice.

The "personal choice" argument is old and tired.

The "you have the choice not to go in that bar" is weak.

The "vehicle diversion and global pollution" attempt deserves it's own thread, and I will support that effort.

The "reports suggest smoking is not bad for you" is just ignorant.

Smokers will always say they are considerate, but it only takes one smoker to pollute a room.

I work with a bunch of smokers who will disappear 5-8 times a day for 10-15 minutes to smoke. The time suck is painful enough, but they really don't appreciate how bad they smell. I now hire only non smokers.

It's a matter of respecting other people, and any rationalization that smokers can come up with to justify making other people breathe their smoke is just disrespecting other people. Simple as that.

Very good post, I am forced to work with smokers and it is disgusting their lack of regard for the health of others, their weekness that results in their habit will be the downfall of them but they should not inflict that on others in the workplace or in pubs and bars. Bring on the ban.

As a smoker (probably looking to stop) I'd worked in that people deserved not to be subject to my habit, I hadn't realised how strongly people felt when not subject to the habit in any meaningful way. I'm a little puzzled by this. I mean does the smell of smoke make you want to puke for instance? Is this how all non smokers feel?

Moldy, I can only speak for myself, but yes the smell of smoke on heavy smokers clothes and breathe is really quite sickening to me. This really only holds true for me in the office environment where one cant help but be subjected to it. Some of the guys do try to mask the smell with mints, but it's certainly not pleasant. I guess they can smell themselves.

The time suck is also very annoying and just leads to complaints from others that the smoking staff get more breaks than they do. That discussion with smokers, some who are senior, does not go down well at all, and often ends in quite heated arguments, where inevitably the smokers win with sheer disregard for the rules. Hence, I will never hire a smoker again, regardless of how good they are. It's just not worth the pain.

And if anyone has tried to tell a smoker that they smell or that they are wasting at least an hour a day having smoke breaks...its not a pleasant discussion, so it never gets mentioned.

Maybe it's just me. Growing up with a Mother who smoked and insisted on keeping all the windows closed in the winter probably makes my dislike of smoking more intense...and yes, my Mother now realizes how bad her decision was, and how bad it must have been for us and thankfully she stopped. But she used the "at least I'll die happy" or the "I'm not hurting anyone" responses when we asked her to stop. It's only now she realizes how stupid he rationale was...that and losing 2 friends to emphacima(sp?)

[moldy]

I have enjoyed the debate...but it has been somewhat hijacked by diversionary tactics.

Bottom line is that I don't like cigarette smoke and don't see why a person should make me suffer because of their addiction. Drug addicts will always defend their addiction of choice.

The "personal choice" argument is old and tired.

The "you have the choice not to go in that bar" is weak.

The "vehicle diversion and global pollution" attempt deserves it's own thread, and I will support that effort.

The "reports suggest smoking is not bad for you" is just ignorant.

Smokers will always say they are considerate, but it only takes one smoker to pollute a room.

I work with a bunch of smokers who will disappear 5-8 times a day for 10-15 minutes to smoke. The time suck is painful enough, but they really don't appreciate how bad they smell. I now hire only non smokers.

It's a matter of respecting other people, and any rationalization that smokers can come up with to justify making other people breathe their smoke is just disrespecting other people. Simple as that.

Very good post, I am forced to work with smokers and it is disgusting their lack of regard for the health of others, their weekness that results in their habit will be the downfall of them but they should not inflict that on others in the workplace or in pubs and bars. Bring on the ban.

As a smoker (probably looking to stop) I'd worked in that people deserved not to be subject to my habit, I hadn't realised how strongly people felt when not subject to the habit in any meaningful way. I'm a little puzzled by this. I mean does the smell of smoke make you want to puke for instance? Is this how all non smokers feel?

Moldy, I can only speak for myself, but yes the smell of smoke on heavy smokers clothes and breathe is really quite sickening to me. This really only holds true for me in the office environment where one cant help but be subjected to it. Some of the guys do try to mask the smell with mints, but it's certainly not pleasant. I guess they can smell themselves.

The time suck is also very annoying and just leads to complaints from others that the smoking staff get more breaks than they do. That discussion with smokers, some who are senior, does not go down well at all, and often ends in quite heated arguments, where inevitably the smokers win with sheer disregard for the rules. Hence, I will never hire a smoker again, regardless of how good they are. It's just not worth the pain.

And if anyone has tried to tell a smoker that they smell or that they are wasting at least an hour a day having smoke breaks...its not a pleasant discussion, so it never gets mentioned.

Maybe it's just me. Growing up with a Mother who smoked and insisted on keeping all the windows closed in the winter probably makes my dislike of smoking more intense...and yes, my Mother now realizes how bad her decision was, and how bad it must have been for us and thankfully she stopped. But she used the "at least I'll die happy" or the "I'm not hurting anyone" responses when we asked her to stop. It's only now she realizes how stupid he rationale was...that and losing 2 friends to emphacima(sp?)

You write honestly and persuasively. And indeed there is a good case for banning smoking in and around the workplace full stop, in my view the smokers put you in an invidious position.

I don't smoke at work, I guess my need is not so compelling as others.

But for the sake of completeness, is not smoking an addiction?. Time and time again we hear posters refer to smoking as a free will choice, preferring to believe the smoker is selfish or disgusting, but in truth is he just not an addict ?. What can really be done to help people like me?

[kiakaha]

I have enjoyed the debate...but it has been somewhat hijacked by diversionary tactics.

Bottom line is that I don't like cigarette smoke and don't see why a person should make me suffer because of their addiction. Drug addicts will always defend their addiction of choice.

The "personal choice" argument is old and tired.

The "you have the choice not to go in that bar" is weak.

The "vehicle diversion and global pollution" attempt deserves it's own thread, and I will support that effort.

The "reports suggest smoking is not bad for you" is just ignorant.

Smokers will always say they are considerate, but it only takes one smoker to pollute a room.

I work with a bunch of smokers who will disappear 5-8 times a day for 10-15 minutes to smoke. The time suck is painful enough, but they really don't appreciate how bad they smell. I now hire only non smokers.

It's a matter of respecting other people, and any rationalization that smokers can come up with to justify making other people breathe their smoke is just disrespecting other people. Simple as that.

Very good post, I am forced to work with smokers and it is disgusting their lack of regard for the health of others, their weekness that results in their habit will be the downfall of them but they should not inflict that on others in the workplace or in pubs and bars. Bring on the ban.

As a smoker (probably looking to stop) I'd worked in that people deserved not to be subject to my habit, I hadn't realised how strongly people felt when not subject to the habit in any meaningful way. I'm a little puzzled by this. I mean does the smell of smoke make you want to puke for instance? Is this how all non smokers feel?

Yes it does make me want to puke. I actually find the stale smell of a smoker(their breath, clothes etc...) more nauseating than direct 2nd hand smoke. And smokers who chew mints is even worse cos you then have that revolting "smokers breath mixed with mint" smell.

Edited January 27, 2008 by kiakaha

[moldy]

As per my not to long ago post the police have stop watching politics and will focus on us now. I have it from a very reliable source that the police have restarted drug tests at clubs and bars. Nana Plaza was on the list last night with at least 1 bar submitting to police drug tests.

I think this is significant in that the last time I can recall this type of activity was before July 2006. It reflects that they feel there is closure in the political issues. I guess the party is over and we can expect crackdowns all over again. So yes I guess they will be in checking the bars for smokers.

Not sure if you get out very often, but in Pattaya the drug tests have continued unabated over the last 2 years, and I am sure they would have in Nana.

To suggest that the police are suddenly going to change their behaviour due to the political situation sounds either sensationalist or paranoid to me.

You could be right, but usually that would be covered in one of the nightlife columns. I guess we shall see if Stickman covers it Sunday in his column.

I think I have been vindicated

The below quote is from Today's Stickman.

Spanky's staff were dong the pee in the cup thing with the boys in brown this past Friday. Never a bad thing to test the girls for drugs, in my opinion. I truly believe that drugs, particularly methamphetamines, are the bane of the 21st century, the root of so many crimes.

And with that in mind, we should be aware that with the election behind us, the police will be looking in new directions. Expect more drug testing and a crackdown on smoking in bars (from February 11).

Regarding smoking, this is a prediction JK it's not fact yet, but I agree where there is a few juicy bt to be earned your stance seems rock solid.

Surely they'll have to catch people in the act so to speak. After all taking amphetamines is a crime full stop, smoking outside of designated areas isn't. The mind boggles!!! I wonder if the smell of smoke in the air, plus a packet of cigs,. in the pocket will result in anybody being 2000bt the lighter.

Well if you think about it a urine test is the rough equal to a dirty ashtray. The Police did not see the person take the drugs but the evidence is there in the urine. The police did not see the person smoking but there are ashes in the ashtray. Also it is a lot easier to spot the ashtray, no special equipment required.

Yes but the urine comes out of one specific person, the ash in the ashtray could come from any source.

Methinks that securing a hefty pay day on anything other than being caught in the act would indeed be taking the p**s in quite a different way.

There is an element of slapstick humour Thai style in all of this. Picture the scene of one crafty smoker sneaking a quickie, disappearing to another part of the room, leaving someone else to be frog marched off to the nearest ATM by dint of the fact that he has a packet of tabs in his shirt pocket. Imagine the unfortunate sifting through the ashtray to prove it wasn't his brand. Call in forensic too!!!

[John K]

As per my not to long ago post the police have stop watching politics and will focus on us now. I have it from a very reliable source that the police have restarted drug tests at clubs and bars. Nana Plaza was on the list last night with at least 1 bar submitting to police drug tests.

I think this is significant in that the last time I can recall this type of activity was before July 2006. It reflects that they feel there is closure in the political issues. I guess the party is over and we can expect crackdowns all over again. So yes I guess they will be in checking the bars for smokers.

Not sure if you get out very often, but in Pattaya the drug tests have continued unabated over the last 2 years, and I am sure they would have in Nana.

To suggest that the police are suddenly going to change their behaviour due to the political situation sounds either sensationalist or paranoid to me.

You could be right, but usually that would be covered in one of the nightlife columns. I guess we shall see if Stickman covers it Sunday in his column.

I think I have been vindicated

The below quote is from Today's Stickman.

Spanky's staff were dong the pee in the cup thing with the boys in brown this past Friday. Never a bad thing to test the girls for drugs, in my opinion. I truly believe that drugs, particularly methamphetamines, are the bane of the 21st century, the root of so many crimes.

And with that in mind, we should be aware that with the election behind us, the police will be looking in new directions. Expect more drug testing and a crackdown on smoking in bars (from February 11).

Regarding smoking, this is a prediction JK it's not fact yet, but I agree where there is a few juicy bt to be earned your stance seems rock solid.

Surely they'll have to catch people in the act so to speak. After all taking amphetamines is a crime full stop, smoking outside of designated areas isn't. The mind boggles!!! I wonder if the smell of smoke in the air, plus a packet of cigs,. in the pocket will result in anybody being 2000bt the lighter.

Well if you think about it a urine test is the rough equal to a dirty ashtray. The Police did not see the person take the drugs but the evidence is there in the urine. The police did not see the person smoking but there are ashes in the ashtray. Also it is a lot easier to spot the ashtray, no special equipment required.

Yes but the urine comes out of one specific person, the ash in the ashtray could come from any source.

Methinks that securing a hefty pay day on anything other than being caught in the act would indeed be taking the p**s in quite a different way.

There is an element of slapstick humour Thai style in all of this. Picture the scene of one crafty smoker sneaking a quickie, disappearing to another part of the room, leaving someone else to be frog marched off to the nearest ATM by dint of the fact that he has a packet of tabs in his shirt pocket. Imagine the unfortunate sifting through the ashtray to prove it wasn't his brand. Call in forensic too!!!

Yes you are right, but who provided the ashtray? The smoker may avoid paying 2000 but the bar is not so lucky and will end up paying 20000. So that all comes down to what I said before, an ashtray in an invitation to smoke.

The service staff are like hawks, they know when your beer is getting low. If they know their pay may depend on keeping ashtrays out the same as not letting someone in who has a drink from another place, they will see to it.

[mrbojangles]

[John K]

What a lovely nicotine compelled picture. How may smokers do you know that are that age? What about this picture is so unique and not common as it was so easy to find?

[mrbojangles]

What a lovely nicotine compelled picture. How may smokers do you know that are that age? What about this picture is so unique and not common as it was so easy to find?

It was a bit of light heartedness John that was part of a collection of rebel oldies pictures in my e-mail this morning and which i thought was quite apt for this thread. Nothing more, nothing less. Light(en) up

[TAWP]

Out of interest John K, would you work to have smokers clubs shut down too?

Private, members only clubs, where people might sit and enjoy a cigar or cigarettes.

Clearly marked as such from the outside and off-limits to non-members.

[John K]

Out of interest John K, would you work to have smokers clubs shut down too?

Private, members only clubs, where people might sit and enjoy a cigar or cigarettes.

Clearly marked as such from the outside and off-limits to non-members.

No, absolutely not. If there is a private club or venue that people pay a membership to belong to, I suspect it should be allowed there. If the entire reason of that venue is to go and smoke there, then only smokers would go and their smoke would not bother non smokers.

I Don’t know why but a venue like that reminds me of some secret footage aired from Iraq when Saddam was still in power. there was some sort of ritual where people were driving things into their skull like nails and so on and then walking around. It showed on of Saddam’s sons in attendance.

[Mighty Mouse]

No, absolutely not. If there is a private club or venue that people pay a membership to belong to, I suspect it should be allowed there. If the entire reason of that venue is to go and smoke there, then only smokers would go and their smoke would not bother non smokers.

....but, should these smokers then seek medical assistance through the public health system for a smoking related illness, many non-smokers would be indirectly paying their bill.

[John K]

No, absolutely not. If there is a private club or venue that people pay a membership to belong to, I suspect it should be allowed there. If the entire reason of that venue is to go and smoke there, then only smokers would go and their smoke would not bother non smokers.

....but, should these smokers then seek medical assistance through the public health system for a smoking related illness, many non-smokers would be indirectly paying their bill.

Does that reality apply in Thailand? I am not that familiar with the ins and outs of that here. If you are talking in other countries, then this line of discussion can go on forever.

However from what I have seen the insurance premiums for smokers are higher. In the states I myself have produced and signed several letters for former smoking clients to be applied to their application for non smokers insurance rates. Usually it takes 1 year of being smoke free for the lower rate to be recognized and applied.

[adjan jb]

....but, should these smokers then seek medical assistance through the public health system for a smoking related illness, many non-smokers would be indirectly paying their bill.

Is it fair that drivers seek medical assistance through the public health system after an accident since many pedestrians have to pay their bill ?

Is it fair that drunks seek medical assistance through the public health system since many teetotalers have to pay their bill ?

Is it fair that sunbathers seek medical assistance through the public health system for a skin cancer since many factory workers who can't afford to go on holydays have to pay their bill ?

Is it fair to single out smokers ?

[mrbojangles]

....but, should these smokers then seek medical assistance through the public health system for a smoking related illness, many non-smokers would be indirectly paying their bill.

Twaddle MM and a typical non-smokers attitude. Smokers contribute something like three times as much in tax as they cost in health care. So it's us who are actually indirectly subsidising your bills.

On a different note, I pay taxes and local community charges etc which for instance, go towards child allowance and schooling but i don't have kids. So i am DIRECTLY paying for the upkeep of other people bringing up their kids, do i moan about it? No, i just accept it and pay up. It's a "swings and roundabout's" system. Should we only pay for police and the fire brigade whenever we have to call them out? The list could go on and on.

Edit:- adjan jb was posting at the same time. Add his list to mine.

Edited January 29, 2008 by mrbojangles

[TAWP]

Out of interest John K, would you work to have smokers clubs shut down too?

Private, members only clubs, where people might sit and enjoy a cigar or cigarettes.

Clearly marked as such from the outside and off-limits to non-members.

No, absolutely not. If there is a private club or venue that people pay a membership to belong to, I suspect it should be allowed there. If the entire reason of that venue is to go and smoke there, then only smokers would go and their smoke would not bother non smokers.

So you think it's fair to argue that a private bar that require membership should be excluded from this ban?

[Mobi]

Out of interest John K, would you work to have smokers clubs shut down too?

Private, members only clubs, where people might sit and enjoy a cigar or cigarettes.

Clearly marked as such from the outside and off-limits to non-members.

No, absolutely not. If there is a private club or venue that people pay a membership to belong to, I suspect it should be allowed there. If the entire reason of that venue is to go and smoke there, then only smokers would go and their smoke would not bother non smokers.

So you think it's fair to argue that a private bar that require membership should be excluded from this ban?

Not wishing to be picky or anything, but what about the poor folk who have to work in this private smokers' club?

[John K]

Out of interest John K, would you work to have smokers clubs shut down too?

Private, members only clubs, where people might sit and enjoy a cigar or cigarettes.

Clearly marked as such from the outside and off-limits to non-members.

No, absolutely not. If there is a private club or venue that people pay a membership to belong to, I suspect it should be allowed there. If the entire reason of that venue is to go and smoke there, then only smokers would go and their smoke would not bother non smokers.

So you think it's fair to argue that a private bar that require membership should be excluded from this ban?

Yes, in fact in the states some states have this provision in the law. There was also a stipulation that no new applications could be made, so unless you were a smoke house before you could not become one. As for the people that work there, well finding people was a problem from what I recall as nobody wanted to work there unless they were well compensated, however there were more jobs than people back then. The club fees were hefty too because of the small number of smokers. They effectively eliminated between 75% and 80% of the population as potential members that are non smokers. Bottom line it was not cost effective and they started closing after about 6 months. That was just about the time I came to Thailand so my information is old and second hand on this meaning I am not sure how accurate it is.

[moldy]

Out of interest John K, would you work to have smokers clubs shut down too?

Private, members only clubs, where people might sit and enjoy a cigar or cigarettes.

Clearly marked as such from the outside and off-limits to non-members.

No, absolutely not. If there is a private club or venue that people pay a membership to belong to, I suspect it should be allowed there. If the entire reason of that venue is to go and smoke there, then only smokers would go and their smoke would not bother non smokers.

So you think it's fair to argue that a private bar that require membership should be excluded from this ban?

Yes, in fact in the states some states have this provision in the law. There was also a stipulation that no new applications could be made, so unless you were a smoke house before you could not become one. As for the people that work there, well finding people was a problem from what I recall as nobody wanted to work there unless they were well compensated, however there were more jobs than people back then. The club fees were hefty too because of the small number of smokers. They effectively eliminated between 75% and 80% of the population as potential members that are non smokers. Bottom line it was not cost effective and they started closing after about 6 months. That was just about the time I came to Thailand so my information is old and second hand on this meaning I am not sure how accurate it is.

Regarding the supposed demise of the club. is this what really happened or what you would like to have happened JK.?

But, I am coming to terms in quite a challenging way with just what dangers there are in my continued smoking. At 47, I'm lucky enough to be very fit, but the wear and tear I feel must in part be to the effects of smoking, and the cold I had didn't go away quickly, unlike with my girlfriend who is a non smoker. I think my allergy to traffic pollution is a big factor too.

Smoking is also a very strong addiction too. If somebody were to come on the boards, stating that they believed in an outright ban due to their public health concerns this would be a valid argument in my mind.

In truth I wish I'd never started, and of course had there been a ban I probably never would have.

[Mighty Mouse]

Is it fair to single out smokers ?

This thread is only about smokers so that's the subject I based my comment upon.

I appreciate that there are other groups who use and abuse the public health system but if you want to include them in a discussion about smoking, this thread will go on forever.

The same applies to smokers who try and divert the discussion away from the health hazards of second hand smoke, and redirect the discussion towards car and factory emissions as an excuse to smoke in public places.

Keep to the subject.

[John K]

Out of interest John K, would you work to have smokers clubs shut down too?

Private, members only clubs, where people might sit and enjoy a cigar or cigarettes.

Clearly marked as such from the outside and off-limits to non-members.

No, absolutely not. If there is a private club or venue that people pay a membership to belong to, I suspect it should be allowed there. If the entire reason of that venue is to go and smoke there, then only smokers would go and their smoke would not bother non smokers.

So you think it's fair to argue that a private bar that require membership should be excluded from this ban?

Yes, in fact in the states some states have this provision in the law. There was also a stipulation that no new applications could be made, so unless you were a smoke house before you could not become one. As for the people that work there, well finding people was a problem from what I recall as nobody wanted to work there unless they were well compensated, however there were more jobs than people back then. The club fees were hefty too because of the small number of smokers. They effectively eliminated between 75% and 80% of the population as potential members that are non smokers. Bottom line it was not cost effective and they started closing after about 6 months. That was just about the time I came to Thailand so my information is old and second hand on this meaning I am not sure how accurate it is.

Regarding the supposed demise of the club. is this what really happened or what you would like to have happened JK.?

But, I am coming to terms in quite a challenging way with just what dangers there are in my continued smoking. At 47, I'm lucky enough to be very fit, but the wear and tear I feel must in part be to the effects of smoking, and the cold I had didn't go away quickly, unlike with my girlfriend who is a non smoker. I think my allergy to traffic pollution is a big factor too.

Smoking is also a very strong addiction too. If somebody were to come on the boards, stating that they believed in an outright ban due to their public health concerns this would be a valid argument in my mind.

In truth I wish I'd never started, and of course had there been a ban I probably never would have.

To answer your question, I think I need to explain things better. The smoking ban where I am from was enacted in 2 steps. The first step was April 1. That was for everyplace inside except Bars and clubs. I came to Thailand for the first time the end of July that same year on holiday. The second half was enacted October 1, and that was for bars and clubs. I went back the end of October for a few weeks to tidy up some things that needed my attention. By October the first half everyone had adjusted and business was unchanged. As for the bars and clubs, I did not have time to go to one as I was on a tight schedule with many things to do including getting my first non b visa.

I returned Back there a second time 15 months later in February for 3 weeks and did have time to say hello to some friends, and did go out to a club. Business was also unchanged except free of smoke. The people who did smoke went outside in the wonderful snow and sub freezing weather to hold their butt.

It was at that time I heard the story about the smoking clubs going out. The ones that remained were more or less elite country clubs that could afford to charge outrageous fees for membership. Unless you were making $100,000 or more a year, you probably could not afford to be a member there. As I was not following the local news there I had to accept what my friends told me, and that was the point I mentioned above. Given a choice of 2 identical venues with one being smoke free, the smoke free one was the one that survived simply by the numbers. The smoke free club 100% of the local population wanted to go including smokers, where the smoking allowed club only 20% of the local population wanted to go and they were the smokers. That 20% was probably lower because of the membership fee involved to be seen as private and not public to meet the laws definition of private.

I also had time to talk to a few of my colleagues about the number of smokers who came to them to quit after the second part of the ban came in. They said the first three months there was no change, however after that there was a significant increase. They contributed that to the timing being near Christmas and the nicotine mentality of wanting to punish the venue by not going. After a while they eventually sorted that out and decided to quit smoking. I expect a similar situation in Bangkok. I experienced a similar surge in people in late May and early June prior to coming to Thailand two months after the first half of the ban went into place. The age of the people who came to see me to stop smoking was older than typical club goers being mostly 35 to 45. Many indicated it was the ban that was the final straw that made them decide to quit smoking. They also expressed the nicotine driven anger at wanting to punish the places that now disallowed smoking by not going. That got old fast as restaurants were part of the ban and cooking at home everyday was getting old.

From what I have seen in Bangkok, there are only certain groups that have a high percentage of smokers who would go to clubs. I think the biggest group would be Japanese followed by other Asians. People from western countries have all but given up the habit with the percentage of smokers roughly being 25% by my own estimates.

To address you highlighted concern “If somebody were to come on the boards, stating that they believed in an outright ban due to their public health concerns” the answer is yes. Although some may think of it as just another way the police can legally fine you 2000 Baht and pocket the money.

As for the ban being positive for the health of every non smoker, I would have to no. there is a very small percentage of people (far less than 1%) who have for lack of a better word super immune systems. We read about these people in the news because they are such an anomaly. Example people who are immune to the HIV virus, or other such things. Scientist love to get their hands on them to study what makes them tick. Even people who have recovered from the H5N1 bird flu virus are like gold for they serum that flows in their veins.

On the other hand a person who may be HIV positive and has a weakened immune system could be sent over the edge by second hand smoke in a bar or club. I wonder how that would sit in the mind of a smoker if they discovered they were the cause of that tragic event. I suspect nicotine would make them blow that off too and place the blame on the HIV positive person for being there.

[Mighty Mouse]

As for the ban being positive for the health of every non smoker, I would have to no. there is a very small percentage of people (far less than 1%) who have for lack of a better word super immune systems.

An estimated 13 million Americans, 5.1 percent of the population, have asthma. View source here.

Multiply that by the rest of the worlds' population and cigarette smoke has the potential to cause problems (possibly death) on a large scale.

Second hand cigarette smoke can trigger severe asthma attacks.

For all remaining non-smokers who are not asthmatic and whose health may not be directly adversely affected by second hand smoke, the vast majority of them will regard a room full of second hand smoke as utterly disgusting....especially when they are eating a meal.

With smokers now in the minority of the population, it's time to bite the bullet, stop making excuses and quit the habit.

[John K]

As for the ban being positive for the health of every non smoker, I would have to no. there is a very small percentage of people (far less than 1%) who have for lack of a better word super immune systems.

An estimated 13 million Americans, 5.1 percent of the population, have asthma. View source here.

Multiply that by the rest of the worlds' population and cigarette smoke has the potential to cause problems (possibly death) on a large scale.

Second hand cigarette smoke can trigger severe asthma attacks.

For all remaining non-smokers who are not asthmatic and whose health may not be directly adversely affected by second hand smoke, the vast majority of them will regard a room full of second hand smoke as utterly disgusting....especially when they are eating a meal.

With smokers now in the minority of the population, it's time to bite the bullet, stop making excuses and quit the habit.

Actually I too have asthma, and according to my mother my very first asthma attack happened when I was a toddler and I was in my mother's arms while she was smoking. That resulted in me being rushed to the hospital. The doctor simply said to her don’t smoke around me. Things were different back then when the majority of people smoked. I later learned how to eat my meals in 3 minutes flat so I could get away from the table before my parents lit up. That was all before I was 5 years old.

[TAWP]

So you think it's fair to argue that a private bar that require membership should be excluded from this ban?

Not wishing to be picky or anything, but what about the poor folk who have to work in this private smokers' club?

Last time I checked people weren't forced to work in a club unless they wanted to.

[Mobi]

So you think it's fair to argue that a private bar that require membership should be excluded from this ban?

Not wishing to be picky or anything, but what about the poor folk who have to work in this private smokers' club?

Last time I checked people weren't forced to work in a club unless they wanted to.

Ermm... I'm not sure that choice comes into this - especially in Thailand where the employees may be desperate for work and have families to feed.

Just because a person chooses to work at a particular place, that doesn't exonerate the employer from using unsafe or unhealthy practises. Again, especially in Thailand where education is poor and the staff wouldn't know any better.

If passive smoking is bad for staff in public bars and restuarants, then it is bad for staff in private clubs.

[Mighty Mouse]

I later learned how to eat my meals in 3 minutes flat so I could get away from the table before my parents lit up. That was all before I was 5 years old.

I hope you are not advocating that adult diners should gulp their restaurant meals down in 3 minutes flat whilst smokers fill the air with their putrid chemicals.

[mrbojangles]

Looks like this thread has turned into the non-smokers looking for any reason to simply bash smokers.

As you where.

[TAWP]

So you think it's fair to argue that a private bar that require membership should be excluded from this ban?

Not wishing to be picky or anything, but what about the poor folk who have to work in this private smokers' club?

Last time I checked people weren't forced to work in a club unless they wanted to.

Ermm... I'm not sure that choice comes into this - especially in Thailand where the employees may be desperate for work and have families to feed.

Just because a person chooses to work at a particular place, that doesn't exonerate the employer from using unsafe or unhealthy practises. Again, especially in Thailand where education is poor and the staff wouldn't know any better.

If passive smoking is bad for staff in public bars and restuarants, then it is bad for staff in private clubs.

What you are advocating is social fascism and continued ignorance in the population.

I propose personal freedom and education.

Remove the problem, not the symptom.

[Ijustwannateach]

I still think that a mixed system of licensing in proportion to the actual smoking population would be fair and would result in some locations still available for smoking with others safe for non-smokers. However, discussion of such a compromise doesn't lead to the desirable level of flaming (pun unintentional). It's no skin off my nose if every single club and bar became non-smoking- and, as I've mentioned before, the smokers are the minority.

"S"