Crackdown On Smoking At Pubs, Enteratinment Venues

[Prakanong]

As a recent ex-smoker I do support the concerns of non-smokers regarding passive smoking but I find this concern about smoking as opposed to general air quality a bit disingenuous.

If "non-smokers" were really bothered about the quality of the air they breathe then the internal combustion engine would already be banned, along with other major contributors to air pollution such as electricity generation or a multitude of industrial processes.

How many non-smokers who are villifying smokers in this thread live in Bangkok and drive cars ? Or do those living in Chiang Mai all leave during the smog season ?

Realistically, second-hand cigarette smoke is only a starting point in the battle to improve air quality. Smokers can rightly feel victimised when passive smoking complainants remain so silent about other contributors to air pollution.

Quite simply, if I choose to complain about a non-smoker driving in Bangkok and contributing to air pollution will that person give up driving their car where I might inhale the exhaust ? No chance. But smokers have voluntarily respected non-smokers wishes not to light up around them long before it was law, so who are the more considerate and reasonable group ?

Spot on. I recently stopped smoking, it's done nothing to clear my airways.

It's incredible people go crazy about smoke in a bar but seem not to give a toss about air quality outside.

I think the error in perception here is that the cig smoke is causing an allergy, it's not it's trigerring a problem you already have- your membranes are probably already heavily irritated - most probably by traffic pollution, and possibly other toxins.

I suppose cig. smoke is very visible. I guess non smokers are of an hysterical nature and we must make allowances. But God give us a break and get priorities right.

And just what are your medical qualifications as you are giving such a diagnosis that membranes already irritated.

What absolute tosh - fag smoke still irritates whther you are in Bangkok or in a secluded seaside hideaway and noe of the straw man pollution arguments will change the reality.

Its not just a bar either - its only being discussed wut that emphasis as that is what the thread is about - its disgusting and stinking anywhere.

[Zpete]

As a recent ex-smoker I do support the concerns of non-smokers regarding passive smoking but I find this concern about smoking as opposed to general air quality a bit disingenuous.

If "non-smokers" were really bothered about the quality of the air they breathe then the internal combustion engine would already be banned, along with other major contributors to air pollution such as electricity generation or a multitude of industrial processes.

How many non-smokers who are villifying smokers in this thread live in Bangkok and drive cars ? Or do those living in Chiang Mai all leave during the smog season ?

Realistically, second-hand cigarette smoke is only a starting point in the battle to improve air quality. Smokers can rightly feel victimised when passive smoking complainants remain so silent about other contributors to air pollution.

Quite simply, if I choose to complain about a non-smoker driving in Bangkok and contributing to air pollution will that person give up driving their car where I might inhale the exhaust ? No chance. But smokers have voluntarily respected non-smokers wishes not to light up around them long before it was law, so who are the more considerate and reasonable group ?

Spot on. I recently stopped smoking, it's done nothing to clear my airways.

It's incredible people go crazy about smoke in a bar but seem not to give a toss about air quality outside.

I think the error in perception here is that the cig smoke is causing an allergy, it's not it's trigerring a problem you already have- your membranes are probably already heavily irritated - most probably by traffic pollution, and possibly other toxins.

I suppose cig. smoke is very visible. I guess non smokers are of an hysterical nature and we must make allowances. But God give us a break and get priorities right.

And just what are your medical qualifications as you are giving such a diagnosis that membranes already irritated.

What absolute tosh - fag smoke still irritates whther you are in Bangkok or in a secluded seaside hideaway and noe of the straw man pollution arguments will change the reality.

Its not just a bar either - its only being discussed wut that emphasis as that is what the thread is about - its disgusting and stinking anywhere.

Smoke in a bar is far more dangerous as it is more concentrated.

Smokers in bars have NO CONSIDERATION for anyone but their selfish selves.

I gave up smoking 35 years ago, at first there was not much difference.

Now, my food tastes better, I have rarely had a cough and do not get out of breath as I used to.

Get a life....... for yerselves, smokers.

Think of other peoples welfare.

[John K]

Actually I am generally quite considerate towards non smokers, however when they jump on their pedantic high horse, then I tend to try to annoy them as much as possible.

I am sure you have many habits to which I object, but fortunately for you I am far less pedantic than yourself and will not bring those up in a public forum.

Yes I am all right Jack, and to hel_l with all you arrogant tambourine bashers,who have nothing better to do with your lives than complain about everyone and everything.

I bet you are all the same during Sonkran.......excuse me sonny but there is no need to inflict your good fun on evreyon........'SPLASH'

So Sweetchariot, when are you going to weigh in with your opinion. So far nicotine has been doing all the talking for you and doing a very good job at making you look like an arrogant ass.

An arrogant ass?? I have not posted more than 3 times (OK now 4) on this thread, I would say that someone posting upwards of 20 times is the arrogant ass, as you are soooooo brainwashed you can't accept that somebody else may have a valid opinion.

Stop picking on John K. He is just trying to make a not so thinly veiled sales pitch for all his new age hocus pocus cures. Question is does he have a proper B visa and workpermit?

New age hocus pocos? Wow! I guess you need to get out more and start reading things like ‘The New England Journal of Medicine’ and other such mystical publications.

As for the work permit, very much in place as reminded by today’s need to go and make my monthly contribution to various Thai agencies.

As for the people that pick on me, well there are a few that can’s seem to find a level of maturity in themselves needed to act like an adult and they wish to demonstrate that regularly. Amazingly I won’t need to identify them, they will do it themselves by an irresistible urge to attack this post just as soon as they read it. The bright side is they actually call attention to me and my phone rings. When I ask how they heard about me, they cite some off color posts about me by a few with the occasional off comment about the level of maturity in their posts. That usually results in a good chuckle.

[mrbojangles]

It's incredible people go crazy about smoke in a bar but seem not to give a toss about air quality outside.

On that note, it's quite interesting what is coming into force in london. Will Thailand go the same way?

From the BBC:-

UK's first emissions zone begins

The most heavily polluting lorries are facing charges of £200 per day to enter Greater London as Britain's first low emission zone (LEZ) comes into force.

The £49m scheme uses cameras to check all lorries over 12-tonnes entering the zone against a database of vehicles certified as meeting EU exhaust limits.

Firms whose vehicles are not on the database will be told to pay up.

The rules, aimed at improving London's air quality, will be extended to cover buses and coaches in July.

By 2010, it will also cover some vans and smaller lorries. Cars and motorcycles are exempt.

Firms are responsible for making sure their vehicles comply with the anti-pollution rules, which stipulate the amount of airborne dirt and nitrogen oxide each vehicle is permitted to emit.

Unlike London's congestion charge zone, which is lifted in the evenings and at weekends, the LEZ will be in force 24 hours a day, every day.

It also covers a larger area of 610 sq miles (1,580 sq km).

Failing vehicles will be issued with a warning letter the first time they are seen in the zone.

In response to claims not enough was being done to make haulage companies aware of the new requirements, firms have been given an extra 28 days from the launch of the zone to ensure their vehicles comply before the fines kick in.

Firms which fail to pay the £200 charge will be fined £1,000.

Hauliers have protested about the new rules, which they say will be expensive to comply with.

But Transport for London, which is implementing the zone, says it will improve quality of life for people with asthma, cardio-vascular disease and other health conditions.

Nick Fairholme, head of the LEZ, said: "Despite significant improvements in recent years, London's air pollution is the worst of any city in the UK and among the worst in Europe.

"The LEZ aims to reduce traffic pollution by deterring the most individually polluting diesel-engine lorries, buses, coaches, minibuses and large vans from driving within our city."

All lorries made after October 2001 automatically comply with the EU standards of particulate emissions of 0.05g per km. Older vehicles can be adapted to comply with the rules.

TfL said it had identified 120,000 lorries of over 12 tonnes inside the zone during six months of monitoring last year and estimates that about 10% do not meet EU standards.

Low emission zones are already planned or in operation in 70 towns and cities in eight European countries including Norway, the Netherlands and Germany.

BBC transport correspondent Tom Symonds says other UK towns and cities with pollution problems will be watching the implementation of the LEZ with interest.

[BigSnake]

No Doubt farang will be the PRIME TARGET. Mark my words.

[moldy]

As a recent ex-smoker I do support the concerns of non-smokers regarding passive smoking but I find this concern about smoking as opposed to general air quality a bit disingenuous.

If "non-smokers" were really bothered about the quality of the air they breathe then the internal combustion engine would already be banned, along with other major contributors to air pollution such as electricity generation or a multitude of industrial processes.

How many non-smokers who are villifying smokers in this thread live in Bangkok and drive cars ? Or do those living in Chiang Mai all leave during the smog season ?

Realistically, second-hand cigarette smoke is only a starting point in the battle to improve air quality. Smokers can rightly feel victimised when passive smoking complainants remain so silent about other contributors to air pollution.

Quite simply, if I choose to complain about a non-smoker driving in Bangkok and contributing to air pollution will that person give up driving their car where I might inhale the exhaust ? No chance. But smokers have voluntarily respected non-smokers wishes not to light up around them long before it was law, so who are the more considerate and reasonable group ?

Spot on. I recently stopped smoking, it's done nothing to clear my airways.

It's incredible people go crazy about smoke in a bar but seem not to give a toss about air quality outside.

I think the error in perception here is that the cig smoke is causing an allergy, it's not it's trigerring a problem you already have- your membranes are probably already heavily irritated - most probably by traffic pollution, and possibly other toxins.

I suppose cig. smoke is very visible. I guess non smokers are of an hysterical nature and we must make allowances. But God give us a break and get priorities right.

And just what are your medical qualifications as you are giving such a diagnosis that membranes already irritated.

What absolute tosh - fag smoke still irritates whther you are in Bangkok or in a secluded seaside hideaway and noe of the straw man pollution arguments will change the reality.

Its not just a bar either - its only being discussed wut that emphasis as that is what the thread is about - its disgusting and stinking anywhere.

Sorry some of your posting is unintelligible- been sniffin glue or maybe it's the terrible pollution making you dizzy? I think it's a fairly well diagnosed thing. People who have nasal problems tend to have very irritated nasal passages. It can get to the stage where just about anything appears to create a problem. But as I've said it is not necessarily what appears immediately at hand that is the main problem. I haven't smoked for 4 days, still get a runny nose when I go out. But what the heck!! go out and stick your nose up a few exhaust pipes, who cares? Yes it's the fags if that's what you really want to believe. Feel better?

[moldy]

It's incredible people go crazy about smoke in a bar but seem not to give a toss about air quality outside.

On that note, it's quite interesting what is coming into force in london. Will Thailand go the same way?

From the BBC:-

UK's first emissions zone begins

The most heavily polluting lorries are facing charges of £200 per day to enter Greater London as Britain's first low emission zone (LEZ) comes into force.

The £49m scheme uses cameras to check all lorries over 12-tonnes entering the zone against a database of vehicles certified as meeting EU exhaust limits.

Firms whose vehicles are not on the database will be told to pay up.

The rules, aimed at improving London's air quality, will be extended to cover buses and coaches in July.

By 2010, it will also cover some vans and smaller lorries. Cars and motorcycles are exempt.

Firms are responsible for making sure their vehicles comply with the anti-pollution rules, which stipulate the amount of airborne dirt and nitrogen oxide each vehicle is permitted to emit.

Unlike London's congestion charge zone, which is lifted in the evenings and at weekends, the LEZ will be in force 24 hours a day, every day.

It also covers a larger area of 610 sq miles (1,580 sq km).

Failing vehicles will be issued with a warning letter the first time they are seen in the zone.

In response to claims not enough was being done to make haulage companies aware of the new requirements, firms have been given an extra 28 days from the launch of the zone to ensure their vehicles comply before the fines kick in.

Firms which fail to pay the £200 charge will be fined £1,000.

Hauliers have protested about the new rules, which they say will be expensive to comply with.

But Transport for London, which is implementing the zone, says it will improve quality of life for people with asthma, cardio-vascular disease and other health conditions.

Nick Fairholme, head of the LEZ, said: "Despite significant improvements in recent years, London's air pollution is the worst of any city in the UK and among the worst in Europe.

"The LEZ aims to reduce traffic pollution by deterring the most individually polluting diesel-engine lorries, buses, coaches, minibuses and large vans from driving within our city."

All lorries made after October 2001 automatically comply with the EU standards of particulate emissions of 0.05g per km. Older vehicles can be adapted to comply with the rules.

TfL said it had identified 120,000 lorries of over 12 tonnes inside the zone during six months of monitoring last year and estimates that about 10% do not meet EU standards.

Low emission zones are already planned or in operation in 70 towns and cities in eight European countries including Norway, the Netherlands and Germany.

BBC transport correspondent Tom Symonds says other UK towns and cities with pollution problems will be watching the implementation of the LEZ with interest.

I think any lucky cop given the job in Bangkok would feel not only that the polluting vehicle had arrived, but also that his boat had come in.

Can't wait. Cars too please !

[Rinrada]

Smokers bow to the law

Anna Davis, Evening Standard

04.02.08 Related Articles

Pub trade split over new law

Will Self: I can't hack fraternity of exiled smokers, out in the cold

Only six people have been fined for breaching the smoking ban in London since it was introduced last summer.

Research by the Evening Standard has found councils spent almost £3 million on implementing the law.

The money was invested in extra staff patrolling high streets and policing pubs, clubs and other public venues, as well as advertising and running stopsmoking clinics.

Only two boroughs have issued £80 fixed penalty notices and just two businesses have been fined for not enforcing the ban with another three in the process of being prosecuted.

Experts say they are surprised by how compliant the capital's smokers have been with the new law.

Lambeth council has taken one of the toughest stances against smoking in public places. It spent £170,000 and fined five people and one business since the ban came in last summer.

Other councils, such as Barnet and Newham, have spent less than £30,000 each and have not penalised anybody.

A Lambeth spokesman said: "The council took a softly-softly approach in the first couple of months of the ban, concentrating our efforts on working with businesses to help them comply with the law.

"We've been pleased the overwhelming majority of businesses have taken their responsibilities seriously but will take action against those who persistently flout the ban."

Barnet councillor Brian Coleman said: "We are doing the bare minimum of enforcement to ensure compliance. We will respond to complaints but we have better things to do with our time than rush around penalising our residents."

In Enfield, where the council has spent £80,000, enforcement officers have been on "smoking patrols" in an attempt to catch illicit smokers.

In Westminster, the largest licensing authority in the country, only one business is being prosecuted. Hey Jo nightclub in St James's, run by Dave West, has been openly flouting the ban.

Mr West has employed Tony Blair's wife Cherie Booth QC to take his fight to the High Court. Before that, he has to face Westminster City magistrates on 14 May.

The Standard's research also shows:

• In the first five months of the ban London councils sent 24 written warnings to smokers who had been spotted lighting up in public places.

• A total of 490 businesses were given warnings for failing to display the correct "no smoking" signs.

• Another 92 were given written warnings for failing to prevent smoking on their premises. Martin Dockrell, policy manager of pressure group Action on Smoking and Health, said many London councils avoided penalising individuals straight away.

"Only a handful of publicity seekers have been fined. It is working because smokers respect non-smokers in London," he said.

"Compliance has been higher than expected. The only time I have seen anyone smoking where they were not allowed was in Brixton at a Pogues concert in the mosh pit, which is pretty exceptional."

Enfield councillor Terry Neville, who had campaigned for a smoking ban for 20 years, said: "I would have expected a few more people to break the law." Stephen Knight, deputy leader of Richmond council, said: "We spent almost £65,000 on the ban and have not issued any fixed penalty tickets. It is difficult to tell what effect the money had because if we had not spent it there may have been problems.

"The fact we haven't taken action against anyone shows the campaign has succeeded."

All the money spent by councils came from government grants.

SMOKING BAN STATISTICS

Individuals fined/businesses penalised/money spent

Barking & Dagenham: 0, 0, £61,000

Barnet: 0, 0, £30,000

Brent: 0, 0, £3353

Bromley: 0, 0, £50,000

Camden: 0, 0, £268,745

Croydon: 0, 0, £200,000

Ealing: 0, 0, £129,500

Enfield: 1, 0, £80,000

Greenwich: 0, 0, £30,976

Hackney: 0, 0, £120,000

Hammersmith & Fulham: 0, 0, £190,432

Haringey: 0, 2, £84,000.

Harrow: 0, 0, £85,000

Hounslow: 0, 0, £100,000

Islington: 0, 0, £200,000

Kingston-upon-Thames: 0, 0, £20,000

Lambeth: 5, 1, £170,000

Lewisham: 0, 0, £201,666

Merton: 0, 0, £70,511

Newham: 0, 0, £26,700

Redbridge: 0, 0, £120,000

Richmond-upon-Thames: 0, 0, £64,266

Sutton: 0, 0, £82,000

Tower Hamlets: 0, 1, £270,478

Waltham Forest: 0, 0, £100,000

Westminster: 0, 1, £300,000

City of London: 0, 0, £64,344

Edited February 10, 2008 by Totster

[Rinrada]

Kor Tort Krup...Grems in the old Sony......just meant to post...FInfo....

SMOKERS CAN BE VERY NICE PEOPLE..

Only six people have been fined for breaching the smoking ban in London since it was introduced last summer.

Two boroughs have issued £80 fixed penalty notices and just two businesses have been fined for not enforcing the ban with another three in the process of being prosecuted.

Experts say they are surprised by how compliant the capital's smokers have been with the new law.

In Westminster, the largest licensing authority in the country, only one business is being prosecuted. Hey Jo nightclub in St James's, run by Dave West, has been openly flouting the ban. ...THE EASTENDERS BOOZE MAN

A total of 490 businesses were given warnings for failing to display the correct "no smoking" signs.

• Another 92 were given written warnings for failing to prevent smoking on their premises.

"Only a handful of publicity seekers have been fined. It is working because smokers respect non-smokers in London," he said.

"Compliance has been higher than expected

[mrbojangles]

SMOKERS CAN BE VERY NICE PEOPLE..

You sound dissapointed about that Rin. Would you have preffered it to have been a story about thousands of smokers breaking the laws instead?

[CTM]

Actually I am generally quite considerate towards non smokers, however when they jump on their pedantic high horse, then I tend to try to annoy them as much as possible.

I am sure you have many habits to which I object, but fortunately for you I am far less pedantic than yourself and will not bring those up in a public forum.

Yes I am all right Jack, and to hel_l with all you arrogant tambourine bashers,who have nothing better to do with your lives than complain about everyone and everything.

I bet you are all the same during Sonkran.......excuse me sonny but there is no need to inflict your good fun on evreyon........'SPLASH'

So Sweetchariot, when are you going to weigh in with your opinion. So far nicotine has been doing all the talking for you and doing a very good job at making you look like an arrogant ass.

An arrogant ass?? I have not posted more than 3 times (OK now 4) on this thread, I would say that someone posting upwards of 20 times is the arrogant ass, as you are soooooo brainwashed you can't accept that somebody else may have a valid opinion.

Stop picking on John K. He is just trying to make a not so thinly veiled sales pitch for all his new age hocus pocus cures. Question is does he have a proper B visa and workpermit?

New age hocus pocos? Wow! I guess you need to get out more and start reading things like ‘The New England Journal of Medicine’ and other such mystical publications.

As for the work permit, very much in place as reminded by today’s need to go and make my monthly contribution to various Thai agencies.

As for the people that pick on me, well there are a few that can’s seem to find a level of maturity in themselves needed to act like an adult and they wish to demonstrate that regularly. Amazingly I won’t need to identify them, they will do it themselves by an irresistible urge to attack this post just as soon as they read it. The bright side is they actually call attention to me and my phone rings. When I ask how they heard about me, they cite some off color posts about me by a few with the occasional off comment about the level of maturity in their posts. That usually results in a good chuckle.

It was a lighthearted joke John. See the little smiley face. Maybe you should take up meditation too.

(Not directed at John K who may indeed be offering a valuable service.)

I love this board because it reminds me why I have no urge to revisit farangland. So many farangs are such arrogant, uptight, angry, self-centered pricks who whine like little children at the slightest inconvenience yet expect others to bend over backwards for them.

I vote we institute this law next in Thailand. Lord knows I’m tired of smelly obese farangs everywhere I go in Thailand. Personally I would also extend to alcohol sales as fat people shouldn’t be swigging down so many useless calories.

Mississippi May Ban Restaurant Sales to the Obese

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/02/ms_fat.html

I’m sure the girls in the entertainment centers will be all for it.

[CTM]

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?)

Holy smokes! Who with any other options would want to work for you? A 5 minute break every couple of hours and your bitching. Most countries have outlawed slavery and employees are allowed breaks. In fact if you treated people with a bit more dignity you might find them to be more productive. dam_n you must be hated at work. Also, I hate to break it to you but people often talk shop on a smoke break and it is a chance to get to know people from other departments and improve interdepartmental working relationships. You wouldn't know that because your too busy wasting more time than you accuse the smokers of being bitter and angry.

As a smoker who rationalizes everything to support a filthy habit, I'm not surprised by your failure to grasp the point.

Firstly, its not a 5 minute break every 2 hours, its at least 15 minutes by the time they go down 37 floors, walk outside, smoke and comeback. We work in a nice office, not a machine shop. And its not every 2 hours, its at least 5-6 times a day. So, 5 x 15 = over an hour that I have lost in productivity. Why should they get an extra hour indulging their addiction? Dignity? You do honestly know what dignity means? It means the quality of being worthy of esteem or respect. Are you saying that smokers, by wasting time they are paid to work, are worthy of respect? Reaching.

But you missed the point. It's disruptive to other staff who often complain that smokers actually get a benefit from smoking. That has led to some members smoking just to get that break - a loss of more time. And whilst you cant smell yourself, let me tell you something you may not be aware of - you stink. Really, you stink. Your clothes stink, your breath stinks and it really is quite unpleasant to be around you.

We have plenty of lunches and social events to meet and mingle. We don't need impromptu smoke breaks to do that. You are really reaching on rationalizing that one.

Why do you think anti smokers are bitter and angry? Because we don't want to smell your smoke? I am not bitter and I am not angry at all. I am just expressing my opinion and how I deal with it. I don't hire people like you

The arguments put forward by ex-smokers on the quality of air issue belong on a separate thread and I support you. I do not like the smell of smoke. Its that simple. I am not commenting on world air quality, holes in the ozone or global warming. I'm talking about the smell of smoke in an enclosed space and how it irritates my nose and eyes.

The war on smokers is pretty much over. We are just walking around bayouneting the wounded.

Enjoy.

Oh no! Please princess please say it isn’t so as I so want to work for someone like you. Sorry missy but I have never seen a productive “professional” work environment where the boss stop watch times how many minutes a day people work. Most “professionals” are paid for what they produce and work in excess of the minimum hours anyway. Maybe no one can stand you and that’s why they are always running off.

I’m not trying to rationalize anything. I’m having a laugh at what a sad bitter little man you are.

[moldy]

Some non smokers are revealing themselves to be whining hypocrites. What a surprise!

[bendover]

Smoking bans at pubs, entertainment venues from February

BANGKOK:-- Lighting up anywhere in airconditioned entertainment establishments and parts of outdoor public venues, including the Chatuchak Weekend Market, will be banned as of February 17.

"For the openair food courts or markets, smoking will be allowed only in designated corners," Dr Hatai Chitanondh, chairman of the Thailand Health Promotion Institute, said yesterday.

So that means when I own an Openair Pub and I take a blackboard outside:

Smoking permitted or "Smokers Pub " ; I will not have problems ???

[mrbojangles]

So that means when I own an Openair Pub and I take a blackboard outside:

Smoking permitted or "Smokers Pub " ; I will not have problems ???

You might get some bird sh1t on it, or somebody might walk into it, who know's

[ya5702]

IF YOU PROMISE NOT TO SMOKE, I PROMISE NOT TO FART!

[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?)

Holy smokes! Who with any other options would want to work for you? A 5 minute break every couple of hours and your bitching. Most countries have outlawed slavery and employees are allowed breaks. In fact if you treated people with a bit more dignity you might find them to be more productive. dam_n you must be hated at work. Also, I hate to break it to you but people often talk shop on a smoke break and it is a chance to get to know people from other departments and improve interdepartmental working relationships. You wouldn't know that because your too busy wasting more time than you accuse the smokers of being bitter and angry.

As a smoker who rationalizes everything to support a filthy habit, I'm not surprised by your failure to grasp the point.

Firstly, its not a 5 minute break every 2 hours, its at least 15 minutes by the time they go down 37 floors, walk outside, smoke and comeback. We work in a nice office, not a machine shop. And its not every 2 hours, its at least 5-6 times a day. So, 5 x 15 = over an hour that I have lost in productivity. Why should they get an extra hour indulging their addiction? Dignity? You do honestly know what dignity means? It means the quality of being worthy of esteem or respect. Are you saying that smokers, by wasting time they are paid to work, are worthy of respect? Reaching.

But you missed the point. It's disruptive to other staff who often complain that smokers actually get a benefit from smoking. That has led to some members smoking just to get that break - a loss of more time. And whilst you cant smell yourself, let me tell you something you may not be aware of - you stink. Really, you stink. Your clothes stink, your breath stinks and it really is quite unpleasant to be around you.

We have plenty of lunches and social events to meet and mingle. We don't need impromptu smoke breaks to do that. You are really reaching on rationalizing that one.

Why do you think anti smokers are bitter and angry? Because we don't want to smell your smoke? I am not bitter and I am not angry at all. I am just expressing my opinion and how I deal with it. I don't hire people like you

The arguments put forward by ex-smokers on the quality of air issue belong on a separate thread and I support you. I do not like the smell of smoke. Its that simple. I am not commenting on world air quality, holes in the ozone or global warming. I'm talking about the smell of smoke in an enclosed space and how it irritates my nose and eyes.

The war on smokers is pretty much over. We are just walking around bayouneting the wounded.

Enjoy.

Oh no! Please princess please say it isn’t so as I so want to work for someone like you. Sorry missy but I have never seen a productive “professional” work environment where the boss stop watch times how many minutes a day people work. Most “professionals” are paid for what they produce and work in excess of the minimum hours anyway. Maybe no one can stand you and that’s why they are always running off.

I’m not trying to rationalize anything. I’m having a laugh at what a sad bitter little man you are.

Typical response. Short on logic. Low on intelligence. High on insults.

I refuse to have an intellectual battle with an unarmed person.

Try harder. You bore me.

[Zpete]

Non smokers should have extra holidays, and smokers, less holidays.

Smoking breaks, say, 1 hour a day, should be deducted from smokers annual holidays.

5 hours at least a week, 50 weeks = 250 hours, just over 10 days.

Add the same amount, onto non smokers holidays.

Fair enuough, of course.

[moldy]

Non smokers should have extra holidays, and smokers, less holidays.

Smoking breaks, say, 1 hour a day, should be deducted from smokers annual holidays.

5 hours at least a week, 50 weeks = 250 hours, just over 10 days.

Add the same amount, onto non smokers holidays.

Fair enuough, of course.

It's ironic but people with vices, eg, smokers tend to be interesting people, risk takers, life livers.

Non smokers can be bores and pen pushers.

[mikethevigoman]

Smoking bans at pubs, entertainment venues from February

BANGKOK:-- Lighting up anywhere in airconditioned entertainment establishments and parts of outdoor public venues, including the Chatuchak Weekend Market, will be banned as of February 17.

"For the openair food courts or markets, smoking will be allowed only in designated corners," Dr Hatai Chitanondh, chairman of the Thailand Health Promotion Institute, said yesterday.

Offenders will be fined Bt2,000 for smokers and Bt20,000 for operators.

Puffing on cigarettes and the like is already prohibited in airconditioned restaurants but the Public Health Ministry's regulation to include airconditioned pubs, discos and bars will take effect 45 days after it is published in the Royal Gazette.

Hatai admitted that some owners of pubs and nighttime hangouts might resist, as they believe a smoking ban will hurt their trade.

"But our research has found that the businesses might suffer some impacts only in the beginning. After a while, pubs and entertainment places will not only get their old customers back but will also attract new nonsmoking patrons," he said.

The nosmoking rule will also be good for the health of customers and staff, he said, adding, "Music performances will be better because musical instruments won't be exposed to the smoke."

--The Nation 2008-01-11

Does this signal the closure of lolitas as we know it ?

[mikethevigoman]

Non smokers should have extra holidays, and smokers, less holidays.

Smoking breaks, say, 1 hour a day, should be deducted from smokers annual holidays.

5 hours at least a week, 50 weeks = 250 hours, just over 10 days.

Add the same amount, onto non smokers holidays.

Fair enuough, of course.

It's ironic but people with vices, eg, smokers tend to be interesting people, risk takers, life livers.

Non smokers can be bores and pen pushers.

Typical nicotine talk id say

[moldy]

Non smokers should have extra holidays, and smokers, less holidays.

Smoking breaks, say, 1 hour a day, should be deducted from smokers annual holidays.

5 hours at least a week, 50 weeks = 250 hours, just over 10 days.

Add the same amount, onto non smokers holidays.

Fair enuough, of course.

It's ironic but people with vices, eg, smokers tend to be interesting people, risk takers, life livers.

Non smokers can be bores and pen pushers.

Typical nicotine talk id say

gave up a week ago

Go on admit it !! non smokers are real bores- the complaining ones anyway.

[mikethevigoman]

I am a visitor to Thailand as we all here are (any Thai citizens?)

So my attitude is that its their country so I just have to go with the flow. Pretty much like it or leave it.

I am a smoker BTW.

The rabid Farang anti-smoking brigade who have been whinging for years about smokey bars in Thailand do get on my nerves though.

Cant understand why they put themselves through such terrible agony travelling half way around the world to sit in a smokey bar in Thailand. Those types will always find something to whine about. Its just a bit of a power trip for some of them.

"Cant understand why they put themselves through such terrible agony travelling half way around the world to sit in a smokey bar in Thailand." Typical nicotine talk id say,. this is what we are saying, we didnt have a choice before and as most smokers are the ones with the attitude "sod you if you dont like it " the government has had to babysit you to learn respect, MOST PEOPLE DONT SMOKE ,we dont like it and shouldnt have to inhale it, segragation is fine,smoke yourself to death for all i care but dont blow it my way,. Edited February 10, 2008 by mikethevigoman

[moldy]

I am a visitor to Thailand as we all here are (any Thai citizens?)

So my attitude is that its their country so I just have to go with the flow. Pretty much like it or leave it.

I am a smoker BTW.

The rabid Farang anti-smoking brigade who have been whinging for years about smokey bars in Thailand do get on my nerves though.

Cant understand why they put themselves through such terrible agony travelling half way around the world to sit in a smokey bar in Thailand. Those types will always find something to whine about. Its just a bit of a power trip for some of them.

"Cant understand why they put themselves through such terrible agony travelling half way around the world to sit in a smokey bar in Thailand." Typical nicotine talk id say,. this is what we are saying, we didnt have a choice before and as most smokers are the ones with the attitude "sod you if you dont like it " the government has had to babysit you to learn respect, MOST PEOPLE DONT SMOKE ,we dont like it and shouldnt have to inhale it, segragation is fine,smoke yourself to death for all i care but dont blow it my way,.

better the nicotine talking than the booze or the drugs

Sure, I can understand people not wanting to be around a smoker. I can also understand a smoker not wanting to be bothered by a non smoker- who wants to be around killjoys when you are trying to relax with happy people.

It's the pettiness that gets me: I mean just look at the atmos. this week end in Bangkok, why worry about a few cigarettes ???. Also, a healthy person should be able to withstand some exposure to smoke. I can't currently because my nose is so bad because of the traffic pollution, so I don't go in bars. But if I was in one and started sneezing, etc, I wouldn't blame the smokers.

Smokers are just scapegoats for a pious bunch of so and so's in my view, who then get in their awful cars and reveal themselves to be freakin hypocrites too.

[CTM]

Typical response. Short on logic. Low on intelligence. High on insults.

I refuse to have an intellectual battle with an unarmed person.

Try harder. You bore me.

Every time you post the quality of discourse on this site goes down. It is no wonder why no one at your work likes you.

[BigSnake]

Beware all.

[DLock]

Typical response. Short on logic. Low on intelligence. High on insults.

I refuse to have an intellectual battle with an unarmed person.

Try harder. You bore me.

Every time you post the quality of discourse on this site goes down. It is no wonder why no one at your work likes you.

Yawn.

You have to try much harder than that. You got no game boy.

At least have a point, a position, a reason, a fact...anything to make you worth my time.

You got nothing.

Now run along.

[mikethevigoman]

Just a thought, and excuse me if this has already been mentioned, but does this new regulation mean that the open air beer bars in Pattaya might gain business at the expense of the air conditioned go go bars?

When I lived in Bangkok, most of my smoking friends (I am a non smoker) would only dine in open air places where they could smoke. It used to drive me crazy, as I had to suffer the heat, pollution and noise, instead of the relative luxury of an air conditioned restaurant.

It strikes me that if these smokers can't eat without smoking, then the same would apply to drinking and whoring activities. From what I have seen, a majority of these punters smoke, and who knows, maybe there is a gap in the market for outdoor 'go go' business?

And another thought - what about all the girls? Of course it is years since I have been inside a go go bar , but from distant memory, I seem to recall that most of the girls are also smokers (I am talking cigarettes ), so maybe there will be a mass exodus of girls from the inside to the outside so that they can feed their habits.

Exciting times

Guys might alternate between beer bar's and go go's more often and a new business model open up?

Do the majority of girls smoke - I really do not know.

A lot of the bar's do not like the girls smoking while working - I think they are OK though if they sit with a customer and the customer smokes or offers (Bangkok).

that reminds me ,my self and a friend were doing the rounds one night and 2 of the girls were smoking and asked " you want to go with us " i piped up ' im sorry we only take ladies that dont smoke " ,you have never seen 2 people give up smoking as fast, ! but the damage was done, no thanks,.

I think the more astute of them know that some guys will never take a girl that smokes so do not do so until they see the farang smoking - it makes their odds of being bar fined higher.

Sneaky bastards

That is so true ,.

[mikethevigoman]

people have a right to smoke. They should just make certain areas available for those who want to smoke. Segregate the smokers and all is good. Like at the airport, they have small smoking rooms.

yes i agree ,like those dog runs in some places where you can take your dog to have a shit, its about as filthy a habit,a room with no windows or vents would be good so they dont waste any ,.

[moldy]

people have a right to smoke. They should just make certain areas available for those who want to smoke. Segregate the smokers and all is good. Like at the airport, they have small smoking rooms.

yes i agree ,like those dog runs in some places where you can take your dog to have a shit, its about as filthy a habit,a room with no windows or vents would be good so they dont waste any ,.

how bitter !!!!!!