Galong Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 I think you are wrong on this occasion and you might be in for a surprise in the coming months. Don't expect everywhere to comply with the law, but I think the majority of venues will. I'd love to be wrong on this one. I hope you're right. However, I think that bribe money will keep some places smoking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaaaaa Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 (edited) one humble comment though:cigarette's stink stays on the clothes even AFTER one changes them for fresh. May I suggest you think about changing your washing powder/liquid if as you say, your clothes still "stink". You have to use washing powder????? NOW you tell me! aha, me neither EVER knew about washing clothes at all - what to speak of washing powder! thanks to people who so kindly educate us. >>>>> Shrubbery, never mind, have your fun, enjoy yourself! thinking that your sarcasm is so ingenuously subtle and shrewd. do you feel better and happier already? good! Edited January 12, 2008 by aaaaaa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theyreallrubbish Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Another victory for the triumphant health nazis. Soon their glorious revolution will be complete and we will all be free to allow the government to control our bodies totally then we will all live in the glorious health nazi paradise where we all live to the age of 120 and remain healthy enough to work right up to the day we drop dead from happiness at our successful lifetime of working to pay the taxes to fund the health nazis control of our bodies Viva La Revolution! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prakanong Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Another victory for the triumphant health nazis.Soon their glorious revolution will be complete and we will all be free to allow the government to control our bodies totally then we will all live in the glorious health nazi paradise where we all live to the age of 120 and remain healthy enough to work right up to the day we drop dead from happiness at our successful lifetime of working to pay the taxes to fund the health nazis control of our bodies Viva La Revolution! Right on brother Why should I put up with your gross smelly fag's? I like a beer - hope you do not object to me pissing down your leg when i have to expunge the waste of my habit from my body. Oh I have a toilet - you have outside! Nazi - now if they advocated camps for smokers they might get me as a fellow traveller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theyreallrubbish Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Another victory for the triumphant health nazis.Soon their glorious revolution will be complete and we will all be free to allow the government to control our bodies totally then we will all live in the glorious health nazi paradise where we all live to the age of 120 and remain healthy enough to work right up to the day we drop dead from happiness at our successful lifetime of working to pay the taxes to fund the health nazis control of our bodies Viva La Revolution! Right on brother Why should I put up with your gross smelly fag's? I like a beer - hope you do not object to me pissing down your leg when i have to expunge the waste of my habit from my body. Oh I have a toilet - you have outside! Nazi - now if they advocated camps for smokers they might get me as a fellow traveller How about just herding the smokers into designated smoking restaurants rather than a complete and total ban? But that doesn't satisfy the urge to punish does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grantbkk Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Finally a Thai law that makes sense. John Arnone will have to move to Cambodia! While they are searching the venues for violators the police may attempt to enforce the ban on prostitution that was enacted in 1970. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prakanong Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Another victory for the triumphant health nazis.Soon their glorious revolution will be complete and we will all be free to allow the government to control our bodies totally then we will all live in the glorious health nazi paradise where we all live to the age of 120 and remain healthy enough to work right up to the day we drop dead from happiness at our successful lifetime of working to pay the taxes to fund the health nazis control of our bodies Viva La Revolution! Right on brother Why should I put up with your gross smelly fag's? I like a beer - hope you do not object to me pissing down your leg when i have to expunge the waste of my habit from my body. Oh I have a toilet - you have outside! Nazi - now if they advocated camps for smokers they might get me as a fellow traveller How about just herding the smokers into designated smoking restaurants rather than a complete and total ban? But that doesn't satisfy the urge to punish does it? Why not just herd them outside in the interests of public health? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theyreallrubbish Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Another victory for the triumphant health nazis.Soon their glorious revolution will be complete and we will all be free to allow the government to control our bodies totally then we will all live in the glorious health nazi paradise where we all live to the age of 120 and remain healthy enough to work right up to the day we drop dead from happiness at our successful lifetime of working to pay the taxes to fund the health nazis control of our bodies Viva La Revolution! Right on brother Why should I put up with your gross smelly fag's? I like a beer - hope you do not object to me pissing down your leg when i have to expunge the waste of my habit from my body. Oh I have a toilet - you have outside! Nazi - now if they advocated camps for smokers they might get me as a fellow traveller How about just herding the smokers into designated smoking restaurants rather than a complete and total ban? But that doesn't satisfy the urge to punish does it? Why not just herd them outside in the interests of public health? Why not allow bars and restaurants to designate themselves as smoking or non-smoking then everyone is happy? Why a total and complete ban? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prakanong Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Another victory for the triumphant health nazis.Soon their glorious revolution will be complete and we will all be free to allow the government to control our bodies totally then we will all live in the glorious health nazi paradise where we all live to the age of 120 and remain healthy enough to work right up to the day we drop dead from happiness at our successful lifetime of working to pay the taxes to fund the health nazis control of our bodies Viva La Revolution! Right on brother Why should I put up with your gross smelly fag's? I like a beer - hope you do not object to me pissing down your leg when i have to expunge the waste of my habit from my body. Oh I have a toilet - you have outside! Nazi - now if they advocated camps for smokers they might get me as a fellow traveller How about just herding the smokers into designated smoking restaurants rather than a complete and total ban? But that doesn't satisfy the urge to punish does it? Why not just herd them outside in the interests of public health? Why not allow bars and restaurants to designate themselves as smoking or non-smoking then everyone is happy? Why a total and complete ban? In the interests of public health sometimes the state has to act on behalf of its citizens as some of them are too thick, stupid and dumbto take care of themselves plus they are often selfish bastards and want to impose their disgusting habits on others endangering their health too. The good of the majority over the individual is something you agree too in your social contract in your society - you can change the contract of course in a society with democracy if you have a majority in many cases where you have the right to do so (not always though as see above about thick, dumb and stupid people needing to be looked after as they do not have the ability to take care of themselves and impose on others) Think car seat belts, motorcycle helmets, the freedom to take certain drugs freely, etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaigene2 Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Why not allow bars and restaurants to designate themselves as smoking or non-smoking then everyone is happy?Why a total and complete ban? Because the staff are exposed to all that sh+t in the air. Good riddance to it - personally, I can't believe people still smoke, and I'm suprised health insurance companies don't outright reject policy applications for smokers over 50 years of age. But I guess they've done their cost-risk-assessments and still make more money than they lose. Maybe once the smoker has a deadly disease it kills him quickly, so the health care costs aren't that high... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammered Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Another victory for the triumphant health nazis.Soon their glorious revolution will be complete and we will all be free to allow the government to control our bodies totally then we will all live in the glorious health nazi paradise where we all live to the age of 120 and remain healthy enough to work right up to the day we drop dead from happiness at our successful lifetime of working to pay the taxes to fund the health nazis control of our bodies Viva La Revolution! Right on brother Why should I put up with your gross smelly fag's? I like a beer - hope you do not object to me pissing down your leg when i have to expunge the waste of my habit from my body. Oh I have a toilet - you have outside! Nazi - now if they advocated camps for smokers they might get me as a fellow traveller How about just herding the smokers into designated smoking restaurants rather than a complete and total ban? But that doesn't satisfy the urge to punish does it? Why not just herd them outside in the interests of public health? Why not allow bars and restaurants to designate themselves as smoking or non-smoking then everyone is happy? Why a total and complete ban? Open air bars will be allowed to/have to (?) designate smoking and non-smoking areas, so in reality it is not all bars will be non-smoking. The ban is on air-conditioned enclosed bars where the affects of secondary smoking are obviously worse. By the way it could be seen that that air-con bars do not get the choice as workers protection (workers led this in Europe). For the record I am an ex-smoker who has nothing against smoking and will happily sit and have a beer with my smoker friends. However, I cant see the problem in banning smoking in enclosed public places as long as some convenient outside area is provided for those who wish to indulge when they get the urge. Hey it may even help those who wanna cut down or give up, which is a hard thing to do. There are lots of open air bars outside of Bangkok too, which is a plus for smokers not stuck in the big smoke! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stiggy Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Its always the same old defensive Bs from smokers.. Those that smoke ask yourself honestly are you really happy to..? If you could would you stop ? Another question how many have promised themselves that they will stop sometimes soon.? Smoking is addictive Nasty and extremely harmfull, to those that smoke and those that have no choice but to inhale your second hand smoke. Yes im all for freedom of choice I choose after 15yrs of being addicted to nicotine crap to be free to sit and enjoy clean air at a social venue. If you want proof that there is nothing worse than a Ex smoker read above im proud of it. Stick that in your pipe and dont smoke it.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theyreallrubbish Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Another victory for the triumphant health nazis.Soon their glorious revolution will be complete and we will all be free to allow the government to control our bodies totally then we will all live in the glorious health nazi paradise where we all live to the age of 120 and remain healthy enough to work right up to the day we drop dead from happiness at our successful lifetime of working to pay the taxes to fund the health nazis control of our bodies Viva La Revolution! Right on brother Why should I put up with your gross smelly fag's? I like a beer - hope you do not object to me pissing down your leg when i have to expunge the waste of my habit from my body. Oh I have a toilet - you have outside! Nazi - now if they advocated camps for smokers they might get me as a fellow traveller How about just herding the smokers into designated smoking restaurants rather than a complete and total ban? But that doesn't satisfy the urge to punish does it? Why not just herd them outside in the interests of public health? Why not allow bars and restaurants to designate themselves as smoking or non-smoking then everyone is happy? Why a total and complete ban? In the interests of public health sometimes the state has to act on behalf of its citizens as some of them are too thick, stupid and dumbto take care of themselves plus they are often selfish bastards and want to impose their disgusting habits on others endangering their health too. The good of the majority over the individual is something you agree too in your social contract in your society - you can change the contract of course in a society with democracy if you have a majority in many cases where you have the right to do so (not always though as see above about thick, dumb and stupid people needing to be looked after as they do not have the ability to take care of themselves and impose on others) Think car seat belts, motorcycle helmets, the freedom to take certain drugs freely, etc etc The Founding Fathers warned against the tyranny of the majority. I believe in freedom and a limited role for government and that most people are pretty much fine and sensible people. You obviously believe in the nanny state and have contempt for your fellow man. Our fundamental beliefs are so different there's no basis for discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prakanong Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Why not allow bars and restaurants to designate themselves as smoking or non-smoking then everyone is happy?Why a total and complete ban? Because the staff are exposed to all that sh+t in the air. Good riddance to it - personally, I can't believe people still smoke, and I'm suprised health insurance companies don't outright reject policy applications for smokers over 50 years of age. But I guess they've done their cost-risk-assessments and still make more money than they lose. Maybe once the smoker has a deadly disease it kills him quickly, so the health care costs aren't that high... My best pal at work is an Oncologist now working on clinical trials into a new treatment for lung cancer (the largest ever run with over 2000 subjects planned) - the end point is cure and not just life extending for this treatment. I do hope it does work but also hope the smokers will not see it as a licence to carry on as normal if it does. I have seen him speak about lung cancer at a few conferences - most die within 5 years of contracting it (NSCLC - non-small cell lung cancer) - they may not get diagnosed at stage 1 though but at stage 2 or 3 and may have less time living with the knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaigene2 Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Why not allow bars and restaurants to designate themselves as smoking or non-smoking then everyone is happy?Why a total and complete ban? Because the staff are exposed to all that sh+t in the air. Good riddance to it - personally, I can't believe people still smoke, and I'm suprised health insurance companies don't outright reject policy applications for smokers over 50 years of age. But I guess they've done their cost-risk-assessments and still make more money than they lose. Maybe once the smoker has a deadly disease it kills him quickly, so the health care costs aren't that high... My best pal at work is an Oncologist now working on clinical trials into a new treatment for lung cancer (the largest ever run with over 2000 subjects planned) - the end point is cure and not just life extending for this treatment. I do hope it does work but also hope the smokers will not see it as a licence to carry on as normal if it does. I have seen him speak about lung cancer at a few conferences - most die within 5 years of contracting it (NSCLC - non-small cell lung cancer) - they may not get diagnosed at stage 1 though but at stage 2 or 3 and may have less time living with the knowledge. Saw something similar recently about a new (drug or procedure - forget which) to reverse liver damage cirohsis etc..Pop that champagne cork, is what I thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theyreallrubbish Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Another victory for the triumphant health nazis.Soon their glorious revolution will be complete and we will all be free to allow the government to control our bodies totally then we will all live in the glorious health nazi paradise where we all live to the age of 120 and remain healthy enough to work right up to the day we drop dead from happiness at our successful lifetime of working to pay the taxes to fund the health nazis control of our bodies Viva La Revolution! Right on brother Why should I put up with your gross smelly fag's? I like a beer - hope you do not object to me pissing down your leg when i have to expunge the waste of my habit from my body. Oh I have a toilet - you have outside! Nazi - now if they advocated camps for smokers they might get me as a fellow traveller How about just herding the smokers into designated smoking restaurants rather than a complete and total ban? But that doesn't satisfy the urge to punish does it? Why not just herd them outside in the interests of public health? Why not allow bars and restaurants to designate themselves as smoking or non-smoking then everyone is happy? Why a total and complete ban? Open air bars will be allowed to/have to (?) designate smoking and non-smoking areas, so in reality it is not all bars will be non-smoking. The ban is on air-conditioned enclosed bars where the affects of secondary smoking are obviously worse. By the way it could be seen that that air-con bars do not get the choice as workers protection (workers led this in Europe). For the record I am an ex-smoker who has nothing against smoking and will happily sit and have a beer with my smoker friends. However, I cant see the problem in banning smoking in enclosed public places as long as some convenient outside area is provided for those who wish to indulge when they get the urge. Hey it may even help those who wanna cut down or give up, which is a hard thing to do. There are lots of open air bars outside of Bangkok too, which is a plus for smokers not stuck in the big smoke! I have no problem with non smokers being protected from smokers. I just don't see the reason for a complete and total ban. Why can't a bar or restaurant clearly designate itself as for smokers? The argument for staff health is actually a bogus one. For two reasons, the first is that employment in a smoking as opposed to a non-smoking bar or restaurant is a choice by the worker. The second is that the majority of studies, including the largest ever done by the World Health Organisation has failed to find any evidence of health effects of second hand smoke. I fully support the ban on smoking in environments where people have no choice but to enter such as public buildings, public transport, offices, etc. But a private business should be able to allow smoking while its still legal so long as they make it clear by signage so that the delicate no smoker doesn't get a whiff before turning around and leaving. (As opposed to the situation today where they have to get exposed to smoke as they walk through all the smokers hanging around outside the door) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prakanong Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 (edited) Another victory for the triumphant health nazis.Soon their glorious revolution will be complete and we will all be free to allow the government to control our bodies totally then we will all live in the glorious health nazi paradise where we all live to the age of 120 and remain healthy enough to work right up to the day we drop dead from happiness at our successful lifetime of working to pay the taxes to fund the health nazis control of our bodies Viva La Revolution! Right on brother Why should I put up with your gross smelly fag's? I like a beer - hope you do not object to me pissing down your leg when i have to expunge the waste of my habit from my body. Oh I have a toilet - you have outside! Nazi - now if they advocated camps for smokers they might get me as a fellow traveller How about just herding the smokers into designated smoking restaurants rather than a complete and total ban? But that doesn't satisfy the urge to punish does it? Why not just herd them outside in the interests of public health? Why not allow bars and restaurants to designate themselves as smoking or non-smoking then everyone is happy? Why a total and complete ban? In the interests of public health sometimes the state has to act on behalf of its citizens as some of them are too thick, stupid and dumbto take care of themselves plus they are often selfish bastards and want to impose their disgusting habits on others endangering their health too. The good of the majority over the individual is something you agree too in your social contract in your society - you can change the contract of course in a society with democracy if you have a majority in many cases where you have the right to do so (not always though as see above about thick, dumb and stupid people needing to be looked after as they do not have the ability to take care of themselves and impose on others) Think car seat belts, motorcycle helmets, the freedom to take certain drugs freely, etc etc The Founding Fathers warned against the tyranny of the majority. I believe in freedom and a limited role for government and that most people are pretty much fine and sensible people. You obviously believe in the nanny state and have contempt for your fellow man. Our fundamental beliefs are so different there's no basis for discussion. You are probably correct though that we do have fundamental different beliefs in the role and extent of the state - You might be surprised where I stand on the role of government in different area's such as economic freedom as opposed to public health. Freedom is fine when it does not impose on the freedom of others. It is about the costs to society too add protecting the terminally stupid from harming themselves or others. Your founding fathers were not the first to mention the tyranny of the majority although they did warn of it and in some cases it is not a good thing but in cases like protecting others it is a good thing. The majority does not always get its way - look at the UK and capital punishment - the majority would vote for it tomorrow if there was a single issue referendum but the govt has the good sense to protect the people from themselves in the interests of human rights and humanity Edited January 12, 2008 by Prakanong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ando Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaaaaa Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Ha! Nazis? who are nazis precisely? just because someone refuses to inhale HARMFUL pollutants and claims his right for that - he is branded as Nazi? not the opposite - the one who intrudes into other's privacy and health safety, disregards and disrespects other's right to choose what they want - isn't THAT person more like a Nazi? yes, perhaps in some countries / places/ cases anti-smoking campaigns gone to extremes. but it won't be so if smokers were more considerate and respectful to others all by themselves, without need for any bans. unfortunately - it hardly happens. smoking is not a necessity for life as eating food or breathing air. it is hardly even luxury or entertainment - only as much as any other form of intoxication can be. it is just a habit. and for many people - it is bad habit. also it is addictive. so, perhaps that's main reasons why people who have this habit are more likely to disregard the comfort and safety of others. and that's why certain regulations has been established and now enforced - because BAD habits are deep rooted and hardly uprooted. therefore "lesser of two wrongs" was chosen - if not entirely eliminate this hazard, then at least to reduce its impact on those who are NOT willing to intake it. Passive smoking (or secondhand smoke or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) ) In May 2006, the United States Centers for Disease Control issued its first new study on secondhand smoke in 20 years: The health effects of secondhand smoke exposure are more pervasive than we previously thought. The scientific evidence is now indisputable: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults. Current state of scientific opinion Currently, there is widespread scientific consensus that exposure to secondhand smoke is harmful. The link between passive smoking and health risks is accepted by every major medical and scientific organization in that article there are enough numbers, facts, references - how many deaths happen due to ETS. so, what's wrong with attempts to reduce risk of harm for innocent people who make they choice NOT to smoke ? Thailand will ban smoking in nightclubs The new ban, scheduled to take effect Feb. 17, will apply to all air-conditioned entertainment venues, toughening earlier restrictions that affected only air-conditioned restaurants ... now, that's an important emphasis: air-conditioned places ! (although now they are talking about other places too, even open air markets) may be such bans for ANY places are too extreme, especially for outdoors. but for close places and especially air-conditioned - such bans are justified, because cigarette smoke in air-conditioned is more bad, it stays indoors and therefore being inhaled even after cigarette is off ! The research shows us second-hand smoking is worse than first-hand. If someone smokes in a closed public place, the circular air condition system will keep that unfresh air in the building, so everyone will breathe the smoke in the air. Tobacco Facts for Clubs Can ventilation prevent passive smoking?Air conditioning systems are ineffective in removing smoke from the air. In addition, they can undermine the value of having separate smoke-free areas by circulating contaminated air to these areas. Whilst some systems are able to remove the visible smoke from the air, none are capable of removing the invisible gaseous components of ETS. 33 studies show bans are good for business 33 independent, published studies show no negative impact from bans on smoking in restaurants and bars, based on taxable sales receipts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theyreallrubbish Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Passive smoking (or secondhand smoke or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) ) In May 2006, the United States Centers for Disease Control issued its first new study on secondhand smoke in 20 years: The health effects of secondhand smoke exposure are more pervasive than we previously thought. The scientific evidence is now indisputable: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults. Current state of scientific opinion Currently, there is widespread scientific consensus that exposure to secondhand smoke is harmful. The link between passive smoking and health risks is accepted by every major medical and scientific organization in that article there are enough numbers, facts, references - how many deaths happen due to ETS. This is interesting because the largest study ever done was published in the British Medical Journal in May of 2007 and was a 40 year study in California and showed NO link between passive smoking and lung cancer or heart disease, even with never smokers living with smokers. http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/1057.pdf This study was funded by the American Cancer Society. Hardly a pro-tobacco group. Also interestingly, it was never published in any US journal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prakanong Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 (edited) Passive smoking (or secondhand smoke or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) ) In May 2006, the United States Centers for Disease Control issued its first new study on secondhand smoke in 20 years: The health effects of secondhand smoke exposure are more pervasive than we previously thought. The scientific evidence is now indisputable: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults. Current state of scientific opinion Currently, there is widespread scientific consensus that exposure to secondhand smoke is harmful. The link between passive smoking and health risks is accepted by every major medical and scientific organization in that article there are enough numbers, facts, references - how many deaths happen due to ETS. This is interesting because the largest study ever done was published in the British Medical Journal in May of 2007 and was a 40 year study in California and showed NO link between passive smoking and lung cancer or heart disease, even with never smokers living with smokers. http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/1057.pdf This study was funded by the American Cancer Society. Hardly a pro-tobacco group. Also interestingly, it was never published in any US journal. That study is about mortality - what about morbidity and other general helath effects? That smoke makes my eyes water, makes me cough is enough as it imposes on my freedom to be comfortable. We also have to consider saving smokers from themselves due to the costs to society. Edited January 12, 2008 by Prakanong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetchariot Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 At the risk of being labelled a kill-joy, a British entertainer Roy Castle, who died of lung cancer, attributed his illness to years of playing the trumpet in smoky jazz clubs, he was himself a non-smoker. Think car seat belts, motorcycle helmets, the freedom to take certain drugs freely, etc etc Maybe a kill-roy? All of which are not enforced in Thailand For all you non smokers please wake up and smell the coffee (tikiaburee?). This 'law' has been in force since 2004. Some establishments abide by it, the vast majority do not. Do you really think that all this will change next month? I don't think so but will gladly eat my hat if it does. Somebody mentioned earlier about the 'nanny state'. This is what England has degenerated into, and is a big part of the reason why I and many others have left, never to return. This is not just about smoking, but about dictating every facet of your life. Would you all be so happy if driving laws were strictly enforced, if there were speed cameras around every corner sending you a 6,000 baht fine every time you crept 1 kmph over the speed limit? And if you got 4 of these then you would not be allowed to drive for 6 months. This is what is happening in the UK. Would you be happy if you were taxed to the hilt on your income, taxed extra for having a big car, taxed extra for having a big house, taxed extra for daring to take a holiday overseas, taxed extra for smoking, taxed extra for drinking, or just plain taxed extra for being under 35? I think the unanimous answer is no. Many of us came here for an easy life, and not to be told what to do and when to do it all the time. I smoke (cigarettes you degenerates), but I am always aware of those around me. I went out last night with 5 non smokers, and was ultra conscious of where my smoke was blowing. No laws will stop people smoking, the only way to do that is to up the price to UK levels (about 400 baht a pack). As mentioned previously our smoke masks many other more unpleasant odours. OK rant over, but I will buy a hat and eat it if this ever comes to pass, but I am pretty sure that won't be necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theyreallrubbish Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Passive smoking (or secondhand smoke or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) ) In May 2006, the United States Centers for Disease Control issued its first new study on secondhand smoke in 20 years: The health effects of secondhand smoke exposure are more pervasive than we previously thought. The scientific evidence is now indisputable: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults. Current state of scientific opinion Currently, there is widespread scientific consensus that exposure to secondhand smoke is harmful. The link between passive smoking and health risks is accepted by every major medical and scientific organization in that article there are enough numbers, facts, references - how many deaths happen due to ETS. This is interesting because the largest study ever done was published in the British Medical Journal in May of 2007 and was a 40 year study in California and showed NO link between passive smoking and lung cancer or heart disease, even with never smokers living with smokers. http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/1057.pdf This study was funded by the American Cancer Society. Hardly a pro-tobacco group. Also interestingly, it was never published in any US journal. That study is about mortality - what about morbidity and other general helath effects? That smoke makes my eyes water, makes me cough is enough as it imposes on my freedom to be comfortable. We also have to consider saving smokers from themselves due to the costs to society. How much everyone else should accomodate the sensitivities of others is a matter of some debate. You are obviously at one extreme, I'm rather in the middle. What about the claim of vegetarians that the smell of animals cooking imposes on their freedom to be comfortable and that the smell lingers in their clothes when they return home. Shoudl we ban all meat cooking in a public place? Apart from the totalitarianism and contempt for your fellow man in wishing to use government to "save themselves from themselves" the health cost argument is spurious as smokers have a lower lifetime health cost than non-smokers as smokers tend to die after a short period of serious illness. As you are probably aware 80% of lifetime healthcosts are incurred in the final 2 years of life. Smokers tend to die of things like heart attacks and strokes, which is a very cheap way to die in terms of health costs. Non-smokers can spend years requiring health care for alzhiemers and general debilitative diseases. In any case, in a country like Thailand without universal free health provision, its none of the government's dam_n business Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seneque Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Smokers are victims of their own arrogance ... I don't smoke and don't mind people smoking but when in a restaurant you eat a meal and the guy/girl the table next to you smokes while eating and the smoke linger towards you, and they wouldn't care about it even if asked to be careful ... something has to be done ... Restaurants are one thing but for bars, pubs, night clubs, etc..... these are social/entertainment places where people drink and smoke ... if you don't drink and/or smoke simply don't go there, why the law as to take over, beats me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prakanong Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Passive smoking (or secondhand smoke or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) ) In May 2006, the United States Centers for Disease Control issued its first new study on secondhand smoke in 20 years: The health effects of secondhand smoke exposure are more pervasive than we previously thought. The scientific evidence is now indisputable: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults. Current state of scientific opinion Currently, there is widespread scientific consensus that exposure to secondhand smoke is harmful. The link between passive smoking and health risks is accepted by every major medical and scientific organization in that article there are enough numbers, facts, references - how many deaths happen due to ETS. This is interesting because the largest study ever done was published in the British Medical Journal in May of 2007 and was a 40 year study in California and showed NO link between passive smoking and lung cancer or heart disease, even with never smokers living with smokers. http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/1057.pdf This study was funded by the American Cancer Society. Hardly a pro-tobacco group. Also interestingly, it was never published in any US journal. That study is about mortality - what about morbidity and other general helath effects? That smoke makes my eyes water, makes me cough is enough as it imposes on my freedom to be comfortable. We also have to consider saving smokers from themselves due to the costs to society. How much everyone else should accomodate the sensitivities of others is a matter of some debate. You are obviously at one extreme, I'm rather in the middle. What about the claim of vegetarians that the smell of animals cooking imposes on their freedom to be comfortable and that the smell lingers in their clothes when they return home. Shoudl we ban all meat cooking in a public place? Apart from the totalitarianism and contempt for your fellow man in wishing to use government to "save themselves from themselves" the health cost argument is spurious as smokers have a lower lifetime health cost than non-smokers as smokers tend to die after a short period of serious illness. As you are probably aware 80% of lifetime healthcosts are incurred in the final 2 years of life. Smokers tend to die of things like heart attacks and strokes, which is a very cheap way to die in terms of health costs. Non-smokers can spend years requiring health care for alzhiemers and general debilitative diseases. In any case, in a country like Thailand without universal free health provision, its none of the government's dam_n business You keep returning to my supposed contempt for my fellow man. I would posit that itssmokers who have this contempt in wishing to inflict their dirty nasty habit on me in a public place. I define public as a place with free access to the public ie bar's and restaurants included - I am sure your definition will differ to fit your model Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaaaaa Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 the majority of studies, including the largest ever done by the World Health Organisation has failed to find any evidence of health effects of second hand smoke. are you sure about that? any references? here you mention WHO, in later post - British Med Journal. in that Wiki article (Passive smoking ) they quote many sources, including even opinion by many big tobaco manufacturers as Altadis, British American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco Group plc, JT International (Japan Tobacco), Philip Morris USA, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. if those who PRODUCE such products admit that ETS is harmful - then for smokers try to deny it is simply foolish. see quote about WHO position: Position of major tobacco companiesThe World Health Organisation, the United States Surgeon General and other public health bodies have concluded that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), sometimes called ‘second-hand smoke’, is a cause of various serious diseases, including lung cancer, heart disease and respiratory illnesses in children. see also External links there. also - in section "Current state of scientific opinion" there is a whole list of what they say "every major medical and scientific organization" which accepts the harm of ETS for health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theyreallrubbish Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Passive smoking (or secondhand smoke or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) ) In May 2006, the United States Centers for Disease Control issued its first new study on secondhand smoke in 20 years: The health effects of secondhand smoke exposure are more pervasive than we previously thought. The scientific evidence is now indisputable: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults. Current state of scientific opinion Currently, there is widespread scientific consensus that exposure to secondhand smoke is harmful. The link between passive smoking and health risks is accepted by every major medical and scientific organization in that article there are enough numbers, facts, references - how many deaths happen due to ETS. This is interesting because the largest study ever done was published in the British Medical Journal in May of 2007 and was a 40 year study in California and showed NO link between passive smoking and lung cancer or heart disease, even with never smokers living with smokers. http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/1057.pdf This study was funded by the American Cancer Society. Hardly a pro-tobacco group. Also interestingly, it was never published in any US journal. That study is about mortality - what about morbidity and other general helath effects? That smoke makes my eyes water, makes me cough is enough as it imposes on my freedom to be comfortable. We also have to consider saving smokers from themselves due to the costs to society. How much everyone else should accomodate the sensitivities of others is a matter of some debate. You are obviously at one extreme, I'm rather in the middle. What about the claim of vegetarians that the smell of animals cooking imposes on their freedom to be comfortable and that the smell lingers in their clothes when they return home. Shoudl we ban all meat cooking in a public place? Apart from the totalitarianism and contempt for your fellow man in wishing to use government to "save themselves from themselves" the health cost argument is spurious as smokers have a lower lifetime health cost than non-smokers as smokers tend to die after a short period of serious illness. As you are probably aware 80% of lifetime healthcosts are incurred in the final 2 years of life. Smokers tend to die of things like heart attacks and strokes, which is a very cheap way to die in terms of health costs. Non-smokers can spend years requiring health care for alzhiemers and general debilitative diseases. In any case, in a country like Thailand without universal free health provision, its none of the government's dam_n business You keep returning to my supposed contempt for my fellow man. I would posit that itssmokers who have this contempt in wishing to inflict their dirty nasty habit on me in a public place. I define public as a place with free access to the public ie bar's and restaurants included - I am sure your definition will differ to fit your model You contempt for your fellow man is evidenced by your belief that some people (i.e. people like you) know what is good for everyone else and are determined to impose your beliefs through the mechanism of government and law. There is a clear difference between a public space where you have the choice to enter (such as a bar or restaurant labelled as for smokers) and one where you don't such aas a place of work or government office. I am happy to agree that smoking can be banned in public places where there is no or limited choice about entering. What I disagree with is the belief that in areas such as bars and restaurants only non-smokers should have freedom of choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theyreallrubbish Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 the majority of studies, including the largest ever done by the World Health Organisation has failed to find any evidence of health effects of second hand smoke. are you sure about that? any references? here you mention WHO, in later post - British Med Journal. in that Wiki article (Passive smoking ) they quote many sources, including even opinion by many big tobaco manufacturers as Altadis, British American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco Group plc, JT International (Japan Tobacco), Philip Morris USA, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. if those who PRODUCE such products admit that ETS is harmful - then for smokers try to deny it is simply foolish. see quote about WHO position: Position of major tobacco companiesThe World Health Organisation, the United States Surgeon General and other public health bodies have concluded that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), sometimes called 'second-hand smoke', is a cause of various serious diseases, including lung cancer, heart disease and respiratory illnesses in children. see also External links there. also - in section "Current state of scientific opinion" there is a whole list of what they say "every major medical and scientific organization" which accepts the harm of ETS for health. http://www.gasdetection.com/news2/health_news_digest6.html Here's an interesting summary that includes reference to the WHO study I was thinking of that is specifically linked to breast cancer. Interesting research titbit in there: "Several other studies support these results, including one from the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, published back in 1975, when smoking was rampant in bars and other public places. The paper concluded that the concentration of ETS contaminants in these smoky confines was equal to the effects of smoking 0.004 cigarettes per hour. In other words, you would have to hang out for 250 hours to match the effects of smoking one cigarette." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxi101 Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Its always the same old defensive Bs from smokers..Those that smoke ask yourself honestly are you really happy to..? If you could would you stop ? Another question how many have promised themselves that they will stop sometimes soon.? Smoking is addictive Nasty and extremely harmfull, to those that smoke and those that have no choice but to inhale your second hand smoke. Yes im all for freedom of choice I choose after 15yrs of being addicted to nicotine crap to be free to sit and enjoy clean air at a social venue. If you want proof that there is nothing worse than a Ex smoker read above im proud of it. Stick that in your pipe and dont smoke it.......... Well, as seeing that coming more and more all over Europe I quit 6 month ago and am still fighting the temptation. It's a real nasty habbit and not easy to get rid of. Being neutral and still not hating smokers or cigarettes I have to admit that such laws actually helping those who try not to have a fall back again. But it's a hard and stony road, but I keep going. The post with the other smells in pubs is real great .... we will see. maxi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tropo Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 I don't smoke, but in bars i would think it is not really practical. Maybe better to 'declare' a bar smoking or non-smoking and let the people choose.On the other hand, it is a nice new moneymaker for the law enforcement mafia, eh i mean police. Inconvenient for smokers yes, but not impractical. This is great news indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now