Crackdown On Smoking At Pubs, Enteratinment Venues

[aaaaaa]

.... 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 ...

if polite request doesn't work (often even several) - then one effective thing is - come close to him/ her and fart from the depth of bowels and make sure that stench lingers towards them!

if they do not like it - say: "what? you can do whatever you want anywhere you want - then why I can not? "

after all - fart is less harmful than nicotine !

No laws will stop people smoking ...

and who argues with that?

or which laws mentioned that their purpose to STOP smokers smoking?

as I recall, those laws or bans - are about how to stop smokers to cause harm to non-smokers from those ETS.

I do not mind and neither care if someone wants to die from lung cancer - perhaps it would be even better, if he at least in THAT way stops to harm others.

that's the difference: by stubborn disregard and disrespect of their fellow man, smokers DO cause them harm, forcing to inhale ETS. while non-smokers by their act of non-smoking DO NOT cause neither harm to smokers, nor even intrude on their right / choice of smoking.

therefore laws / bans are made - to PROTECT some people unwilling to get harmed from direct or indirect smoking!

these laws are merely a regulations - since there is obvious unfair state of things.

The rabid Farang anti-smoking brigade ....

yo, man! say, just because one expresses some opinion against inhaling smoke which your likes leave me no other choice but inhale - THAT make him "rabid" and on "power trip" ?

[tropo]

What I disagree with is the belief that in areas such as bars and restaurants only non-smokers should have freedom of choice.

Smokers have rights as well as non-smokers unfortunately the smoker's rights take away the non-smokers right to fresh, breathable air.

There's only one solutions isn't there - ban smoking.

Smokers have had it good for too long.

[sriracha john]

Puffing on cigarettes and the like is already prohibited in airconditioned restaurants but the Public Health Ministry's regulation

Why is smoking allowed at so many Japanese restaurants patronized mostly by Japanese customers?

very true here in the "hub" of Japanese restaurants in Thailand... they don't comply with the pre-existing laws, let alone, seriously doubt they will comply with the not-yet laws coming.

Edited January 12, 2008 by sriracha john

[twschw]

If goverments are so concerned about the health of their citizens they would simply ban the sale of tobacco items. This would though eliminate a major source of tax income for them. So, they just relegate smoker into a kind of second class citizen group where they are more regulated than nonsmokers even though smokers pay an additional tax to smoke. If the nonsmokers are really concerned about smokers health then they should organize and abolish the sales of tobacco products.

[raybingham]

What I disagree with is the belief that in areas such as bars and restaurants only non-smokers should have freedom of choice.

Smokers have rights as well as non-smokers unfortunately the smoker's rights take away the non-smokers right to fresh, breathable air.

There's only one solutions isn't there - ban smoking.

Smokers have had it good for too long.

i'm with tropo, stiggy etc on this one.

I speak as a reformed smoker, having given up 3 years ago after 20+ years of 25 B & H a day. That is probably enough to ensure that my longevity is limited in some way. However, having been lucky to give up the habit (my hypnotherapist convinced me that it is not an addiction - you just have to finda way to break the habit).

One point has been missed so far - I would not have started smoking in 1973 if the UK had not been enshrined in a smoking culture, the Royal Navy were still issuing fags withtheir rum, you smoke in offices, buses, planes, underground etc, etc.

Break the culture and you will significantly reduce the exposure to (the glamour of) smoking. The only (best) way to achieve this a total ban in the aforementioed public areas. I would include open air or part open air venues because if you sit on the next table to the guy who lights up his Cuban phallic symbol your space will still be invaded by the obnoxious expunged waste.

I am not interested in "smokers rights". When I smoked I firmly believed that it was my choice whether I decided to pollute my lungs etc, etc I still share this view but no smoker has the right to pollute others. I am all for smokers areas and restaurants, entertainmentvenues should make such areas available away from the general public.

Unfair on smokers? Boll***s !

This preserves their 'right' to smoke whilst avoiding the imposition of passive smoking on others AND, most importantly, it starts to isolute smoking as a les than socially acceptable habit. Then, maybe then, the next generation or two can avoid falling into the smoking trap because peer group acceptance/pressure etc has been removed or reduced.

This is not a sermon it is just common bloody sense. If you can avoid smoking please do so.

[sweetchariot]

Ok this is a long post, I am afraid that I do not have a direct link to the article, it was sent to a website that I own and operate in Spain. Just bear with it, 5 minutes to read but a lifetime to digest..............

Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer

Every year, thousands of medical doctors and other members of the “Anti-Smoking Inquisition” spend billions of dollars perpetuating what has unquestionably become the most misleading though successful social engineering scam in history. With the encouragement of most western governments, these Orwellian lobbyists pursue smokers with a fanatical zeal that completely overshadows the ridiculous American alcohol prohibition debacle, which started in 1919 and lasted until 1933.

Nowadays we look back on American prohibition with justifiable astonishment. Is it really true that an entire nation allowed itself to be denied a beer or scotch by a tiny group of tambourine-bashing fanatics? Sadly, yes it is, despite a total lack of evidence that alcohol causes any harm to humans, unless consumed in truly astronomical quantities. Alas, the safety of alcohol was of no interest to the tambourine-bashers, for whom control over others was the one and only true goal. Americans were visibly “sinning” by enjoying themselves having a few alcoholic drinks, and the puritans interceded on behalf of God to make them all feel miserable again. Although there is no direct link between alcohol and tobacco, the history of American prohibition is important, because it helps us understand how a tiny number of zealots managed to control the behavior and lives of tens of millions of people. Nowadays exactly the same thing is happening to smokers, though this time it is at the hands of government zealots and ignorant medical practitioners rather than tambourine-bashing religious fanatics.

Certain governments know that their past actions are directly responsible for causing most of the lung and skin cancers in the world today, so they go to extreme lengths in trying to deflect responsibility and thus financial liability away from themselves, and onto harmless organic tobacco instead. As we will find later in the report, humble organic tobacco has never hurt anyone, and in certain ways can justifiably claim to provide startling health protection. Not all governments around the world share the same problem. Japan and Greece have the highest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the lowest incidence of lung cancer. In direct contrast to this, America, Australia, Russia, and some South Pacific island groups have the lowest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the highest incidence of lung cancer. This is clue number-one in unraveling the absurd but entrenched western medical lie that “smoking causes lung cancer.”

The first European contact with tobacco was in 1492, when Columbus and fellow explorer Rodriguo de Jerez saw natives smoking in Cuba. That very same day, de Jerez took his first puff and found it very relaxing, just as the locals had assured him it would be. This was an important occasion, because Rodriguo de Jerez discovered what the Cubans and native Americans had known for many centuries: that cigar and cigarette smoking is not only relaxing, it also cures coughs and other minor ailments.

When he returned home, Rodriguo de Jerez proudly lit a cigar in the street, and was promptly arrested and imprisoned for three years by the horrified Spanish Inquisition. De Jerez thus became the first victim of the anti-smoking lobbies. In less than a century, smoking became a much enjoyed and accepted social habit throughout Europe, with thousands of tons of tobacco being imported from the colonies to meet the increasing demand. A growing number of writers praised tobacco as a universal remedy for mankind’s ills.

By the early 20th Century almost one in every two people smoked, but the incidence of lung cancer remained so low that it was almost immeasurable. Then something extraordinary happened on July 16, 1945: a terrifying cataclysmic event that would eventually cause western governments to distort the perception of smoking forever. As K. Greisen recalls: “When the intensity of the light had diminished, I put away the glass and looked toward the tower directly. At about this time I noticed a blue color surrounding the smoke cloud. Then someone shouted that we should observe the shock wave travelling along the ground. The appearance of this was a brightly lighted circular area, near the ground, slowly spreading out towards us. The color was yellow.

“The permanence of the smoke cloud was one thing that surprised me. After the first rapid explosion, the lower part of the cloud seemed to assume a fixed shape and to remain hanging motionless in the air. The upper part meanwhile continued to rise, so that after a few minutes it was at least five miles high. It slowly assumed a zigzag shape because of the changing wind velocity at different altitudes. The smoke had pierced a cloud early in its ascent, and seemed to be completely unaffected by the cloud.”

This was the notorious “Trinity Test”, the first dirty nuclear weapon to be detonated in the atmosphere. A six-kilogram sphere of plutonium, compressed to supercriticality by explosive lenses, Trinity exploded over New Mexico with a force equal to approximately 20,000 tons of TNT. Within seconds, billions of deadly radioactive particles were sucked into the atmosphere to an altitude of six miles, where high-speed jet streams could circulate them far and wide.

The American Government knew about the radiation in advance, was well aware of its lethal effects on humans, but bluntly ordered the test with a complete disregard for health and welfare. In law, this was culpable gross negligence, but the American Government did not care. Sooner or later, one way or the other, they would find another culprit for any long-term effects suffered by Americans and other citizens in local and more remote areas.

If a single microscopic radioactive fallout particle lands on your skin at the beach, you get skin cancer. Inhale a single particle of the same lethal muck, and death from lung cancer becomes inevitable, unless you happen to be an exceptionally lucky cigarette smoker. The solid microscopic radioactive particle buries itself deep in the lung tissue, completely overwhelms the body’s limited reserves of vitamin B17, and causes rampant uncontrollable cell multiplication.

How can we be absolutely sure that radioactive fallout particles really cause lung cancer every time a subject is internally exposed? For real scientists, as opposed to medical quacks and government propagandists, this is not a problem. For any theory to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous requirements universally agreed by scientists. First the suspect radioactive agent must be isolated, then used in properly controlled laboratory experiments to produce the claimed result, i.e. lung cancer in mammals.

Scientists have ruthlessly sacrificed tens of thousands of mice and rats in this way over the years, deliberately subjecting their lungs to radioactive matter. The documented scientific results of these various experiments are identical. Every mouse or rat obediently contracts lung cancer, and every mouse or rat then dies. Theory has thus been converted to hard scientific fact under tightly controlled laboratory conditions. The suspect agent [radioactive matter] caused the claimed result [lung cancer] when inhaled by mammals.

The overall magnitude of lung cancer risk to humans from atmospheric radioactive fallout cannot be overstated. Before Russia, Britain and America outlawed atmospheric testing on August 5, 1963, more than 4,200 kilograms of plutonium had been discharged into the atmosphere. Because we know that less than one microgram [millionth of a single gram] of inhaled plutonium causes terminal lung cancer in a human, we therefore know that your friendly government has lofted 4,200,000,000 [4.2 Billion] lethal doses into the atmosphere, with particle radioactive half-life a minimum of 50,000 years. Frightening? Unfortunately it gets worse.

The plutonium mentioned above exists in the actual nuclear weapon before detonation, but by far the greatest number of deadly radioactive particles are those derived from common dirt or sand sucked up from the ground, and irradiated while travelling vertically through the weapon’s fireball. These particles form by far the largest part of the “smoke” in any photo of an atmospheric nuclear detonation. In most cases several tons of material are sucked up and permanently irradiated in transit, but let us be incredibly conservative and claim that only 1,000 kilograms of surface material is sucked up by each individual atmospheric nuclear test.

Before being banned by Russia, Britain and America, a total of 711 atmospheric nuclear tests were conducted, thereby creating 711,000 kilograms of deadly microscopic radioactive particles, to which must be added the original 4,200 kilograms from the weapons themselves, for a gross though very conservative total of 715,200 kilograms. There are more than a million lethal doses per kilogram, meaning that your governments have contaminated your atmosphere with more than 715,000,000,000 [715 Billion] such doses, enough to cause lung or skin cancer 117 times in every man, woman and child on earth.

Before you ask, no, the radioactive particles do not just “fade away”, at least not in your lifetime or that of your children and grandchildren. With a half-life of 50,000 years or longer, these countless trillions of deadly government-manufactured radioactive particles are essentially with you forever. Circulated around the world by powerful jet streams, these particles are deposited at random, though in higher concentrations within a couple of thousand miles of the original test sites. A simple wind or other surface disturbance is all that is needed to stir them up again and create enhanced dangers for those in the vicinity.

The once-innocent activity of playfully kicking sand around on the beach in summer could nowadays easily translate to suicide, if you happen to stir up a few radioactive particles that could stick to your skin or be inhaled into your lungs. Stop poking fun at Michael Jackson when he appears at your local airport wearing a surgical mask over his nose and mouth. He may look eccentric, but Michael will almost certainly outlive most of us.

Twelve years after the cataclysmic Trinity test, it became obvious to western governments that things were getting completely out of control, with a 1957 British Medical Research Council report stating that global “deaths from lung cancer have more than doubled during the period 1945 to 1955”, though no explanation was offered. During the same ten-year period, cancer deaths in the immediate proximity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki went up threefold. By the end of official atmospheric testing in 1963, the incidence of lung cancer in the Pacific Islands had increased fivefold since 1945. Having screwed your environment completely for 50,000 years, it was time for “big government” to start taking heavy diversionary action.

How could people be proved to be causing themselves to contract lung cancer, i.e. be said to be guilty of a self inflicted injury for which government could never be blamed or sued? The only obvious substance that people inhaled into their lungs, apart from air, was tobacco smoke, so the government boot was put in. Poorly qualified medical “researchers” suddenly found themselves overwhelmed with massive government grants all aimed at achieving the same end-result: “Prove that smoking causes lung cancer”. Real scientists [especially some notable nuclear physicists] smiled grimly at the early pathetic efforts of the fledgling anti-smoking lobby, and lured them into the deadliest trap of all. The quasi medical researchers were invited to prove their false claims under exactly the same rigid scientific rules that were used when proving that radioactive particles cause lung cancer in mammals.

Remember, for any theory to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous requirements universally agreed by scientists. First the suspect agent [tobacco smoke] must be isolated, then used in properly controlled laboratory experiments to produce the claimed result, i.e. lung cancer in mammals.

Despite exposing literally tens of thousands of especially vulnerable mice and rats to the equivalent of 200 cigarettes per day for years on end, “medical science” has never once managed to induce lung cancer in any mouse or rat. Yes, you did read that correctly. For more than forty years, hundreds of thousands of medical doctors have been deliberately lying to you.

The real scientists had the quasi medical researchers by the throat, because “pairing” the deadly radioactive particle experiment with the benign tobacco smoke experiment, proved conclusively for all time that smoking cannot under any circumstances cause lung cancer. And further, in one large “accidental” experiment they were never allowed to publish, the real scientists proved with startling clarity that smoking actually helps to protect against lung cancer.

All mice and rats are used one-time-only in a specific experiment, and then destroyed. In this way researchers ensure that the results of whatever substance they are testing cannot be accidentally “contaminated” by the real or imagined effects of another substance. Then one day as if by magic, a few thousand mice from the smoking experiment “accidentally” found their way into the radioactive particle experiment, which in the past had killed every single one of its unfortunate test subjects. But this time, completely against the odds, sixty percent of the smoking mice survived exposure to the radioactive particles. The only variable was their prior exposure to copious quantities of tobacco smoke.

Government pressure was immediately brought to bear and the facts suppressed, but this did not completely silence the real scientists. Tongue in cheek perhaps, Professor Schrauzer, President of the International Association of Bio-inorganic Chemists, testified before a U.S. congressional committee in 1982 that it had long been well known to scientists that certain constituents of tobacco smoke act as anti-carcinogens [anti-cancer agents] in test animals. He continued that when known carcinogens [cancer causing substances] are applied to the animals, the application of constituents of cigarette smoke counter them.

Nor did Professor Schrauzer stop there. He further testified on oath to the committee that “no ingredient of cigarette smoke has been shown to cause human lung cancer”, adding that “no-one has been able to produce lung cancer in laboratory animals from smoking.” It was a neat answer to a rather perplexing problem. If government blocks publication of your scientific paper, take the alternate route and put the essential facts on the written congressional record!

Predictably, this hard truth drove the government and quasi medical “researchers” into a frenzy of rage. By 1982 they had actually started to believe their own ridiculous propaganda, and were not to be silenced by eminent members of the scientific establishment. Quite suddenly they switched the blame to other “secret” ingredients put into cigarettes by the tobacco companies. “Yes, that must be it!” they clamored eagerly, until a handful of scientists got on the phone and pointed out that these same “secret” ingredients had been included in the mice experiments, and had therefore also been proved incapable of causing lung cancer.

Things were looking desperate for government and the medical community overall. Since the anti-smoking funding had started in the early sixties, tens of thousands of medical doctors had passed through medical school, where they had been taught that smoking causes lung cancer. Most believed the lie, but cracks were starting to appear in the paintwork. Even the dullest of straight “C” doctors could not really make the data correlate, and when they queried it were told not to ask stupid questions. “Smoking causes lung cancer” converted to a creed, a quasi religious belief mechanism where blind faith became a substitute for proof.

Even blind faith needs a system of positive reinforcement, which in this case became the advertising agencies and the media. Suddenly the television screens were flooded with images of terribly blackened “smoker’s lungs”, with the accompanying mantra that you will die in horrible agony if you don’t quit now. It was all pathetic rubbish of course. On the mortuary slab the lungs of a smoker and non-smoker look an identical pink, and the only way a forensic pathologist can tell you might have been a smoker, is if he finds heavy stains of nicotine on your fingers, a packet of Camels or Marlboro in your coat pocket, or if one of your relatives unwisely admits on the record that you once smoked the demon weed.

The black lungs? From a coal miner, who throughout his working life breathed in copious quantities of microscopic black coal dust particles. Just like radioactive particles they get caught deep in the tissue of the lungs and stay there forever. If you worked down the coal mines for twenty or more years without a face mask, your lungs will probably look like this on the slab.

Many people ask exactly how it is that those smoking mice were protected from deadly radioactive particles, and even more are asking why real figures nowadays are showing far more non-smokers dying from lung cancer than smokers. Professor Sterling of the Simon Fraser University in Canada is perhaps closest to the truth, where he uses research papers to reason that smoking promotes the formation of a thin mucous layer in the lungs, “which forms a protective layer stopping any cancer-carrying particles from entering the lung tissue.”

This is probably as close as we can get to the truth at present, and it does make perfect scientific sense. Deadly radioactive particles inhaled by a smoker would initially be trapped by the mucous layer, and then be ejected from the body before they could enter the tissue. All of this may be a bit depressing for non-smokers, but there are probably one or two things you can do to minimize the risks as far as possible. Rather than shy away from smokers in your local pub or club, get as close as you can and breathe in their expensive second-hand smoke. Go on, don’t be shy, suck in a few giant breaths. Or perhaps you could smoke one cigarette or small cigar after each meal, just three a day to build up a thin boundary mucous layer. If you cannot or will not do either of the above, consider phoning Michael Jackson to ask for a spare surgical mask!

Serena Martin

[aaaaaa]

so, you mean - now I must agree to inhale smoke because it HELPS to prevent cancer?

sorry, I'd rather not.

it is amazing whatever smokers try to invent instead of accepting and agreeing for simple deal:

DO SMOKE if you like, but please DO NOT force others to smoke.

whether it causes or prevents cancer.

is that so hard to grasp?

I DO NOT force you NOT to smoke by my presence next to you while you are smoking.

but you DO force me to smoke in the same circumstances. WHY?

if you want and like smoking - do it ALONE, by yourself - WHY force others?

no need sophisticated researches or evidences. simply RESPECT and fairness must suffice !

respect me and my rights as I respect you and your rights !

[sweetchariot]

so, you mean - now I must agree to inhale smoke because it HELPS to prevent cancer?

sorry, I'd rather not.

it is amazing whatever smokers try to invent instead of accepting and agreeing for simple deal:

DO SMOKE if you like, but please DO NOT force others to smoke.

whether it causes or prevents cancer.

is that so hard to grasp?

I DO NOT force you NOT to smoke by my presence next to you while you are smoking.

but you DO force me to smoke in the same circumstances. WHY?

if you want and like smoking - do it ALONE, by yourself - WHY force others?

no need sophisticated researches or evidences. simply RESPECT and fairness must suffice !

respect me and my rights as I respect you and your rights !

But this is exactly what you are proposing by endorsing banning smoking.

[aaaaaa]

well then - what else can be said, if YOU know better than me what I am proposing.

and also YOU know better than me what I like or what is good for me.....

very constructive dialog !

although the last time I checked - I NEVER proposed any such thing! I keep saying - SMOKE till you are blue if you want. but DON't force me. that's all. somehow though you manage to twist my words upside down !

truly amazing !

perhaps Prakanong was right - smokers ARE thick.

dude - NOBODY proposes banning smoking !

the ban is about REGULATE smoking in public places - not to stop smokers from smoking. just smoke so that it doesn't disturb others.

so difficult to understand, huh?

Edited January 12, 2008 by aaaaaa

[sweetchariot]

perhaps Prakanong was right - smokers ARE thick.

dude - NOBODY proposes banning smoking !

so difficult to understand, huh?

Difficult for you obviously, but I guess by the word 'dude' you are American, so it is understandable.

I did not twist your words, I even highlighted them in blue so you might understand.

You say you do not force me not to smoke, but would like to.

So difficult to understand, huh?

[twschw]

What is "understandable" if aaaaaa is American? Could you clarify this please.

[sweetchariot]

What is "understandable" if aaaaaa is American? Could you clarify this please.

His unintelligible post.

I was biting back at his stupid response. There is a common misconception in the UK that all Americans are a bit mentally challenged, and I know this winds them up, which is why I used it.

I have several American friends, and I wind them up as well, but I have no anti-American sebtiments at all.............apart from the bloody election circus which is getting rather dull now. Just vote and be done with it.

[chiang mai]

I love these bun fights between the evil smokers and the holier than thou ant-smoking brigade - it just brings the whole image of how intolerant and proscriptive attitudes in the West are, right into my living room. I think I'll put my feet up, open a brew and maybe even have a fag or two and watch to see whether good defeats evil this time around or not in the knowledge that the next round will not be many days/weeks away.

[joskydive]

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!

I drink my beer and have a few cigs. at the request of my local laundry because they like to have someone talk to them while they're doing your flipping ironing! I've never met anyone yet who likes ironing. Maybe we can ban that aswell.

[John K]

after skimming this thread very simply this is what I see.

How the smokers feel

What the non smokers think about what the smokers are are saying

What the non smokers are thinking

[rgs2001uk]

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

lets fast forward the same topic say 30 or 50 years, instead of tobacco substitute alcohol.

can you imagine the conversation, do you remember when people used to drink in public places? uuuuugh how disgusting.

why should people who dont drink have to be subjected to the drunken antics of their fellow man.

i have never heard of someone getting behind the wheel of a car and wiping out an innocent family because he smoked a cigarette.

how many wifes and or children have been subject to domestic violence because thier husband smoked a cigarette.

do we actually have from any country, definitive figures on the secondary smoke arguement?

at the moment its bash the smokers, who is next, should we ban junk food because of the people who would need to lose 60 lbs just to be fat, perhaps we could have some figures on how much they are costing the healthcare profession.

how much does liver damage and any other alcohol related illness cost the national economy in terms of lost production absenteeism etc.

for all those who think it wont happen, well 30 years ago smokers probably thought the same.

lets use the airline industry as an example, no more smoking allowed, how long before no more alcohol served?

controversial,yes, but when the good old nanny state decides whats best for you, best look out.

[Prakanong]

I love these bun fights between the evil smokers and the holier than thou ant-smoking brigade - it just brings the whole image of how intolerant and proscriptive attitudes in the West are, right into my living room. I think I'll put my feet up, open a brew and maybe even have a fag or two and watch to see whether good defeats evil this time around or not in the knowledge that the next round will not be many days/weeks away.

In *Your* living room its fine.

Just as I said long ago I do not urinate on your leg or right by you when I have a beer so do not smoke in my presence

Its not only the health issue it is also a socially acceptability issue - a generation ago while it was against the law to drink and drive in the UK it was pretty much accepted by a large group - its not any more and exactly the same thing is happening with smoking - people are being educated and are having consideration for fellow human beings sharing the same publicly accessible places (thats for Mr Rubbish's definition)

Now I do not mind bar's having closed off smoking rooms like at the airport. They have them in some bar's in Singapore now and I often giggle while looking at the uncomfortable monkey's inside their cage suffereing for their nasty dirty little habit

[Prakanong]

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

lets fast forward the same topic say 30 or 50 years, instead of tobacco substitute alcohol.

can you imagine the conversation, do you remember when people used to drink in public places? uuuuugh how disgusting.

why should people who dont drink have to be subjected to the drunken antics of their fellow man.

i have never heard of someone getting behind the wheel of a car and wiping out an innocent family because he smoked a cigarette.

how many wifes and or children have been subject to domestic violence because thier husband smoked a cigarette.

do we actually have from any country, definitive figures on the secondary smoke arguement?

at the moment its bash the smokers, who is next, should we ban junk food because of the people who would need to lose 60 lbs just to be fat, perhaps we could have some figures on how much they are costing the healthcare profession.

how much does liver damage and any other alcohol related illness cost the national economy in terms of lost production absenteeism etc.

for all those who think it wont happen, well 30 years ago smokers probably thought the same.

lets use the airline industry as an example, no more smoking allowed, how long before no more alcohol served?

controversial,yes, but when the good old nanny state decides whats best for you, best look out.

The old Pastor Martin Neimoller argument?

Well it miight come to pass - society not accepting booze due to health and other social problems.

C'est la vie - but I doubt it

If it does so be it

[chiang mai]

I love these bun fights between the evil smokers and the holier than thou ant-smoking brigade - it just brings the whole image of how intolerant and proscriptive attitudes in the West are, right into my living room. I think I'll put my feet up, open a brew and maybe even have a fag or two and watch to see whether good defeats evil this time around or not in the knowledge that the next round will not be many days/weeks away.

In *Your* living room its fine.

Just as I said long ago I do not urinate on your leg or right by you when I have a beer so do not smoke in my presence

Its not only the health issue it is also a socially acceptability issue - a generation ago while it was against the law to drink and drive in the UK it was pretty much accepted by a large group - its not any more and exactly the same thing is happening with smoking - people are being educated and are having consideration for fellow human beings sharing the same publicly accessible places (thats for Mr Rubbish's definition)

Now I do not mind bar's having closed off smoking rooms like at the airport. They have them in some bar's in Singapore now and I often giggle while looking at the uncomfortable monkey's inside their cage suffereing for their nasty dirty little habit

Let's separate the issues for a moment: so it's socially unacceptable for people to smoke in the vicinity of non-smokers yet it's presumably socially acceptable (because there is no legislation against it) for banks, hedge funds and financial institutions to create debt/credit problems for consumers that cost them their homes and their livelihoods? That being true methinks the list of what is socially acceptable and what is not is highly subjective else needs much review.

[raybingham]

Let's separate the issues for a moment: so it's socially unacceptable for people to smoke in the vicinity of non-smokers yet it's presumably socially acceptable (because there is no legislation against it) for banks, hedge funds and financial institutions to create debt/credit problems for consumers that cost them their homes and their livelihoods? That being true methinks the list of what is socially acceptable and what is not is highly subjective else needs much review.

Forgive me but I think you will find that the debt is created by the consumer if/when they choose to borrow beyond their means. In old parlance in the UK it was known as stealing (Theft Act 1968) if you took money without having the ability to repay - filling stations used to carry a sign saying only fill up if you are able to pay for your petrol.

Don't get me wrong - I used to be a bank manager - but the worst I/we did was to provide the loaded gun.

[sometimewoodworker]

Why is smoking allowed at so many Japanese restaurants patronized mostly by Japanese customers?

Probably the same reason that Japan Airlines was the last major airline to ban smoking on its planes. I understand smoking in Japan is still viewed as a status symbol.

Peter

Hardly, parts of Tokyo and Osaka have banned smoking in all public places including the streets with an instant 1,000 yen fine. all non privatly owned Taxies in Tokyo are now non-smoking. All trains are non-smoking. all underground stations are non-smoking, & most above ground stations are either non-smoking or have small smoking areas.

[twschw]

As I said in an earlier post why don't non-smokers organize and ban tobacco all together. All you do is attack the end user of the product, wouldn't it be more useful for you to expend your energies in trying to stop the production of the product. As long as tobacco products are legal you will have to put up with smoking on some level.

[Gumballl]

As I said in an earlier post why don't non-smokers organize and ban tobacco all together. All you do is attack the end user of the product, wouldn't it be more useful for you to expend your energies in trying to stop the production of the product. As long as tobacco products are legal you will have to put up with smoking on some level.

patience please... we're working on it.

[dogleg]

Earlier posters mentioned the smokers sheepishly returning to the smoke free area, and smelling bad. After 32years this is what will finally get me to stop smoking. The realisation that I look and smell like that too!

Also, mates back in UK have stopped smoking in their homes around their families as a result of the ban there which has got to be a good thing.

Bring it on, I say!

[TAWP]

With clean air in the various establishments, we customers will now be able to smell what perfume the girls are wearing.

The number one complaints (backhome) has actually been the bad smell being more notacible in clubs, sweat, bad breath and so on...that the smoke kinda 'masked out'.

[kankaroo]

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.

I agree !

[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

GRRreat, but noting less than a life sentance should be given to cigar smokers !

[Prakanong]

With clean air in the various establishments, we customers will now be able to smell what perfume the girls are wearing.

The number one complaints (backhome) has actually been the bad smell being more notacible in clubs, sweat, bad breath and so on...that the smoke kinda 'masked out'.

Urban myth is screaming out loud here.

There are plenty of non-smoking buildings and venues - are they complaining about those too?

What about most workplaces - how the hel_l can they stand it - is productivity down since smoking was banned in the workplace?

Maybe it is as the lazy bastards who smooke sneak outside for a fag - they should be made to make up the time or their time off reflected in their yearly review and pay rises adjusted accordingly

Told you I was a fascist where smoking is concerned

PS I used to joke I would never employ a southerner but I can tell you I have never employed a smoker who has come to an interview with me

Edited January 13, 2008 by Prakanong

[mikethevigoman]

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

ITstinks, makes me cough and is a danger to the smokers health,but they love it !

[Prakanong]

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

GRRreat, but noting less than a life sentance should be given to cigar smokers !

Funnily enough cigar smoke does not bother me that much.