Crackdown On Smoking At Pubs, Enteratinment Venues

[kuma]

absooooooooolutely

this is excellent news, and it will not impact any bar ina negative way, unless the law is allowed to be unequally applied such that one bar gets a leg up on another

but if the ban is upheld evenly then all will benefit (incl those who smoke) the only losers will be the owners of tobacco companies.

as others have posted, these types of bans have been successful in many places in the world and after a month or so even the most intractable winers return as they relaize the real reason in the first place they went out was not to smoke. and here its a no brainer, the weather is always balmy so you want a smoke, then step out and have one. doin it where i'm from, at -30, is a bit trickier but it still works with no problems

i for one will be ringin the bell at my local hole if they do indeed follow the letter of the law on feb 11 (i think that is the date)

Been enforced over 'ere in Pubs,restaurants and most public places in old Blighty for over 6 Months now and I for one Loooovvvveeee It..

You go into a Boozer and NO ASHTRAYs....all GORN.....yes.............

still a bit of a pong from the addicts as they sheepishly sidle back into the place from some smelly rat hole that been designated a cancer inducing gut retching hovel round the back ...somewhere.....

but Generally it a BIG SUCCESS.....

From Apocy Now it was the Horror... the horror....now ....The SMELL ...The SMELL..............bai hae pon (pong)...go for it LOS......

[pgrin]

Anyone who takes a roll of garbage wrapped in a piece of paper and lights it on fire in a room were there are other people is a <deleted> of the highest order. It smells, you smell and you make everyone around you smell. How about I just come up to you and wipe dog shit on you. No problem when you get home you can take a bath and wash your clothes and we are all even. I don't care about first hand smoke or second hand smoke if if you wish to kill yourself slowly, up to you. But when you let your vile vice invade my space thats a different story. My Thai GF all 150cm and 40 kg has had cigarettes stubbed out on her clothes, her arms and last Nov some <deleted> actually hit her in the face and burned her just below her eye, she still has a scar. There is always some drunk moron in a club waving around a lit cigarette like they are trying to wave down an airplane. Take it outside.

P

[Mobi]

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

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

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

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

Exciting times

[Prakanong]

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

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

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

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

Exciting times

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

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

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

[mikethevigoman]

Anyone who takes a roll of garbage wrapped in a piece of paper and lights it on fire in a room were there are other people is a <deleted> of the highest order. It smells, you smell and you make everyone around you smell. How about I just come up to you and wipe dog shit on you. No problem when you get home you can take a bath and wash your clothes and we are all even. I don't care about first hand smoke or second hand smoke if if you wish to kill yourself slowly, up to you. But when you let your vile vice invade my space thats a different story. My Thai GF all 150cm and 40 kg has had cigarettes stubbed out on her clothes, her arms and last Nov some <deleted> actually hit her in the face and burned her just below her eye, she still has a scar. There is always some drunk moron in a club waving around a lit cigarette like they are trying to wave down an airplane. Take it outside.

P

well said,. you are right,its not just the smell i had some tw@t in a night club burn a hole in my jacket, he didnt want to pay so i got even another way, i cannot say how on this forum, !,..

[mikethevigoman]

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

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

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

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

Exciting times

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

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

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

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

[Prakanong]

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

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

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

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

Exciting times

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

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

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

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

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

Sneaky bastards

[meom]

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

I guess the burning of incense is not covered by any law yet so I see a gap in the market for "sigarette flavored" incense so at least there remains a familiar smell in the bar.

[clivemh]

What members are forgetting is that Europe at the moment is cold and nasty, so these smokers go outside for a quickie and dive back inside for their pint, in LOS we can stand outside day and night and not freeze our butts off, this means that here if this is enforced the smokers will be all crowded around the doorways to their respective places of pleasure.

It will be interesting to see this forum in a couple of months. I am not a smoker or ever have been, but I believe this is not the answer,education to children definitely is. As Dr !an says in this weeks mailclick here[/url]"First off, smoking is stupid. You stand a much greater risk of getting any cancer (not just lung cancer), as well as all the respiratory diseases, so that you wheeze your way to the here-after." I love this forum!

[the gent]

Am I alone in having reached the conclusion most smokers tend to be more entertaining company and generally an interesting bunch of folk more tolerant at almost every level than the average non smoking joe? Just an observation really but has some empirical integrity, don't you think?

Of course smoking is a disgusting habit and the addict risks an earlier demise as a consequence but denying them the opportunity to indulge whilst having a drink is really quite cruel. To do so on the tenuous basis that passive smoking is somehow injurious adds insult to this insufferable victimisation since the scientific research supporting such a thesis is every bit as fanciful as the fashionable nonsense that mankind's production of CO2 causes global warming. And for the authorities in Bangkok to suggest that such a prohibition would be beneficial to health is really quite absurd when it is common knowledge that anyone living within 100 metres of Sukhumvit is doomed anyway by their inhalation of the noxious vehicle fumes spewed out without any restriction.

Does the prohibition also include cabaret acts involving fumatory pudenda? Gosh, Thailand is really changing........Long Gun smokes no more it seems, alas.

[A_Traveller]

^ I have never seen an iota of evidence to suggest that a smoker is more entertaining, so you may not be on your own but your perceived unanimity fails to pass muster.

Regards

Edited January 13, 2008 by A_Traveller

[the gent]

[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'.

Urban myth is screaming out loud here. :D

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?

You fail to grasp unlike your average office, people in dance clubs...dance. Move about. You know that thing people do on the dance floor? And trust me, people get sweaty. Heck, in your average club here (outside the tourist-areas some of you might visit) it's so crowded and high temperature, even when the dance floor space is limited, since the places are litterly packed with people and we all dance on location around the stand-tables.

But the only thing you can do is toss out a lie that it's a myth.

Ps. I'm not a smoker, never have been and generally dislike cigarettes. But I try to see things objectivly and allow people to have the freedom of choice. Ds.

[Rinrada]

Whats in a FAG........

Nicotine:

Also found in pesticide. It's an extremely addictive chemical. It is absorbed by the body very quickly and gets to the brain within 7 seconds. It also increases the heart rate and blood pressure

Carbon Monoxide:

Also found in car exhaust fumes. It's a poisonous gas that stops your body getting the oxygen it needs. It thickens the blood and makes it hard for the heart to pump the blood around the body and can cause heart attacks.

Tar:

Used to surface roads. Tar can cause cancer as well as damaging the lungs. Tar is also responsible for staining smoker's teeth and fingers

Arsenic:

Used in rat poison. It can cause damage to a smoker's heart

Formaldehyde:

Used to preserve dead animals.

In large amounts it can cause irritation to the eyes, nose, throat and skin

Great FUN and real COOL......innit.

[thaiman]

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

[tropo]

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

Yet another conspiracy theory with no references to back it up.

It must be true because Serena Martin says it is.

Edited January 13, 2008 by tropo

[tropo]

Am I alone in having reached the conclusion most smokers tend to be more entertaining company and generally an interesting bunch of folk more tolerant at almost every level than the average non smoking joe? Just an observation really but has some empirical integrity, don't you think?

Of course smoking is a disgusting habit and the addict risks an earlier demise as a consequence but denying them the opportunity to indulge whilst having a drink is really quite cruel. To do so on the tenuous basis that passive smoking is somehow injurious adds insult to this insufferable victimisation since the scientific research supporting such a thesis is every bit as fanciful as the fashionable nonsense that mankind's production of CO2 causes global warming. And for the authorities in Bangkok to suggest that such a prohibition would be beneficial to health is really quite absurd when it is common knowledge that anyone living within 100 metres of Sukhumvit is doomed anyway by their inhalation of the noxious vehicle fumes spewed out without any restriction.

Does the prohibition also include cabaret acts involving fumatory pudenda? Gosh, Thailand is really changing........Long Gun smokes no more it seems, alas.

Perhaps there's a good reason why non-smokers may not appear entertaining to you. Perhaps being asphixiated with cigarette smoke is not a pleasant experience.

[tropo]

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

Why should people have the right to smoke?

Many governments have outlawed the smoking of various substances.

[Mighty Mouse]

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

Have you ever been in a non-smoking pub? It stinks of rancid body odour, farts, piss and puke that the smoke used to mask. They are trying to get rid of this foul smell in the UK as it is worse than the smoke.

Perhaps venue staff could distribute cakes of soap rather than ash trays....but then I did notice you mentioned the "UK." In that case, a set of instructions on how to use the soap would also be required.

[kiakaha]

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

About bloody time. After all, I when I drink beer I don't disperse the waste(my urine) on everyone else in the bar. So why should smokers be allowed to disperse their waste(second hand smoke).

But there is a downside.From my experiences of seeing this law enacted in New Zealand...when you enter or leave a bar, you have to walk past a thick,smelly cloak of smoke from all the smokers standing outside the establishment.

[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?

You fail to grasp unlike your average office, people in dance clubs...dance. Move about. You know that thing people do on the dance floor? And trust me, people get sweaty. Heck, in your average club here (outside the tourist-areas some of you might visit) it's so crowded and high temperature, even when the dance floor space is limited, since the places are litterly packed with people and we all dance on location around the stand-tables.

But the only thing you can do is toss out a lie that it's a myth.

Ps. I'm not a smoker, never have been and generally dislike cigarettes. But I try to see things objectivly and allow people to have the freedom of choice. Ds.

You said back home - where is the evidence of all those odour's etc - an urban myth.

Nothing wrong with freedom of choice - I want my freedom not to breath in 2nd hand fag smoke - smokers have the freedom to go outside.

Where does this freedom of choice begin and end - do you want people to choose to drink and drive, to use heroin?

Society places limits on these activities and now socisty is placing limits on smokers - different value jusdgements at different times.

[Prakanong]

Am I alone in having reached the conclusion most smokers tend to be more entertaining company and generally an interesting bunch of folk more tolerant at almost every level than the average non smoking joe? Just an observation really but has some empirical integrity, don't you think?

Of course smoking is a disgusting habit and the addict risks an earlier demise as a consequence but denying them the opportunity to indulge whilst having a drink is really quite cruel. To do so on the tenuous basis that passive smoking is somehow injurious adds insult to this insufferable victimisation since the scientific research supporting such a thesis is every bit as fanciful as the fashionable nonsense that mankind's production of CO2 causes global warming. And for the authorities in Bangkok to suggest that such a prohibition would be beneficial to health is really quite absurd when it is common knowledge that anyone living within 100 metres of Sukhumvit is doomed anyway by their inhalation of the noxious vehicle fumes spewed out without any restriction.

Does the prohibition also include cabaret acts involving fumatory pudenda? Gosh, Thailand is really changing........Long Gun smokes no more it seems, alas.

Perhaps there's a good reason why non-smokers may not appear entertaining to you. Perhaps being asphixiated with cigarette smoke is not a pleasant experience.

Emprical integrity my arse - now my observational studies have shown me that smokers are selfish smelly people who do not mind thrusting the waste of their habit on others.

They also tend to be pretty weak willed characters too - just look at how many try to give up and just can not

[selftaopath]

On the other hand, it is a nice new moneymaker for the law enforcement mafia, eh i mean police.

Oh how very true to Thailand. I have been told repeatedly that Police drink and have been observed drunk while "on duty."

[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'.

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?

You fail to grasp unlike your average office, people in dance clubs...dance. Move about. You know that thing people do on the dance floor? And trust me, people get sweaty. Heck, in your average club here (outside the tourist-areas some of you might visit) it's so crowded and high temperature, even when the dance floor space is limited, since the places are litterly packed with people and we all dance on location around the stand-tables.

But the only thing you can do is toss out a lie that it's a myth.

Ps. I'm not a smoker, never have been and generally dislike cigarettes. But I try to see things objectivly and allow people to have the freedom of choice. Ds.

You said back home - where is the evidence of all those odour's etc - an urban myth.

Nothing wrong with freedom of choice - I want my freedom not to breath in 2nd hand fag smoke - smokers have the freedom to go outside.

Where does this freedom of choice begin and end - do you want people to choose to drink and drive, to use heroin?

Society places limits on these activities and now socisty is placing limits on smokers - different value jusdgements at different times.

Back home is Scandinavia.

And yet again you cannot post anything of value but to discredit another posters submission as 'urban myth'. How about you present any evidence that it is infact so?

Freedom of choice means that every owner of an establishment has the right to set the rules [in accordance to local laws].

Your perverted view that your choice to decide what others should do is trite and typical social fascism that is rampant in todays western world.

If you want a non-smoking club, tell the owners that it is good for his biz or open your own place. Don't force others to follow your vim.

People should be allowed to use heroin, or drink and drive. And they should also be forced to take responsibility of their actions. But you would rather dictate what others should be allowed to do, right Mr SoccerMom?

Fine, next up: Surfing and posting on forums will be deemed bad. Will you stop and accept the infinite wisdom of someone ELSE'S vim?

[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?

You fail to grasp unlike your average office, people in dance clubs...dance. Move about. You know that thing people do on the dance floor? And trust me, people get sweaty. Heck, in your average club here (outside the tourist-areas some of you might visit) it's so crowded and high temperature, even when the dance floor space is limited, since the places are litterly packed with people and we all dance on location around the stand-tables.

But the only thing you can do is toss out a lie that it's a myth.

Ps. I'm not a smoker, never have been and generally dislike cigarettes. But I try to see things objectivly and allow people to have the freedom of choice. Ds.

You said back home - where is the evidence of all those odour's etc - an urban myth.

Nothing wrong with freedom of choice - I want my freedom not to breath in 2nd hand fag smoke - smokers have the freedom to go outside.

Where does this freedom of choice begin and end - do you want people to choose to drink and drive, to use heroin?

Society places limits on these activities and now socisty is placing limits on smokers - different value jusdgements at different times.

Back home is Scandinavia.

And yet again you cannot post anything of value but to discredit another posters submission as 'urban myth'. How about you present any evidence that it is infact so?

Freedom of choice means that every owner of an establishment has the right to set the rules [in accordance to local laws].

Your perverted view that your choice to decide what others should do is trite and typical social fascism that is rampant in todays western world.

If you want a non-smoking club, tell the owners that it is good for his biz or open your own place. Don't force others to follow your vim.

People should be allowed to use heroin, or drink and drive. And they should also be forced to take responsibility of their actions. But you would rather dictate what others should be allowed to do, right Mr SoccerMom?

Fine, next up: Surfing and posting on forums will be deemed bad. Will you stop and accept the infinite wisdom of someone ELSE'S vim?

Sorry but the burden of proof is n yourself about increased odour due to the banning of smoking. As I said this has not happened in workplaces etc including non-office environments so why would it happen in a bar?

social fascism - bhwaaaaaaa

I think enough is said when you would allow such a libertarian idea's as freedom for drink and drive as well as taking heroin to be part of your personal manifesto - you have lost your moral compass and especially so with drinking and driving.

I might go for heroin taking if we can fence off the terminally stupid until they are all dead - then we wil not waste any more oxygen on them in these days environmental concerns.

Mr Soccermum - my friends would howl at that one

[TAWP]

Sorry but the burden of proof is n yourself about increased odour due to the banning of smoking. As I said this has not happened in workplaces etc including non-office environments so why would it happen in a bar?

social fascism - bhwaaaaaaa

I think enough is said when you would allow such a libertarian idea's as freedom for drink and drive as well as taking heroin to be part of your personal manifesto - you have lost your moral compass and especially so with drinking and driving.

I might go for heroin taking if we can fence off the terminally stupid until they are all dead - then we wil not waste any more oxygen on them in these days environmental concerns.

Mr Soccermum - my friends would howl at that one

First hits on google, go after more if you want them:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2007/0..._makeover/8398/

http://www.aftonbladet.se/kropphalsa/article279770.ab

I'm expecting your personal apology in my inbox at the end of the day.

[Prakanong]

Sorry but the burden of proof is n yourself about increased odour due to the banning of smoking. As I said this has not happened in workplaces etc including non-office environments so why would it happen in a bar?

social fascism - bhwaaaaaaa

I think enough is said when you would allow such a libertarian idea's as freedom for drink and drive as well as taking heroin to be part of your personal manifesto - you have lost your moral compass and especially so with drinking and driving.

I might go for heroin taking if we can fence off the terminally stupid until they are all dead - then we wil not waste any more oxygen on them in these days environmental concerns.

Mr Soccermum - my friends would howl at that one

First hits on google, go after more if you want them:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2007/0..._makeover/8398/

http://www.aftonbladet.se/kropphalsa/article279770.ab

I'm expecting your personal apology in my inbox at the end of the day.

Its hardly scientific evidence is it but if you find it I will apologise publicly to you and not in your priovate mailbox.

Still does not change my argument though that smoking is harmful while farts are not

[Shrubbery]

Perhaps venue staff could distribute cakes of soap rather than ash trays....but then I did notice you mentioned the "UK." In that case, a set of instructions on how to use the soap would also be required.

Ahh, but a least a Brit could read the instructions.

[morejunk]

I totally agree about people having the right to free choices:

I think I should have the right to go into a restaurant or bar and share one of my deliciously fraguent f@rts with all of those smokers sitting near me. It is after all, a fair better odor than a smoke saturated person and that disgusting cigarette smell.

I also think it is my right to go into a bar and not be bothered with travelling all the way to the toilet. I want the right to urinate right under the bar near where I am sitting. It is only a minor inconvience to the next person who comes in after I leave. Not my problem, it will not smell that bad and only has limited second hand effects. I have my rights. Screw everyone else!

Edited January 14, 2008 by morejunk

[dannyman]

What do you non-smokers think your breathing in the street's of Bangkok or ant other place in Thailand? Fresh Tuk-Tuk air!I espeacialy love when you come back, from a walk outside and blow that healthy black stuff out of your nose. Breathe On!