Crackdown On Smoking At Pubs, Enteratinment Venues

[TAWP]

I thought that Tawp made it quite clear what exactly "personal freedoms" entail, but a few posters seem unable, or unwilling, to understand.

They do not allow people to roam the streets demanding a random set of rights, and excoriating all those who dare impinge on the sanctity of their personal bubbles.

But, in TAWP's world, they apparently do allow people the right to get drunk as a skunk and drive

No, I said that it would not be illegal to drink and drive, which you could do on your private road/track.

Public roads are owned by the government and therefor subject to their rules.

[TAWP]

It really scares me that you are a teacher. You rambling reminds me of some teachers that I had in the past. Narrow minded and short sighted with rediculous arguments. You only understand "rights" as defined to fill your own requirements. Smkoers are the only ones that have "personal freedoms". Don't non smokers have any rights? What differences does it make that cigarettes are legal. You are still infringing on other people's rights by smoking in confined spaces. Why is it that smokers can't grasp that very simple concept. No different that f@rting in your face while you eat in a restaurant. It is legal, isn't it? It is my right, isn't it? Please, by all means smoke yourself to an early death for I care. Just don't do it in my presence.

Wasn't you supposed to leave?

But you are again wrong. You aren't infringing on anyones right by smoking, with permission, in a private property.

Just as you are not violating your own mother by farting in her face during dinner, with permission. As must be custom in your family since you bring it up all the time.

In my house it's not allowed and you would be thrown out. And it's my right to throw you out since it's on private property.

Getting it soon?

The debate boils down to definitions of private property does it not.

You say the owner of a bar should be able to decide if patrons can smoke

I would say that because it is open to the public ie a public place he should have to follow the rules for smoking in a public place.

This argument seems to be followed in the more civilised countries and it a rational approach now accepted buy all but the most obtuse.

You are mistaken when you say that it's accepted by all. It's enforced by the governments in respective country for the sole purpose of being able to control exactly what people are doing.

Do you honestly think that it's for concern of the population that they call a private property for 'public place' as soon as you start selling something there?

And even here there is differences between most western countries regarding what rights the owner has over his own property, for example in deciding who to allow in, if allowed to ban people that has committed crime against the company and so on. There is no unified system, not at all. There are degrees of the same monster...

In a country with true freedom it wouldn't be the governments issue to decide what consensual adults can and cannot do on private property.

[morejunk]

Wasn't you supposed to leave? I think that's: Weren't you supposed to leave? Maybe you should use some pf your free time for self improvement instead of boring forum users.

For the morons that don't get it: smoke free is natural, while smoking is un-natural behavior and therefore the exception for Public places

public-a place open to all ie: bar/restaurant/stores/malls/etc.

private: your home/your car/a membership club with a contract and rules that specifically provide for certain behavior

No smoking in public has worked great in many countries. Customers don't go home with burning eyes and smelling like those disgusting cigarettes. It has actually improved business in many places because non smokers now go there and would have previously avoided the place. The smokers have had little problem adjusting to going to a smoking area or outside. Works great for everyone.

[morejunk]

Tawp: I have the perfect avatar for you. Feel free to use it.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?ac...st&id=49605

[lazeeboy]

over the last ten or so years i've seen a big decline in the amount of tourists smoking in my bar ,so the bans in the western world must be doing some good ,i smoke but find it harder to light up in the company of non smokers as i feel like a leper ,hence i've become a closet smoker ,and also cut down a lot ,as for stopping i enjoy a few each day at certain times ,normally when alone to quit

[Prakanong]

It really scares me that you are a teacher. You rambling reminds me of some teachers that I had in the past. Narrow minded and short sighted with rediculous arguments. You only understand "rights" as defined to fill your own requirements. Smkoers are the only ones that have "personal freedoms". Don't non smokers have any rights? What differences does it make that cigarettes are legal. You are still infringing on other people's rights by smoking in confined spaces. Why is it that smokers can't grasp that very simple concept. No different that f@rting in your face while you eat in a restaurant. It is legal, isn't it? It is my right, isn't it? Please, by all means smoke yourself to an early death for I care. Just don't do it in my presence.

Wasn't you supposed to leave?

But you are again wrong. You aren't infringing on anyones right by smoking, with permission, in a private property.

Just as you are not violating your own mother by farting in her face during dinner, with permission. As must be custom in your family since you bring it up all the time.

In my house it's not allowed and you would be thrown out. And it's my right to throw you out since it's on private property.

Getting it soon?

The debate boils down to definitions of private property does it not.

You say the owner of a bar should be able to decide if patrons can smoke

I would say that because it is open to the public ie a public place he should have to follow the rules for smoking in a public place.

This argument seems to be followed in the more civilised countries and it a rational approach now accepted buy all but the most obtuse.

You are mistaken when you say that it's accepted by all. It's enforced by the governments in respective country for the sole purpose of being able to control exactly what people are doing.

Do you honestly think that it's for concern of the population that they call a private property for 'public place' as soon as you start selling something there?

And even here there is differences between most western countries regarding what rights the owner has over his own property, for example in deciding who to allow in, if allowed to ban people that has committed crime against the company and so on. There is no unified system, not at all. There are degrees of the same monster...

In a country with true freedom it wouldn't be the governments issue to decide what consensual adults can and cannot do on private property.

I said by all but the most obtuse - you need to finish the sentence.

Do you really think govt's do it just to show they can control their people?

Very strange viewpoint indeed.

40 years ago smokers were in the majority and they got their way smoking on buses and almost anywhere - in places like the UK they are now in the minority and so are becoming social lepers as people realise what a disgusting habit it is plus some people who can just not take care of themselves have to be stopped harming others just like we do not allow drunken drivers.

[mrbojangles]

It has actually improved business in many places because non smokers now go there and would have previously avoided the place.

Source please. I posted some links to articles earlier, that say the exact opposite as i couldn't find anything that said the ban had increased business.

The smokers have had little problem adjusting to going to a smoking area or outside. Works great for everyone.

Hey, non-smoker, please don't speak for us. Not only are you happy about us being banned, you now want to take over our voice. Some have adapted easily and some haven't. Personally, i have adjusted but many i know have done their talking with their walking and they are staying at home alot more often.

[meemiathai]

I wouldn't mind smokers claiming their freedom to smoke in confined areas if they don't mind me enjoying my freedom to piss and shit in a spring or swimming pool together.

Edited January 14, 2008 by meemiathai

[twschw]

Drinkers shouldn't feel to secure.

Officials Make Public Intoxication Arrests Inside Bars

POSTED: 4:04 pm CST March 15, 2006

IRVING, Texas -- The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission has taken its fight against drunken driving to a new level. TABC agents, along with Irving police, targeted 36 bars and clubs Friday, arresting some allegedly intoxicated patrons before they departed the businesses.

The officers and agents also kept watch on bartenders who might have over-served patrons.

Agents arrested 30 people Friday night. Most of the suspects now face charges of public intoxication.

The agents and Irving police officers traveled from bar to bar and worked undercover, according to an NBC 5 report.

The report also said that some agents shared tables with suspected drunken patrons. Some patrons were subjected to field sobriety tests inside bars.

Agents and officers said the operation represented an effort to reduce drunken driving.

Sgt. Chris Hamilton, of the TABC, said some inebriated bar patrons "end up killing themselves or someone else" after departing the businesses.

nbc5i.com

[morejunk]

mrbojangles: Hey, non-smoker, please don't speak for us. Not only are you happy about us being banned, you now want to take over our voice. Some have adapted easily and some haven't. Personally, i have adjusted but many i know have done their talking with their walking and they are staying at home alot more often.

OOOOOHHHHH! I now feel so properly reprimanded for speaking for smokers.

You are absolutely right that I am happy about your kind being banned. I have tolerated the rude and inconsiderate behavior of smokers for years. <deleted> gives you the right to stink up and pollute the air I breath? If smokers can't comprimise by going outside for their stupid addiction, then that is just too bad for them. I have tolerated the rude behavior for far too long. No smoking should have been enforced a very long time ago. I could not care less if you adapt or not. You should never have had the PRIVILEGE of smoking in public places in the first place.

I have been to many of the same places for years, both before and after the smoking bans. You are telling us that the smokers are now staying home. Good, if that is true. The big difference I see is that the smokers now head for the sidewalk or patio for their fix. Many non smoking people now go to the places that they would have avoided prior to the ban. I guess it is your turn to stay home if you don't like it.

[mrbojangles]

mrbojangles: Hey, non-smoker, please don't speak for us. Not only are you happy about us being banned, you now want to take over our voice. Some have adapted easily and some haven't. Personally, i have adjusted but many i know have done their talking with their walking and they are staying at home alot more often.

OOOOOHHHHH! I now feel so properly reprimanded for speaking for smokers.

You are absolutely right that I am happy about your kind being banned. I have tolerated the rude and inconsiderate behavior of smokers for years. <deleted> gives you the right to stink up and pollute the air I breath? If smokers can't comprimise by going outside for their stupid addiction, then that is just too bad for them. I have tolerated the rude behavior for far too long. No smoking should have been enforced a very long time ago. I could not care less if you adapt or not. You should never have had the PRIVILEGE of smoking in public places in the first place.

I have been to many of the same places for years, both before and after the smoking bans. You are telling us that the smokers are now staying home. Good, if that is true. The big difference I see is that the smokers now head for the sidewalk or patio for their fix. Many non smoking people now go to the places that they would have avoided prior to the ban. I guess it is your turn to stay home if you don't like it.

I was going to respond to each and every point you made. But i don't think i'll waste my time on a nasty piece of work like you. You seem unable to read posts properly and worse still, unable to reply in a civil manner.

I bid thee farewell sir

[OlRedEyes]

I am still (again??) a smoker, but I do realise that people have the right to clean(ish) air, even though breathing an average city's air is prolly close to equivalent to passive smoking. (better to smoke, at least you breathe through a filter )

For smokers a drink and a cig go together though, and though non-smoking restuarants will work (you smoke after eating, not during, so can step outside even though it's inconvenient and slightly disrupting, it ain't the end of the world) non-smoking pubs/bars seems a bit of a non-starter for me as a smoker. I really cannot see how most smokers are going to handle this, I'd imagine it would impact business quite seriously.

Edited January 14, 2008 by OlRedEyes

[Mighty Mouse]

..... any bar owner should have the choice of whether or not to allow smoking on the premises, or the choice to segregate smoking smokers from non-smokers.

We're talking Thailand here, so let's think Pattaya and let's think Walking Street.

So many bars all squeezed into the entertainment area. One bar is dedicated for smoking, the bar next door is for non-smoking.

How do you, the smoking allowed bar owner, propose to prevent the second smoke from your customers drifting into the non-smoking bar next door?

If your answer is with the use of powerful exhaust fans, how do you propose to keep those concentrated fumes that have been extracted from your premises from drifting into the nearby hotel rooms?

[TAWP]

I wouldn't mind smokers claiming their freedom to smoke in confined areas if they don't mind me enjoying my freedom to piss and shit in a spring or swimming pool together.

You are welcome to piss in your own pool during your next party. It's your right as an owner, even when people are visiting.

[rgs2001uk]

..... any bar owner should have the choice of whether or not to allow smoking on the premises, or the choice to segregate smoking smokers from non-smokers.

We're talking Thailand here, so let's think Pattaya and let's think Walking Street.

you are of course correct mm

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.

So many bars all squeezed into the entertainment area. One bar is dedicated for smoking, the bar next door is for non-smoking.

how may of these bars have a/c and how many could we classify as oudoor?

How do you, the smoking allowed bar owner, propose to prevent the second smoke from your customers drifting into the non-smoking bar next door?

how does the non-smoking bar in its efforts to attract the non smoking customers propose to prevent second hand smoke drifting into its premises?

If your answer is with the use of powerful exhaust fans, how do you propose to keep those concentrated fumes that have been extracted from your premises from drifting into the nearby hotel rooms?

surely that is a problem for the nearby hotels to solve when all the guests check out after complaining of secondary smoke inhalation.

i refer back to your original statement We're talking Thailand here,

i as a non resident of your country, dont concern myself with your country and its citizens rights to impose whatever rules it wishes on its citizens, i am only a guest of this country, and as such respect the rights of the thai people to administer whatever they feel is best for the country. if however something which i strongly didnt agree with was imposed, i would pack up and move elsewhere.

at the end of the day for the majority, thailand is a holiday destination, however they say travel broadens the mind, if the same said holiday makers expect to go to a foreign country and expect it to be the same as their own, why bother to travel?

i somehow doubt if the thai way of doing things is going to stop many non smokers from coming here, it hasnt stopped me as a non smoker from living as a guest here, and for all your rantings on the subject, i sometimes wonder if you are carrying around emotional baggage that may be clouding your judgement.

at the end of the day, the thais will continue to do what they want, never mind smoking, look around you everday and see how many things a blind eye is being turned to.

one of the reasons i like thailand is the lack of the pc brigade and the cultural imperialists, if thailand offends, then i am sure there are many more destinations of choice for you, that are nearer, involve less travelling time and are smoke free, singapore springs to mind.

at the end of the day, if i as a non smoker manage to live here full time, then i am sure the normal 3 week holidaymaker shouldnt have a problem.

the city fathers of pattaya, i am sure will take your personal well being into consideration, along with the many other things they do to turn pattaya into the destination of choice for the type of holiday maker they are now trying to attract.

you mentioned walking street, you know as well as i there are many other locations in pattaya, you choose to go there by choice, we however live in an ever changing world, nothing stays the same, its just an illusion as the thais say.

too much smoke in a bar is the same to me as crap music, if it offends me i leave, i respect your right however to take a different point of view, and a different course of action, if you excercise your right not to visit pattaya because of smokers in bars, i doubt you will be missed, the same as i am not missed by choosing to no longer set foot in the place, and thats not because of smoking, its because of the type of visitor it now seems to attract.

have a nice day.

[John K]

At any rate I am gearing up for this.

[jfchandler]

It's a long overdue change for Thailand....if hopefully it is enforced or at least adopted.

Went thru the same whining in California a few years back when my former home made this change. Bar and restaurant owners bitched likecrazy, claimed they'd be put out of business. Fast forward a few years, and business is just fine, thanks. And you can go out for a meal or a drink at night, and not have to worry about getting smoked to death sitting inside. The folks who want to smoke take it outside.

It didn't take the heavy hand of the police to accomplish it - just the common sense of people and society moving in the direction away from smoking for all the obvious health reasons.

I remember going to the Hollywood Disco here a few years back. Woke up the next morning coughing like I'd smoked two packs the night before. And my clothes stank of cigarette smoke from those folks around me. I've never gone back there ever since, just for that very reason.

Infact,...now, just the opposite, I often do think seriously about where to go for entertainment, based on how smoke free a place might be, based on their air con/ventilation inside.

Any business that honors the new regulation will get a vote of support and endorsement from me!!!!

[moldy]

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

I'm a smoker but not around non smokers. Let's be honest there is no defence really. Second hand smoke agitates the nasal linings and is a direct toxin for others. I realised a few years ago there was no excuse.

I note that no government however is dealing with the far more serious problem of toxic pollution, and as ever have to ask how many of the aggressive anti smoking lobby will once again be revving up their car engines today, as they did yesterday, and will do tomorrow. At least a non smoker can escape, I have no such luck and have to suffer the interminable consequences as do many millions of others. Still the next generation may not have such problems as there is a small chance we'll all be dead anyway.

Nothing like getting the priorities right.

[Rinrada]

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.

So me next swallee in the Londoner should be a pleasant one....might even be temped to try the scran...

[polecat]

Does this mean there are going to be more non-smokers in bars now? Oh, man! I'm going to have to give up the booze. There's just something creepy about adults who don't smoke. Non-smoking bars are like geek holes. You mark my words, before you know it they'll all be full of nerds with Mac laptops ordering pots of tea and asking you to be quiet when the news comes on. There'll be freaking Eric Clapton and Shania Twain blasting out of the sound system and a bible in the toilets.

How about a deal? You purelungs take the bars, and let us have the coffee shops back. Come on, how about it?

We'll get some wicked tunes playing and then all the cute girls will start coming to the coffee shops. Oh, hang on. Then all you purelungs will want to come back to the coffee shops and tell us we can't smoke there either.

That might be good too. Smokin will go underground. There'll be banging house parties that only hipsters hear about. We'll be hanging out with our cigs and tunes and babes, and the purelungs will only get hip a few years later, when the scene's totally sold out.

By then we'll have started a scene in, like, Buri Ram, or Nan. Think Goa, or Pai, or Vang Vien before boutique hotels and Internet cafes. Sweet.

[bkkperson]

Im a smoker and i must say while i doubt very much it will be enforced unless for some tea money.. i do think it is a good idea as eventually alot of people will decide just to not bother smoking as it aint worth it...

I dont understand why they dont just say okay then we will just ban cigarettes period( in the U.K), i mean now one has ever directly actually died from giving up smoking...

[mrbojangles]

Does this mean there are going to be more non-smokers in bars now? Oh, man! I'm going to have to give up the booze. There's just something creepy about adults who don't smoke. Non-smoking bars are like geek holes. You mark my words, before you know it they'll all be full of nerds with Mac laptops ordering pots of tea and asking you to be quiet when the news comes on. There'll be freaking Eric Clapton and Shania Twain blasting out of the sound system and a bible in the toilets.

How about a deal? You purelungs take the bars, and let us have the coffee shops back. Come on, how about it?

We'll get some wicked tunes playing and then all the cute girls will start coming to the coffee shops. Oh, hang on. Then all you purelungs will want to come back to the coffee shops and tell us we can't smoke there either.

That might be good too. Smokin will go underground. There'll be banging house parties that only hipsters hear about. We'll be hanging out with our cigs and tunes and babes, and the purelungs will only get hip a few years later, when the scene's totally sold out.

By then we'll have started a scene in, like, Buri Ram, or Nan. Think Goa, or Pai, or Vang Vien before boutique hotels and Internet cafes. Sweet.

Top post Polecat. Loved it

[Ijustwannateach]

Hmmm... I'm a non-smoker and allergic to it, so I'm pretty glad to have more smoke-free places. But I don't have anything against people deciding to smoke, or the existence of smokey bars... the problem is that if there is even one smoker in even a large bar, it is a smokey environment. A bar or restaurant has to be completely non-smoking for non-smokers to be really happy- and sooner or later if a bar is not by policy non-smoking, it will be visited by smokers.

It also doesn't work for the government simply to "allow" bars and restaurants to decide to become non-smoking, because their current clientele will dictate no change.

Maybe it would work if they declared that a certain percentage of bar/restaurant licenses in every district (in line with the smoking population) would be smoking or non-smoking, and let first come first serve. Then economics can do the rest.

"S"

[bkkperson]

hmm now i think about it your right polecat...

Instead of banning smoking in the pubs they should just ban the non-smokers from the pubs!!!

Yeah yeah much better

[OlRedEyes]

Hmmm... I'm a non-smoker and allergic to it, so I'm pretty glad to have more smoke-free places. But I don't have anything against people deciding to smoke, or the existence of smokey bars... the problem is that if there is even one smoker in even a large bar, it is a smokey environment. A bar or restaurant has to be completely non-smoking for non-smokers to be really happy- and sooner or later if a bar is not by policy non-smoking, it will be visited by smokers.

It also doesn't work for the government simply to "allow" bars and restaurants to decide to become non-smoking, because their current clientele will dictate no change.

Maybe it would work if they declared that a certain percentage of bar/restaurant licenses in every district (in line with the smoking population) would be smoking or non-smoking, and let first come first serve. Then economics can do the rest.

"S"

If the demand for non-smoking bars were really there in volume, the market would have supplied them long ago for sure. There would've been good money to be made. The fact of it is it isn't there so legislation is needed to force it. A classic case of minority rules...

This does not mean that I, as a smoker, think it's all bad. Though I really believe that most non-smokers (only a tiny percentage have real reactions to smoke) whine too much about it, it does assist those many that want to quit. Personally, when I stopped smoking for 9 years, someone smoking around me never bothered me unless it was too many in an enclosed space. The dangers of passive smoking may be there, but IMHO is highly overplayed by non-smoking lobbies. Not much worse, if at all, than walking down a city road.

I do believe especially bars should be able to opt to be smoking. Smokers are getting too much of a crappy deal from all of this. Take some of the 'smoking rooms' in airports They are totally disgusting. Not because of the smokers, but because they are not maintained and left to rot. That shows a terrible lack of respect towards smokers' rights, and not the way to win over smokers to recognise non-smokers' rights.

Edited January 18, 2008 by OlRedEyes

[BigSnake]

What's next I wonder?? Hope they enforce the mobile phone why driving Law. Saw a Samlar on his cell phone, just peddleing along talking away. A motorbike darn near hit him.

[moldy]

Hmmm... I'm a non-smoker and allergic to it, so I'm pretty glad to have more smoke-free places. But I don't have anything against people deciding to smoke, or the existence of smokey bars... the problem is that if there is even one smoker in even a large bar, it is a smokey environment. A bar or restaurant has to be completely non-smoking for non-smokers to be really happy- and sooner or later if a bar is not by policy non-smoking, it will be visited by smokers.

It also doesn't work for the government simply to "allow" bars and restaurants to decide to become non-smoking, because their current clientele will dictate no change.

Maybe it would work if they declared that a certain percentage of bar/restaurant licenses in every district (in line with the smoking population) would be smoking or non-smoking, and let first come first serve. Then economics can do the rest.

"S"

This posting and the one that followed it are reasonable postings from people without a particular axe to grind. Logic would say some bars should cater for smokers, so long as owners and staff consent. If non smokers want to avoid it, well they'd have plenty of options. One problem might be getting through the dam_n door as I expect the smokers pub would be thriving whereas it's non smoking neighbours could be struggling to break even. I guess there isn't an answer and this thing has to be an absolute. Although, I support a ban (even though I am a smoker)

This posting and the one that followed it from redeyes are reasonable postings from people without a particular axe to grind. Logic would say some bars should cater for smokers, so long as owners and staff consent. If non smokers want to avoid it, well they'd have plenty of options. One problem might be getting through the dam_n door of the smoking pub as I expect it would be thriving whereas it's non smoking neighbours could be struggling to break even. I guess there isn't an answer and this thing has to be an absolute.

Although, I support a ban (even though I am a smoker) the matter isn't so clear cut, eg, smokers could argue that the average non smoker isn't being effected that much and that if they are it could be they may have a wider ranging problem such as bronchitis, URTI, or bad allergy to pollution in general, further they could argue that smoke extractors could largely eliminate the smoke.

I think non smokers who object should win the day as it is their right to live in society without being subject to hazards made by others, but in any discussion I'd be particularly interested to examine their own lifestyle to see how they might be damaging others directly or indirectly through the cars they are driving and the products they are using. How noisy are they? Do the companies they work for produce toxins?

I hope they'd agree that this is only reasonable after all I'm sure they wouldn't want to be thought of as hypocrites.

As it applies to the UK at least, smokers also provide tax revenue in multiples of what it costs to treat them.

[kiakaha]

Does this mean there are going to be more non-smokers in bars now? Oh, man! I'm going to have to give up the booze. There's just something creepy about adults who don't smoke. Non-smoking bars are like geek holes. You mark my words, before you know it they'll all be full of nerds with Mac laptops ordering pots of tea and asking you to be quiet when the news comes on. There'll be freaking Eric Clapton and Shania Twain blasting out of the sound system and a bible in the toilets.

How about a deal? You purelungs take the bars, and let us have the coffee shops back. Come on, how about it?

We'll get some wicked tunes playing and then all the cute girls will start coming to the coffee shops. Oh, hang on. Then all you purelungs will want to come back to the coffee shops and tell us we can't smoke there either.

That might be good too. Smokin will go underground. There'll be banging house parties that only hipsters hear about. We'll be hanging out with our cigs and tunes and babes, and the purelungs will only get hip a few years later, when the scene's totally sold out.

By then we'll have started a scene in, like, Buri Ram, or Nan. Think Goa, or Pai, or Vang Vien before boutique hotels and Internet cafes. Sweet.

Top post Polecat. Loved it

Its a bigger issue than just the customers(smokers and non smokers alike). In New Zealand this law was enacted primarily as a Health & Safety regulation for the establishment's employees who are subjected to the adverse effects of 2nd hand smoke.

[jenniferjuniper]

Went to the Bull's Head Suk 33 and bought their fags.The awful cancer warning photos were covered up by their own labels appealing to what smokers appreciate e.g Smoking is cool and makes you taller. Very funny and I bought loads.

If second hand smoking was bad for you then charcoal ovens and outdoor wood fires as used by billions would claim a lot more deaths but this phenomenon does not seem to occur. Explain that, passive smokers who don't like paying the tax we smokers are lumbered with!

Anyway smokers drink more and more regularly than non smokers.Capitalism dictates the majority spenders rule and picky, anaemic, girly non smokers can haul ass out of our bars and set up their own like the willy woofters did.

Ok.

[sriracha john]

Another nail in tobacco's coffin

With tough new tobacco control measures which add all air-conditioned entertainment places to the already lengthy list of smoke-free venues due to come into force next month, some people are wondering why Thailand does not just follow the example of Bhutan and ban smoking entirely. While the powerful anti-smoking lobby might be happy to see this country become the world's second non-smoking nation, economic dependence on sin taxes and a realisation that such an intolerant policy could never be enforced make such a radical idea a non-starter. As much a non-starter as getting rid of traffic lights, which the Bhutanese capital has also successfully done. So even though the country's estimated 10 million smokers might have to slowly retreat to the privacy of their own homes, their nicotine habit, as socially unacceptable and hazardous as it may be, remains legal and a matter of personal choice and must be respected as such.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.net/News/19Jan2008_news15.php

the above article also includes the laugher:

The appointment of chain smoker Montri Pongpanich to the post of Public Health Minister in the 1997 Chavalit Yongchaiyudh administration was one such gaffe. The politician found himself under criticism from his own ministry's doctors for bizarrely launching anti-smoking campaigns with a lit cigarette dangling from his fingers.

Edited January 19, 2008 by sriracha john