Crackdown On Smoking At Pubs, Enteratinment Venues

[farangkel]

As a smoker, I can see merits in both sides.

But all I ask for is a level playing field. If we are gonna ban smoking in bars and public places such as 'outdoor' parks etc, then why cant we do something about the unseen health effects of second hand car exhaust inhalation.

Unlike non smokers who can choose not to enter a smoky bar, the general public is forced to leave their homes (to go to work perhaps) and be subjected to millions of cars in bangkok spewing cancer causing, ozone depleating chemicals day after to day - yet without a word of protest from the lobby that apparently cares so much about my / their health, and the side effects of being exposed to tobacco smoke.

But unlike leaving a smoky bar, I can't escape the effects of second hand car smoke because it is everywhere, 24/7, 365 days a week. Don't take my word for it, ask a traffic cop (this example is for those concerned with the health and welfare of employees being forced to work in a smoky environment). Just because your Honda, doesn't spew your unseen pollutants inside the pub I like to go to, doesnt mean your Honda isnt spewing cancer causing chemicals in the faces of me, my family, my coworkers and millions of others - shame on you!!!

So in conclusion, if smoking is so bad and of such a risk to the health of smokers and non-smokers alike, then ban it period. But for those banging the drum of the anti-smoking lobby on the pretext of health concerns alone, I wonder if you will park your SUV and start riding your bicycle to work to demonstrate your commitment to the health of others.

Thanks,

james

[begsaresponse]

Prior to the ban in England there was a man who chain smoked one fag after another. When he found out about the ban to be imposed he said he will just stay at home. Now several months after the ban has taken affect he still comes out to drink and doesn't smoke until he gets home.

Amazing the difference on perspectives and habits a few months can make.

On the other hand it is true that the 'trade' has lost customers in Scotland. But for those who continue to smoke going outside is just something they do. Only at this time of year in Scotland where it is so cold it is somewhat more of a challenge!

Probably yet another evolution of human interaction!

[moldy]

As a smoker, I can see merits in both sides.

But all I ask for is a level playing field. If we are gonna ban smoking in bars and public places such as 'outdoor' parks etc, then why cant we do something about the unseen health effects of second hand car exhaust inhalation.

Unlike non smokers who can choose not to enter a smoky bar, the general public is forced to leave their homes (to go to work perhaps) and be subjected to millions of cars in bangkok spewing cancer causing, ozone depleating chemicals day after to day - yet without a word of protest from the lobby that apparently cares so much about my / their health, and the side effects of being exposed to tobacco smoke.

But unlike leaving a smoky bar, I can't escape the effects of second hand car smoke because it is everywhere, 24/7, 365 days a week. Don't take my word for it, ask a traffic cop (this example is for those concerned with the health and welfare of employees being forced to work in a smoky environment). Just because your Honda, doesn't spew your unseen pollutants inside the pub I like to go to, doesnt mean your Honda isnt spewing cancer causing chemicals in the faces of me, my family, my coworkers and millions of others - shame on you!!!

So in conclusion, if smoking is so bad and of such a risk to the health of smokers and non-smokers alike, then ban it period. But for those banging the drum of the anti-smoking lobby on the pretext of health concerns alone, I wonder if you will park your SUV and start riding your bicycle to work to demonstrate your commitment to the health of others.

Thanks,

james

Ah James, music to my ears. But the health officials (and non smokers) don't want an examination of the facts you mention, no they want a whipping boy, even better if they can bleed him dry with excessive taxes in the meantime.

[polecat]

The regime dont like it.

[jackspratt]

As a smoker, I can see merits in both sides.

But all I ask for is a level playing field. If we are gonna ban smoking in bars and public places such as 'outdoor' parks etc, then why cant we do something about the unseen health effects of second hand car exhaust inhalation.

Unlike non smokers who can choose not to enter a smoky bar, the general public is forced to leave their homes (to go to work perhaps) and be subjected to millions of cars in bangkok spewing cancer causing, ozone depleating chemicals day after to day - yet without a word of protest from the lobby that apparently cares so much about my / their health, and the side effects of being exposed to tobacco smoke.

But unlike leaving a smoky bar, I can't escape the effects of second hand car smoke because it is everywhere, 24/7, 365 days a week. Don't take my word for it, ask a traffic cop (this example is for those concerned with the health and welfare of employees being forced to work in a smoky environment). Just because your Honda, doesn't spew your unseen pollutants inside the pub I like to go to, doesnt mean your Honda isnt spewing cancer causing chemicals in the faces of me, my family, my coworkers and millions of others - shame on you!!!

So in conclusion, if smoking is so bad and of such a risk to the health of smokers and non-smokers alike, then ban it period. But for those banging the drum of the anti-smoking lobby on the pretext of health concerns alone, I wonder if you will park your SUV and start riding your bicycle to work to demonstrate your commitment to the health of others.

Thanks,

james

Heading of this thread:

"Crackdown On Smoking At Pubs, Enteratinment Venues"

But let's throw in a red herring about vehicle pollution, just to get the thread off track.

Alternatively, you could start a thread entitled:

"Effects of Second Hand Car Smoke on My Health"

[Rinrada]

Passive smoking killing thousands ....na mate................... dinna believe that........

dont know wot they are talking about...yeah....doctors wot do they know.......I know my rights......bleeeeedin.....H...

Doctors want to see a complete smoking ban in public spaces ....YES....done

Passive smoking kills more than 11,000 a year in the UK - much higher than previously thought, a study shows.

The British Medical Journal study also gives a figure for people dying from second-hand smoke in the workplace - 600 a year - for the first time.

Leading doctors said the findings proved a complete ban on smoking in public places was needed. ...and YES...

......................Done

But smoking lobby group Forest said there was still little hard evidence of the effect of passive smoking...

.............I just dont believe itttttttttttttttttttttt............

[John K]

If you will take note, this thread has been a debate between non smokers and the nicotine that controls the smokers. The smokers themselves have said nothing thus far.

[kiakaha]

As a smoker, I can see merits in both sides.

But all I ask for is a level playing field. If we are gonna ban smoking in bars and public places such as 'outdoor' parks etc, then why cant we do something about the unseen health effects of second hand car exhaust inhalation.

Unlike non smokers who can choose not to enter a smoky bar, the general public is forced to leave their homes (to go to work perhaps) and be subjected to millions of cars in bangkok spewing cancer causing, ozone depleating chemicals day after to day - yet without a word of protest from the lobby that apparently cares so much about my / their health, and the side effects of being exposed to tobacco smoke.

But unlike leaving a smoky bar, I can't escape the effects of second hand car smoke because it is everywhere, 24/7, 365 days a week. Don't take my word for it, ask a traffic cop (this example is for those concerned with the health and welfare of employees being forced to work in a smoky environment). Just because your Honda, doesn't spew your unseen pollutants inside the pub I like to go to, doesnt mean your Honda isnt spewing cancer causing chemicals in the faces of me, my family, my coworkers and millions of others - shame on you!!!

So in conclusion, if smoking is so bad and of such a risk to the health of smokers and non-smokers alike, then ban it period. But for those banging the drum of the anti-smoking lobby on the pretext of health concerns alone, I wonder if you will park your SUV and start riding your bicycle to work to demonstrate your commitment to the health of others.

Thanks,

james

Heading of this thread:

"Crackdown On Smoking At Pubs, Enteratinment Venues"

But let's throw in a red herring about vehicle pollution, just to get the thread off track.

Alternatively, you could start a thread entitled:

"Effects of Second Hand Car Smoke on My Health"

maybe he takes his car into the bar with him, turns on the motor and points the exhaust pipe at a table of non-smokers

[moldy]

As a smoker, I can see merits in both sides.

But all I ask for is a level playing field. If we are gonna ban smoking in bars and public places such as 'outdoor' parks etc, then why cant we do something about the unseen health effects of second hand car exhaust inhalation.

Unlike non smokers who can choose not to enter a smoky bar, the general public is forced to leave their homes (to go to work perhaps) and be subjected to millions of cars in bangkok spewing cancer causing, ozone depleating chemicals day after to day - yet without a word of protest from the lobby that apparently cares so much about my / their health, and the side effects of being exposed to tobacco smoke.

But unlike leaving a smoky bar, I can't escape the effects of second hand car smoke because it is everywhere, 24/7, 365 days a week. Don't take my word for it, ask a traffic cop (this example is for those concerned with the health and welfare of employees being forced to work in a smoky environment). Just because your Honda, doesn't spew your unseen pollutants inside the pub I like to go to, doesnt mean your Honda isnt spewing cancer causing chemicals in the faces of me, my family, my coworkers and millions of others - shame on you!!!

So in conclusion, if smoking is so bad and of such a risk to the health of smokers and non-smokers alike, then ban it period. But for those banging the drum of the anti-smoking lobby on the pretext of health concerns alone, I wonder if you will park your SUV and start riding your bicycle to work to demonstrate your commitment to the health of others.

Thanks,

james

Heading of this thread:

"Crackdown On Smoking At Pubs, Enteratinment Venues"

But let's throw in a red herring about vehicle pollution, just to get the thread off track.

Alternatively, you could start a thread entitled:

"Effects of Second Hand Car Smoke on My Health"

Not at all. If you are going to apply a set of rules against one set of behaviours then you have to look at other anti-social behaviour in equal fashion. You wouldn't happen to drive a car would you?

[MrSquigle]

What a shame...smokers have to go outside from now on.....diddums....while you're gone we gunna steal all your chips and spit in your beer too

Just make saure ya all stand far enough away from the door so it does not blow back in.

[moldy]

If you will take note, this thread has been a debate between non smokers and the nicotine that controls the smokers. The smokers themselves have said nothing thus far.

Good posting. But not so, I for one am a poster on this thread and a smoker too and have supported the ban. Take a look back the phrase "I am a smoker" crops up quite a few times.

It's an addiction and technically an illness I suppose. I'm not sure it's a matter of will power, after all intelligent, capable people, who by and large exercise self control and judgement in other health aspects of their life, seem powerless to do much about it. It is rather enjoyable too and obviously not so ruinous as alcoholism or hard drug addiction. Personally, I think no smoking areas are a good idea for the smoker too as it helps us to cut down.

[jackspratt]

As a smoker, I can see merits in both sides.

But all I ask for is a level playing field. If we are gonna ban smoking in bars and public places such as 'outdoor' parks etc, then why cant we do something about the unseen health effects of second hand car exhaust inhalation.

Unlike non smokers who can choose not to enter a smoky bar, the general public is forced to leave their homes (to go to work perhaps) and be subjected to millions of cars in bangkok spewing cancer causing, ozone depleating chemicals day after to day - yet without a word of protest from the lobby that apparently cares so much about my / their health, and the side effects of being exposed to tobacco smoke.

But unlike leaving a smoky bar, I can't escape the effects of second hand car smoke because it is everywhere, 24/7, 365 days a week. Don't take my word for it, ask a traffic cop (this example is for those concerned with the health and welfare of employees being forced to work in a smoky environment). Just because your Honda, doesn't spew your unseen pollutants inside the pub I like to go to, doesnt mean your Honda isnt spewing cancer causing chemicals in the faces of me, my family, my coworkers and millions of others - shame on you!!!

So in conclusion, if smoking is so bad and of such a risk to the health of smokers and non-smokers alike, then ban it period. But for those banging the drum of the anti-smoking lobby on the pretext of health concerns alone, I wonder if you will park your SUV and start riding your bicycle to work to demonstrate your commitment to the health of others.

Thanks,

james

Heading of this thread:

"Crackdown On Smoking At Pubs, Enteratinment Venues"

But let's throw in a red herring about vehicle pollution, just to get the thread off track.

Alternatively, you could start a thread entitled:

"Effects of Second Hand Car Smoke on My Health"

Not at all. If you are going to apply a set of rules against one set of behaviours then you have to look at other anti-social behaviour in equal fashion. You wouldn't happen to drive a car would you?

Not inside a bar or another enclosed space - no.

And your point is?

[moldy]

As a smoker, I can see merits in both sides.

But all I ask for is a level playing field. If we are gonna ban smoking in bars and public places such as 'outdoor' parks etc, then why cant we do something about the unseen health effects of second hand car exhaust inhalation.

Unlike non smokers who can choose not to enter a smoky bar, the general public is forced to leave their homes (to go to work perhaps) and be subjected to millions of cars in bangkok spewing cancer causing, ozone depleating chemicals day after to day - yet without a word of protest from the lobby that apparently cares so much about my / their health, and the side effects of being exposed to tobacco smoke.

But unlike leaving a smoky bar, I can't escape the effects of second hand car smoke because it is everywhere, 24/7, 365 days a week. Don't take my word for it, ask a traffic cop (this example is for those concerned with the health and welfare of employees being forced to work in a smoky environment). Just because your Honda, doesn't spew your unseen pollutants inside the pub I like to go to, doesnt mean your Honda isnt spewing cancer causing chemicals in the faces of me, my family, my coworkers and millions of others - shame on you!!!

So in conclusion, if smoking is so bad and of such a risk to the health of smokers and non-smokers alike, then ban it period. But for those banging the drum of the anti-smoking lobby on the pretext of health concerns alone, I wonder if you will park your SUV and start riding your bicycle to work to demonstrate your commitment to the health of others.

Thanks,

james

Heading of this thread:

"Crackdown On Smoking At Pubs, Enteratinment Venues"

But let's throw in a red herring about vehicle pollution, just to get the thread off track.

Alternatively, you could start a thread entitled:

"Effects of Second Hand Car Smoke on My Health"

Not at all. If you are going to apply a set of rules against one set of behaviours then you have to look at other anti-social behaviour in equal fashion. You wouldn't happen to drive a car would you?

Not inside a bar or another enclosed space - no.

And your point is?

Do I really have to spell it out? If you are driving a car you are adding to traffic and general pollution which is in turn damaging the upper respiratory tracts of other people. It is also possible you are damaging the planet. So it's a bit rich to turn round and condemn a smoker for a similar (possibly less harmful) activity. and one which you can at least escape.

[John K]

If you will take note, this thread has been a debate between non smokers and the nicotine that controls the smokers. The smokers themselves have said nothing thus far.

Good posting. But not so, I for one am a poster on this thread and a smoker too and have supported the ban. Take a look back the phrase "I am a smoker" crops up quite a few times.

It's an addiction and technically an illness I suppose. I'm not sure it's a matter of will power, after all intelligent, capable people, who by and large exercise self control and judgement in other health aspects of their life, seem powerless to do much about it. It is rather enjoyable too and obviously not so ruinous as alcoholism or hard drug addiction. Personally, I think no smoking areas are a good idea for the smoker too as it helps us to cut down.

My post is from professional experience, I have helped hundreds of people quit smoking and remain smoke free. Once the mental addiction is gone the rest is like knocking over a house made from playing cards. What you are seeing is differing levels of resolve to quit smoking being displayed in each smoking posters post. Non the less it is the nicotine talking in the smokers. Remove that and you will find the smokers want to quit.

[Mobi]

I have no particular axe to grind in this debate.

Rightly or wrongly The governments of the world have spoken, and smokers will just have to get along with it. So stop fighting it - you'll never win. The anti smoking lobby is just too powerful.

But to compare smoking pollution with the pollution caused by vehicles is sheer nonsense.

Let's get a bit of perspective into all this.

Smoking is an addiction and is for the pure pleasure of the people who smoke, and arguably, causes annoyance and health risks for those who don't.

Driving vehicles is a 'necessary evil', and until the world comes up with fossil friendly vehicles and mass transit systems that everyone can use, there are no viable alternatives.

The world would not grind to a halt if everyone stopped smoking, but it certainly would if we all stopped driving.

[moldy]

I have no particular axe to grind in this debate.

Rightly or wrongly The governments of the world have spoken, and smokers will just have to get along with it. So stop fighting it - you'll never win. The anti smoking lobby is just too powerful.

But to compare smoking pollution with the pollution caused by vehicles is sheer nonsense.

Let's get a bit of perspective into all this.

Smoking is an addiction and is for the pure pleasure of the people who smoke, and arguably, causes annoyance and health risks for those who don't.

Driving vehicles is a 'necessary evil', and until the world comes up with fossil friendly vehicles and mass transit systems that everyone can use, there are no viable alternatives.

The world would not grind to a halt if everyone stopped smoking, but it certainly would if we all stopped driving.

For sure there is some validity in this point, but is it really true that all driving is necessary ?- surely a significant amount is pleasure. Yes we need trade vehicles (including carpenters, carpet fitters, builders, etc. plumbers, taxi drivers), public transport, and doctors, and emergency personnel need them too. Also are you saying that because something makes money then human life is secondary ?- how sad

Might I add I do agree with the smoking ban incidentally, there's no mitigation. But what goes for one set goes for another in my view. The greater pollution issue is arguably of far greater importance too.

But I personally won't write anymore because this thread is specifically about the smoking issue. This side point is valid but only to a certain degree.

[moldy]

If you will take note, this thread has been a debate between non smokers and the nicotine that controls the smokers. The smokers themselves have said nothing thus far.

Good posting. But not so, I for one am a poster on this thread and a smoker too and have supported the ban. Take a look back the phrase "I am a smoker" crops up quite a few times.

It's an addiction and technically an illness I suppose. I'm not sure it's a matter of will power, after all intelligent, capable people, who by and large exercise self control and judgement in other health aspects of their life, seem powerless to do much about it. It is rather enjoyable too and obviously not so ruinous as alcoholism or hard drug addiction. Personally, I think no smoking areas are a good idea for the smoker too as it helps us to cut down.

My post is from professional experience, I have helped hundreds of people quit smoking and remain smoke free. Once the mental addiction is gone the rest is like knocking over a house made from playing cards. What you are seeing is differing levels of resolve to quit smoking being displayed in each smoking posters post. Non the less it is the nicotine talking in the smokers. Remove that and you will find the smokers want to quit.

Well my post is only from personal experience, so I suppose that doesn't count then?.

The problem with treating addictions is that sooner or later it turns in to treating the lifestyle too. But with smoking there are less challenges which is why you have a high success rate I imagine.

But I am amazed that neither the smokers (of which I am one) and most surprisingly the non smokers are reluctant to see it as an addiction, which is what it is (albeit rather a pleasurable one). It seems to me the smokers would prefer to see themselves as crusaders of freedom, whilst non smokers genuinely believe smokers are being selfish on purpose.

This problem will never be solved until smokers are offered help in some form of another. I doubt this will happen as exchequers around the world would see a nice little earner turn in to a big loser.

[lomatopo]

Do smokers generally agree with some of the bans in place currently (airplanes, offices, elevators, banks, post offices, trains, buses, movie theatres, hospitals, retail stores, libraries, museums, schools; all places where one was allowed to smoke) in place? If so, how are entertainment venues/pubs any different? They aren't, but smokers fear further ostracism and perceived loss of personal liberty so they object out of sheer reflex, coming up with some pretty lame arguments.

I find second-hand smoke to be more of a problem for me here than in the U.S.A. Probably because there are more smokers. I find that, after a night out amongst the smoking public, I do cough a lot the next morning. Also my clothes, in the hamper, do smell up my house before they get washed. My hair smells like cigarettes until I shower/shampoo.

I smoked for 12 years, quit 20 years ago. When I did smoke I would never smoke in a restaurant or where someone might be eating, and I tried to be as considerate as possible. I find smokers here, mostly foreigners as I do not know that many Thais who smoke, to be incredibly inconsiderate with their smoking habit.

[moldy]

Do smokers generally agree with some of the bans in place currently (airplanes, offices, elevators, banks, post offices, trains, buses, movie theatres, hospitals, retail stores, libraries, museums, schools; all places where one was allowed to smoke) in place? If so, how are entertainment venues/pubs any different? They aren't, but smokers fear further ostracism and perceived loss of personal liberty so they object out of sheer reflex, coming up with some pretty lame arguments.

I find second-hand smoke to be more of a problem for me here than in the U.S.A. Probably because there are more smokers. I find that, after a night out amongst the smoking public, I do cough a lot the next morning. Also my clothes, in the hamper, do smell up my house before they get washed. My hair smells like cigarettes until I shower/shampoo.

I smoked for 12 years, quit 20 years ago. When I did smoke I would never smoke in a restaurant or where someone might be eating, and I tried to be as considerate as possible. I find smokers here, mostly foreigners as I do not know that many Thais who smoke, to be incredibly inconsiderate with their smoking habit.

No maybe you are behind pace in this thread, there are quite a few posters who agree with the ban on the grounds that they do not have the right to cause problems for non smokers, precisely the problems you have described.

As for a psychological fear for not addressing the addiction, arguably we need to lok no further than deprivation of pleasure, and fears associated in dealing with a very powerful emotional and physical addiction. I suspect loss of peraonal liberty doesn't really come in to it as a primary consideration at least.

But some seem to argue that pubs are associated with drinking and smoking which is perhaps valid. They also argue that the ban should not be outright, ie, there should be smoker pubs and non smoker pubs; surely this a reasonable request that solves the problem outright?

So if non smokers disagree, you have to ask yourself why? what other problems are there that need to be resolved ?, certainly there isn't an economic one as smokers pay for their treatment and then some. Perhaps the non smoker genuinely believes it is a foul habit that needs to be banned full stop. Or perhaps we are just dealing with someone that just has to meddle in other peoples' affairs, the latter is associated with people who have skeletons in their own closet, or some unrelenting bee in their bonnet.

I doubt we'll know these answers unless a non smoker talks about them. But they don't it seems.

[Ijustwannateach]

I disagree with the argument somewhere above that smoke-free bars aren't economic. For example, regarding the disco scene here (yes, I know, I know) there are a huge number of guys who say they don't go to those kinds of places *because* of the smoke. And as I mentioned above, if even one smoker starts smoking, it's a smokey environment as far as many of us non-smokers are concerned and causes us problems (I don't think it's necessary or mature to refer to our legitimate allergic problems and/or dislike of the smell as "whining"). And from what I hear, British bars and clubs are still open despite the rigorous enforcement of non-smoking laws.

Basically, smokers are a minority, and they have been allowed to dominate in any environment as long as there is even only one of them. What I have suggested was a way of evening things up without declaring a total ban (which even as a non-smoker I agree is going too far- can the smokers appreciate and tolerate a spirit of compromise)?

As far as first or second hand smoke- it contains polonium and is basically radioactive. Smoking a pack is about the same as getting an extra chest X-ray. This risk alone is pretty serious; never mind the tar and other carcinogens.

"S"

[moldy]

I disagree with the argument somewhere above that smoke-free bars aren't economic. For example, regarding the disco scene here (yes, I know, I know) there are a huge number of guys who say they don't go to those kinds of places *because* of the smoke. And as I mentioned above, if even one smoker starts smoking, it's a smokey environment as far as many of us non-smokers are concerned and causes us problems (I don't think it's necessary or mature to refer to our legitimate allergic problems and/or dislike of the smell as "whining"). And from what I hear, British bars and clubs are still open despite the rigorous enforcement of non-smoking laws.

Basically, smokers are a minority, and they have been allowed to dominate in any environment as long as there is even only one of them. What I have suggested was a way of evening things up without declaring a total ban (which even as a non-smoker I agree is going too far- can the smokers appreciate and tolerate a spirit of compromise)?

As far as first or second hand smoke- it contains polonium and is basically radioactive. Smoking a pack is about the same as getting an extra chest X-ray. This risk alone is pretty serious; never mind the tar and other carcinogens.

"S"

Yes you are very even handed even generous in the matter, the thing is there don't seem to be many non smokers who agree in even having one non smoking bar in a given area. You have to ask yourself why at that point.

Pretty scary facts, are you sure about this Ijwt ?

[Ijustwannateach]

Well, here's a link to a rather dry overview on the American National Council on Radiation Protection, but if you google cigarettes and polonium, you will find a lot of very scary stuff.

Had this approach been utilized, it would have resulted in tobacco products being the greatest contributor to the effective population dose equivalent of all consumer products. In fact, tobacco products probably would have been the greatest single contributor to the effective population dose equivalent of all radiation sources, including natural background sources and medical radiation [NCRP Report No. 93 summarizing exposures from all sources (NCRP, 1987a)].

For a more comprehensive reader-friendly analysis, try this link.

Anyway, we shouldn't get sidetracked onto the dangers of smoking. I just think there's economic and social space for both non-smoking and smoking locations, and the government is the proper source of regulation in this case.

"S"

[John K]

If you will take note, this thread has been a debate between non smokers and the nicotine that controls the smokers. The smokers themselves have said nothing thus far.

Good posting. But not so, I for one am a poster on this thread and a smoker too and have supported the ban. Take a look back the phrase "I am a smoker" crops up quite a few times.

It's an addiction and technically an illness I suppose. I'm not sure it's a matter of will power, after all intelligent, capable people, who by and large exercise self control and judgement in other health aspects of their life, seem powerless to do much about it. It is rather enjoyable too and obviously not so ruinous as alcoholism or hard drug addiction. Personally, I think no smoking areas are a good idea for the smoker too as it helps us to cut down.

My post is from professional experience, I have helped hundreds of people quit smoking and remain smoke free. Once the mental addiction is gone the rest is like knocking over a house made from playing cards. What you are seeing is differing levels of resolve to quit smoking being displayed in each smoking posters post. Non the less it is the nicotine talking in the smokers. Remove that and you will find the smokers want to quit.

Well my post is only from personal experience, so I suppose that doesn't count then?.

The problem with treating addictions is that sooner or later it turns in to treating the lifestyle too. But with smoking there are less challenges which is why you have a high success rate I imagine.

But I am amazed that neither the smokers (of which I am one) and most surprisingly the non smokers are reluctant to see it as an addiction, which is what it is (albeit rather a pleasurable one). It seems to me the smokers would prefer to see themselves as crusaders of freedom, whilst non smokers genuinely believe smokers are being selfish on purpose.

This problem will never be solved until smokers are offered help in some form of another. I doubt this will happen as exchequers around the world would see a nice little earner turn in to a big loser.

You opinion is no less valuable than mine, and I don’t want to get into it in this forum as there is a smoking forum in the health section. However on the point of the mental addiction and nicotine, it repeatedly make the smoker want to justify smoking declaring it is enjoyable and other such nonsense as everyone around you is coughing and gaging because in fact it is so disgustingly nasty (hence the reason for this new law).

The excuse that a beer and smoke go together is nothing more than a trigger and very easy to remove in just under a minute. Also the myth that places will go out of business.

(Mods feel free to remove or edit this paragraph if you feel it in inappropriate) I will say this because I have his go ahead, but the owner of “Coyote” the Mexican restaurant on Soi Convent is a former client of mine for smoking cessation. Anyone that has been there will notice that it is a non smoking restaurant now and has been for well over a year and it has not hurt business in the least. There was a little hiccup of revolt by the smokers for a week or two, but after that trade returned to it’s old level and from my understanding he has new nonsmoking customers too. Last time I walked by there were still no ashtrays.

People will ask themselves why are they here in Thailand, and then ask themselves do they really want to boycott all their regular venues that they obviously enjoy. Nicotine will make them say yes thinking that they are punishing the venue. So the will not go until they come to the conclusion that they nicotine is making them punish themselves and that they really want to go out and have a good time and buying beer at 7-11 is getting old fast.

Reality is the majority of people are non smokers and people that avoided the venue because of the smoke will gladly go in and take over the seat of that smoker.

Simply this law plays to the majorities desire. So the choice is do you want to go inside and have some fun or stay outside holding you butt.

[moldy]

Well, here's a link to a rather dry overview on the American National Council on Radiation Protection, but if you google cigarettes and polonium, you will find a lot of very scary stuff.

Had this approach been utilized, it would have resulted in tobacco products being the greatest contributor to the effective population dose equivalent of all consumer products. In fact, tobacco products probably would have been the greatest single contributor to the effective population dose equivalent of all radiation sources, including natural background sources and medical radiation [NCRP Report No. 93 summarizing exposures from all sources (NCRP, 1987a)].

For a more comprehensive reader-friendly analysis, try this link.

Anyway, we shouldn't get sidetracked onto the dangers of smoking. I just think there's economic and social space for both non-smoking and smoking locations, and the government is the proper source of regulation in this case.

Quite so, so I wonder if there are any non smokers who just want to see a ban full stop, and whether they're prepared to outline their grounds for such a view.

"S"

[moldy]

If you will take note, this thread has been a debate between non smokers and the nicotine that controls the smokers. The smokers themselves have said nothing thus far.

Good posting. But not so, I for one am a poster on this thread and a smoker too and have supported the ban. Take a look back the phrase "I am a smoker" crops up quite a few times.

It's an addiction and technically an illness I suppose. I'm not sure it's a matter of will power, after all intelligent, capable people, who by and large exercise self control and judgement in other health aspects of their life, seem powerless to do much about it. It is rather enjoyable too and obviously not so ruinous as alcoholism or hard drug addiction. Personally, I think no smoking areas are a good idea for the smoker too as it helps us to cut down.

My post is from professional experience, I have helped hundreds of people quit smoking and remain smoke free. Once the mental addiction is gone the rest is like knocking over a house made from playing cards. What you are seeing is differing levels of resolve to quit smoking being displayed in each smoking posters post. Non the less it is the nicotine talking in the smokers. Remove that and you will find the smokers want to quit.

Well my post is only from personal experience, so I suppose that doesn't count then?.

The problem with treating addictions is that sooner or later it turns in to treating the lifestyle too. But with smoking there are less challenges which is why you have a high success rate I imagine.

But I am amazed that neither the smokers (of which I am one) and most surprisingly the non smokers are reluctant to see it as an addiction, which is what it is (albeit rather a pleasurable one). It seems to me the smokers would prefer to see themselves as crusaders of freedom, whilst non smokers genuinely believe smokers are being selfish on purpose.

This problem will never be solved until smokers are offered help in some form of another. I doubt this will happen as exchequers around the world would see a nice little earner turn in to a big loser.

You opinion is no less valuable than mine, and I don't want to get into it in this forum as there is a smoking forum in the health section. However on the point of the mental addiction and nicotine, it repeatedly make the smoker want to justify smoking declaring it is enjoyable and other such nonsense as everyone around you is coughing and gaging because in fact it is so disgustingly nasty (hence the reason for this new law).

The excuse that a beer and smoke go together is nothing more than a trigger and very easy to remove in just under a minute. Also the myth that places will go out of business.

(Mods feel free to remove or edit this paragraph if you feel it in inappropriate) I will say this because I have his go ahead, but the owner of "Coyote" the Mexican restaurant on Soi Convent is a former client of mine for smoking cessation. Anyone that has been there will notice that it is a non smoking restaurant now and has been for well over a year and it has not hurt business in the least. There was a little hiccup of revolt by the smokers for a week or two, but after that trade returned to it's old level and from my understanding he has new nonsmoking customers too. Last time I walked by there were still no ashtrays.

People will ask themselves why are they here in Thailand, and then ask themselves do they really want to boycott all their regular venues that they obviously enjoy. Nicotine will make them say yes thinking that they are punishing the venue. So the will not go until they come to the conclusion that they nicotine is making them punish themselves and that they really want to go out and have a good time and buying beer at 7-11 is getting old fast.

Reality is the majority of people are non smokers and people that avoided the venue because of the smoke will gladly go in and take over the seat of that smoker.

Simply this law plays to the majorities desire. So the choice is do you want to go inside and have some fun or stay outside holding you butt.

The argument you make is so rambling and disjointed that I can't really make a comment. it seems to be addressed to me and yet I have repeatedly stated that I support the ban. You sound a bit fraught.

[John K]

No not at you, just some facts I know to be true. Just don’t connect them to you personally and you will see what I am saying. I just covered several points and dispelled myths that nicotine would try to make you believe.

[moldy]

No not at you, just some facts I know to be true. Just don't connect them to you personally and you will see what I am saying. I just covered several points and dispelled myths that nicotine would try to make you believe.

For sure this is a very powerful addiction. Personally, I gave up for a year a couple of years ago. It really didn't suit me, but I resolved that it was just plain wrong to subject others to cig. smoke which is why I won't smoke in bars. I'm getting interested in sport again, so I'll give up.

[John K]

No not at you, just some facts I know to be true. Just don't connect them to you personally and you will see what I am saying. I just covered several points and dispelled myths that nicotine would try to make you believe.

For sure this is a very powerful addiction. Personally, I gave up for a year a couple of years ago. It really didn't suit me, but I resolved that it was just plain wrong to subject others to cig. smoke which is why I won't smoke in bars. I'm getting interested in sport again, so I'll give up.

It is the mental addiction that brought you back to smoke again. Once you have gone between 70 and 100 hours you are free of the physical addiction. The time depends on your overall health. All the gums and patches work fine on the physical addiction, but do nothing for the mental addiction. That is why I break that mental addiction first with everyone that comes to me for help. If your mental addiction was gone, you would have never lit up a second time and you would be posting as a non smoker and not as a smoker.

Edited January 20, 2008 by John K

[moldy]

Now the dust has settled I'm left wondering if us smokers aren't just fools to ourselves for defending an activity that kill us, and am equally perplexed about the motives of some non smokers who reveal themselves as killjoys.

[mrbojangles]

Now the dust has settled I'm left wondering if us smokers aren't just fools to ourselves for defending an activity that kill us, and am equally perplexed about the motives of some non smokers who reveal themselves as killjoys.

Yeah, now they've left, us smokers can have some banter.

Did you know that in the uk now, they have put up many areas ouitside for smokers, with seats and umbrella's. The only problem is, all the seats are taken up with non-smokers accompanying their mate, who has gone outside for a smoke. I kid ye not. Soon, they be moving the DJ's outside to where the action is