Thai Govt To Ban Smoking In Private Homes

[ayakiawe]

SMOKING BAD FOR PETS: INSURER

From correspondents in London

DOGS living with smokers have a higher incidence

of serious conditions

such as asthma, nasal and sinus cancer and lung

cancer than those who have

non-smoking owners, a pet insurer in Britain

says.

Research carried out in the United States also

showed that cats living in

smoking households were twice as likely to

develop certain forms of

cancer, including lymphoma, Asda Pet Insurance

said.

"Many people don't realise that passive smoking

can have a very harmful

impact on pets in the home, with knock-on

implications for vet bills," a

spokesman said.

The effects of passive smoking were greater on

young animals because their

lungs were smaller, their immune systems were

less well-developed and they

breathed faster, the insurer quoted veterinarians

as saying.

AFP

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.js...storyid=1928074

[PvtDick]

You may smoke in bars and pubs, but bars and pubs are not licensed to serve food.  So, there is in effect no airconditioned place where food can be legally served and cigarettes can be legally smoked. ....

Thanks PvtDick for this info. But where in the law books can I find the ruling?

Example: Gulliver's on Sukhumvit Soi 5. This place is so big, that even Thai Visa member missed each other a few weeks ago.

But the place dares to serve food while others are smoking. How can they be stopped from doing so?

Either smoke or eat, but not both. I talked to the managers there, to no avail. They kept telling me, they operate on a pub-licence.

Somehow, I have to believe them. Before you can enter the place they check your ID, usually by 5-6 security guards. OK, I am a bit angry, they never check MY age...

If I can call the cops for them allowing smoking while I am eating. Great, but under what law?

If I atart court proceedings, even following your advice, I want to be sure that I win the case.

You wouldn't need to follow through on court proceedings, as the offense is not a personal one against you -- it is an offense against the state and the state would prosecute based on your complaint. In this case, though, I think it is a summary fine with no court process (like a traffic infraction).

I think it would be more effective, though, to write to the Minister of Public Health (Sudarat Keyuraphan). Her e-mail is:

[email protected]

It will be interesting to see if you get a reply. (I haven't tried it yet).

[Foggy Bottom]

You wouldn't need to follow through on court proceedings, as the offense is not a personal one against you -- it is an offense against the state and the state would prosecute based on your complaint. In this case, though, I think it is a summary fine with no court process (like a traffic infraction).

I think it would be more effective, though, to write to the Minister of Public Health (Sudarat Keyuraphan). Her e-mail is:

[email protected]

It will be interesting to see if you get a reply. (I haven't tried it yet).

Wow - there's a surprise - a post that's actually intelligent and non-extremist - must be your first one in this thread?

[Axel]

[I]

You may smoke in bars and pubs, but bars and pubs are not licensed to serve food. So, there is in effect no airconditioned place where food can be legally served and cigarettes can be legally smoked. ....

I think it would be more effective, though, to write to the Minister of Public Health (Sudarat Keyuraphan). Her e-mail is:

[email protected]

It will be interesting to see if you get a reply. (I haven't tried it yet).

[/i]

No, I don't think I will go to that extreme to complain with the MOPH. I was looking for the right paragraph showing the by-laws on smoking in public places and banning smoking in pubs. It's always better to read the real law than to just get 'may be's'

As long as I cannot find it, must believe the places with pub-licences that it is allowed to smoke even when they do serve food and run a/c.

AFAIK, smoking is banned in public air conditioned buildings and restaurants, but I am not sure if a pub on it's own premises is a public building.

I also would not call the cops over my hand phone. (One number was 1155-tourist police) Why? In a few places where I go, they are happily joining for a drink or two, for some food and like their cigs. So no need to call them, they are there already, invited by the proprietors. Usually nice chaps when off duty.

Never had any problems on smoking, when they are there. The only problem coming up, too many security people blocking the drive ways or parking areas while higher ranking officials are dining, whining (or is ti beer?) and smoking.

Don't ask me which places, occasionally pictures are shown in BKK-Post. Neither am I a member of such illstrous groups, just a by-stander.

So guess, I do it my way. As mentioned before, one place had to follow the law or thought so, and 50% of my friends and regulars decided not to go there anymore, as a group that is. Individually, everybody might hop in for a quick food, so it is not a boycott. Just that the place lost the group, or about Baht 1 million turnover p.a. Meanwhile they opened a pub in a separate building and no more problems. The non-smokers visit the restaurant, the smokers go to the pub. Menu and food comes from the same kitchen.

Otherwise, I do stick to my policy. I go to where I like, if they have a rule I do not like, I move somewhere else.

Why taking all the trouble and make enemies? Don't tell me that I live too long in Thailand.

Edited September 19, 2004 by Axel

[PvtDick]

You wouldn't need to follow through on court proceedings, as the offense is not a personal one against you  --  it is an offense against the state and the state would prosecute based on your complaint.  In this case, though, I think it is a summary fine with no court process (like a traffic infraction).

I think it would be more effective, though, to write to the Minister of Public Health (Sudarat Keyuraphan).  Her e-mail is:

[email protected]

It will be interesting to see if you get a reply.  (I haven't tried it yet).

Wow - there's a surprise - a post that's actually intelligent and non-extremist - must be your first one in this thread?

None of my posts have espoused any idea more "extreme" than the concept that there should be no smoking in places where it is illegal to smoke. If that's "extreme" to you, well, I guess I'm guilty.

[toopeekaa 1]

Cigarette Smoking ' Hot ' topic. Just a small pointed Pun.

Following is an article I had the oportunity to read on a recent trip to the US. It is reported from the US State of Virginia. Incidentially one of the largest tobacco and cigarette producing states in the US.

Article

Caroline woman jailed for smoking around kids

Bowling Green woman jailed for smoking around kids.

Date published: 8/12/2004

(AP) _ A Caroline County woman was sentenced to 10 days in jail Thursday for defying a court order not to smoke around her young children.

Tamara Silvius, 44, was immediately handcuffed and led out of the courtroom by deputies. Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Judge John H. Thomas said Silvius could post a $500 bond while she appeals his ruling.

Thomas last August barred Silvius from smoking around the children, now ages 8 and 10, as part of her shared custody arrangement with her ex-husband. She violated the order during a trip to South Carolina for Thanksgiving when she taped plastic trash bags inside her car to keep the smoke from reaching her children.

For that, Silvius was fined $500 and was given a 10-day suspended sentence on the condition she not do it again.

However, Silvius was back in court Thursday for violating the order a second time in June. Silvius, a pack-a-day smoker, claims the restriction violates her rights.

Caroline Circuit Judge Horace A. Revercomb III upheld the restriction in January, citing medical evidence of the effects of secondhand smoke on children. Silvius appealed the ruling to the Virginia Court of Appeals.

Date published: 8/12/2004

Just goes to show you that the smoke/no Smoke issue is enough to split families and well as make members of this forum, somewhat shall we say aggressive.

I look forward to the day in the near future when I can read the headlines of the Bangkok Post saying 'PVTDICK GOES PUBIC'

The Bangkok Post has very bad proof readers you know

[Axel]

... and well as make members of this forum, somewhat shall we say aggressive.

I look forward to the day in the near future when I can read the headlines of the Bangkok Post saying 'PVTDICK GOES PUBIC'

The Bangkok Post has very bad proof readers you know

Ah well, some countries do go to extremes and perhaps it is necessary.

Even in the past, I never smoked when the kids where around.

But you are right, this subject is always hot and leads to fights, which actually is not necessary. For me it is much easier, live and let live.

What I do not like, however, is interference from outside or by governments, or worse by any group, usually former smokers who want to stage personal wars and celebrate victories when somebody follwos their advise.

As long as somebody is old enough s/he should know what to do.

None of my business to raise a stink (pun intented)

Going "pubic", ah well Bangkok Post.... but than I could combine smoking with healthier activities called smoking, as well and do not give lung cancer.

Guess missus would object, no outside interference there either allowed.

[falong]

If there were a hotline to report smoking in restaurants, I'd definitely use it. Right now, I'm compiling a list of the offending establishments to send to the Minister of Health. If anyone has any to report, please send them along so I can include them.

You must be joking

[PvtDick]

You must be joking

I'm completely serious. Some restaurants have already been busted by the cops for allowing smoking. There was one in Chiang Mai not too long ago. I'm betting it was the result of someone complaining.

[stroll]

It is bad enough that most recreational drugs apart from alcohol, coffee and tobacco are illegal. Now the 'holier than thou's want to through me into prison for lighting a cigarette in my own house!

I suggest the anti-smoking trash will be fined for spreading their intolerant views and harrassing people who don't agree with them.

People like ayakiawe should be prevented by court order to expose children to their fascist ideology.

[Foggy Bottom]

None of my posts have espoused any idea more "extreme" than the concept that there should be no smoking in places where it is illegal to smoke. If that's "extreme" to you, well, I guess I'm guilty.

Yup you're right - sincere apologies - I was thinking of someone else's posts ....

I can't abide crusading fanatics of any orientation - most especially when their fanaticism infringes on my legal activities, or may lead to such infringements.

Can we also clear up this whole BAR and PUB nomenclature issue please?

Ignoring lengths of metal used as a raw material in manufacturing, a BAR is a piece of furniture used to seperate customers from the storage and dispensing point of Ale and spirits, thus "barring" the customers from having free access to the Ale.

Through historical habit, the room containing the bar became known as "The Bar" and is differentiated from the room where women were permitted to drink alongside men - that is the "Lounge" or "Saloon" depending on the social class of customers, and country you come from.

Some hostelries also provided a "Women Only" room which was known as "The Snug".

Different sized hostelries would have different combinations of those three "Tap" or "Ale" rooms, and some offered another room used exclusively as a "Dining Room" for eating a several course meal, as opposed to the single course "Bar food" served in the Ale rooms.

Also, of course, some hostelries offered overnight accomodation above the eating and drinking rooms - those that did so were known as "Inns", whereas those without accomodation were known as "Taverns" within cities and towns, and as "Public Houses" when outside an urban area.

From that latter name came the current term "Pub" as an abbreviation of the correct term.

Therefore, a pub may contain one or more bars, but a bar cannot contain a Pub.

A Pub may have a dining room, or may serve single platters, but is not a restaurant.

A restaurant is a fairly modern "invention" in that it's (almost) sole purpose is to replace the lost dining rooms of Taverns and Pubs by providing a cordial location for the consumption of meals containing more than one platter/course. Restaurants per se, did not exist until Victorian times when the various temperance movements (anti-social extremists - lol) attempted to reduce the number of Inns, Taverns, Pubs etc. scattered throughout European countries.

Therefore - applying this to Thailand - The law as was pre-publicised in the printed media, does not apply to what each of us now refers to as Bars and Pubs.

[RDN]

Thai government urged to carry out new policy on smoking

      BANGKOK: -- Thai government has been urged to declare a smoke-free homes policy to protect children from the effect of passive smoking, local media reported here on Friday.

It'll never happen. End of interest in this thread

[mouse]

I worry that in the next 20 years that they will also ban sex at home.

[stroll]

For sure, Thailand will become a smoke-booze-sex-backpackers free corporate Disneyland of consumers who keep their houses clean and report relatives and neighbours who fail to shave in the morning.

And it has to be this way- to secure our freedom. Addicts who smoke tobacco won't hesitate to throw bombs, they gambled their life away already....

[ayakiawe]

Ok smokers you win, lets just open it up and have all our kids follow your fine example.

This will make you really proud and upstanding citizens.

What a great world and example you are creating.

You all are absolutely the REAL trash of the planet and I hope you get off here ASAP!

Shame on you for subjecting anyone or anything to your filthy toxic smoke!

If you must then I suggest you all eat a cigarette and die please now!

This is the real sickness of the human race.

[filch]

If you must then I suggest you all eat a cigarette and die please now!

FYI - http://www.thewazmo.com/eatingcigarettes12012000.html

Just trying to lighten the mood!

[Speedy]

I am sure those badly maintained diesels do not cause respiratory problems....

hen duay.. if smoking in the house gets prohibited, then surely Apirak needs to ban ALL these green and other buses here in BKK that blow a black cloud right in my face evryday on my steady motorbike. Now that s what I call pollution!

[Ronnok]

Maybe they can get the children to turn their parents in for breaking these smoking laws. Sounds like Nazi rule.

[PvtDick]

Oh, for God's sakes. There is no rule. There is no law. There is no talking about forbidding anything. It is just an education program to encourage people not to smoke around their kids. Completely and utterly harmless.

[toopeekaa 1]

Ok smokers you win!

SEZ-U - AYAKIAWE ???? get it......... Think about it ... 3 times real fast now

[Maejo Man]

Ok smokers you win, lets just open it up and have all our kids follow your fine example.

This will make you really proud and upstanding citizens.

What a great world and example you are creating.

Nobody has suggested smoking with children around. You utter drop kick

[Up2U]

On TV news yesterday (Tuesday 21 September) there was a statement that the US government is going to take the tobacco companies to court on RICO charges for lying about knowledge of addictivity (is that a word) of tobacco products in the 1950's.

The government want all the profits of all the companies to be seized, as from that Senatorial hearing in the fifties. This amounts to 300 billion US Dollars.

Now stick that in your pipe and smoke it

[Rinrada]

further details........................going bust...yea and the rest

September 21, 2004

$280 billion tobacco lawsuit starts today

By Philippe Naughton, Times Online

After five years of legal skirmishing, the tobacco industry goes on trial today facing a record $280 billion (£156 billion) civil claim from the US Government.

The Justice Department alleges that the industry conspired for more than half a century to deceive the public about the dangers of smoking and the addictive nature of nicotine, and illegally targeted children through marketing campaigns.

The suit is being brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations (RICO) statute, created in 1970 to help beat the Mafia.

The Government says that the massive $260 billion claim - roughly equivalent to the gross domestic product of Belgium - reflects the companies' "ill-gotten gains".

But the tobacco companies, and their army of lawyers, reject the accusations, saying that doubts expressed by tobacco company executives about the safety of cigarettes are not evidence of fraud, and that the RICO statute is being abused.

"Fraud is: ’I have a specific intention to mislead you or take money from you by deceiving you'," said William Ohlemeyer, a lawyer for Philip Morris USA. "Fraud is a very high bar."

The companies say that they would never be able to pay the $280 billion if the court in Washington was to order the forfeiture of future profits. "It would bankrupt the industry," said one tobacco company spokesman.

William Schultz, a former Justice Department lawyer who led the case when it was instigated by the Clinton Administration, said that the Government would use as evidence internal industry documents that have surfaced in other cases and show tobacco executives knew some of their public statements about health risks related to smoking were untrue.

"It’s not just that they said things that were false, but the documents show they knew they were false," Mr Schultz said.

One of those documents is a memorandum written in 1990 by a London lawyer, Andrew Foyle, then a partner at Lovell White Durrant, to his client British American Tobacco (BAT).

The US Department of Justice says that Mr Foyle used the memo to express his concerns about complying with document discovery requests in smoker lawsuits and made it clear that document destruction had taken place. BAT argues that the memo is subject to legal privilege. Judge Gladys Kessler has yet to decide whether the memo will be admissible in court.

BAT, Britain's largest tobacco company, has further annoyed US justice officials by the refusal of Paul Adams, its chief executive, to testify in the Washington case, because it does not see it as relevant. BAT says that its former American subsidiary, Brown and Williamson, has now merged with RJ Reynolds, another defendant, which it says has taken on all its liabilities.

BAT is still listed among the defendants, however, alongside Philip Morris USA and its parent company, Altria Group, and RJ Reynolds Tobacco, Brown and Williamson Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco, Liggett Group, Counsel for Tobacco-Research USA, and the Tobacco Institute.

The industry has already settled lawsuits with individual US states over smoking-related health costs for $246 billion (£137 billion). Those agreements, reached in the late 1990s, led to limits on advertising and marketing and restricted industry lobbying and research organisations.

David Bernick, a lawyer for Brown & Williamson, said that the Government’s case ignores those reforms. "It blinks away the reality of the profound changes that have taken place both within the tobacco industry and in how tobacco is perceived by people outside the industry," Mr Bernick said.

Like the states, the Government initially sued to recover the costs of treating sick smokers. Judge Kessler ruled that the Government could not do that, but did allow the Justice Department to sue under RICO.

The Government is relying on the mafia law, which is designed to achieve remedies where there has been a group effort to violate fraud statutes. The case, with 73,000 trial exhibits and 300 witnesses from each side, is expected to last about six months.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly...1272679,00.html

.

[RDN]

further details........................going bust...yea and the rest

September 21, 2004

$280 billion tobacco lawsuit starts today

By Philippe Naughton, Times Online

......

What a waste of time and money. Don't these government lawyers have better things to do with the taxpayers' money?

[toopeekaa 1]

Nobody has suggested smoking with children around. You utter drop kick

Just saw this when re reading MaeJo Man ... Good one, I like it "You utter drop kick "

Puts me in mind of another good one, I thought. From the latest Zorro movie when the outlaw three fingers or whatever was his name, comes riding down the rails on the ore cart at the secret goldmine and calls the suave-o horses *ss Blue coat " You peckerwood" peckerwood ????