The Smokers Thread

[plasticpig]

Ok hang on lads... let's all calm down a bit.

The original poster (if forget who it was, and I've gotta coffee in one hand and a smoke in the other so I can't go back now and find out) of this thread needs to come in here and settle things down. The topic title reads: The Smoker's Thread - No Anti's allowed.

As none of the non-smokers will experience any harmful second hand smoke from this thread, might I suggest that the O.P enforces his suggestion, and we keep this as a friendly smoker's club?

and that the smoker's among us (Pp?) calm down and stop feeding the anti's with raw materials to fan the flames?

Cheers,

KO.

Im a non smoker, can i still play.

[kayo]

darn, sorry Pp. I thought you were a smoker.

You can still play.

[Naam]

is it true that the new anti-smoking law stipulates harsher fines for those who smoke in one-way streets because the pavement is not ventilated both ways?

[Naam]

and what about barbecueing? do we have to ride our steaks under the saddle tender and eat them "Kobe Style" raw?

[Krupnik]

Sorry, not in Pattaya but this is a hot topic for me. I nearly had a breakdown when I heard about this. There was a reason I left England!! Luckily most places seem to have tables at the front which are outside enough to allow it, well here in Chiang Mai anyway. Although only about half the pubs seem to be bothered about the law anyway.

Thing is the law is all wrong. Non smokers should be banned from pubs.

[plasticpig]

Now i know why BasilB got so pissed off at me .

See posts 22-23. i forgot about that

ok no more fuel for the fire. Kayo

[Basil B]

Now i know why BasilB got so pissed off at me .

See posts 22-23. i forgot about that

ok no more fuel for the fire. Kayo

Oink, Oink, cough, cough,

have not seen an intelligent answer to this so far:

"As you may have guessed I am anti smoking, apart from not liking smoke wafting across my face or the smell of stale tobacco I have yet to hear any intelligent reason why smoking could be beneficial to anybody even though the tobacco industries spend billions on propaganda try to convince use otherwise".

BB

[ClaytonSeymour]

Sorry, not in Pattaya but this is a hot topic for me. I nearly had a breakdown when I heard about this. There was a reason I left England!! Luckily most places seem to have tables at the front which are outside enough to allow it, well here in Chiang Mai anyway. Although only about half the pubs seem to be bothered about the law anyway.

Thing is the law is all wrong. Non smokers should be banned from pubs. Just accept it; the days of the Marlboro man are over! Smoking is no longer cool; it's for losers!

[ClaytonSeymour]

Now i know why BasilB got so pissed off at me .

See posts 22-23. i forgot about that

ok no more fuel for the fire. Kayo

Oink, Oink, cough, cough,

have not seen an intelligent answer to this so far:

"As you may have guessed I am anti smoking, apart from not liking smoke wafting across my face or the smell of stale tobacco I have yet to hear any intelligent reason why smoking could be beneficial to anybody even though the tobacco industries spend billions on propaganda try to convince use otherwise".

BB

That's because there isn't an intelligent reason. Existing smokers do so because they are addicted to this dirty, evil habit.

Teenagers start because they want to be seen as grown up etc. I see the UK government is proposing a £10 license to smoke - I think that's an excellent idea as it will help to restrict youngsters from buying them, it may also stop people being beaten up; I read in a local newspaper last week about a man leaving the pub who was approached by a gang of teenagers who wanted him to buy cigs for them, he refused, so they beat him up and put him in hospital.

[DavidS]

No anti-smokers allowed, so I guess I am allowed.

I have no objections to smokers smoking.

Please respect the law and do it outside the bar. I see a post that expresses appreciation for smoking areas outside the bar. That to me is a reasonable wish, and one that I support.

In the same way that I respected smokers rights to smoke in the bars for the last 2 years since I quit, and lifetime non-smokers have done ALL THEIR LIVES, can non-smokers expect the same consideration and respect now that the law has changed?

[sweetchariot]

Kayo, I started this thread as a light hearted alternative to all the smoker bashing that is going on everywhere else on TV due to the alleged smoking ban.

Trouble is alot of people don't seem to get it, and are just copying and pasting the same drivel across 3 or 4 different threads as they think everyone should listen to them.

I tried to lighten the tone again by saying that we would allow the many anti's with something interesting to say, to continue to participate as long as they were not pontificating, but sadly the humour was again missed by the usual suspects, and I was accused of trying to be a self styled moderator, and kind of gave up.

Sadly my misguided attempt to have a sensible discussion about the smoking situation has yet again been hijacked, and degenerated into the usual mudslinging.

The only real positive to come from this is that a certain supergrass's attitude has earned him infamy far and wide among the TV populas, I have seen comments about his grassing on numerous threads totally unrelated to the topic. Take a look at http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...69905&st=25 starting at post 49, and continuing throughout the rest of the thread, seems even non-smokers don't like a grass.

[percy2]

I think owners of the entertainment (bars , pubs , restaurants ) establishments should be allowed to decide by themselves whether to allow smoking or not.

They should then be required by law to display their decisions (e.g. no smoking on the ground flour smoking on the second floor - or - No Smoking) at the entrance to their establishment, then the potential patrons can make an informed decision.

I'm sure even the militant anti smokers on this thread do some things that are not good for them , that they would not appreciate being told not to do.

Cheers

[mikethevigoman]

Kayo, I started this thread as a light hearted alternative to all the smoker bashing that is going on everywhere else on TV due to the alleged smoking ban.

Trouble is alot of people don't seem to get it, and are just copying and pasting the same drivel across 3 or 4 different threads as they think everyone should listen to them.

I tried to lighten the tone again by saying that we would allow the many anti's with something interesting to say, to continue to participate as long as they were not pontificating, but sadly the humour was again missed by the usual suspects, and I was accused of trying to be a self styled moderator, and kind of gave up.

Sadly my misguided attempt to have a sensible discussion about the smoking situation has yet again been hijacked, and degenerated into the usual mudslinging.

The only real positive to come from this is that a certain supergrass's attitude has earned him infamy far and wide among the TV populas, I have seen comments about his grassing on numerous threads totally unrelated to the topic. Take a look at http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...69905&st=25 starting at post 49, and continuing throughout the rest of the thread, seems even non-smokers don't like a grass.

There is more than one on Thai Visa,,,,,,,,, YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE !

[DavidS]

(e.g. no smoking on the ground flour smoking on the second floor - or - No Smoking)

Cheers

Separate smoking and non-smoking areas? No objections whatsoever, as long as the ventilation is reasonable and really separate, like in airports.

I cannot speak for the staff though, so this is only my opinion as a customer at the establishments.

[percy2]

I guess with staff its a good job they are not indentured labour.

They can choose where to work.

Cheers

[ClaytonSeymour]

Kayo, I started this thread as a light hearted alternative to all the smoker bashing that is going on everywhere else on TV due to the alleged smoking ban.

Trouble is alot of people don't seem to get it, and are just copying and pasting the same drivel across 3 or 4 different threads as they think everyone should listen to them.

I tried to lighten the tone again by saying that we would allow the many anti's with something interesting to say, to continue to participate as long as they were not pontificating, but sadly the humour was again missed by the usual suspects, and I was accused of trying to be a self styled moderator, and kind of gave up.

Sadly my misguided attempt to have a sensible discussion about the smoking situation has yet again been hijacked, and degenerated into the usual mudslinging.

The only real positive to come from this is that a certain supergrass's attitude has earned him infamy far and wide among the TV populas, I have seen comments about his grassing on numerous threads totally unrelated to the topic. Take a look at http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...69905&st=25 starting at post 49, and continuing throughout the rest of the thread, seems even non-smokers don't like a grass. Please provide the link to any other thread where I have stated that I would grass on anything other than smoking. You and others can think what you want pal - the only smoker who I socialize with on a regular basis is my brother & he knows only too well how I feel about it. I'm enjoying the smoking ban, health reasons aside it's great to come home on a night and not stink of tobacco smoke. I'll do whatever it takes to enjoy my newly gained rights to enjoy a smoke free environment, irrespective of what the likes of yourself & others think. If you want to kill yourself do it in private (please don't do it in your childrens presence).

Funny that the only comments about my grassing seem to stem from smokers/anti-smoking ban members running to tell other members in another thread what Clayton Seymour had said here? A bit like the school playground really.

I note that you didn't respond to Basil B's comment in post 6 Furthermore I see this thread has one purpose only and that is to encourage the breaking of the law by pointing out the fact that the law is not being enforced. which is clearly what this thread is all about.

[ClaytonSeymour]

I think owners of the entertainment (bars , pubs , restaurants ) establishments should be allowed to decide by themselves whether to allow smoking or not.

They should then be required by law to display their decisions (e.g. no smoking on the ground flour smoking on the second floor - or - No Smoking) at the entrance to their establishment, then the potential patrons can make an informed decision.

I'm sure even the militant anti smokers on this thread do some things that are not good for them , that they would not appreciate being told not to do. Perhaps, but the problem with smoking is that it affects every single individual within the room which you are smoking.

Cheers

[percy2]

I think owners of the entertainment (bars , pubs , restaurants ) establishments should be allowed to decide by themselves whether to allow smoking or not.

They should then be required by law to display their decisions (e.g. no smoking on the ground flour smoking on the second floor - or - No Smoking) at the entrance to their establishment, then the potential patrons can make an informed decision.

I'm sure even the militant anti smokers on this thread do some things that are not good for them , that they would not appreciate being told not to do. Perhaps, but the problem with smoking is that it affects every single individual within the room which you are smoking.

Cheers

If its posted at the entrance then you can choose to not go in.

Cheers

[ClaytonSeymour]

I think owners of the entertainment (bars , pubs , restaurants ) establishments should be allowed to decide by themselves whether to allow smoking or not.

They should then be required by law to display their decisions (e.g. no smoking on the ground flour smoking on the second floor - or - No Smoking) at the entrance to their establishment, then the potential patrons can make an informed decision.

I'm sure even the militant anti smokers on this thread do some things that are not good for them , that they would not appreciate being told not to do. Perhaps, but the problem with smoking is that it affects every single individual within the room which you are smoking.

Cheers

If its posted at the entrance then you can choose to not go in.

Cheers

Well I think it's potentially divisive not to have a blanket ban. You've also got the issue of peer pressure to consider - non-smokers are far more likely to compromise given the selfish nature of many smokers, of whom my late father was one of the most selfish I can mention - he also died of heart disease at a relatively young age, despite there being no history of it in our family. Persuaded my stepmother to stop and she was also a smoker who I'd have put in the selfish category - strangely she now agrees with my stance.

[percy2]

Well I think it's potentially divisive not to have a blanket ban. You've also got the issue of peer pressure to consider - non-smokers are far more likely to compromise given the selfish nature of many smokers, of whom my late father was one of the most selfish I can mention - he also died of heart disease at a relatively young age, despite there being no history of it in our family. Persuaded my stepmother to stop and she was also a smoker who I'd have put in the selfish category - strangely she now agrees with my stance.

Well I think it's potentially divisive not to have a blanket ban. I think removing freedom and choice is much more divisive

You've also got the issue of peer pressure to considerThats back to that freedom and choice thing again

Persuaded my stepmother to stop and she was also a smoker who I'd have put in the selfish category - strangely she now agrees with my stance.Its remarkable that some of the most militant anti-smokers are ex-smokers, how did I dodge that bullet?

Cheers

[sweetchariot]

Funny that the only comments about my grassing seem to stem from smokers/anti-smoking ban members running to tell other members in another thread what Clayton Seymour had said here? A bit like the school playground really.

I note that you didn't respond to Basil B's comment in post 6 Furthermore I see this thread has one purpose only and that is to encourage the breaking of the law by pointing out the fact that the law is not being enforced. which is clearly what this thread is all about.

Strange as most of them are from people who have not contributed to this thread, but were genuinely shocked to read your comments. Good thing you can't access Bedlam yet

As to BB's comments, of course I would not wish anyone to discuss breaking the law on TV, no bars transgressing the rules have yet been mentioned, but please feel free to PM them to me.

[percy2]

Strange as most of them are from people who have not contributed to this thread, but were genuinely shocked to read your comments. Good thing you can't access Bedlam yet

Skid , Halt , click new button. Its a pisser the Bedlam threads don't show up in the view new posts search.

Cheers!

[DavidS]

I guess with staff its a good job they are not indentured labour.

They can choose where to work.

Cheers

Jobs are not easy to come by, so if I have to choose between providing a smoker with a smoking environment, or a non-smoking worker with a healthy environment, I would choose the latter. Their jobs support themselves and any dependents.

The workers could well say that its a good thing you are not chained to your seat like a galley slave, so you could step outside and smoke?

I cannot speak for sure about Thailand, but in many countries OSHA rules if applicable would alone preclude smoking in a workplace.

[ClaytonSeymour]

Funny that the only comments about my grassing seem to stem from smokers/anti-smoking ban members running to tell other members in another thread what Clayton Seymour had said here? A bit like the school playground really.

I note that you didn't respond to Basil B's comment in post 6 Furthermore I see this thread has one purpose only and that is to encourage the breaking of the law by pointing out the fact that the law is not being enforced. which is clearly what this thread is all about.

Strange as most of them are from people who have not contributed to this thread, but were genuinely shocked to read your comments. I hope it shocks them into not breaking the smoking ban - you never know where I might pop up. Good thing you can't access Bedlam yet Not long now.

As to BB's comments, of course I would not wish anyone to discuss breaking the law on TV, no bars transgressing the rules have yet been mentioned, but please feel free to PM them to me. No I wont PM them to you - if their is an hotline or any other point to report this to the authorities then I'll send the info them.

[percy2]

I guess with staff its a good job they are not indentured labour.

They can choose where to work.

Cheers

Jobs are not easy to come by, so if I have to choose between providing a smoker with a smoking environment, or a non-smoking worker with a healthy environment, I would choose the latter. Their jobs support themselves and any dependents.

The workers could well say that its a good thing you are not chained to your seat like a galley slave, so you could step outside and smoke?

I cannot speak for sure about Thailand, but in many countries OSHA rules if applicable would alone preclude smoking in a workplace.

I'd say that currently jobs in these areas are easy to come by.

Ask most bars,pubs,restaurants if they have enough staff.

As far as I know The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is an agency of the United States Department of Labor, doesn't cover many countries.

Many people choose to work in places that are bad for their health or hazardous.

Cheers

[ClaytonSeymour]

Well I think it's potentially divisive not to have a blanket ban. You've also got the issue of peer pressure to consider - non-smokers are far more likely to compromise given the selfish nature of many smokers, of whom my late father was one of the most selfish I can mention - he also died of heart disease at a relatively young age, despite there being no history of it in our family. Persuaded my stepmother to stop and she was also a smoker who I'd have put in the selfish category - strangely she now agrees with my stance.

Well I think it's potentially divisive not to have a blanket ban. I think removing freedom and choice is much more divisive

You've also got the issue of peer pressure to considerThats back to that freedom and choice thing again Whilst I consider myself an advocate of freedom it does have limits & as I said earlier, IMO smoking in a public place exceeds those limits.

Persuaded my stepmother to stop and she was also a smoker who I'd have put in the selfish category - strangely she now agrees with my stance.Its remarkable that some of the most militant anti-smokers are ex-smokers, how did I dodge that bullet? Well I'm not an ex-smoker, though admittedly I tried the big man act in my teens - made me throw up and I've never smoked since - apart from the passive smoking through being amongst selfish smokers.

Cheers

[DavidS]

I guess with staff its a good job they are not indentured labour.

They can choose where to work.

Cheers

Jobs are not easy to come by, so if I have to choose between providing a smoker with a smoking environment, or a non-smoking worker with a healthy environment, I would choose the latter. Their jobs support themselves and any dependents.

The workers could well say that its a good thing you are not chained to your seat like a galley slave, so you could step outside and smoke?

I cannot speak for sure about Thailand, but in many countries OSHA rules if applicable would alone preclude smoking in a workplace.

I'd say that currently jobs in these areas are easy to come by.

Ask most bars,pubs,restaurants if they have enough staff.

As far as I know The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is an agency of the United States Department of Labor, doesn't cover many countries.

Many people choose to work in places that are bad for their health or hazardous.

Cheers

I am aware what OSHA is, I did mention OSHA rules if applicable, which have been adopted by a number of countries in order to improve the work environment.

In any event, I do have difficulty seeing why it should be necessary to permit smoking in an enclosed general environment, as opposed to a designated smoking room.

Smokers step out of restaurants, malls etc in order to smoke. What is the big deal about walking 10 yards to step out of a pub?

[percy2]

I am aware what OSHA is, I did mention OSHA rules if applicable, which have been adopted by a number of countries in order to improve the work environment.

In any event, I do have difficulty seeing why it should be necessary to permit smoking in an enclosed general environment, as opposed to a designated smoking room.

Smokers step out of restaurants, malls etc in order to smoke. What is the big deal about walking 10 yards to step out of a pub?

Sorry, didn't mean the OSHA comment to come over as condescending.

And what if (as pertaining to my previous suggestion) the owners have decided that the whole venue is the designated smoking area.

I almost never smoked in restaurant, and never in malls, in pubs and bars I did as it was part of the social interaction.

Cheers

[Mighty Mouse]

And what if (as pertaining to my previous suggestion) the owners have decided that the whole venue is the designated smoking area.

This is never going to happen under current laws. Why do you persist in flogging this point?

[percy2]

Because letting proprietors and punters have a choice seems eminently sensible.