Smoking Ban In Restaurants On Samui?

[suegha]

You know, I barely understand what's going on in this thread - maybe we should close it!

[PoorSucker]

No information if the smoking ban is enforced.

Just a lot of smoker vs. nonsmoker bashing.

PS

Smoke free for 246 days,14 hours and 35 minutes

DS

[NALAK]

I noticed that very recently a lot of restaurants (in Lamai) are displaying a sign that reads:

"No Smoking - New Law - B2000 Fine"

And they've pulled the ash trays.

And they appear to be serious, when I tried to light up I was asked politely to go for a walk on the road.

The staff said to me "sorry, we don't want any trouble".

Is this for real, or is this just some enthusiastic public servants finding yet another way to supplement their low salaries?

And is this going to be all of Samui? Like the bars too?

That'd be interesting, to see a smoking ban in beer bars, haaaa haaaaa moooohaahahahhaaaaaa

Anybody have any details on this b.llsh.t?

its true new law 2000 baht for smoker and 20000 for owner of estabishment. no fines supposed to be enforced until 1st June just warnings until then. at least when you step out for a smoke its warm.

Edited March 11, 2008 by NALAK

[southbot]

Topic Closed? Yes please Sir.

What do you think SBK, you seem pretty good at closing topics.

I am the OP, I think this topic is closed.

I am off to have a smoke and a beer in a civilised establishment that allows me to do that.

Cya :-)

[Rooo]

I am going to ask one question. On what basis are they applying the smoking ban?What actual studies have proved that 2ND hand smoke is harmful? I stress the point WHAT studies?

If you can prove that to me, then you shouldn't be walking out in the street.Make your own mind up from that point on.

[NALAK]

I think govements around the world should ban smoking outright instead of tring to appear politically and socially correct, but still being unwilling to give up the billions they collect in taxes.

Simple if it is so destructive make it illegal

Like driving? Cars kill more people every year than smoking ever did or ever will!

you are so wrong on that one suggest you check your facts for example in UK around 3000 road deaths per year whislt there are 114,000 smoking deaths. below is extract on smoking deaths.

Smoking kills around 114,000 people in the UK each year.

Of these deaths, about 42,800 are from smoking-related cancers, 30,600 from cardiovascular disease and 29,100 die slowly from emphysema and other chronic lung diseases

with 20000 baht from bar owner and 2000 form smoker i reckon they will enforce it, sure beats 300 for no helemt

[NALAK]

I am going to ask one question. On what basis are they applying the smoking ban?What actual studies have proved that 2ND hand smoke is harmful? I stress the point WHAT studies?

If you can prove that to me, then you shouldn't be walking out in the street.Make your own mind up from that point on.

source British Medical Journal, and yes its a STUDY

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

Notable research includes a study published in the BMJ in 1997, conducted by Hackshaw and colleagues, which analysed 37 passive smoking studies and found a 24 per cent increase in lung cancer among people living with smokers. In fact, said the charity Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), "Tobacco specific carcinogens found in the blood of non-smokers provided clear evidence of the effect of passive smoking."

They found 2,700 deaths among people aged 20 to 64 could be attributed to second-hand smoke and 8,000 in 65-year-olds and over. A further 617 deaths were caused by workplace passive smoking, including 54 in the hospitality industry

must be a comfort knowing as well as killing yourselves with the freedom of choice you are also killing the wife and kids.

Edited March 12, 2008 by NALAK

[Rooo]

I am going to ask one question. On what basis are they applying the smoking ban?What actual studies have proved that 2ND hand smoke is harmful? I stress the point WHAT studies?

If you can prove that to me, then you shouldn't be walking out in the street.Make your own mind up from that point on.

source British Medical Journal, and yes its a STUDY

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

They found 2,700 deaths among people aged 20 to 64 could be attributed to second-hand smoke and 8,000 in 65-year-olds and over. A further 617 deaths were caused by workplace passive smoking, including 54 in the hospitality industry.

See I beg to differ. On what basis are the studies done? Show me the proof & the results. As I said before,people can get more damage walking in the street ( car exhaust etc...), then inhaling second hand smoke in an open area.

I agree with you in an enclosed area maybe, but come on , open air, who are they kidding.

You all seem to forget the days of open incinarators at home, burning all matter in there ( On Samui burn everything) so why all of a sudden the all mighty righteous . What about deforestation & back burning, no effect? Why not ban cigarettes if they are that harmful?

As long as a substance is legal, it's use should not be banned.Now read what I am saying, how can you ban a legal substance.You are regulating it's use, I agree some smokers are ( of a don't care attittude), but some do go out of their way as not to offend others,like smoking outdoors.

We can go on about alcohol & drunks & all the rest & make all the comparisons you like. All I am saying is,if a smoker opts to light up in the open air,I don't see that as a major issue.Legal substance, legal use.

[NALAK]

i would bet that nobody has died from smoke inhalation in an open space although 31 people died at kings cross undergound station and 56 at bradford stadium as a result of disgarded legal substaces (cigs), still the people who caused the fires were only expressing there freedom of choice although smoking was banned.. the study just seems to prove that exposure in closed enviroment has a risk.

i think the law is aimed at that area. agree with most of your post, but they are not banning the substance just where it is used. for me they can legalise cocaine, heroin the lot, if somebody wants to harm themselves let them get on with it, i have been in the company of people snorting coke, and also smoking and i know which one i find the most offensive.

the original post was is this a new law answer is yes and seem like they are going to enforce it. spare a thought for the owner of the bar who risks 20k fine. you can bet your bottom dollar they will enforce it more in the farang bars more than the thai ones after all how many thais have 2k for a fine and how many thai owners have 20k, come to that how many farang bar owners have 20k

Edited March 12, 2008 by NALAK

[Shrubbery]

31 people died at kings cross undergound station and 56 at bradford stadium as a result of disgarded legal substaces (cigs), still the people who caused the fires were only expressing there freedom of choice although smoking was banned..

Smoking on the Tube & Footbal Stadiums was not banned at the time of these 2 disasters.

[suegha]

I thought the op requested that this thread be closed?

[BigSnake]

[NALAK]

31 people died at kings cross undergound station and 56 at bradford stadium as a result of disgarded legal substaces (cigs), still the people who caused the fires were only expressing there freedom of choice although smoking was banned..

Smoking on the Tube & Footbal Stadiums was not banned at the time of these 2 disasters.

source Wikipedia : Although smoking was banned on the subsurface sections of the London Underground in February 1985 (a consequence of the Oxford Circus fire),

this happened 1987 true about football grounds just trying to make a point that smoking in public can harm other non smokers

[SamuiJens]

I think govements around the world should ban smoking outright instead of tring to appear politically and socially correct, but still being unwilling to give up the billions they collect in taxes.

Simple if it is so destructive make it illegal

Like driving? Cars kill more people every year than smoking ever did or ever will!

Good call, suegha.

I cycle to work every day in the uk, no one has any thought to the fumes I ingest even though im doing my bit for the environment by cycling, freeing up traffic congestion, parking problems and carbon emmissions!!!!!

So why shouldnt I smoke where I want. Dont want smoke in ya face, stay at home!!!!!

WHY SHOULD I STAY AT HOME, IT'S BEEN KNOWN FOR 50 YEARS NOW THAT IT fuc_kS YA UP (I GOT KOL AND A JERK LIKE YOU THAT WON'T TAKE A WALK WHEN HE NEEDS A FAG, IS SOO EGOTISTIC) I'M SURE WE COULD BE FRIENDS ON MANY OTHER ISSUES, BUT NOT THIS ONE)

SO IF YA WANT TO CHAIN-SMOKE, STAY AT HOME (SAME-SAME)

Didn't mean to call you a jerk, just came out that way. Wake up and smell the roses, if you can!