The Londoner & The Office

[Ulysses G.]

Signed: a freedom loving non smoker

i.e. A liar!

[ClaytonSeymour]

Man has smoked since the dawn of history. Some men chose not to - choice!

Alchohol causes more health problems to non participents than cigarettes by far. Source? Just ask any battered wife or visit a casualty dept. on a weekend evening. So it should be banned - or not!!

Anyone over indulging (binge drinking) and destroying their liver in this day and age needs to be nannyed!!

Choice! Choice! Choice!

Signed: a freedom loving non smoker

A 'quality' post like this hardly merits a response, really sums up what I keep saying:

'I've yet to see any reasonable argument from the pro-smoking lobby as to why the pre-smoking ban status quo should be maintained.'

[mrtoad]

You clearly believe in the Nanny state, whereas I prefer to make my own informed decisions rather than have them made for me.

Fine, make your own ill informed decision to smoke, but don't subject others (willing or unwilling) to the fall out.

I've yet to see any reasonable argument from the pro-smoking lobby as to why the pre-smoking ban status quo should be maintained.

Clayton, the problem with you is that you don't accept anyone elses point of view. I'm not ill informed, I am old enough and more informed enough to make my own decisions on where I want to drink, without the help the governemnt, be it in the UK, Thailand or Cameroon. . I am an infrequent smoker, so to be honest it really doesn't bother me. When you actually live in this country then maybe your arguments may carry a little more weight, as you don't; enjoy the smoke free pubs in the UK.

Edited April 4, 2008 by mrtoad

[mrtoad]

You clearly believe in the Nanny state, whereas I prefer to make my own informed decisions rather than have them made for me.

I used to feel sorry for smokers and think that we should phase it out it slowly, but then I started to see that young people continue to take up smoking even with all the knowledge we have now about how addictive it is and how poisonous it is for others. That doesn't even address how irritating it is for non-smokers.

I’m sorry, but, people that are <deleted> stupid enough to start smoking in this day and age need someone to nanny them!

No different than eating McDonalds is it? Informed choice, have a look at what it means.

[misterman21]

Man has smoked since the dawn of history. Some men chose not to - choice!

Alchohol causes more health problems to non participents than cigarettes by far. Source? Just ask any battered wife or visit a casualty dept. on a weekend evening. So it should be banned - or not!!

Anyone over indulging (binge drinking) and destroying their liver in this day and age needs to be nannyed!!

Choice! Choice! Choice!

Signed: a freedom loving non smoker

A 'quality' post like this hardly merits a response, really sums up what I keep saying:

'I've yet to see any reasonable argument from the pro-smoking lobby as to why the pre-smoking ban status quo should be maintained.'

Funny thing is Mr Seymour i picture you in a smoking jacket holding a cigarette holder

But i guess your just concerned about the sheeple who cant think for themselves

[mrtoad]

Funny thing is Mr Seymour i picture you in a smoking jacket holding a cigarette holder

But i guess your just concerned about the sheeple who cant think for themselves

I picture him sat in a corner on his own.

[JimmyCA]

Depends on what you call doing the right thing. Conforming to oppresive laws, with facism writen all over them, is obviously not the wright thing to those who value their freedom of choice.

Thats the trouble with democracy: the will of the few is impossed upon the many.

Signed: A non smoker - sitting in a smokey atmospheric bar with my mates

I think it is well known by anyone with even half a brain that the smokers have been imposing on non-smokers rights all along. I agree it is sad a law is needed to deal with the rudeness of a smoker's dirty habit.

What rights are we talking about here? Is it something in a constitution? In your home country? Here? Where? I've never heard of 'right to smoke' or a 'right not to be subjected to smoke'? Freedom of choice is a two way street, and far from being a 'right' it's a privilege.

Anyway,the top and bottom of the matter is that if smoking in bars keeps non-smoking, phone-on-belt wearing, Apple Mac-using, latte-drinking, velcro sandal-wearing, Phil Collins-listening types at home ... It's got to be a good thing, hasn't it?

A non-smoker has no impact on a smoker

A smoker has a negative affect on the non-smoker

So a fair law will attempt to neutralize this imbalance. If smokers (all people really) were courteous, i.e did not negatively impact others, there would be no need for a law.

There are many laws restrictiing individual freedoms because people generally care about themselves first and do not care at all about negatively impacting others.

It is just like any other pollution law, litter law, driving law. People cannot be expected to act in a way that insures public safety and a harmonious society for the majority to live in

[DavidS]

Gentlemen, please, it is not necessary to hurl insults over differing opinions on the matter at hand.

We can have a civil discussion on this subject and if need be, agree to disagree. There are entrenched opinions at play here. It is not the opinions that are an issue, it is the actions that really matter.

In any event;

If anyone has been to The Office today, in response to my original post, then I owe you an apology.

I have just returned from the establishment (cut short the evening) and I am disappointed to report that they have given in; half the bar is smoking, bar area, the other half where the tables are situated is non-smoking. They were most apologetic of course, but the reality is that this sort of separation really does not make much of a difference.

I have informed the management that I will not be returning until they feel thay are able to respect the law.

I stopped over at Tenderloins in the same Soi. They were doing pretty brisk business, and were pleased to confirm that they are respecting the new smoking laws. They also confirmed that they have the Super 14 rugby on live, which is why I was going to the Office anyway.

So, Tenderloins will be getting my custom for now. I do enjoy the atmosphere at the Office, but do not see any point in paying money to feel ill, and sadly, cigarette smoke does that to me.

Once again, I'm disappointed and if anyone went to the Office because of my post, my apologies.

[burman]

A non-smoker has no impact on a smoker

That's not entirely true, they often disturb me with their complaining whilst I'm trying to have a cigarette.

[burman]

I fully support The Office allowing having smoking and also DavidS decision to find an alternative non smoking bar. They both serve the same drinks and show the same rugby match, in fact it seems that both the smokers and non smokers would be happy with that solution.

Again I say, let the bars choose whether they are smoking bars or non smoking bars.

Everybody's happy then.

[DavidS]

I fully support The Office allowing having smoking and also DavidS decision to find an alternative non smoking bar. They both serve the same drinks and show the same rugby match, in fact it seems that both the smokers and non smokers would be happy with that solution.

Again I say, let the bars choose whether they are smoking bars or non smoking bars.

Everybody's happy then.

Burman, I'm sorry, but this is not an issue for the bars to decide. Bars do not make laws. The owners were not elected to do that.

If complying with the law is an option, then there would be anarchy.

Mu Ham drove his mercedes into a group of people - obviously he felt (not thought, brain absent) free to do so. Another famous son killed a policeman. Again, he felt no compulsion to respect the law.

Once we start down the road of deciding which laws we will respect, it becomes a very slippery slope.

The answer is obvious - respect the law. And if walking 10 yards to step out the door is too much of a chore, then where does it ever begin?

[burman]

I was putting my point across to say that I don't agree with this new law. Your recent points about a bar being empty until they allowed smoking again backs that up I think.

And you also found a non smoking bar that was perfectly suitable for you just 10 yards away so not much of a chore for you either. That's why I say again, smoking and non smoking bars, let the publicans decide.

I think comparing all law breakers to murderers is a bit far though. Everybody breaks the law to some degree.

Edited April 4, 2008 by burman

[DavidS]

I was putting my point across to say that I don't agree with this new law. Your recent points about a bar being empty until they allowed smoking again backs that up I think.

And you also found a non smoking bar that was perfectly suitable for you just 10 yards away so not much of a chore for you either. That's why I say again, smoking and non smoking bars, let the publicans decide.

I think comparing all law breakers to murderers is a bit far though. Everybody breaks the law to some degree.

I understand your point, but I have to disagree with you about publicans making a decision on application of the law, for obvious reasons.

True, I would agree with you that my example of murderers is extreme. I chose it with full recognition of that.

If complying with some laws is optional, and others not, where do we draw the line, and who decides?

Doesn't everyone have a right to a different opinion?

So, who is right and who is wrong when an individual decides that a law is not worth respecting?

Can you show me where is the list of laws that everyone has to obey, and the other list that is left to individual discretion?

[burman]

DavidS do you never download music or films? Wear any fake clothing? Bought a drink during an alcohol ban or outside of the legal hours?

Edited April 4, 2008 by burman

[howtoescape]

Like i said before i am an anti smoker who thinks people should be free to smoke where they wish, if you do it infront of me i promise to go on and on and on about your filthy disgusting habit thatll make you impotent, as it is my "free" right to do so.

But here are a few ideas to help you kill yourselves quicker

Maybe you smokers should open a bar with a tobacconist shop selling cigars.-

http://www.scarborougheveningnews.co.uk/th...-ban.3675115.jp

Or how about an bar with an embassy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...amp;ito=newsnow

Maybe you could open a theatre in your bar -

http://www.theledger.com/article/20080307/...1035/BUSINESS02

This one is my favourite as it demeans police and council workers -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

I was stood on an open air train station platform 2 weeks ago and the announcemount came on the loud seaker that smoking is prohibited and any prole disobeying our leader will be taken away for re-educating. Whilst this is a slight exaggeration of what was said, i certainly felt as if we had reached Orwells 1984 state upon hearing the announcement.

PS The Londoner is sh7t anyway, you deserve not to be allowed to smoke there for going there in the first place.

[DavidS]

DavidS do you never download music or films? Wear any fake clothing? Bought a drink during an alcohol ban or outside of the legal hours?

I'm no saint mate, never claimed to be one.

Music downloads....I'd spend 6000 - 8000baht at a time at CD Warehouse, Emporium, RIP. My wife was staggered whenever she saw that. One time I bought a CD, tried to copy it to my iPod. Could not. Copy Protection. I paid almost 500 baht for it. Of course, we criminals in Asia without a US or EU address on our credit cards cannot buy anything from iTunes. Guess what? My daughter asked the question, "Haven't you heard of Limewire?" Problem solved. Criminal? Proud of this one mate. I paid good money for the CD, and was denied my right to enjoy it in the form I wished. No BIG LABEL to warn me, just fine print that said "Copy Protected". Did not elaborate and say "You may not be able to copy this to your MP3 / iPod". BTW, if you want to buy original CDs, PM me, I've a few hundred I can offer you. Some won't transfer to your iPod, but hey, who cares right? At least I told you up front.

Fake clothing? Do you seriously think I am so stupid as to feel good about having a famous brand name on a cheap piece of crap that I would buy and wear? Are you able to fool yourself with that?

Alcohol ban? The ban is on sale, not consumption. I stock up in advance and drink. I don't waste my time with beer in tea cups.

Do I cross the street anywhere? I look for a pedestrian crossing if there is one. Given the complete lack of respect for what that means here, I have an equal chance of getting killed, but at least my next of kin can claim funeral expenses. But if I have to walk 100 yards in the wrong direction to get to one, no, I just cross. Trust me, it may be illegal, but it is 100% as safe as using a pedestrian crossing in Bangkok.

Now, please tell me which of these actions caused physical damage to the people around me? Smoking does, believe it or not.

I am not going to use my actions to justify breaking these laws. If I get caught, fair cop.

Nor will I tell you that we should abolish all traffic / road use laws, or litter laws, or copyright laws. They are there and serve a purpose.

Now, back to the point. The majority of people are opposed to being exposed to cigarette smoke. Do not tell me that they can stay away from the bars. A bar is a public house, with a licence to sell alcohol to the public. That means every Tom, Dick , Harry and his mother who walk in. The public enjoy the protection of the law. The law says they have a right to drink in a bar without having to inhale second hand smoke. We can continue this silly argument till we both die of old age, it will not change that simple fact. Deal with that head on, do not try and finesse the issue.

[DavidS]

Peace Blondie,

You once exercised your right as OP to close the thread you started.

I started this thread appealing for support for 2 establishments that I believed were suffering the consequences of complying with the new smoking laws.

It turns out that 1 establishment is having a quiet time for other reasons. The other has thrown in the towel and allows smoking on the premises.

Given that the intent of the post is now moot, may I request that this thread be closed - after Burman has exercised his right of reply to my last post?

I will not need to reply to him. If anyone wants to debate the relative merits of smoking or the smoking regulations, I would be more than pleased to, in another thread that clearly identifies that intent.

[burman]

Now, please tell me which of these actions caused physical damage to the people around me? Smoking does, believe it or not.

You've added a little twist there haven't you? When did I say that illegal activity causes harm to others?

If complying with the law is an option, then there would be anarchy.

Mu Ham drove his mercedes into a group of people - obviously he felt (not thought, brain absent) free to do so. Another famous son killed a policeman. Again, he felt no compulsion to respect the law.

Once we start down the road of deciding which laws we will respect, it becomes a very slippery slope.

The answer is obvious - respect the law.

I was asking if you did anything illegal since you compared anyone that broke the law to a murderer. But it seems you are much like the rest of us and will break the law as and when it suits. The same as the owner of The Office.

As I said, one bar for smokers, one for non smokers. Now how does that harm anyone? A good compromise I would have thought.

This is why earlier I said I fully support The Office, it's because I don't agree with the law in place.

Edited April 4, 2008 by burman

[burman]

Anyway I see you have asked for the thread to be closed, a fair enough debate I think, thanks.

[Theyreallrubbish]

Why must it be a level playing field? Why couldn't there be smoking and non smoking bars?

If there is a such a support for non smoking bars then I would guess most publicans would opt for the non smoking license.

You also have to consider a governments duty of care towards its' citizens; long neglected where smoking has been concerned.

Having smoking and no smoking bars offers significant less assistance in the fight to prevent future generations becoming addicted to this vile habit than a blanket ban does.

Jeez, and I keep wondering why two countries with the Magna Carta and the US Constitution have turned into such jackboot licking lickspittles and here's your answer.

The government does not have a duty of care towards its citizens. The government is instituted of the people by the people and for the people. The government works for the people only to the degree to do things that people can't do for themselves. The fact that so many people have allowed government to believe it owns you and has a responsibility to look after you (in return for you passing ever more authority and taxes to it of course) is why both the UK and US have turned into petty totalitarian nanny states where the people are forced to hand over half of their earnings to maintain the beaurocracy that oppresses them.

The government's only duty is to perform those tasks it is instituted to perform at the minimum cost to the people and with the minimum intrusion into the people's lives. Instead we have a monsterous beaurocracy that has tens of thousands of people working 8 hours a day 5 days a week who do nothing but sit around thinking of ways to extend the role and control of government at the expense of the autonomy and freedom of their citizens.

I've made a decision that many others have made and withdrawn my support for such a system by leaving. To see the Thai government mindlessly aping the worst excesses of western PC nanny statism is heartbreaking.

To see foreigners egging them on to intrude further into lives of the people and exert ever more control is nauseating

[burman]

The government does not have a duty of care towards its citizens.

I disagree, governments should be have a duty it's for citizens health care and protection. It's a care that you have enjoyed in the western world and to a degree enjoy here too.

I also think there should be non smoking bars. I also think there should be smoking bars too. It's then very easy for non smokers to avoid second hand smoke and still enjoy a drink.

I don't understand why that isn't a suitable compromise?

If the majority of people do think that we should have non smoking bars only then the consumer market will force the majority of bar owners to open non smoking bars.

Edited April 4, 2008 by burman

[legag]

They will get used to it and out party again and not like they (bars) don't provide the smoking area, of course they do. People just don't like 'changing' but eventually they will take it in and move on.

[Theyreallrubbish]

The government does not have a duty of care towards its citizens.

I disagree, governments should be have a duty it's for citizens health care and protection. It's a care that you have enjoyed in the western world and to a degree enjoy here too.

I also think there should be non smoking bars. I also think there should be smoking bars too. It's then very easy for non smokers to avoid second hand smoke and still enjoy a drink.

I don't understand why that isn't a suitable compromise?

If the majority of people do think that we should have non smoking bars only then the consumer market will force the majority of bar owners to open non smoking bars.

The UK national health service is a wonderful institution that provides a terrific quality of health care far more cost effectively than the US system.

The problem is that by stating that the government has a duty to protect the health of its citizens beyond the obvious of industrial pollution and traffic laws, is that the government in the UK is using the NHS as a Trojan horse to gain more and more control over every aspect of its citizens lives and bodies.

If you are a British citizen your body no longer belongs to you. It belongs to the government. The government has claimed ownership and control over your body under the guise of preventing you doing anything that could raise the cost of your health care to your fellow citizens. The government fully intends to control what you eat, what you drink, how you exercise and what activities you may undertake, all in order to "protect" you and your fellow citizens from the health related expenses of you doing anything the government doesn't agree to you doing.

If a man doesn't have control over his own body then what kind of freedom does he really have?

The government using a majority's dislike of the habits of a minority is a time tested technique to expand control over the WHOLE population.

The fact that its smoking is irrelevant. It could be anything that a minority does that the majority dissaproves of. Whenever you see the government using this techniques to expand its own authority you have to recognise it for what it is.

Of course, those who dissaprove of the liberty of others will be cheering the government on and won't be happy until everyone who isn't just like them is imprisoned or reeducated to be just like them.

[burman]

If a man doesn't have control over his own body then what kind of freedom does he really have?

And were a man to breathe in my second hand smoke in a public place does he have control over his own body? Or am I taking his freedom away?

[Theyreallrubbish]

If a man doesn't have control over his own body then what kind of freedom does he really have?

And were a man to breathe in my second hand smoke in a public place does he have control over his own body? Or am I taking his freedom away?

You'd need pretty strong evidence that this is a direct health hazard before you can justify government intervention. At least you should if you believe in freedom. That strong evidence doesn't actually exist. The fact that the evidence doesn't exist is no longer a matter of concern to those who don't believe in freedom.

And if the government were to pass a law banning smoking in public streets I might be sympathetic even though the evidence isn't there. But the law is to ban smoking in pubs and bars.

I'm very sensitive to deoderant and it brings on severe asthma and may even cause me to die. There's no real evidence that deoderant is a health hazard, but can I get it banned anyway and give the police the authority to arrest and fine people who use it in a public place? I am also very sensitive to BO and it makes me retch uncontrollably. I'd like those people locked up as well please. In addition, wearing an ipod in public should be banned as the tinny buzzing can bring on my migraines. People who talk too loud should also be arrested as it may shock me and cause a fatal cardiac arrythmia.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. It should be clear to even the least politically aware that the government constantly manufactures health scares and other scare and fear campaigns in order to expand its authority and control and to reduce freedom.

I have my doubts about whether you even think freedom for anyone other than yourself is desireable, but if I'm wrong then you need to apply higher standards before you willingly cede power to the state

[burman]

You'd need pretty strong evidence that this is a direct health hazard before you can justify government intervention. At least you should if you believe in freedom. That strong evidence doesn't actually exist. The fact that the evidence doesn't exist is no longer a matter of concern to those who don't believe in freedom

There's no evidence that second hand smoke is damaging to other people's health?

I have my doubts about whether you even think freedom for anyone other than yourself is desireable

What do you mean by this?

[Theyreallrubbish]

You'd need pretty strong evidence that this is a direct health hazard before you can justify government intervention. At least you should if you believe in freedom. That strong evidence doesn't actually exist. The fact that the evidence doesn't exist is no longer a matter of concern to those who don't believe in freedom

There's no evidence that second hand smoke is damaging to other people's health?

That's not what I said. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[burman]

I said this:

And were a man to breathe in my second hand smoke in a public place does he have control over his own body? Or am I taking his freedom away?

And you said this:

You'd need pretty strong evidence that this is a direct health hazard before you can justify government intervention. At least you should if you believe in freedom. That strong evidence doesn't actually exist. The fact that the evidence doesn't exist is no longer a matter of concern to those who don't believe in freedom

If I made a mistake then sorry, but if you can handle a debate then explaining what I got wrong and correcting me will get you much further than silly accusations about straw men.

So please clarify for me then, I was talking about second hand smoke and you said 'the evidence doesn't exist'. What did you mean by that then?

Do you believe second hand smoke is damaging to other people's health or not?

Edited April 4, 2008 by burman

[ClaytonSeymour]

You clearly believe in the Nanny state, whereas I prefer to make my own informed decisions rather than have them made for me.

Fine, make your own ill informed decision to smoke, but don't subject others (willing or unwilling) to the fall out.

I've yet to see any reasonable argument from the pro-smoking lobby as to why the pre-smoking ban status quo should be maintained.

Clayton, the problem with you is that you don't accept anyone elses point of view. I'm not ill informed, I am old enough and more informed enough to make my own decisions on where I want to drink, without the help the governemnt, be it in the UK, Thailand or Cameroon. . I am an infrequent smoker, so to be honest it really doesn't bother me. Then why comment? When you actually live in this country then maybe your arguments may carry a little more weight, as you don't; enjoy the smoke free pubs in the UK.

I actually think the problem lies with Thai Visas resident pro-smoking lobby; totally blinded by their vile addiction and complete unwillingness to accept and take responsibility for the harm they inflict on others.

Edited April 4, 2008 by ClaytonSeymour

[burman]

You might want to read a few of my posts, I'm pro smoking (in some bars) and also willing to take the responsibility for harming others.

The blinded by addiction remark is pathetic though as that means you will not take the view of any smokers on board when discussing a debate about smoking. It's a cop out phrase.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, non smoking and smoking bars should be allowed to operate. Compromise is needed.

What's the argument against that Clayton?

Come on I am interested and more than willing to change my opinion should I find reason to.