The Londoner & The Office

[ClaytonSeymour]

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?

I actually find Theyreallrubbish's comments regarding second hand smoking quite obscene.

I tend to agree with DavidS that this thread has run it's course.

Despite our opposing views on the ban, may I too thank you for the civil & reasoned debate, which unfortunately, others who oppose the smoking ban appear either incapable or unwilling to participate, without resulting to insults etc.

Edited April 4, 2008 by ClaytonSeymour

[ClaytonSeymour]

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. It's not that bad; used to be very convenient following a bowling session.

[howtoescape]

Exactly Clayton it isnt that bad whether people smoke in there or not.

[Boksida]

Back to the original point, I like going to the Londoner for the following reasons (in order of preference):

1. It's easy to park and free for 4 hours

2. I like the draft Heineken there. They look after the plumbing and it reflects in the taste of the beer.

3. You can meet anyone there without embarrassment, including blokes with expat wives or friends on holidays with kids.

4. No smoking

5. The food on Mondays and Tuesdays is half price if you have a voucher for spending 1,000 baht there at any time in the previous month.

6. The prices are just high enough to keep the riff-raff out.

[Ulysses G.]

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.

McDonalds does not effect people who don't eat there. Smoking effects anyone who happens to breath in some putrid smoke.

[Theyreallrubbish]

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?

You are missing my point. Which is that the hurdle to justify government intervention and control over people has to be set at a higher level than many of you seem to think in order to defend liberty.

There is evidence that second hand smoke causes harm. There is also evidence that those studies used to justify the expansion of government power are flawed. And there is evidence that second hand smoke's contribution to ill health is not statistically measurable. My view is that expansion of government power should be required to overcome a higher hurdle and a greater burden of proof than a disputed possibility. Otherwise the government should be restricted to the powers and scope that it already has.

My disagreement is not for or against smoking or for or against the evidence on second hand smoke, but the astounding willingness of people to allow government to intrude into every aspect of their life if its wrapped up in a scare or a hate of some kind.

[Theyreallrubbish]

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?

I actually find Theyreallrubbish's comments regarding second hand smoking quite obscene.

I tend to agree with DavidS that this thread has run it's course.

Despite our opposing views on the ban, may I too thank you for the civil & reasoned debate, which unfortunately, others who oppose the smoking ban appear either incapable or unwilling to participate, without resulting to insults etc.

You have no idea what my views on second hand smoke are as I haven't made a statement either way in this thread.

I actually find your neo-facism quite obscene

[kiakaha]

i like the food at Londoner, but dont really like the bar layout.

i like the big screens at Office for sport but all the hookers get a bit annoying.

[mrtoad]

i like the food at Londoner, but dont really like the bar layout.

i like the big screens at Office for sport but all the hookers get a bit annoying.

The problem with the Londoner is that it is just too big, and when it isn't full theres no atmosphere. Agree on the food, which I think is good, as is the food in the Office.

The Office is okay, but I have noticed that it has become quiter in recent months, and not just since the smoking ban.

As predicted by Namm, sadly this thread has been hijacked by the anti-smoking brigade.

[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. 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.

Not suprised by your response, as you are totally blinded in the belief that your view is the one that people should follow. Life is full of choices, if you don't like smoke, don't go to a smoking pub. Pretty simple really isn't it?

I comment Clayton, because I beleive in choice and not being told what I can, or cannot do in respect of my health by people such as yourself.

Edited April 5, 2008 by mrtoad

[burman]

My disagreement is not for or against smoking or for or against the evidence on second hand smoke, but the astounding willingness of people to allow government to intrude into every aspect of their life if its wrapped up in a scare or a hate of some kind.

Well we are talking about smoking in bars here. I offered you a question about 'is it right for me to restrict others freedom by letting them breathe my second hand smoke' but in a typically rebellious student fashion you have ignored a debate that you are not comfortable with and gone back to the familiar slogan shouting anti government speeches.

Which I have to tell you are not as shocking or surprising to us as you might think. We've all read 1984 you know.

So stop stroking the ego, and get back to answering my question about second hand smoke.

Also still waiting to hear why you called me a straw man? Another shouted slogan you can't back up when questioned upon it?

[Theyreallrubbish]

My disagreement is not for or against smoking or for or against the evidence on second hand smoke, but the astounding willingness of people to allow government to intrude into every aspect of their life if its wrapped up in a scare or a hate of some kind.

Well we are talking about smoking in bars here. I offered you a question about 'is it right for me to restrict others freedom by letting them breathe my second hand smoke' but in a typically rebellious student fashion you have ignored a debate that you are not comfortable with and gone back to the familiar slogan shouting anti government speeches.

Which I have to tell you are not as shocking or surprising to us as you might think. We've all read 1984 you know.

So stop stroking the ego, and get back to answering my question about second hand smoke.

Also still waiting to hear why you called me a straw man? Another shouted slogan you can't back up when questioned upon it?

I didn't call you a straw man. I said you used a straw man argument. I said that the evidence was not convincing enough to aquiesce to the extension of government power. You asked me to defend a position that there was NO evidence. A position that is obviously indefensible as there is evidence, on both sides as it happens.

Since you couldn't be bothered to click on the link I helpfully provided I'll be even more helpful and paste the definition for you.

" To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).^[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."

You are now engaged in an ad hominem attack. Which is another debating technique based on deflecting from the actual argument. You believe that by characterising me as a rebellious student and attributing personal characteristics to me that may or may not be true you can dismiss the validity of any arguments I make.

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject."

You may have read 1984, but based on your use of strawman and ad hominem debating techniques it doesn't surprise me that you believe that the fundamental principles of liberty as espoused by Hume, Locke, Hobbes, and the Founding Fathers of the United States are merely "student rebelliousness". My ancestors, and presumably yours, fought and died for what you dismiss so glibly.

"In a democracy the people get the government they deserve"

Sadly true.

My fundamental point that you seem to be willfully ignoring is that government uses scare tactics and pitting temporary majorities against minorities in order to expand its own control. Those who fall for this when they're on the same side as the government fully deserve the loss of liberty they'll suffer when the government decides to take control over some other aspect of their life that they don't agree with.

I would love to make the pun that second hand smoke is a smoke screen, but the metaphor would be incorrect. Its a trojan horse. I hope I don't have to paste a definition of what that means.

[burman]

I didn't need to click on the link, I know what a straw man argument is. Do we really need to wiki everything these days.

You are now engaged in an ad hominem attack. Which is another debating technique based on deflecting from the actual argument. You believe that by characterising me as a rebellious student and attributing personal characteristics to me that may or may not be true you can dismiss the validity of any arguments I make.

No I engaged in attack to try to draw you into answering my questions which you were avoiding. And still are. I shall repeat at the bottom, would love to see an answer to a direct question.

My fundamental point that you seem to be willfully ignoring is that government uses scare tactics and pitting temporary majorities against minorities in order to expand its own control. Those who fall for this when they're on the same side as the government fully deserve the loss of liberty they'll suffer when the government decides to take control over some other aspect of their life that they don't agree with.

Yes I believe they have done this many times and have believed that since I was quite young in fact. I wasn't willfully ignoring your point, it's just you are not telling me anything new here.

But, lets go back to what you said before. About if a man who doesn't have control his own body having no freedom.

If I were in a public space and making someone breathe in my second hand smoke would I be taking his freedom to have a smoke free body away?

Why should my freedom by more important than his?

Now if you answer those two questions we are back on track. Your point about governments being over controlling is well noted already.

Edited April 5, 2008 by burman

[burman]

And BTW, do you or do you not consider second hand smoke to be harmful to other people's health?

[Theyreallrubbish]

I didn't need to click on the link, I know what a straw man argument is. Do we really need to wiki everything these days.

You are now engaged in an ad hominem attack. Which is another debating technique based on deflecting from the actual argument. You believe that by characterising me as a rebellious student and attributing personal characteristics to me that may or may not be true you can dismiss the validity of any arguments I make.

No I engaged in attack to try to draw you into answering my questions which you were avoiding. And still are. I shall repeat at the bottom, would love to see an answer to a direct question.

My fundamental point that you seem to be willfully ignoring is that government uses scare tactics and pitting temporary majorities against minorities in order to expand its own control. Those who fall for this when they're on the same side as the government fully deserve the loss of liberty they'll suffer when the government decides to take control over some other aspect of their life that they don't agree with.

Yes I believe they have done this many times and have believed that since I was young. You are not telling me anything new here.

But, lets go back to what you said before. About if a man who doesn't have control his own body having no freedom.

If I were in a public space and making someone breathe in my second hand smoke would I be taking his freedom to have a smoke free body away?

Why should my freedom by more important than his?

Now we're in to a debate on the difference between rights of commission and ommission. My basic belief is that burden of proof has to be on those proposing to curtail the freedom of others. The evidence is not strong enough in my view to justify using the state to restrict and control the smoker. If the evidence ever does become strong enough then I will accept that the restriction of freedom of one man is justified in protecting the freedom of another.

But the hurdle has to be PROVEN to be higher than inconvience and annoyance to justify the extension of the powers of the state.

I pray for the day that there is strong scientific evidence that the buzz buzz buzz noise from ipod wearers causes medical injury to those around them, but until that day I accept that their freedom to be annoying is greater than my freedom to not be annoyed and that by using the power of the state to enforce my own preferences I am inviting the state to exert control over me when some other group finds something that I do to be annoying.

My views actually differ when it comes to pubs and public spaces. I would accept that the majority could decide not to be annoyed by smoking in a public space such as a park or street and use the government and police to enforce that preference, so long as that preference was clearly voted on and not decided at an executive level (although we are still entering into territory of the "tyranny of the majority" which is justly warned against by all major thinkers on this issue), but this differs from the state exerting control over what happens in property owned by a private business that people are free to choose to enter or not provided that the activity going on is not obviously harmful such as child abuse, hard drug abuse etc. and has been made illegal.

[Theyreallrubbish]

And BTW, do you or do you not consider second hand smoke to be harmful to other people's health?

Its is harmful to your health. But that's not the question. The question is that is it harmful enough to justify allowing the state to increase its bounds of control.

The evidence is not clear on this. The biggest study ever done shows no statistically measurable effects on non-smoking partners of smokers.

The biggest study on this topic, covering 39 years, and involving 118,094 adults, with particular focus on 35,561 who never smoked, and had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits, came to this conclusion:

"The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."

The scientific analysis of smoke concentrations shows that you would have to be in a sealed room with a smoker who smokes 200 cigarettes to receive the same input of chemicals as smoking a single cigarette. Several other studies support these results, including one from the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, published back in 1975, when smoking was rampant in bars and other public places. The paper concluded that the concentration of ETS contaminants in these smoky confines was equal to the effects of smoking 0.004 cigarettes per hour. In other words, you would have to hang out for 250 hours to match the effects of smoking one cigarette.

The longitudinal studies show no statistically significant effects on morbidity and mortality from 10 cigarettes or less per day.

Epidemiological studies show varying correlation between illnesses supposedly caused by cigarettes and their prevalence in various populations adjusted by smoking rates.

Smoking is harmful. No one disputes that. But conflating smoking with second hand smoke, the evidence isn't there to justify the ban on second hand smoke and the extension of state control.

Although I will admit there is slightly more evidence than there was for WMDs in Iraq, but evidence isn't the issue when the government wants to get its way.

[burman]

My basic belief is that burden of proof has to be on those proposing to curtail the freedom of others. The evidence is not strong enough in my view to justify using the state to restrict and control the smoker. If the evidence ever does become strong enough then I will accept that the restriction of freedom of one man is justified in protecting the freedom of another.

Thanks theyreallrubbish for the opinion, but I believe evidence stating that second hand smoke is dangerous to others is strong enough now for them to curtail smokers freedoms a little.

but this differs from the state exerting control over what happens in property owned by a private business that people are free to choose to enter or not provided that the activity going on is not obviously harmful such as child abuse, hard drug abuse etc. and has been made illegal.

I would say that (certainly in the UK) bars are public houses for all of the public to enjoy their drug of 'choice'. (well there's another debate right there but for a different time).

And if second hand smoke is damaging to that public then that freedom is being taken away from them.

If we were talking about cannabis or ecstasy for example I would wholeheartedly agree with you that the govt is curtailing people's freedoms with misinformation. But I do believe that second hand smoke is damaging and that people who want to avoid this damage should still be able to go to a bar and enjoy a drink.

I still believe that non smoking and smoking bars is the fairest compromise yet, and one that should have been called for by many more voices where all smoking in public houses has been made illegal.

[burman]

Just read your other post, can you provide links to these studies I would like to have a look at them myself.

[rixalex]

6. The prices are just high enough to keep the riff-raff out.

I've only been to the place a few times and if the place is frequented by snobs like this, i won't be going there anytime soon.

[burman]

Don't worry Rivalex, it's not all that snobbish in there at all, usually a decent enough mix of foreign and Thai office workers. It's a little pricey on the food but not as exclusively expensive as Boksida seems to think.

The irony is where it is expensive to drink the customers are all happy that there are bars like the Londoner to keep the riff raff occupied and away from them.

[breezein]

Wednesday's still seem to be a big party at Londoner's. The bar allows smoking and drinking out on the patio. The smoking patrons took the party outside when I was there. I personally stopped going to those bars for one reason....price. Tourists can pay western prices for food and drink, but locals take their money elsewhere. The price increases in tourist areas have gotten ridiculous.

Thanks for the warning. I was thinking of moving to the Londoner from the Dubliner - where I have my Sunday brekki sometimes. 380 baht they charge (without a drink). Sounds like the Londoner would be just as bad.

380BT FOR A BREAKFAST IS ROBBERY

Cost

2 eggs 10bt

2 english sausage 30bt

2 English back bacon 20bt

1/4 tin good beans 10bt

1 tomato 1bt

2toasts with butter 6bt

1 english breakfast TEA 6bt

Total 83bt I pay 130bt at International Bar Samui

[mrtoad]

Wednesday's still seem to be a big party at Londoner's. The bar allows smoking and drinking out on the patio. The smoking patrons took the party outside when I was there. I personally stopped going to those bars for one reason....price. Tourists can pay western prices for food and drink, but locals take their money elsewhere. The price increases in tourist areas have gotten ridiculous.

Thanks for the warning. I was thinking of moving to the Londoner from the Dubliner - where I have my Sunday brekki sometimes. 380 baht they charge (without a drink). Sounds like the Londoner would be just as bad.

380BT FOR A BREAKFAST IS ROBBERY

Cost

2 eggs 10bt

2 english sausage 30bt

2 English back bacon 20bt

1/4 tin good beans 10bt

1 tomato 1bt

2toasts with butter 6bt

1 english breakfast TEA 6bt

Total 83bt I pay 130bt at International Bar Samui

You're comparing apples with oranges. Believe me, the breakfast in the Dubliner is very good and very filling, and worth paying the extra for.

As for Boksidas claim that the Londoner has high prices to kep the riff raff out, what total rubbish. It's hardly expensive, and on certain nights you get a big mix of people in there, esp on a Wednesday.

[burman]

The Dubliner is pricey on it's food but there is just not enough choices to go elsewhere for a good English brekkie so they can charge what they like and still get the custom.

Vantanas on Koh Phangan does just as filling a English brekkie than The Dubliner, and I think that works out at around 200 baht.

Edited April 5, 2008 by burman

[mrtoad]

The Dubliner is pricey on it's food but there is just not enough choices to go elsewhere for a good English brekkie so they can charge what they like and still get the custom.

Vantanas on Koh Phangan does just as filling a English brekkie than The Dubliner, and I think that works out at around 200 baht.

That is true, there are few places in Bangkok that do a decent breakkie, so I always end up using the Dubliner.

[hagler]

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

And did your withdrawal of support also extend to your voluntary selfrevocation of citizenship as well ? Real withdrawal would obviously include that, otherwise it is just play acting isnt it?

[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

And did your withdrawal of support also extend to your voluntary selfrevocation of citizenship as well ? Real withdrawal would obviously include that, otherwise it is just play acting isnt it?

Is it? Its an odd logic that one isn't real with out the other. Perhaps I'm still proud of the history that my citizenship represents but no longer wish to fund the current government any further. I really don't see why preferring not to pay for a government I disagree with equals rejecting everything that my citizenship represents.

Unless you believe that the government is the country? Ein Volk. Ein Reich. Ein Fuhrer?

[Theyreallrubbish]

My basic belief is that burden of proof has to be on those proposing to curtail the freedom of others. The evidence is not strong enough in my view to justify using the state to restrict and control the smoker. If the evidence ever does become strong enough then I will accept that the restriction of freedom of one man is justified in protecting the freedom of another.

Thanks theyreallrubbish for the opinion, but I believe evidence stating that second hand smoke is dangerous to others is strong enough now for them to curtail smokers freedoms a little.

but this differs from the state exerting control over what happens in property owned by a private business that people are free to choose to enter or not provided that the activity going on is not obviously harmful such as child abuse, hard drug abuse etc. and has been made illegal.

I would say that (certainly in the UK) bars are public houses for all of the public to enjoy their drug of 'choice'. (well there's another debate right there but for a different time).

And if second hand smoke is damaging to that public then that freedom is being taken away from them.

If we were talking about cannabis or ecstasy for example I would wholeheartedly agree with you that the govt is curtailing people's freedoms with misinformation. But I do believe that second hand smoke is damaging and that people who want to avoid this damage should still be able to go to a bar and enjoy a drink.

I still believe that non smoking and smoking bars is the fairest compromise yet, and one that should have been called for by many more voices where all smoking in public houses has been made illegal.

Well we disagree on the evidence of harm. In fact the guy who initially campaigned for bans in the work place thinks the danger is overblown.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1955237

We also disagree on the harm of cannabis. I've seen enough cases of cannabis induced psychosis to doubt the claims that its benign. I've also seen the studies on permanent alterations in brain chemistry due to excstacy to doubt its harmlessness. (I used to be a doctor)

The difference is that I agree that someone using cannabis and ecstacy is harming only themselves as they're free to do as their body belongs to them alone. The government disagrees and uses the cost to fellow tax payers of their health care to justify exerting control over what they do with their bodies.

Interestingly the government itself isn't confident enough in the second hand smoke harms others argument to ban smoking in pubs and uses the health care cost argument as well. An argument that shouldn't be necessary if the evidence on second hand smoke was as clear cut as they claim it to be.

[burman]

So this is a Doctor's opinion we are getting?

Do you have a link to the study you quoted earlier? I would like to take a look at it.

[breezein]

Wednesday's still seem to be a big party at Londoner's. The bar allows smoking and drinking out on the patio. The smoking patrons took the party outside when I was there. I personally stopped going to those bars for one reason....price. Tourists can pay western prices for food and drink, but locals take their money elsewhere. The price increases in tourist areas have gotten ridiculous.

Thanks for the warning. I was thinking of moving to the Londoner from the Dubliner - where I have my Sunday brekki sometimes. 380 baht they charge (without a drink). Sounds like the Londoner would be just as bad.

380BT FOR A BREAKFAST IS ROBBERY

Cost

2 eggs 10bt

2 english sausage 30bt

2 English back bacon 20bt

1/4 tin good beans 10bt

1 tomato 1bt

2toasts with butter 6bt

1 english breakfast TEA 6bt

Total 83bt I pay 130bt at International Bar Samui

You're comparing apples with oranges. Believe me, the breakfast in the Dubliner is very good and very filling, and worth paying the extra for.

As for Boksidas claim that the Londoner has high prices to kep the riff raff out, what total rubbish. It's hardly expensive, and on certain nights you get a big mix of people in there, esp on a Wednesday.

OK if its so good tell me what i will get for 380bt and i might just give it a try next weekend.

[ClaytonSeymour]

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

And did your withdrawal of support also extend to your voluntary selfrevocation of citizenship as well ? Real withdrawal would obviously include that, otherwise it is just play acting isnt it?

Is it? Its an odd logic that one isn't real with out the other. Perhaps I'm still proud of the history that my citizenship represents but no longer wish to fund the current government any further. I really don't see why preferring not to pay for a government I disagree with equals rejecting everything that my citizenship represents. Advocating anarchy again. If you don't like the government vote for someone else - that's how democracy works.[/color]

Unless you believe that the government is the country? Ein Volk. Ein Reich. Ein Fuhrer?

For all the scientific arguments you've quoted, I could produce even more to counter these studies (though I do agree with you re: Cannabis & Ecstasy).

Edited April 5, 2008 by ClaytonSeymour