The Londoner & The Office

[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.

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. I've never said you can't smoke; I've said you should do it in private.

If you gave the bar owners the choice then the status quo would remain the same pre-smoking ban; they'd put profits before health & there would be very few, if any, non-smoking bars.

Governments are quite correct to intervene and should have done so years ago, as I've said already; the reason they haven't is the huge amount of taxes they've been reaping from this mass addiction. I believe that banning smoking in public is an essential part of the fight to stop the mass, albeit decreasing addiction to nicotine.

[burman]

Yes I agree about cannabis and ecstasy as well, I do know they are harmful. But I also do think the govt / media does like to sent out a slightly twisted version of the truth, or at least the media is allowed to add quite a spin to it that backs up what the govt wants the people to hear.

But in truth so far removed from the western media these days I couldn't offer any conclusive evidence of this so perhaps a debate for another day.

[ClaytonSeymour]

Yes I agree about cannabis and ecstasy as well, I do know they are harmful. But I also do think the govt / media does like to sent out a slightly twisted version of the truth, or at least the media is allowed to add quite a spin to it that backs up what the govt wants the people to hear.

But in truth so far removed from the western media these days I couldn't offer any conclusive evidence of this so perhaps a debate for another day.

Agreed, we are heading

[mrtoad]

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

Ok, proper Sausages, proper bacon, baked beans aren't sweet, eggs nicely cooked. The Soda bread is good as is the fried bread. Okay not the healthiest of meals, but worth it every now and then. Put it this way, you wont be hungry after finishing it, and I'm sure that there are others around who agree with me.

Hope you enjoy it, but I do agree that it is a bit pricey, but hey it's Bangkok.

[mrtoad]

If you gave the bar owners the choice then the status quo would remain the same pre-smoking ban; they'd put profits before health & there would be very few, if any, non-smoking bars.

Governments are quite correct to intervene and should have done so years ago, as I've said already; the reason they haven't is the huge amount of taxes they've been reaping from this mass addiction. I believe that banning smoking in public is an essential part of the fight to stop the mass, albeit decreasing addiction to nicotine.

Funnily enough your opening statement is one that is normally used in reverse by the anti smoking brigade. My understanding was that the smoking ban would encourage people to go to the pub, well thats what they used to band about as one of the reasons. How ironic.

[burman]

If you gave the bar owners the choice then the status quo would remain the same pre-smoking ban

But hold on, doesn't this run contrary to popular opinion of consumer wants?

I thought the majority of people wanted non smoking bars?

Surely they would become busier and more landlords would be banning smoking from their premises eager to take advantage of this majority market?

Why would they remain smoking bars and aim towards the less profitable minority market?

[ClaytonSeymour]

If you gave the bar owners the choice then the status quo would remain the same pre-smoking ban; they'd put profits before health & there would be very few, if any, non-smoking bars.

Governments are quite correct to intervene and should have done so years ago, as I've said already; the reason they haven't is the huge amount of taxes they've been reaping from this mass addiction. I believe that banning smoking in public is an essential part of the fight to stop the mass, albeit decreasing addiction to nicotine.

Funnily enough your opening statement is one that is normally used in reverse by the anti smoking brigade. My understanding was that the smoking ban would encourage people to go to the pub, well thats what they used to band about as one of the reasons. How ironic.

Yet again you're unable to do the following: offer a reasonable argument as to why the pre-smoking ban status quo should be maintained.

I'm not interested in numbers; I'd rather sit in an empty smoke free pub, than be surrounded by selfish smokers such as yourself. Smokers are blinded by their addiction, an addiction that is becoming more & more socially unacceptable, the ban further serves to isolate smokers & again, this is part of the process of stopping future generations wasting their health & their money on this evil addiction.

If the smoking ban drives people out of business, then so be it, it's an unfortunate necessity.

Times of change are always difficult, smokers are currently undergoing the bereavment process - eventually, most will get over it & move on. Once that happens, the civil liberties brigade will have to find somewhere else to go and spew their trash.

[ClaytonSeymour]

If you gave the bar owners the choice then the status quo would remain the same pre-smoking ban

But hold on, doesn't this run contrary to popular opinion of consumer wants?

I thought the majority of people wanted non smoking bars?

Surely they would become busier and more landlords would be banning smoking from their premises eager to take advantage of this majority market?

Why would they remain smoking bars and aim towards the less profitable minority market?

The facts are there are more non-smokers than smokers, but there are a large number of sheep who don't think for themselves and would go along with their smoking friends.

If you had a business with an already healthy clientel, why would you risk it?

As I've already said, I believe the smoking ban is about a wider campaign against a vile, dangerous addiction that has been tolerated far too long. Without repeating myself, I think I've made it quite clear why government intervention was required, the fact it has taken so long is a great betrayal.

Edited April 5, 2008 by ClaytonSeymour

[mrtoad]

Yet again you're unable to do the following: offer a reasonable argument as to why the pre-smoking ban status quo should be maintained.

I'm not interested in numbers; I'd rather sit in an empty smoke free pub, than be surrounded by selfish smokers such as yourself. Smokers are blinded by their addiction, an addiction that is becoming more & more socially unacceptable, the ban further serves to isolate smokers & again, this is part of the process of stopping future generations wasting their health & their money on this evil addiction.

If the smoking ban drives people out of business, then so be it, it's an unfortunate necessity.

Times of change are always difficult, smokers are currently undergoing the bereavment process - eventually, most will get over it & move on. Once that happens, the civil liberties brigade will have to find somewhere else to go and spew their trash.

Clayton, yet again you fail to read what I have posted, but this is hardly suprising considering that you believe that mentally ill people should be executed for crimes that they commit, sorry if I sound like one of the civil "liberties brigade" that you so seem to dislike.

As I have previously said, I am an infrequent smoker, which I think you may or may not understand. I also believe that people should be given a choice to do what they so wish in regards to their own health. Hence, I fully support no smoking in certain establishments. As for bars, then once again, that should be the right of the owner to make that decision, baseed on economy, as people like yourself continue to suggest this is what the majority of people want, then no business' will be driven to the wall. I'm sure you've heard of market forces?

Please don't try to explain the bereavement process to me, I am more than aware of what it is, and I can assure you that it is hardly comparable to this "smoking ban", which I see more as a potential revenue raising exercise rather than a serious way to prevent people from smoking.

Edited April 5, 2008 by mrtoad

[ClaytonSeymour]

Yet again you're unable to do the following: offer a reasonable argument as to why the pre-smoking ban status quo should be maintained.

I'm not interested in numbers; I'd rather sit in an empty smoke free pub, than be surrounded by selfish smokers such as yourself. Smokers are blinded by their addiction, an addiction that is becoming more & more socially unacceptable, the ban further serves to isolate smokers & again, this is part of the process of stopping future generations wasting their health & their money on this evil addiction.

If the smoking ban drives people out of business, then so be it, it's an unfortunate necessity.

Times of change are always difficult, smokers are currently undergoing the bereavment process - eventually, most will get over it & move on. Once that happens, the civil liberties brigade will have to find somewhere else to go and spew their trash.

Clayton, yet again you fail to read what I have posted, but this is hardly suprising considering that you believe that mentally ill people should be executed for crimes that they commit, sorry if I sound like one of the civil "liberties brigade" that you so seem to dislike. No you're the one who doesn't read things, similarly you pick and chose the questions you answer & make poor comparisons. As you have slightly misquoted me on the mentally ill, here is the link for the reference of others, totally off topic by the way, but not surprising coming from someone who thinks eating burgers is a good comparison to passive smoking:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=177334

As I have previously said, I am an infrequent smoker, which I think you may or may not understand. I also believe that people should be given a choice to do what they so wish in regards to their own health. Hence, I fully support no smoking in certain establishments. As for bars, then once again, that should be the right of the owner to make that decision, baseed on economy, as people like yourself continue to suggest this is what the majority of people want, then no business' will be driven to the wall. I'm sure you've heard of market forces? It is what the majority want & even if it is wasn't; the health of the multitude is more important than market forces.

Please don't try to explain the bereavement process to me, I am more than aware of what it is, and I can assure you that it is hardly comparable to this "smoking ban", Well I disagree, it is something that can be used when talking about any major change in life - being banned/restricted from indulging in their addiction is a major change for any addict. which I see more as a potential revenue raising exercise rather than a serious way to prevent people from smoking. Whilst I accept that in Thailand that may indeed be the case; I can assure you it isn't in most developed nations. Anyway, irrespective of motive, I'm not complaining; highly delighted that Thailand have jumped on the bandwagon.

At this point I must temporarily leave the debate; the wife wants to catch up with latest Thai soap, then we are going out for a meal - in a smoke free pub. Good evening to you gentlemen.

Edited April 5, 2008 by ClaytonSeymour

[pliny]

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.

Personally I have yet to visit any local pub to find that the landlord has gained new custom from the smoking ban yet invariably he complains that he has lost it from his smoking addicted regulars who simply do not visit as often as they did before the ban.Interestingly, I have not heard a single non smoking bar habitue supporting the ban, so, anecdotally, can we assume that those in favour are probably folk who don't actually frequent bars?

Inevitably pubs in the UK will close as a consequence which is the best argument I can think of for reversing the prohibition.

The Londoner is way over priced and certainly I would not dream of patronising it outside of the Wednesday night buy one get one promo unless induced.............smoking happy hour perchance?

This Clayton SeeLess does come across as an insufferable prig.

[meadow]

I used to go to Londoner on a regular basis for years. The food prices were above average (compared to other pubs), but there was enough food to feed 2 with one dish. It had its value. Service was attentive, honest and friendly. However, after their previous manager (David) left, I started to feel that something was not really right anymore. The food prices went up, service standard decreased as fast as the portion-sizes.

Nevertheless, I still frequented the place, more out of loyalty than the quality (a mistake.. i know), but the final drop was when the service failed drastically. They advertised their special offer for Mondays when all standard drinks, including house wine, would cost 99 baht. Went there with a friend and we ordered wine. Our surprise was big (suffice to say) when the bill came for 180 ++ per glass. When I pointed it out to the waitress, she blatantly told us that the offer was just for house wine while we had "premium" wine. Well.. we never asked for premium, we just ordered 2 glasses of wine. From my experience in all places in Bangkok, when one orders wine without specifications, it ALWAYS mean house wine. She didn't even bother apologising or explaining. That was the last time I went there, and seriously doubt I'll ever venture in there again.

Edited April 6, 2008 by meadow

[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.

Personally I have yet to visit any local pub to find that the landlord has gained new custom from the smoking ban yet invariably he complains that he has lost it from his smoking addicted regulars who simply do not visit as often as they did before the ban.Interestingly, I have not heard a single non smoking bar habitue supporting the ban, so, anecdotally, can we assume that those in favour are probably folk who don't actually frequent bars? I think local pubs are struggling simply because they can't compete with the big chain pubs and the supermarkets. It's also worth noting that times are changing, people have many more options as to how they spend their leisure time. There are many factors you must consider if you want to debate the demise of the local pub.

Inevitably pubs in the UK will close as a consequence which is the best argument I can think of for reversing the prohibition.

Well that's no argument at all, it's really no different from saying they should stop issuing health warnings because the tobacco companies are losing business.

The Londoner is way over priced and certainly I would not dream of patronising it outside of the Wednesday night buy one get one promo unless induced.............smoking happy hour perchance?

This Clayton SeeLess does come across as an insufferable prig. It's funny that all the insults seem to be coming from the pro-smoking lobby, still as Burman said, 'the revolutions already here and the smokers are the ones with their backs against the wall'.

[Indo-Siam]

'Ate at the Londoner last evening (Sunday). Crowd much thinner than I typically remembered. 'Talked to the shift leader - she advised that since the smoking ban, their overall business has fallen by a full 50%.

'Also indicated a recurring problem with people finishing their meal, and then taking their drinks outside the entranceway to enjoy an after-dinner smoke - and then doing a runner, without paying.

At this point (early April), it is not clear to me:

1) Are there any enforcements going on - i.e,. - actual fines - or patrons or establishments in Bangkok?

2) Will enforcement - on the broad level - be more or less strict six months down the road?

Of he places that I frequent, only a couple are totally smoke-free. In most places, they will still give addicts an ash tray, upon request. But - interestingly, in most places - even with a couple of folks smoking, the vast majority of smokers show the courtesy to step outside for a smoke.

Cheers!

Indo-Siam

[OxfordWill]

Yet again we see the pro smoking lobby going on about freedom of choice blah, blah. I'm sorry, but stop being selfish and face the facts; you are stuck in nicotines grasp and slowly poisoning yourself. Just because you are too weak, or unwilling to deal with your addiction, why should you have the right to poison others too? Should I have the right to poison the local water supply? If you want to slowly kill yourselves fine, do it in private & not in front of your children.

Count yourselves lucky that governments haven't banned smoking entirely, but that's only down to one thing - the huge amount of taxes it raises for the treasury coffers.

Well that's the curious thing about "rights". They come packaged with obligations. Your right to be fat and sweat so much that I smell you from across the pool table only exists because I have an obligation to permit you that right by not killing you for being so fat. Similarly so, if someone has no right to smoke then those around him have no obligation to tolerate him smoking. the problem comes when you want to be fat but dont want me to smoke. Likely you will now begin considering the strength of the analogy between smoking and sweating. Fair enough- but you criticise the argument from personal liberties and this is a very dangerous position to take if you have any self interest whatsoever.

Edited April 7, 2008 by OxfordWill

[mrtoad]

Yet again we see the pro smoking lobby going on about freedom of choice blah, blah. I'm sorry, but stop being selfish and face the facts; you are stuck in nicotines grasp and slowly poisoning yourself. Just because you are too weak, or unwilling to deal with your addiction, why should you have the right to poison others too? Should I have the right to poison the local water supply? If you want to slowly kill yourselves fine, do it in private & not in front of your children.

Count yourselves lucky that governments haven't banned smoking entirely, but that's only down to one thing - the huge amount of taxes it raises for the treasury coffers.

Well that's the curious thing about "rights". They come packaged with obligations. Your right to be fat and sweat so much that I smell you from across the pool table only exists because I have an obligation to permit you that right by not killing you for being so fat. Similarly so, if someone has no right to smoke then those around him have no obligation to tolerate him smoking. the problem comes when you want to be fat but dont want me to smoke. Likely you will now begin considering the strength of the analogy between smoking and sweating. Fair enough- but you criticise the argument from personal liberties and this is a very dangerous position to take if you have any self interest whatsoever.

Post of the day.

[OxfordWill]

Places I have been able to smoke this last couple of weeks:

Nana

Pool bars in suk soi 22 (not thaitanium tho)

Absolute bar soi 7

50% of the soi 33 bars

Lucifers Silom

Boss / Spicy / Spice / OA

Ratchadaa soi 4 (so long as you're well inside a club and nobody seems to care)

Ratchadaa soi 8

Irish pub in Khao San, couple of other places in Khao san

Places I havent been able to smoke:

Everywhere in soi 11

Everywhere in soi 23

Everywhere in soi 26

Everywhere in RCA

Everywhere in Thonglo

Everywhere in Ekkamai

Everywhere in Soi 5, even the rooftop pool place with no walls

Gullivers everywhere

Probably forgetting some. Not being able to smoke inside for the upcoming Tiesto gig is going to be a real test of character.

Edited April 7, 2008 by OxfordWill

[Indo-Siam]

I look at all the arguments about smokers rights vs non-smokers rights, and the downturn in pub business for pubs enforcing the ban - and I think that the arguments focused in the present day - meaning the next five years - are missing the point.

20 to 30 years from now, there will be large populations of middle-aged pub-goers who will never have been able to smoke a cigarette inside a public building. 'Never have been able to smoke over a drink in a bar.

Presumably, this will result in a lot fewer people ever taking up smoking. Smoking will no longer be associated with being "cool" in a nightspot. It will be more like the association of a junkie "shooting up" in a back alley.

So - all the near-term teeth-gnashing now is fighting a battle that is not the real goal of the program - the real goal is to transform the image of smoking - by separating it from an image of acceptable social activity indoors - for young people who have not yet been lured into the addiction. As in 10-15 year olds, and younger.

The only real question is: Will banning smoking in traditional social settings actually result in significantly fewer people smoking 30 years from now? I think it will - but that is just my opinion, and I have no compelling evidence to support that assertion. I guess that time will tell.

I wonder - what (and when) was the first major metropolitan area in the world to heavily crack down on indoor smoking in public places? However many years later - have smoking rates among twenty-somethings declined in that city?

Cheers!

Indo-Siam

[ClaytonSeymour]

Yet again we see the pro smoking lobby going on about freedom of choice blah, blah. I'm sorry, but stop being selfish and face the facts; you are stuck in nicotines grasp and slowly poisoning yourself. Just because you are too weak, or unwilling to deal with your addiction, why should you have the right to poison others too? Should I have the right to poison the local water supply? If you want to slowly kill yourselves fine, do it in private & not in front of your children.

Count yourselves lucky that governments haven't banned smoking entirely, but that's only down to one thing - the huge amount of taxes it raises for the treasury coffers.

Well that's the curious thing about "rights". They come packaged with obligations. Your right to be fat and sweat so much that I smell you from across the pool table only exists because I have an obligation to permit you that right by not killing you for being so fat. Similarly so, if someone has no right to smoke then those around him have no obligation to tolerate him smoking. the problem comes when you want to be fat but dont want me to smoke. Likely you will now begin considering the strength of the analogy between smoking and sweating. Fair enough- but you criticise the argument from personal liberties and this is a very dangerous position to take if you have any self interest whatsoever.

Yawn.

[Ulysses G.]

Presumably, this will result in a lot fewer people ever taking up smoking. Smoking will no longer be associated with being "cool" in a nightspot. It will be more like the association of a junkie "shooting up" in a back alley.

Like backwards natives with a mouth full of black teeth from chewing betel nut.

[kiakaha]

It is such a pointless/endless argument...debating not smoking issues with a drug addicted smoker is like trying to to convince the most hardcore latter day saint evangelist that god is a fictitious superstition.Their drug addiction clouds their mind from rational realization as to what their actions actually do to those who are not addicts. Whats the old saying..dont discuss religion and politics.Better add smoking to that list I think.

[Ulysses G.]

Yet again we see the pro smoking lobby going on about freedom of choice blah, blah. I'm sorry, but stop being selfish and face the facts; you are stuck in nicotines grasp and slowly poisoning yourself. Just because you are too weak, or unwilling to deal with your addiction, why should you have the right to poison others too? Should I have the right to poison the local water supply? If you want to slowly kill yourselves fine, do it in private & not in front of your children.

Count yourselves lucky that governments haven't banned smoking entirely, but that's only down to one thing - the huge amount of taxes it raises for the treasury coffers.

Well that's the curious thing about "rights". They come packaged with obligations. Your right to be fat and sweat so much that I smell you from across the pool table only exists because I have an obligation to permit you that right by not killing you for being so fat. Similarly so, if someone has no right to smoke then those around him have no obligation to tolerate him smoking. the problem comes when you want to be fat but dont want me to smoke. Likely you will now begin considering the strength of the analogy between smoking and sweating. Fair enough- but you criticise the argument from personal liberties and this is a very dangerous position to take if you have any self interest whatsoever.

Yawn.

It looks like the American Psycho approach doesn't impress ClaytonSeymour much!

[mrtoad]

Yawn.

Yes, Clayton thats what we love about you.

Ok, I want to clarify a few points.

1) My reference to your beliefs on the Mentally Ill, which you say are irrelevant. This is what you said "If the mentally ill commit murder they should be executed as per sound of mind murderers - equal privileges. Executing a criminal has three purposes; punishment, deterrent & most important of all, protection of the multitude."

Here we go, another contadiction, you advocate equal privaliges for sentencing people to death, but you don't advocate a bar choosing wether to be a smoking or non smoking establishment.

I add further, in your response to Geriatric kid "3. So basically you are suggesting the accused is a psychopathic killer? That would make him mentally ill and probably incapable of knowing right from wrong. IMO all the more reason to put him to death. Thailand like many other countries has allowances for those accused that are mentally infirm. Seymour (Highlighted)

I find that you have a low tolerence to anything that you feel doesn't fit in your utopian society. Most Mentally Ill people who go on to commit crimes are jst as much a victim, a victim of the state who leave them to their own devices. Whislt I agree of the need for protection of the public, I feel that executing someone who may not have been aware of his actions is pretty dam_n extreme. As you believe in an interventionist policy, then do you advocate the execution of potential murderers as well?

2) My reference regarding McDonalds. I 'd like to cklarify that one. It was said mainly tounge in cheek at UG, who will certainly get the joke. I'm sorry that you missed it. However, to counter, there is a serious point to it as well. McDonalds food has been found to be particulalry unhealthy, along with a lot of other fast foods. Obesity is likely to be the number one cause of death in the coming years, and of course this will have an impact on society as well, although not maybe as obvious as smoking. As an interventionist, who believes that the Government has a duty of care to it's people, then are you suggesting that establishments which serve unhealthy food should be closed as well?

The point I am trying to make, is that adults should have a choice in what they decide to do with there bodies. If someone accepts a smoking establishmernt that is fine. If you don't like it, go to somewhere else that does. It's all about informed choice, and the only thing the governemnt should do is provide the facts to people and let them decide.

3) As you live in the UK, what is the biggest danger when going out? Smoking or being glassed by a drunken moron. I think we can probably guess the answear to that one.

You obviously enjoy going out for a pint and something to eat, which most of us do, but how will you feel when the choices of establishments becomes less and less and you're only choice is having a microwaved Wetherspoons meal? I'd like to clarify though Clayton, that I also believe that eating areas/ resteraunts should be non-smoking. I also don't want to see the death of the traditional pub being rep[laced by crappy franchises and chains, which is whjat is happening back in the UK. Maybe this another agenda?

4) Market Forces; Time and again campaign groups have suggested that Smoking Bans increase business, and have used this as onme of their main arguments in the implementation of the ban. This is clearly disingenious, as figures in the UK suggest differently, and I believe that CAMRA are now looking at reviewing their stance. Certainly bars in BKK have been hit. I was speaking with a Bar owner who has enforced the ban the other evening, nice bloke, nice bar- he reckons that he has seen a significant drop in takings since it came in. I also undersatand that other establishments have the same problems, hence some are now not enforcing it. How about the people who make a living directly and indirectly from bars? What happens when bars close and people lose their jobs? Were do they go? In Thialand they can't just scoot off to the dole office.

5) Hypocrisy: You have said time and time again that Governewmnts have a duty. Fine, the simple answear is to ban smoking out right, along with the sales of tobacco. If thery do that, no problem. But they wont, for financial reasons. The Govt are happy to take taxes from smokers, but they dont want smokers giving revenue to other establishments.

6) Smoking is bad; I think that it is irrefutable that smoking is bad, clealry it increases the chances of contracting Lung Cancer, Throat Cancer, Emphasima etc, etc. Alcohol is also bad in that it does pretty much the same, other than we are looking at other organs. Unhealthy food is bad, cars are bad ,in fact living is bad.

Now, the big problem here is, how much information are we really being given about the effects of secondary smoking, is some of the information being supressed to suit governments agendas? I suspect that this is very much the case and this little article make give an inkling;

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fd20061112t2.html

Anyway, as always it's worth having a debate. I've obviously got too much time on my hands this week.

Anyway, I'm off for a burger and chips cooked in lard, 12 pints of beer and a pack of fags, and I'll walk home just to inhale all the vehicle fumes.

[OxfordWill]

I win.

[kiakaha]

I win.

At the end of the day we all lose.The sun will burn out and earth will die.

[mrtoad]

I win.

At the end of the day we all lose.The sun will burn out and earth will die.

Thats pretty certain.

[lomatopo]

I'd prefer all indoor environments to be smoke-free. Hospitals, buses, trains, airplanes, schools, libraries, public buildings, museums, movie theatres, et al., are all smoke-free for a reason. I've yet to figure out why bars and pubs are any different? I would like to go to more pubs here but am always overwhelmed by the smoke. And Westerners here seem to be quite rude when it comes to their right to smoke, so I just avoid these establishments. Having said that, I'd support the concept of separately licensed bars/pubs which allow smoking. I'd want them to have to pay a lot for a license, and make provisions for employees (extra pay, additional health benefits) who have to work in a hazardous environment. These establishments could also offer oxygen for those patrons already suffering from emphysema, and maybe even have special karaoke nights for those with fitted with electronic replacement voice-boxes.

[kiakaha]

I'm working on a design for a kind of portable face muzzle that smokers can wear in pubs that captures all smoke residue(burn off smoke and exhaled smoke) and compresses it into a disposable receptacle. So far my sketches of proposed muzzle have not been too aesthetically pleasing..but I'm persisting..I think I'm onto a winner

[OxfordWill]

I was shocked to learn from kiakaha that the sun will burn out and earth will die by the end of the day, so in preparation I have been chain smoking my way through the very best of my kreteks. Ive also hotboxed my apartment by turning off the air con and sealing the doors, although my cats aren't too happy about it and nor is my 4 month old daughter- figured I would get her onto the good stuff early in case she ends up liking L&M or some other nonsense.

[ClaytonSeymour]

Yawn.

Yes, Clayton thats what we love about you.

Ok, I want to clarify a few points.

1) My reference to your beliefs on the Mentally Ill, which you say are irrelevant. This is what you said "If the mentally ill commit murder they should be executed as per sound of mind murderers - equal privileges. Executing a criminal has three purposes; punishment, deterrent & most important of all, protection of the multitude."

Here we go, another contadiction, you advocate equal privaliges for sentencing people to death, but you don't advocate a bar choosing wether to be a smoking or non smoking establishment. Two entirely separate issues that need to addressed and approached on their own merits.

I add further, in your response to Geriatric kid "3. So basically you are suggesting the accused is a psychopathic killer? That would make him mentally ill and probably incapable of knowing right from wrong. IMO all the more reason to put him to death. Thailand like many other countries has allowances for those accused that are mentally infirm. Seymour (Highlighted) I stand by my opinion.

I find that you have a low tolerence to anything that you feel doesn't fit in your utopian society. Most Mentally Ill people who go on to commit crimes are jst as much a victim, a victim of the state who leave them to their own devices. Whislt I agree of the need for protection of the public, I feel that executing someone who may not have been aware of his actions is pretty dam_n extreme. As you believe in an interventionist policy, then do you advocate the execution of potential murderers as well? Well you've now taken this way off topic, anyhow, yes, in some cases I would execute potential murderers i.e. terrorists convicted of plotting to blow up airliners.

2) My reference regarding McDonalds. I 'd like to cklarify that one. It was said mainly tounge in cheek at UG, who will certainly get the joke. I'm sorry that you missed it. However, to counter, there is a serious point to it as well. McDonalds food has been found to be particulalry unhealthy, along with a lot of other fast foods. Obesity is likely to be the number one cause of death in the coming years, and of course this will have an impact on society as well, although not maybe as obvious as smoking. As an interventionist, who believes that the Government has a duty of care to it's people, then are you suggesting that establishments which serve unhealthy food should be closed as well? Discussing obesity really belongs in another thread. I actually look after body & train practically every day & I do believe that individuals should look after themselves, though I wouldn't go as far as denying someone the occasional burger, which from time to time I eat myself. The problem with linking burgers to this thread is that there's no such thing as passive burger eating. By all means open a new thread on fast foods & obesity, I'll be happy to debate this & share some of my thoughts.

The point I am trying to make, is that adults should have a choice in what they decide to do with there bodies. If someone accepts a smoking establishmernt that is fine. If you don't like it, go to somewhere else that does. It's all about informed choice, and the only thing the governemnt should do is provide the facts to people and let them decide.

Not when innocents need protection. Should governments merely advise drivers not to drink & drive, not to drive at excessive speed & so on? At some point there has to be legislation.

3) As you live in the UK, what is the biggest danger when going out? Smoking or being glassed by a drunken moron. I think we can probably guess the answear to that one. Well I haven't been glassed yet, but I most certainly have been exposed the dangers of passive smoking - my first experience of which was a result of my father's nicotine addiction.

You obviously enjoy going out for a pint and something to eat, which most of us do, but how will you feel when the choices of establishments becomes less and less and you're only choice is having a microwaved Wetherspoons meal? I'd like to clarify though Clayton, that I also believe that eating areas/ resteraunts should be non-smoking. Good to hear this, but I can assure you there's a good number of smokers who have no such consideration whatsoever. I also don't want to see the death of the traditional pub being rep[laced by crappy franchises and chains, which is whjat is happening back in the UK. Maybe this another agenda? Well, my local actually is a Wetherspoons.

4) Market Forces; Time and again campaign groups have suggested that Smoking Bans increase business, and have used this as onme of their main arguments in the implementation of the ban. This is clearly disingenious, as figures in the UK suggest differently, and I believe that CAMRA are now looking at reviewing their stance. Certainly bars in BKK have been hit. I was speaking with a Bar owner who has enforced the ban the other evening, nice bloke, nice bar- he reckons that he has seen a significant drop in takings since it came in. I also undersatand that other establishments have the same problems, hence some are now not enforcing it. How about the people who make a living directly and indirectly from bars? What happens when bars close and people lose their jobs? Were do they go? In Thialand they can't just scoot off to the dole office. Well this is what I was referring to when I talked about the bereavement process. What we are seeing is the denial stage, so yes, the will be a spike in the drop in takings - once people have moved to the acceptance stage then I suggest we'll see a recovery.

5) Hypocrisy: You have said time and time again that Governewmnts have a duty. Fine, the simple answear is to ban smoking out right, along with the sales of tobacco. If thery do that, no problem. But they wont, for financial reasons. The Govt are happy to take taxes from smokers, but they dont want smokers giving revenue to other establishments.

I've already sugested this myself & yes, if governments were to impose a total ban I would support it.

6) Smoking is bad; I think that it is irrefutable that smoking is bad, clealry it increases the chances of contracting Lung Cancer, Throat Cancer, Emphasima etc, etc. Alcohol is also bad in that it does pretty much the same, other than we are looking at other organs. If drunk in excess, though I accept there are issues i.e. social problems that do need to be addressed. Unhealthy food is bad, cars are bad ,in fact living is bad. Of course, but the topic's smoking.

Now, the big problem here is, how much information are we really being given about the effects of secondary smoking, is some of the information being supressed to suit governments agendas? I suspect that this is very much the case and this little article make give an inkling; Well I actually believe that secondary smoking is bad for you & most medical studies would confirm this.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fd20061112t2.html Anyway, as always it's worth having a debate. I've obviously got too much time on my hands this week. I wish I could say the same, I'm actually in the middle of a twelve hour shift, but I felt that honouring your post with a response was the correct thing to do.

Anyway, I'm off for a burger and chips cooked in lard, 12 pints of beer and a pack of fags, and I'll walk home just to inhale all the vehicle fumes. Enjoy yourself, just don't smoke your fags in fron of non-smokers, especially children.