Time To Ban Smoking In Thailand's Pubs And Bars

[Bangkok Black Cat]

Good to see that the Labour party in England is proposing a ban on smoking in most public places - including all pubs that serve food. Now isn't it time that Thailand's bars and pubs followed suit?

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/11/16/britain.smoking/

Before pro-smokers start complaining about their rights and freedom, maybe they should pause and consider whether they would like me to dump toxic waste outside their home because after all it's my right to do that, isn't it?

It's not only non-smokers who would welcome being able to have a few beers without reeking of smoke. A number of smokers have already admitted it may in fact help them to give up.

If it's a means of compromise I don't mind having 'smoking pubs' set aside for those who revel in the atmosphere of a cancerous, toxic cloud of fumes.

Let the arguing begin ... if there's owt left to be said like ...

[PvtDick]

Good to see that the Labour party in England is proposing a ban on smoking in most public places - including all pubs that serve food. Now isn't it time that Thailand's bars and pubs followed suit?

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/11/16/britain.smoking/

Before pro-smokers start complaining about their rights and freedom, maybe they should pause and consider whether they would like me to dump toxic waste outside their home because after all it's my right to do that, isn't it?

It's not only non-smokers who would welcome being able to have a few beers without reeking of smoke. A number of smokers have already admitted it may in fact help them to give up.

If it's a means of compromise I don't mind having 'smoking pubs' set aside for those who revel in the atmosphere of a cancerous, toxic cloud of fumes.

Let the arguing begin ... if there's owt left to be said like ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No arguing from me. But why not do what Bhutan just announced it was doing today? Ban all sales of tobacco products country-wide. Make the whole lot go cold turkey, that's what I say!

[350torana]

No argument from me , even though i smoke. Not hard to pop outside to have a cancerstick and the weather here is no excuse not to go outside.

But,i do think the fumes and smoke from all the traffic , food vendors and people who burn thier rubbish in BKK are just as bad as passive smoking .

[LadyinRed]

That will be a hard fight - bar owners are going to cry foul over losing 'smoking' customers

[PvtDick]

That will be a hard fight - bar owners are going to cry foul over losing 'smoking' customers

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And just where are they going to go, exactly? Or do you think they'll stay at home if they can't smoke at the pub?

[FreedomDude]

For the record, I don't smoke (despite my avatar! ) and I don't like inhaling second hand smoke either.

But smoking bans aren't the answer. It is virtually ALWAYS a bad idea for government to dictate how private individuals and business owners choose to run their own establishment... an establishment where customers voluntarily choose to enter and employees voluntarily choose to work. Banning smoking in bars just opens the door for more govt bureaucracy to enforce the rule and bribes. You don't have a "right" to a smoke free environment when you enter a private establishment.

If you don't like bars that allow smoking, keep talking about your desire for such an establishment or open a smoke-free bar yourself. I'd go there

[PvtDick]

For the record, I don't smoke (despite my avatar! ) and I don't like inhaling second hand smoke either.

But smoking bans aren't the answer. It is virtually ALWAYS a bad idea for government to dictate how private individuals and business owners choose to run their own establishment... an establishment where customers voluntarily choose to enter and employees voluntarily choose to work. Banning smoking in bars just opens the door for more govt bureaucracy to enforce the rule and bribes.  You don't have a "right" to a smoke free environment when you enter a private establishment.

If you don't like bars that allow smoking, keep talking about your desire for such an establishment or open a smoke-free bar yourself. I'd go there

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Restaurants and pubs may be privately owned, but they are still classified as public places. Controlling the hygiene of such places -- both the food and the atmosphere -- is one thing that I don't mind the government regulating.

[FreedomDude]

For the record, I don't smoke (despite my avatar! ) and I don't like inhaling second hand smoke either.

But smoking bans aren't the answer. It is virtually ALWAYS a bad idea for government to dictate how private individuals and business owners choose to run their own establishment... an establishment where customers voluntarily choose to enter and employees voluntarily choose to work. Banning smoking in bars just opens the door for more govt bureaucracy to enforce the rule and bribes.  You don't have a "right" to a smoke free environment when you enter a private establishment.

If you don't like bars that allow smoking, keep talking about your desire for such an establishment or open a smoke-free bar yourself. I'd go there

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Restaurants and pubs may be privately owned, but they are still classified as public places. Controlling the hygiene of such places -- both the food and the atmosphere -- is one thing that I don't mind the government regulating.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It has always baffled me how many people continue to be fans of government regulation. Do you think that if all health codes pertaining to food preparation and hygiene (i don't even know if Thailand has such laws. if they do, i would imagine the enforcers are just paid off) were eliminated, that bars and restaurants would suddenly become filthy, unhealthy dumps?? The motivation to treat customers well, build a good reputation and encourage customers to return and employees to remain is enough.

[PvtDick]

For the record, I don't smoke (despite my avatar! ) and I don't like inhaling second hand smoke either.

But smoking bans aren't the answer. It is virtually ALWAYS a bad idea for government to dictate how private individuals and business owners choose to run their own establishment... an establishment where customers voluntarily choose to enter and employees voluntarily choose to work. Banning smoking in bars just opens the door for more govt bureaucracy to enforce the rule and bribes.  You don't have a "right" to a smoke free environment when you enter a private establishment.

If you don't like bars that allow smoking, keep talking about your desire for such an establishment or open a smoke-free bar yourself. I'd go there

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Restaurants and pubs may be privately owned, but they are still classified as public places. Controlling the hygiene of such places -- both the food and the atmosphere -- is one thing that I don't mind the government regulating.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It has always baffled me how many people continue to be fans of government regulation. Do you think that if all health codes pertaining to food preparation and hygiene (i don't even know if Thailand has such laws. if they do, i would imagine the enforcers are just paid off) were eliminated, that bars and restaurants would suddenly become filthy, unhealthy dumps?? The motivation to treat customers well, build a good reputation and encourage customers to return and employees to remain is enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Riiight. If restaurants had open kitchens, maybe. I've worked in professional kitchens in the US, and you'd be shocked at some of the things that go on in them -- even with the regulations. I can't imagine what they'd be like if they weren't at least a little afraid of surprise inspections.

What are you, an anarchist or something? People are pigs...the more rules to keep them in check the better.

[FreedomDude]

For the record, I don't smoke (despite my avatar! ) and I don't like inhaling second hand smoke either.

But smoking bans aren't the answer. It is virtually ALWAYS a bad idea for government to dictate how private individuals and business owners choose to run their own establishment... an establishment where customers voluntarily choose to enter and employees voluntarily choose to work. Banning smoking in bars just opens the door for more govt bureaucracy to enforce the rule and bribes.  You don't have a "right" to a smoke free environment when you enter a private establishment.

If you don't like bars that allow smoking, keep talking about your desire for such an establishment or open a smoke-free bar yourself. I'd go there

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Restaurants and pubs may be privately owned, but they are still classified as public places. Controlling the hygiene of such places -- both the food and the atmosphere -- is one thing that I don't mind the government regulating.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It has always baffled me how many people continue to be fans of government regulation. Do you think that if all health codes pertaining to food preparation and hygiene (i don't even know if Thailand has such laws. if they do, i would imagine the enforcers are just paid off) were eliminated, that bars and restaurants would suddenly become filthy, unhealthy dumps?? The motivation to treat customers well, build a good reputation and encourage customers to return and employees to remain is enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Riiight. If restaurants had open kitchens, maybe. I've worked in professional kitchens in the US, and you'd be shocked at some of the things that go on in them -- even with the regulations. I can't imagine what they'd be like if they weren't at least a little afraid of surprise inspections.

What are you, an anarchist or something? People are pigs...the more rules to keep them in check the better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not an anarchist. I just believe in limiting government to those rolls for which we truly need government.

I vote for every Libertarian I can find on the ballot.

http://www.lp.org/issues

http://www.cato.org

[stroll]

Sure, private cars in public places should also be banned, why should I be poisoned because somebody wants to travel in comfort unnecessarily?

What are you, an anarchist or something? People are pigs...the more rules to keep them in check the better.

I completely agree, Dick, people need to be prevented from being pigs and damaging themselves, others or their surroundings. Everything unhealthy should be banned to start with: Cigarettes, alcohol, coffee, sugar, staying up late at night, watching TV for more than 2 hours a day, playing football, sports posing risk of injury, wearing high heel shoes, debating politics or religion, prostitution, sex without prior approval from a family planning health practitioner, playing loud music, wearing make-up, being in the company of others while carrying commutable diseases such as common cold, well, there are just to many things people could messup on...

Why not issue cards which will list daily approved activities for the individual, including timeframe within which these must or may be performed?

DICK for president!

[PvtDick]

I'm not an anarchist. I just believe in limiting government to those rolls for which we truly need government.

I vote for every Libertarian I can find on the ballot.

http://www.lp.org/issues

http://www.cato.org

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, a Libertarian. One of those a&&holes responsible for the fact that we'll have had to live under George Bush for eight years.

[ProfessorFart]

Isn't there a ban aready?

Personally I prefer open air bars to sterile air con places so it wouldn't affect me.

The way I see it is that I have to put up with peoples exhaust fumes they can put up with a bit of cig smoke.

[PvtDick]

Isn't there a ban aready?

Personally I prefer open air bars to sterile air con places so it wouldn't affect me.

The way I see it is that I have to put up with peoples exhaust fumes they can put up with a bit of cig smoke.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's supposed to be, yes. But many places that call themselves a "pub" or a "bar" instead of a restaurant -- yet still serve food -- don't think they have to abide by it.

[FreedomDude]

I'm not an anarchist. I just believe in limiting government to those rolls for which we truly need government.

I vote for every Libertarian I can find on the ballot.

http://www.lp.org/issues

http://www.cato.org

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, a Libertarian. One of those a&&holes responsible for the fact that we'll have had to live under George Bush for eight years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please elaborate. More Libertarians, in my experience, were former Republicans

than former Democrats. So, if you're saying people who would have voted for Kerry voted Libertarian instead, you're dead wrong. Anyhow, the true a&&holes are the ones who continue to vote for the "lesser of 2 evils" every year, perpetuating the only-2 party system. It's NEVER a wasted vote to vote for what you believe in, even if your candidate has no chance of winning.

[PvtDick]

Sure, private cars in public places should also be banned, why should I be poisoned because somebody wants to travel in comfort unnecessarily?

What are you, an anarchist or something? People are pigs...the more rules to keep them in check the better.

I completely agree, Dick, people need to be prevented from being pigs and damaging themselves, others or their surroundings. Everything unhealthy should be banned to start with: Cigarettes, alcohol, coffee, sugar, staying up late at night, watching TV for more than 2 hours a day, playing football, sports posing risk of injury, wearing high heel shoes, debating politics or religion, prostitution, sex without prior approval from a family planning health practitioner, playing loud music, wearing make-up, being in the company of others while carrying commutable diseases such as common cold, well, there are just to many things people could messup on...

Why not issue cards which will list daily approved activities for the individual, including timeframe within which these must or may be performed?

DICK for president!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

None of your brilliant examples affect anyone but the individual in question, or other consenting adults -- except for "playing loud music" (which is, thankfully, regulated). Not very good analogies, seeing that smoking affects all those in proximity to the smoker, whether consenting or not.

The more laws to protect me from rude, self-centered, and thoughtless people the better! Bring 'em on, and I'll grass anyone who doesn't obey The Man!

[FreedomDude]

Not very good analogies, seeing that smoking affects all those in proximity to the smoker, whether consenting or not.

I've got no problem banning people from going up to someone in a public area (a sidewalk, park, street) and continuously blowing smoke at 'em from 4 feet away. But restaurant and bars ARE NOT PUBLIC. You CAN leave your home and AVOID going to these places.

But I suppose our differences politically go deeper, and it's basically impossible for either of us to convince the other of anything. Basically, you have faith in groups and governments to run our lives and make the best choices. I have faith in individuals to make the right choices for themselves. And that's the bottom line here.

[ProfessorFart]

I think all of this talk of banning smoking as a health risk is an utter nonsense because its seen as an easy vote winner.

If you really want to save peoples lives then start with banning for life any motorists who drive over the speed limit/drink drive limit.

Far more people will die in Thailand's roads over the up coming holidays than will die from passive smoking.

[Bizz]

I am a non-smoker now for 6 weeks just back from los 3 weeks and still stayed off them. Smoking has been banned completely in pubs since last year here in Eire.

Ireland. Not that it bothers me, as I do not drink either.

For those who smoke reading this I know it is hard to give up was smoking 34 years and finished at 40 + a day.Tryed everything to give up everything nothing worked.

and 6 weeks ago I looked at a tiny little copy of my 23 year old son went home that night and crushed the packet in my hand and said to myself I want to be around to see this little guy grow up yes I do. All I can say now is thank god that I did its not easy.

Giving up was the greatest challenge i faced.

Mabye i am still &lt;deleted&gt;**** but at least i will die feeling good.

[Axel]

Good to see that the Labour party in England is proposing a ban on smoking in most public places - including all pubs that serve food. Now isn't it time that Thailand's bars and pubs followed suit?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why on earth should Thailand follow the Labour party in a far away land?

Let her make her own decissions.

And, btw, I like the smoking - ban in restaurants in LoS. Just don't eat out so often anymore and save a lot of money.

[Rinrada]

Smoking is actually banned in bars and rests in LOS but 5555555 u wouldnt think so.

I might live here in the "smoke"but one day might actually enjoy a pub lunch for the first time in about 25 years ....smokers inconsiderate baskets...well done T.B.

[cdnvic]

No argument from me , even though i smoke. Not hard to pop outside to have a cancerstick and the weather here is no excuse not to go outside.

  But,i do think the fumes and smoke from all the traffic , food vendors and people who burn thier rubbish in BKK are just as bad as passive smoking .

I quit in April and its got me wondering if considering the 'quality' of the air from this nations wonderful exaust systems and finely tuned vehicles if I wasn't better off before when at least every third breath went through a filter

cv

[sua yai]

Banning smoking in pubs in the UK? Think I read yesterday, or the day before, that The Minister for Health has thrown it out.

Over here, I can smoke at home, in the open air - I'm not from BKK - and in bars.

I don't mind not being able to smoke in enclosed restaurants. People smoking near my table puts me off my food as well.

[niagarekoja]

Isn't there a ban aready?

Personally I prefer open air bars to sterile air con places so it wouldn't affect me.

The way I see it is that I have to put up with peoples exhaust fumes they can put up with a bit of cig smoke.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well said professor .This whole subject makes me angry.

Having been a pro driver for over twenty years.Exhuast fumes 12 hours a day sucked in throught car vents is a whole lot more dangerous than cig smoke.

Good air ventilation/ extraction fans in bars should keep cig smoke at a minimum.It`s that simple! Speaking from experience in hotel management.

You c an commit suicide a dam site faster with exhaust fumes than cig smoke.This is speaking of experience and suffering from exhaust fumes.Many cab drivers endup suffering from respiritary deseases through this.Standing traffic is by far the worse.You want to see the black dust that collects on cabs!! A lot of this is inhaled Pure poison!

Though the medical proffession is loath to admit this.

What they going to do?

Ban everyone from driving .

Yes lets do that!

They cannot as easily ban cars/trucks etc as ban smoking

You cannot ban cars,buses and truck though, "Can You" ??

Political correctness gone mad!

Lets go back to horse and cart.

"Oh sorry"

They will be complaining about the s*** in the street .

Unhealthy Arrrgggg

[monochaser]

I don't smoke. I think people who want to ban smoking anywhere are scum in its purest form. George Bush and all repubs are my heros

[Rinrada]

Even wee Georgie W Bush (baby)and his old buddy -sorry adversory Osami Bin bucket cant match this up for the amount of genocide inflicted,and this is jolly old "gen-til" blighty.

In comparison the boys down there with the rag-heads in sunny EYE-Rak can prob. feel quite safe at the mo.

Let me see....about 4 fully layden...said layden Jumbo jets -BA-TG-Sg-Pan Am

More than 1,600 people in England die each week

Most smoking deaths in poor areas ...cant afford to live in Bangers

86,500 deaths in England each year can be attributed to smoking

More than 1,600 people in England die each week because of smoking, with the greatest number of deaths occurring in the most deprived areas, a study says.

Some 86,500 people died in England on average each year from 1998 to 2002, the Health Development Agency said.

About 62% of the deaths were men and 38% were women.

The area with the highest proportion of smoking-related deaths was north Liverpool, where 43% of deaths in people over 35 were due to smoking.

Harlow in Essex, Islington in north London, east Hull, central Liverpool, Southwark in south London and north Manchester all had smoking-related death rates of 40%.

The lowest rates were in the west and south east.

In East Devon 23% of deaths in over-35s were down to smoking.

In Bexhill and Rother, East Sussex, and Uttlesford, Essex, the figure stood at 24%.

It is the first time the figures have been broken down on a regional level and has led to renewed calls for anti-smoking measures in the Public Health White Paper, which is due to be published next week.

Deborah Arnott, director of campaign charity Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), said: "The study clearly shows that the highest rates of smoking deaths and smoking is in the most deprived areas.

Who is really dying for a smoke?

"If the government is serious about tackling health inequalities it should introduce a smoking ban in public places and work places."

Professor Sir Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer, said the country was in the "grip of a smoking epidemic".

"Smoking isn't just a national problem, these figures show clearly how our local communities are affected.

"I believe this will be a useful document for everyone working to tackle the prevalence of smoking in this country."

The report, The Smoking Epidemic in England, produced by the University of Portsmouth for the HDA, showed that 85% of lung cancer deaths were estimated to be smoking attributable with 17,400 deaths from chronic obstructive lung disease being caused by smoking.

About 11,500 deaths from ischaemic heart disease, caused by the inadequate flow of blood, among those over 65 were estimated to be due to smoking.

In 1974 45% of the population smoked but in 2003 the figure had fallen to 26%.

Simon Clark, director of smoker's lobby group Forest, said to say it was an epidemic was "crackers" and was bringing the anti-smoking lobby into disrepute.

"I think this is just an attempt to bully the government into bringing in a smoking ban.

"Statistics can be very misleading. I am not saying smoking is not harmful but smokers also often lead unhealthy lifestyles and eat a poor diet and this contributes to death as well."

A British Medical Association spokeswoman said the report made "depressing reading".

"As doctors we know that behind all these statistics lie personal tragedies. This so-called 'pleasure' is costing people their lives."

but we dont believe it ...do we...........ya boo -ya boo

(abridged...more)

www.BBC.co.uk

[Phil Conners]

That will be a hard fight - bar owners are going to cry foul over losing 'smoking' customers

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They might get a lot of non-smoking customers instead. I know I don't go out much mainly because I hate stinking like an ashtray after spending just 10-15 minutes in a smoke filled room.

Stroll, all the other things you mention that are bad for you, alcohol, sugar, coffee etc, at least are just bad for YOU, not for everybody around you.

[Duality]

i can't see any goverment having a full ban on smoking. in the uk labour rakes in over £8 billion in tobacco tax. so dream on...

[PvtDick]

i can't see any goverment having a full ban on smoking. in the uk labour rakes in over £8 billion in tobacco tax. so dream on...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bhutan Bans all Tobacco Products Starting Wednesday

[farangene]

As a former smoker, I refuse to eat in restaurants that smell like smoke. I walked out of O'Reillys and Barbicon yesterday due to smoke smells.

I make it a point to tell someone in the restaurant when there is too much smoke smell to eat there. Lots of non smoking restaurants are available here in Bangkok.