Time To Ban Smoking In Thailand's Pubs And Bars

[meom]

If you ban smoking in bars to accomodate non-smokers you might as well ban drinking to accomodate those non-drinkers that want to go out.

Although costly there is good ventilation equipment on the market allowing both parties to enjoy each other's company.

I'd rather smell a smokers breath than the foul vomit odour spreading breath of a non-smoker. Those fumes alone might in fact be more hazardous than secondary smoke.

[Duality]

in bhutan a tourist can still blow smoke in a locals face and diplomats can blow more smoke up everyones bumhole

[Lambastard]

I have it on good authority that only non-smoking farangs will have the right to own land by year end 2004. The laws are being re-written due to overwhelming public outcry from the "un-silent minority." These are a collective of non-pleabian inconnu who oft suffer from self conjured ignes fatui, thus exercising baseless--and in fact--imported rights of free speech from various home countries. Spouting a continuous drone of flippant quips from countless Internet soapboxes, the members of this disagreeable demimonde seem to fain selective amnesia, forgeting that they are guests in this country with no rights of citizenship.

[jackr]

The argument that some people are making that more people are dying from exhaust fumes is a bit pathetic. So what you're saying is because less people are dying from passive smoking than from exhaust fumes, then this is ok. If this ban is put in place, it's good for all and smokers arguing against it are typical, SELFISH!!!

[padma]

If you are that concerned about your health and lungs, I suggest you move out of Bangkok. The air quality here is wore than any smoky bar you'll ever visit.

I personally took up smoking as a result of being here.

[PvtDick]

If you are that concerned about your health and lungs, I suggest you move out of Bangkok.  The air quality here is wore than any smoky bar you'll ever visit. 

I personally took up smoking as a result of being here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This air pollution argument is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Yes, it's bad enough outdoors: that's why indoors should remain a smoke-free haven.

Whine all you want, but it's going to happen sooner or later, worldwide, whether you like it or not.

[Axel]

Well, I don't know what should be so dumb about.

During my time in Tokyo I got serious breathing problems which were diagnosed by UK and US-doctors as Tokyo-asthma.

This goes back to the 1970ies when the pollution in Tokyo was bad.

Got all kind of medication, in halers a.s.o. and was gone everytime I left the city.

Don't see what this would have to do with smoking. OK, I did smoke at that time.

The rest of the discussion I will never understand. If I don't like the smoke I don't go to a place where smoking is allowed. What is so difficult about?

Singapore, as an example handles the issue perfect. While dinner is served, no smoking. After that the ashtrays come out and the smokers come in.

No problem for me, I am free in my decision and can leave, if I don't like it.

[FreedomDude]

Would somone please tell me how these scenarios differ? Each proposal involves the government making a law that simply tells owners of private establishments how they must operate their establishment in a way that only impacts the health of customers who VOLUNTARILY enter and employees who VOLUNTARILY work there.

1. Ban smoking in bars and restaurants.

2. Ban the selling of unhealthy fast foods: hamburgers, fried chicken french fries.

3. Ban sexual contact at massage parlors

4. Ban alcohol sales

If you favor the adoption of proposal #1, why don't you support 2, 3 and 4? Because #1 wouldn't impact any activities that YOU participate in.

Who is the truly SELFISH one in this debate???

[The Coder]

Would somone please tell me how these scenarios differ?

1. Ban smoking in bars and restaurants.

2. Ban the selling of unhealthy fast foods: hamburgers, fried chicken french fries.

3. Ban sexual contact at massage parlors

4. Ban alcohol sales

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

#2,#3,#4 don't force others who find themselves in the vicinity reeking the rest of the night. I'm all for smokers, but I draw the line when it means I am forced to bear the consequences of someone elses dirty habit. Same for alcohol. Drink as much as you want, but if you hit the roads drunk, that's another story altogether. Does that make sense?

[FreedomDude]

Would somone please tell me how these scenarios differ?

1. Ban smoking in bars and restaurants.

2. Ban the selling of unhealthy fast foods: hamburgers, fried chicken french fries.

3. Ban sexual contact at massage parlors

4. Ban alcohol sales

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

#2,#3,#4 don't force others who find themselves in the vicinity reeking the rest of the night. I'm all for smokers, but I draw the line when it means I am forced to bear the consequences of someone elses dirty habit. Same for alcohol. Drink as much as you want, but if you hit the roads drunk, that's another story altogether. Does that make sense?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But you're NOT "forced" to bear these consequences. You don't have to go to smoky bars. I'm all for locking up folks who drive on the public roads after drinking. If you want to drive around drunk on your own private farm.. fine! There IS ABSOLUTELY a difference between activities that impact your safety while you're in a publicly owned area vs. a private establishment. Any rational person who enters a bar where smoking is allowed knows there is a good chance of inhaling unhealthy cigarette smoke. If you go into the bar and someone assaults you or poisons your food, call the police! Have the criminal responsible arrested.

I'm just so sick and tired of everyone running to their politicians to make more laws demanding more "imaginary" rights whenever something bothers them. 80 years ago, the average family in the US paid about 4% annual income tax. Now, the average family works January, February and March just to pay their federal income taxes! And it ain't all going over to Iraq, though that mess over there isn't helping matters. Government spending has gone out of control as people choose to demand MORE and MORE of their politicians rather than handling private matters for themselves.

Sorry for the long winded rant.

Good day!

[PvtDick]

Sorry, Freedom Dude, but you're going to be "sick and tired" for a long, long time. That is, unless a Libertarian is ever elected President. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

[jackr]

IS ABSOLUTELY a difference between activities that impact your safety while you're in a publicly owned area vs. a private establishment.  Any rational person who enters a bar where smoking is allowed knows there is a good chance of inhaling unhealthy cigarette smoke.

...he's not listening. A bar is not classed as a private establishment. It's a public house when selling beer and 50 people should not have to suffer the ill-affects of one selfish person's disgusting habit!! Saying it's their choice that they walk in there and should have to put up with it is a bit lame. There should be separate rooms if smokers want to smoke or bugger off outside. Better still, strategically placed welding-spec' extract units should be installed along the length of the bar and positioned not farther than 1 inch from the perpetrators mush when they light-up.

[meemiathai]

Legalize the so-called illegal drugs! I have no problem with people taking drugs.

But ban the selling of tobacco!!! Death penalties for violators!!!

[Doctor John]

Alcohol and Tobacco are responsible for 97% of all drug related deaths.

In the Ideal world both would be banned for what they are, dangerous drugs.

But as Billions of Dollars are raised daily for governments worldwide by the taxation of these products, they will remain legal.

I think there should be smoking Bars to cater for those that are addicted to a government taxed drug, after all, the government allows a highly addictive drug to be sold, so I do not think they should penalise the addicts.

I feel quite sorry for the addicts, in UK 5 pounds a pack, Husband and Wife Smoking 20 a day each...... 3650 Pounds a year on a government taxed killer drug.

Smoking and non smoking pubs are the way to go, the governments are wrong to penalise the addicts that they benefit from.

I am a non smoker.

[Phil Conners]

The rest of the discussion I will never understand. If I don't like the smoke I don't go to a place where smoking is allowed. What is so difficult about?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Axel, you're usually a smart guy. How can you say such nonsense? Show me an indoor bar in Pattaya where I am not being suffocated by smoke. It is not possible ... yet.

We have come a long way since the cigarette ads from the fifties suggesting smoking has benefits, in due time hopefully it will be realized that it's just an addiction, a sickness, that those infected with can be cured for, and we can all spend a night out without coming home stinking like ashtrays.

[slimdog]

Just to add a new twist to the topic, have a look at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../20/ixhome.html

Brings up an image of someone working in a smoke filled room all day and then going to church each night praying that they won't get lung cancer...

One day I hope sense will prevail

[Axel]

The rest of the discussion I will never understand. If I don't like the smoke I don't go to a place where smoking is allowed. What is so difficult about?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Axel, you're usually a smart guy. How can you say such nonsense? Show me an indoor bar in Pattaya where I am not being suffocated by smoke. It is not possible ... yet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, madsere, guess I take it as a compliment.

Cannot say much about Pattaya as never go there. OK once since '73.

In Bangkok we have lots of no-smoking restaurants, so you have a choice. The only problem I have when suggesting such place, the majority, even non-smokers, will not join for consideration to the smokers.

I am not disturbed by somebody smoking next to me, although I can refrain for a few hours, myself. In my own experience, however, people do not like to frequent places with strict no-smoking-rule.

Take an example. I am every week with a business table for dinner, used to be in the same restaurant. After the place (had to) implemented the rule, over 50% of the clients where lost. 'My' table I just could not do there anymore. The owner coped with the situation and opened a room in the back, which is private and by invitation only. The room is packed every night, the restaurant outside is half-empty. (Allow me not to mentioned the name of the place).

Or, take a place like Gulliver's on Sukh Soi 5. They do have a huge non-smoking area, normally it's empty while the main bar is packed. I agree the smell of stale smoke in your clothes is not pleasant but it can be washed and should be every day in the Bangkok-heat. What bothers me more are beer- or wine-stains you get from drunk people around you. Red-wine is very difficult to wash out.

So, I do stick to my own rule and chose a place to my liking, wether smoke-free or not.

Over in Hong Kong they have a nice law, every restaurant has to have a sign at the entrance showing wether or not non-smoking seats are available. If the sign says 'no smoking seats unavailable' the patrons can decide immediately not to enter. Believe this is fair and follows what the majority wants.

[Ken]

Thank you Axel for what I consider (yep my opinion) a well thought out reply. I don't smoke cigarettes myself (never have), although I have been known to enjoy a "GOOD" cigar (ok outside only 'cause they do "stink" depending on what you smoke and who you talk to). Rather than fuel the fire of the "anti-smoking" brigade (some of them "reformed" previous smokers who now "got religion"), I'll leave it at that.

Thanks for saying it better than I can.

[Phil Conners]

When you one day stop smoking - and you will join the masses, sooner or later - you will see the errror of your way.

[Ken]

When you one day stop smoking - and you will join the masses, sooner or later - you will see the errror of your way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, sounds like a religion to me, but as religions go, should be "up to you".

[jackr]

When you one day stop smoking - and you will join the masses, sooner or later - you will see the errror of your way.

Sorry, sounds like a religion to me, but as religions go, should be "up to you".

Yep! and religious wars have killed more people by far, than second hand cigarette smoke ever will.

I am a smoker, an addict, a nicotine junky with no religion. And much of what I have read thus far is based on human selfishness... and much hypocricy. Anti-smokers drive cars, travel in taxies, planes, use refrigerators, spray cans, wood and paper etc. etc. and are destroying the environment (FAST) in a multitude of ways... then they scream about cigarette smoke. It is truly laughable. All of the above will sooner or later and probably sooner, destroy life as we know it... for us, our children... or grandchildren at latest.

Cigarettes are legal for those who use them, the same as the above mentioned poducts are legal. As they are legal, then the anti-smokers should keep on complaining until they are made ilegal... Until that time comes I say TOUGH! Our kids, and thier kids will reap the rewards of our refrigerators, spray cans, car, taxi and plane fumes and the diminishing forests... Much better to think on this.....

Besides... if secondhand smoke does not kill you... something else will. And you can take that to the Bank!

Typical smoker's response, I'm afraid. Mention everything else that is harmful in the world when the anti-smoking argument comes up and then say 'tough, it's up to me' with regards the real issue...hmmm

[jackr]

When you one day stop smoking - and you will join the masses, sooner or later - you will see the errror of your way.

Sorry, sounds like a religion to me, but as religions go, should be "up to you".

Yep! and religious wars have killed more people by far, than second hand cigarette smoke ever will.

I am a smoker, an addict, a nicotine junky with no religion. And much of what I have read thus far is based on human selfishness... and much hypocricy. Anti-smokers drive cars, travel in taxies, planes, use refrigerators, spray cans, wood and paper etc. etc. and are destroying the environment (FAST) in a multitude of ways... then they scream about cigarette smoke. It is truly laughable. All of the above will sooner or later and probably sooner, destroy life as we know it... for us, our children... or grandchildren at latest.

Cigarettes are legal for those who use them, the same as the above mentioned poducts are legal. As they are legal, then the anti-smokers should keep on complaining until they are made ilegal... Until that time comes I say TOUGH! Our kids, and thier kids will reap the rewards of our refrigerators, spray cans, car, taxi and plane fumes and the diminishing forests... Much better to think on this.....

Besides... if secondhand smoke does not kill you... something else will. And you can take that to the Bank!

Typical smoker's response, I'm afraid. Mention everything else that is harmful in the world when the anti-smoking argument comes up and then say 'tough, it's up to me' with regards the real issue...hmmm

And the REAL issue...hmmm...

Think on this you anti-smokers... Where will governments get their taxes from in place of Tobacco Taxes? In the UK alone, tobacco tax ammounts to £9.5 billion per year. Not to mention that millions of people would live much longer and put massive pressures on old age pension scheme (where to find the money?) How many jobs relating to tobacco products would be lost... and WHO will pay for this lot??? YOU would pay for it, instead of ME and the likes of me paying for it. So leave us guys and gals alone... let us smoke in peace and pay our taxes. OR, get smoking banned worldwide and then the likes of you will have something else to scream about and moan about and grizzle about... when the government TAXES your A55 OFF

Doesn't really bother me either way to be honest, but it's quite comical to see you guys get your backs-up when it's mentioned.

[mbkudu]

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.

This is so correct.

[meemiathai]

Yep! and religious wars have killed more people by far, than second hand cigarette smoke ever will.

I am a smoker, an addict, a nicotine junky with no religion. And much of what I have read thus far is based on human selfishness... and much hypocricy. Anti-smokers drive cars, travel in taxies, planes, use refrigerators, spray cans, wood and paper etc. etc. and are destroying the environment (FAST) in a multitude of ways... then they scream about cigarette smoke. It is truly laughable. All of the above will sooner or later and probably sooner, destroy life as we know it... for us, our children... or grandchildren at latest.

Cigarettes are legal for those who use them, the same as the above mentioned poducts are legal. As they are legal, then the anti-smokers should keep on complaining until they are made ilegal... Until that time comes I say TOUGH! Our kids, and thier kids will reap the rewards of our refrigerators, spray cans, car, taxi and plane fumes and the diminishing forests... Much better to think on this.....

Besides... if secondhand smoke does not kill you... something else will. And you can take that to the Bank! 

And the REAL issue...hmmm...

Think on this you anti-smokers... Where will governments get their taxes from in place of Tobacco Taxes? In the UK alone, tobacco tax ammounts to £9.5 billion per year. Not to mention that millions of people would live much longer and put massive pressures on old age pension scheme (where to find the money?) How many jobs relating to tobacco products would be lost... and WHO will pay for this lot??? YOU would pay for it, instead of ME and the likes of me paying for it. So leave us guys and gals alone... let us smoke in peace and pay our taxes. OR, get smoking banned worldwide and then the likes of you will have something else to scream about and moan about and grizzle about... when the government TAXES your A55 OFF 

This is really what I call laughable! I don't give a shit if it is killing me or not! The problem is it brings discomfort to me. To be honest I am an ocassional smoker. But I still find it sucks when I'm trying to have my meal whilst the one next to me is burning this shit. I feel sorry for those who don't smoke.

is based on human selfishness

This is the funniest part!

And yes, the fact that I exist is destroying the environment.(If you would like to put it that way)

What do you think if I pick up a habit of eating shit? or maybe smoking mosquito coils? or joss sticks? Is it ok if I sit next to you doing that?

Where will governments get their taxes from

Just go rob their citizens! Not much differences!

Cheers mate!

[slimdog]

The question is quite simple; Should smoking be banned in the Pubs and Bars of Thailand ?

My answer is NO.

Here is the reason:

Ever since the first world war (when they were called coffin nails) people have realised that there are dangers associated with smoking. Many studies have been carried out and published, and for the past thirty or so years Governments around the world have rightly informed their people of these dangers.

Restrictions have rightly been put in place regarding advertising and the selling of tobacco products to children, and Governments have rightly (in my opinion) forced the tobacco companies to put health warnings on their products. In recent years there has emerged fears that second hand smoke may cause serious health problems for non smokers, and the Governments around the world (Thailand included) have rightly made sure that the people are informed of these dangers. Many Governments have started and continue to offer help to those people who wish to stop smoking. As a result of all this, there can be few people within Thailand (or any other country for that matter) who do not understand the probable dangers associated with tobacco products both directly and indirectly.

Figures vary from country to country but on average anywhere from 65% - 80% of people do not smoke.Thailand estimates that appoximately 25% of it's adult population are smokers, meaning that 75% do not smoke.

So we have a product which is adictive, which can cause health problems for those who use it and can cause possible health problems for those who are in close proximaty to people who do use it.

Anti-smoking advocates both within and outside of Governments have been relentless in getting through legislature to protect the majority of people from these dangers. One country (Bhutan) has banned smoking. Both Canada and Ireland have banned smoking in Public places, likewise so have the states of New York and California.The U.K Government is bringing out tough new anti-smoking legislature, although many anti-smoking advocates are up in arms that the new laws will not be tough enough.

All of this begs the question of why I am in favour of allowing smoking in the Pubs and Bars of Thailand ?

Freedom of Choice... In Thailand there are literarally hundreds of thousands of Pubs, Bars and Restraunts, the vast majority of which are owned by individuals, families or small groups of partners. They have the freedom to chose what type of Pub,Bar or Restraunt they want there establishment to be, hence there are bars catering to the masses, others cater to particular groups ranging from Sports enthusiasts to Elvis worshippers. There are Pubs and Bars catering to every known sexual orientation, ethnic group, age group and political persuasion. There are Pubs and Bars for singles, couples and families. Why is it that there are no bars catering to the non-smokers ? In theory there should be tens of thousands, and with them the question of banning smoking would be a non issue.Why is it that the Anti-Smoking advocates who represent 75% of the people have been so completely unsuccessful in establishing a single Pub or Bar to cater for them (Other than by law) ? Because it is the peoples choice... Don't ask me why !

[jackr]

The question is quite simple; Should smoking be banned in the Pubs and Bars of Thailand ?

My answer is NO.

Here is the  reason:

Ever since the first world war (when they were called coffin nails) people have realised that there are dangers associated with smoking. Many studies have been carried out and published, and for the past thirty or so years Governments around the world have rightly informed their people of these dangers.

Restrictions have rightly been put in place regarding advertising and the selling of tobacco products to children, and Governments have rightly (in my opinion) forced the tobacco companies to put health warnings on their products. In recent years there has emerged fears that second hand smoke may cause serious health problems for non smokers, and the Governments around the world (Thailand included) have rightly made sure that the people are informed of these dangers. Many Governments have started and continue to offer help to those people who wish to stop smoking. As a result of all this, there can be few people within Thailand (or any other country for that matter) who do not understand the probable dangers associated with tobacco products both directly and indirectly.

Figures vary from country to country but on average anywhere from  65% - 80% of people do not smoke.Thailand estimates that appoximately 25% of it's adult population are smokers, meaning that 75% do not smoke.

So we have a product which is adictive, which can cause health problems for those who use it and can cause possible health problems for those who are in close proximaty to people who do use it.

Anti-smoking advocates both within and outside of Governments have been relentless in getting through legislature to protect the majority of people from these dangers. One country (Bhutan) has banned smoking. Both Canada and Ireland have banned smoking in Public places, likewise so have the states of New York and California.The U.K Government is bringing out tough new anti-smoking legislature, although many anti-smoking advocates are up in arms that the new laws will not be tough enough.

All of this begs the question of why I am in favour of allowing smoking in the Pubs and Bars of Thailand ?

Freedom of Choice... In Thailand there are literarally hundreds of thousands of Pubs, Bars and Restraunts, the vast majority of which are owned by individuals, families or small groups of partners. They have the freedom to chose what type of Pub,Bar or Restraunt they want there establishment to be, hence there are bars catering to the masses, others cater to particular groups ranging from Sports enthusiasts to Elvis worshippers. There are Pubs and Bars catering to every known sexual orientation, ethnic group, age group and political persuasion. There are Pubs and Bars for singles, couples and families. Why is it that there are no bars catering to the non-smokers ? In theory there should be tens of thousands, and with them the question of banning smoking would be a non issue.Why is it that the Anti-Smoking advocates who represent 75% of the people have been so completely unsuccessful in establishing a single Pub or Bar to cater for them (Other than by law) ? Because it is the peoples choice... Don't ask me why !

[Abandon]

Ban smoking???????

Ban the RAIN thread first!!!!!

[toastwars]

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 ...

I blooody love fags!!!!!!!

lovely...smoke flavour

Cant they make vitamin enriched ones, then you whining non smoking maggots might shut up for five seconds while I finish me tab

[Rinrada]

Old Billy was quite a nice old codger.

Ex schoolmaster who had never married but had let himself go a bit but a still a reasonable conversationalist in the pub.Enjoyed a couple of beers and the odd "roll up"...of course...as one does

No body really objected too much although with his personel hygene standards at times a wee bit fraught he probabally earned his nickname of "old Stinky"

No real medical upsets however apart from the usual (for a chap of his age).....heart by pass and pacemaker he got for his Chrismas last year and later on a letter from the factory "oop hill" suggesting an examination to have another look at his lungs

He didnt look too bad in the ward but it always supprises me when you hear that sort of crunchy,gurgle noise emaninating from the depths of someones lungs indicating that his wee "roll ups " just might have been.....well never mind... nice old boy.

He was telling me that the local authority had finally paid out the pension that he had been waiting for.....(for years) and he now had a nice little cheque for just over £26,000 that would help him to rent something decent and get "orrf" the Social.

His only prob.of course was this damm wee nasty cough.

Dont (he says) whatever you do ever take up smoking like I did...aint good for you and I (koff-koff) should know......How often have I heard that before?

Funny how they all say that when they are hanging on to their oxygen mast (should have been a deep sea diver in Pat)gasping for a last breath...again with that by now orrible,desperate,convulsive,retching...FCKUin noise from deep inside the pale,drawn,parchment excuse for a human "body"

Anyway to cut a long story short .... he was buried yesterday and he wont have to worry about what another roll ups can do ...nice "Old" boy.....

erm...as it happened he was only 61