Smoking Now Banned In All Go Go Bars?

[JimsKnight]

Thailands laws are getting more and more like the nanny state UK and US.

Just been into a go-go bar and asked for a light when the girl at the bar points behind me.

At first I think she's pointing to the bar-fine sign.

'No no' I say, implying I want a lighter.

She points again, in tiny lettering there is a smaller sign with no smoking on it!

<deleted>!?

Is this Thailand or some crazy nannystate bs being brought in?!

Is it like this all over Thailand or just certain places?

The go-go bar in question is in Chiang Mai, a world apart (or so I thought) from Bangkok.

[game4shame]

I've been in a few go-gos since the so-called ban came into force. most didnt give a flying <deleted> if I smoked or not. the ashtrays were hidden away but easy enough to get one on request.

TIT.

[Nowhereman60]

Good, glad to see they are enforcing the law. Smoking kills you and everyone around you.

[spiderman2]

Good, glad to see they are enforcing the law. Smoking kills you and everyone around you.

So does being born, you up for banning that aswell.

[Colonel_Mustard]

I just got back from a few days in BKK (all in the name of research of course ) and it seems that Cowboy is all no smoking, Patpong is all smoking and Nana mixed.

[Maigo6]

You guys that enjoy polluting your lungs ( Incredible as it sounds ) can go outside and poison yourself and leave those not wishing to breathe in your poison and have stinky hair and clothes to themselves.

And if I saw you light up in a non smoking bar I'd call the police and laugh as you paid the fine.

Non smoking bars are a godsend for non smokers and you guys that choose to smoke can stand outside and offend no other person, not too difficult is it ?

Personally I'd like to see smoking baned in any public place, that includes outside of building, sidewalks etc, you smokers should have special capsules where you can enter through specially sealed doors to puff away till your hearts content, or at least until that heart attack comes. Leaving the rest of the population to choose not to breathe in your filth.

The air is polluted enough already in this industrialised world, non smokers don't wana breathe in your cancer sticks when they have a choice, I'm all for non smoking bars, and also bars for smokers, then one truely has a choice.

I've walked into many bars in Thailand and walked straight back out again as the smoke was overpowering, I've never walked out of a smoke free bar.

Sorry lads, but smoking is a filthy habit, its expensive, it ain't no good for you or anyone around you, and you stink.

I know you're addicts and I guess governments are to blame for your addiction, but they make too much money out of you to ban it, so I guess you'll be addicts for the rest of your short lives.

Give it up lads, you know it makes sense!

[JimsKnight]

If you want it like home, go home Maijo!

As in, country of origin home.

Nobody but yourself listens to this fun police / puritanical, expat snob mentallity you show yourself up with.

Sorry but smoking is about as dangerous as drinking IMO. You just have to smoke less, just as you would with the drink.

Cause if you're banning smoking, then you might as well ration alcohol as well, the two very often go hand in hand.

[Colonel_Mustard]

I'm all for non smoking bars, and also bars for smokers, then one truely has a choice.

I would agree with that and that seems to be what is happening by default anyway. Lots of places sticking to the no smoking law and plenty of others not doing so.

[polecat]

Is any of this on topic Maigo6? The OP asked whether smoking was being allowed in go-go bars, not what you thought about it. Although, it's pretty obvious from your long rant that you need to chill out a bit: Why not pour yourself a fresh cup of coffee and kick back with a cigarette. Just a thought.

Oh, and not everywhere on Cowboy is non smoking. If you've got enough puff left in your lungs, upstairs is always a good bet. Or anywhere frequented by Japanese. Or both.

Edited October 28, 2008 by polecat

[Mattchu9999]

Good, glad to see they are enforcing the law. Smoking kills you and everyone around you.

So does being born, you up for banning that aswell.

Being born is not a conscious choice one makes. Like if your parents had made the conscious choice not to burden the world with you and your thoughts, the world would be just a little bit better.

[JimsKnight]

That depends on your belief system of choice Mr Matt.

[PhilHarries]

The air is polluted enough already in this industrialised world, non smokers don't wana breathe in your cancer sticks when they have a choice, I'm all for non smoking bars, and also bars for smokers, then one truely has a choice.

I've walked into many bars in Thailand and walked straight back out again as the smoke was overpowering, I've never walked out of a smoke free bar.

So why the anti smoking rant? Whatever happened to personal choice? You know you check out the venue, if you like it you stay and maybe visit regularly, if you don't like it vote with your feet and wallet. Then the owner has a simple economic decision - smoking or non-smoking which packs in the most customers?

But the anti brigade just can't leave us with freedom of choice, their view must be imposed and resistance is futile.

To the OP, the gogo's in Pattaya seem to be split on the issue some are smoking some are non.

[imaneggspurt]

Oh no, not this old chestnut again, here we go, seconds away, round 2 !

[imaneggspurt]

If you want it like home, go home Maijo!

As in, country of origin home.

Nobody but yourself listens to this fun police / puritanical, expat snob mentallity you show yourself up with.

Sorry but smoking is about as dangerous as drinking IMO. You just have to smoke less, just as you would with the drink.

Cause if you're banning smoking, then you might as well ration alcohol as well, the two very often go hand in hand.

Sorry jim , i cant agree with most of that, however i do think there should be a choice, for us and non smokers,all it takes is a sign outside to say whether its a smoke free place or not, then a choice can be made, as it is outlawed we should all comply,.( in smoke free zones ),,the times they are a changin, and that includes in thailand, lets make the most of it while we can,. as a side note id like to see a poll of how many drinkers also smoke,. ?

[Kerryd]

The establishments I've been to recently seem to mostly allow smoking (4 of 5). In one place that I visit fairly often (friends with the manager & owner), it appears that 95% of their customers are smokers.

Not sure what effect it would have on their business if they made the smokers move outside to puff.

For the place that doesn't allow smoking inside, everyone (including staff) stands outside the entrance. Anyone wanting to enter has to wade through a crowd of smokers, and every time the door opens, the draft sucks in a cloud of smoke into the bar. (Probably not as bad when it's pouring rain outside).

[Mattchu9999]

That depends on your belief system of choice Mr Matt.

Sorry "belief" and "faith" is the destroyer or reason which is why I dont.

I can use reason to prove my point.

Can you use reason to prove yours?

[sylviex]

Cause if you're banning smoking, then you might as well ration alcohol as well, the two very often go hand in hand.

Moderate drinking will not cause harm to others. Smoking, however, does.

I am a former smoker so I understand the desire to smoke, but equally understood it would be very inconsiderate to smoke in the presence of people who disliked it/suffered physical reactions to it(asthma being a common one) or might suffer from it long term.

Just step outside.

[bkkjames]

Cause if you're banning smoking, then you might as well ration alcohol as well, the two very often go hand in hand.

Moderate drinking will not cause harm to others. Smoking, however, does.

I am a former smoker so I understand the desire to smoke, but equally understood it would be very inconsiderate to smoke in the presence of people who disliked it/suffered physical reactions to it(asthma being a common one) or might suffer from it long term.

Just step outside.

I think you non / ex / closet smokers who want to start a thread about it, should. This one is not debating the good / bad of smoking itself. Perhaps you can also join / create a protest to go shutdown the Thai Tobacco Monopoly while you are at it.

As for the OP's question, many nightclubs are allowing it but it seems to be on a case by case basis.

Edited October 28, 2008 by bkkjames

[sylviex]

Cause if you're banning smoking, then you might as well ration alcohol as well, the two very often go hand in hand.

Moderate drinking will not cause harm to others. Smoking, however, does.

I am a former smoker so I understand the desire to smoke, but equally understood it would be very inconsiderate to smoke in the presence of people who disliked it/suffered physical reactions to it(asthma being a common one) or might suffer from it long term.

Just step outside.

I think you non / ex / closet smokers who want to start a thread about it, should. This one is not debating the good / bad of smoking itself. Perhaps you can also join / create a protest to go shutdown the Thai Tobacco Monopoly while you are at it.

As for the OP's question, many nightclubs are allowing it but it seems to be on a case by case basis.

Of course people will discuss the reasons behind the bans -- what are you, some kind of non /ex /closet anti- freedom of expression person ?

[bonobo]

If you want it like home, go home Maijo!

As in, country of origin home.

Nobody but yourself listens to this fun police / puritanical, expat snob mentallity you show yourself up with.

Sorry but smoking is about as dangerous as drinking IMO. You just have to smoke less, just as you would with the drink.

Cause if you're banning smoking, then you might as well ration alcohol as well, the two very often go hand in hand.

Sorry, but your analogy does not work here.

Your sitting next to me drinking a beer has not impact on me. I am not breathing in fumes, I am not coughing, I am not doing anything different. (Of course, if you drink too much, then hit me with your car, then that is a different story.)

But when you smoke, your exhaled smoke goes ito my nose, my throat, my lungs. It directly and specifically affects me.

If you want to smoke, so be it. But I don't understand how you think it is OK to subject me to your smoke. Not only is it bothersome, but it has an adverse affect on my health. I don't begrudge you the smoking rooms at the airport or even going outside for a smoke break. But not in an enclosed space.

What if I sat next to you at some bar and constantly passed gas? Would you complain?

And it is not so much me as a customer. If an establishment is too full fo smoke for me to feel comfortabel, I can walk on by. BUt what about the workers there? THey really have no choice. THey have to suck in your cancer fumes.

My younger brother died of cancer, a type of cancer that only smokers get. The problem was, he never smoked. But his wife did. There can be no other conclusion then that she gave him cancer with that second-hand smoke.

Banning smoking in certain establishments has nothing to do with your civil rights or trying to control you. Just as we ban drunk drivers from the roads, this is a step to protect those who don't want to be breathign in your smoke.

[bkkjames]

If you want it like home, go home Maijo!

As in, country of origin home.

Nobody but yourself listens to this fun police / puritanical, expat snob mentallity you show yourself up with.

Sorry but smoking is about as dangerous as drinking IMO. You just have to smoke less, just as you would with the drink.

Cause if you're banning smoking, then you might as well ration alcohol as well, the two very often go hand in hand.

Sorry, but your analogy does not work here.

Your sitting next to me drinking a beer has not impact on me. I am not breathing in fumes, I am not coughing, I am not doing anything different. (Of course, if you drink too much, then hit me with your car, then that is a different story.)

But when you smoke, your exhaled smoke goes ito my nose, my throat, my lungs. It directly and specifically affects me.

If you want to smoke, so be it. But I don't understand how you think it is OK to subject me to your smoke. Not only is it bothersome, but it has an adverse affect on my health. I don't begrudge you the smoking rooms at the airport or even going outside for a smoke break. But not in an enclosed space.

What if I sat next to you at some bar and constantly passed gas? Would you complain?

And it is not so much me as a customer. If an establishment is too full fo smoke for me to feel comfortabel, I can walk on by. BUt what about the workers there? THey really have no choice. THey have to suck in your cancer fumes.

My younger brother died of cancer, a type of cancer that only smokers get. The problem was, he never smoked. But his wife did. There can be no other conclusion then that she gave him cancer with that second-hand smoke.

Banning smoking in certain establishments has nothing to do with your civil rights or trying to control you. Just as we ban drunk drivers from the roads, this is a step to protect those who don't want to be breathign in your smoke.

So out come the second hand smoke brigade. Make sure you park your SUV before ranting as you cancer causing chemicals make it hard for your argument to hold water.

As a non-smoker, you have a choice not to enter a smoke-filled bar but as a non-driver, I can't step outside in Bangkok or open my windows of my condo without breathing in your poisonous fumes.

[bonobo]

So out come the second hand smoke brigade. Make sure you park your SUV before ranting as you cancer causing chemicals make it hard for your argument to hold water.

As a non-smoker, you have a choice not to enter a smoke-filled bar but as a non-driver, I can't step outside in Bangkok or open my windows of my condo without breathing in your poisonous fumes.

And out comes the militant smoke-at-all costs brigade.

The second-hand smoke arguement "holds water." The deleterious effects of second-hand smoke have been proven over and over again. Your inference that somehow a totally un-related subject can change that is specious. Cars and smoking are not related. There is no cause and effect there.

I also happen to think air pollution is a big problem. In the US, I changed my car from a Jaguar to a Prius for "green" reasons. But in BKK, I drive a regular Toyota. And I sympathize and apologize for any pollution I am putting into the air that you have to breath. In fact, I agree with your complaint. And I am hoping that soon, we can take care of this particular problem.

But that has nothing to do with smoking. There is no connection between the two.

We can drasticlly cut down second-hand smoke with simple regulations. And just because we haven't done enough for air or water pollution does nto mean we should ignoer second-hand smoke.

And yes, I can choose not to enter a smoke-filled bar. (Since I rarely go to bars, that is not really a hard choice to make). And I do choose to not enter a smoke-filled restaurant. But the workers there, the ones who really need the job, they don't have the same choice.

[jdinasia]

Bonobo ----

are you aware that the WHO has twice created studies (long range) attempting to prove 2nd hand smoke was as dangerous as people claimed and twice had the results come back inconclusive!

Anecdotal evidence would support the 2nd hand smoke claim ... but not emprical research so it seems :)ztv

[imaneggspurt]

So out come the second hand smoke brigade. Make sure you park your SUV before ranting as you cancer causing chemicals make it hard for your argument to hold water.

As a non-smoker, you have a choice not to enter a smoke-filled bar but as a non-driver, I can't step outside in Bangkok or open my windows of my condo without breathing in your poisonous fumes.

And out comes the militant smoke-at-all costs brigade.

The second-hand smoke arguement "holds water." The deleterious effects of second-hand smoke have been proven over and over again. Your inference that somehow a totally un-related subject can change that is specious. Cars and smoking are not related. There is no cause and effect there.

I also happen to think air pollution is a big problem. In the US, I changed my car from a Jaguar to a Prius for "green" reasons. But in BKK, I drive a regular Toyota. And I sympathize and apologize for any pollution I am putting into the air that you have to breath. In fact, I agree with your complaint. And I am hoping that soon, we can take care of this particular problem.

But that has nothing to do with smoking. There is no connection between the two.

We can drasticlly cut down second-hand smoke with simple regulations. And just because we haven't done enough for air or water pollution does nto mean we should ignoer second-hand smoke.

And yes, I can choose not to enter a smoke-filled bar. (Since I rarely go to bars, that is not really a hard choice to make). And I do choose to not enter a smoke-filled restaurant. But the workers there, the ones who really need the job, they don't have the same choice.

Drug addicts will say anything to justify their habit,.you will see it here, .since when did a Doctor say smoking is ok in moderation, ( which is true about drinking ) what crock,. come on you can do better than that,. ....

[polecat]

Topic?

[bonobo]

Bonobo ----

are you aware that the WHO has twice created studies (long range) attempting to prove 2nd hand smoke was as dangerous as people claimed and twice had the results come back inconclusive!

Anecdotal evidence would support the 2nd hand smoke claim ... but not emprical research so it seems :)ztv

I am going to go along with studies such as outlined here:

http://www.lungusa.org/site/c.dvLUK9O0E/b.35422/

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/..._Indoor_Air.asp

First, it just makes sense. Smoking is a health hazard. Fact. So why would second-hand smoke somehow clean up its act and be harmless? I do agree that some activists may overstate the deleterious effects of second-hand smoke, but that does not mean that it is in fact harmless.

Second, my brother was one of those statistics. So even if he was the only person in the world who died from second-hand smoke, that is one person too many.

[jayjayjayjay]

Thailands laws are getting more and more like the nanny state UK and US.

Just been into a go-go bar and asked for a light when the girl at the bar points behind me.

At first I think she's pointing to the bar-fine sign.

'No no' I say, implying I want a lighter.

She points again, in tiny lettering there is a smaller sign with no smoking on it!

<deleted>!?

Is this Thailand or some crazy nannystate bs being brought in?!

Is it like this all over Thailand or just certain places?

The go-go bar in question is in Chiang Mai, a world apart (or so I thought) from Bangkok.

Back on TOPIC:

guess this has been asked already, but, does that mean the "smoking show is now banned too?"

me's happy, coz I can slip into a bar now and the gf doesn't ask why I got a smokey smell comming off my clothes, lol.

Edited October 28, 2008 by jayjayjayjay

[PoorSucker]

Many posts with links to health issues.

What has that to do with the fact that ladies stop "smoking".

[bonobo]

Actually, it is somewhat ironic that Thailand is somewhat lagging the worldwide general trend for banning smoking in public places, yet it blurs out images of smoking on television and movies!

[Mattchu9999]

I find it amazing that a person would try and defend smoking as anything other than a way to intentionally harm your body, unintentionally harm others, provide tax revenue for corrupt governments, burden the health care system and perpetuate the pharmaceutical companies treatment over a cure financial schemes.

Using the automobile as a counterpoint to justify smoking is childish. While automobiles pollute, they serve a purpose.

What purpose does smoking provide?

Calm your nerves? I'm sure a BJ would do better to clam your nerves and the cost to your body and wallet is justifiable vs the the toll smoking has on your wallet and body...and society in general.

"Ha ha yeah but some of these girls mouth I'd rather have cancer...ha ha "

Yeah lung cancer vs an STD.....not even the same ball field.

Edited October 28, 2008 by Mattchu9999