Smoking Now Banned In All Go Go Bars?

[Thai at Heart]

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.

Yes, automobiles serve a purpose but then again so do farming pesticides and other cancer causing chemicals - great argument. Anyways, like I said, you can choose not to be exposed to second hand smoke quite easy these days, but why can I not have the same benefit from your car?

It seems smokers have had their rights narrowed down (and most of us can live with the changes) quite a bit while that of car drivers have not because we can't see the smoke.It's pretty hard to put the combustable engine genie back in the bottle because of your driving addiction.

Are your brake discs lined with asbestos by chance?

If they are sourced from China (an importer and exporter of asbestos BTW) there is an excellent chance of being exposed everytime cars put on the brakes.

Take a deep breath when next in the BKK rush hour, you'll get the nice serpentine mineral straight down to the lungs

This is one reason why all the traffic coppers wear them when out on the streets.

And all this time I thought they did it because they had a cold.

There are studies around that show an almost perfect correlation between the increase in the amount of combustion engines in cities and incidence of lung ailments particularly cancer. They were buried in the bottom of the settlements that the tobacco industry made with the states and will probably never be seen again. Ford and Chrysler with their 6l pick ups going rusty on the forecourts of America have enough trouble already.

Tobacco loses, cars win, but don't believe that second hand smoking whilst irritating is a statistically significant cause of lung cancer.

That all said, smoking bans, fine with me. I smoke less on a night out.

[onzestan]

That all said, smoking bans, fine with me. I smoke less on a night out.

Funny that the most tolerant attitude comes from smokers on this thread. The majority of the non-smokers show little tolerance and or outright hostility, even one expressing his hope that all smokers die a painful death.

cheers

onzestan

[DP25]

Smoking has been banned in bars for a while now. I don't go to Go Go bars much but in most other clubs and bars you haven't been able to smoke for a while. I smoke when I drink, and am totally fine with the ban. I can simply go outside if I want one and it don't bother anyone. I've actually started to go out more because of it, I don't want to smell smoke in a pub if I'm eating dinner. There were pubs that I avoided prior to the ban, now I'm going to them more often.

[Thai at Heart]

That all said, smoking bans, fine with me. I smoke less on a night out.

Funny that the most tolerant attitude comes from smokers on this thread. The majority of the non-smokers show little tolerance and or outright hostility, even one expressing his hope that all smokers die a painful death.

cheers

onzestan

I don't have a problem with any of the bans. It is up to me as a smoker to smoke within the rules, whether I believe them to be right or wrong. There is a way for these things to be handled in an adult fashion without resorting to vitriol. I do object to the silly stats that fly around however.

It has been enjoyed by many for thousands of years. It has become a global financial powerhouse only in the last 100. Other than illicit narcotics there is no more profitable crop per hectare in the world. The US legal system and medical profession has an awful lot to answer for not coming up with the definitive way to allow people to enjoy it without demonising it. There have been filters patented 40 years ago that removed 99.999% of all the harmful bi products but to put them into production would have left the industry open to legal recourse under America's litigation system.

The dumbass surgeon general thought that by reducing nicotine and tar in the cigarette it would be safer without realising that it would spawn the development of the "light" where people would compensate, smoke double and double consumption and ironically double government tax take. Or maybe he did know? You can bet that no one in the tobacco industry objected other than the fact that it forced the creation of crap cigarettes to be smoked in increased volumes.

Politics and the legal system has moved against it, but definitely not at the detriment of 99% of the world's government's pockets. The individuals in Thailand who have spearheaded the anti-smoking campaigns have had very little effect on the total size of the market or cigarette consumption by percentage. It is a great political show for the WHO's benefit. Chop chop is available in any market in Thailand and that goes completely under the radar. That all said, in Asia 30 to 35% of the population smokes, and almost none of them are females. Be prepared for steadily increasing tobacco consumption in Asia as stereotypes about women who smoke are broken down.

[JimsKnight]

The smoking ban in the UK has tore the heart out of a fair few bars and pubs.

Now you can smell the sweat, beer soaked carpets and bad B.O from patrons that the smoke used to mask. The crowds of people outside huddling to get a smoke because they are forced to if they want to socialise in a pub look a forlorn sight and a bit like the establishment punishing the smoker on very flimsy grounds.

Also, with a decent ventilation system the lingering smoke effect can be diminished quite efficiently.

Hopefully in Thailand this will be quietly slipped in a dark hole somewhere and forgotten about. Because I can bet that the smokers will simply move to go-gos that allow smoking.

Thailand courting the WHO sounds very probable. Hopefully just a phase.

[Thai at Heart]

The smoking ban in the UK has tore the heart out of a fair few bars and pubs.

Now you can smell the sweat, beer soaked carpets and bad B.O from patrons that the smoke used to mask. The crowds of people outside huddling to get a smoke because they are forced to if they want to socialise in a pub look a forlorn sight and a bit like the establishment punishing the smoker on very flimsy grounds.

Also, with a decent ventilation system the lingering smoke effect can be diminished quite efficiently.

Hopefully in Thailand this will be quietly slipped in a dark hole somewhere and forgotten about. Because I can bet that the smokers will simply move to go-gos that allow smoking.

Thailand courting the WHO sounds very probable. Hopefully just a phase.

Unfortunately it isn't a phase and the bars in Thailand definitely aren't about to invest another million in ventilation systems. But, what is Thailand to do with all the farmers who grow it and their awfully inefficient TTM?

[MKAsok]

That all said, smoking bans, fine with me. I smoke less on a night out.

Funny that the most tolerant attitude comes from smokers on this thread. The majority of the non-smokers show little tolerance and or outright hostility, even one expressing his hope that all smokers die a painful death.

A disturbingly similar kind of logic to that employed by some pro-lifers who consider it legitimate to murder doctors who perform abortions.

[Ulysses G.]

The smoking ban in the UK has tore the heart out of a fair few bars and pubs.

Now you can smell the sweat, beer soaked carpets and bad B.O from patrons that the smoke used to mask.

The stench of the nasty-rettes is worse that the stuff that it is supposed to be "covering".

Edited October 28, 2008 by Ulysses G.

[bangon04]

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).

At Swampyboom they have glass boxes for smokers, but the smokers always feel the need to leave the doors open so others have to walk through the fug. It does seem like they can't bear their own smoke.. Surely if you keep the door shut you can save money by breathing deeply at other smokers' expense...

[bangon04]

The smoking ban in the UK has tore the heart out of a fair few bars and pubs.

Now you can smell the sweat, beer soaked carpets and bad B.O from patrons that the smoke used to mask. The crowds of people outside huddling to get a smoke because they are forced to if they want to socialise in a pub look a forlorn sight and a bit like the establishment punishing the smoker on very flimsy grounds.

Also, with a decent ventilation system the lingering smoke effect can be diminished quite efficiently.

Hopefully in Thailand this will be quietly slipped in a dark hole somewhere and forgotten about. Because I can bet that the smokers will simply move to go-gos that allow smoking.

Thailand courting the WHO sounds very probable. Hopefully just a phase.

Apparently not true in the places I go to (in UK) - rather an increase in family patrons, food sales, time spent per visit, investment in decor, larger markup on soft drinks and mixers, etc etc. The gloom and doom predictions have not been borne out - only the economic recession is now reducing the trade.

I would love to see bars designated for smokers so that they can go there. Fantastic idea. Maybe Patpong could be designated all smoking zone, specially set aside for the purpose....

[Thai at Heart]

The smoking ban in the UK has tore the heart out of a fair few bars and pubs.

Now you can smell the sweat, beer soaked carpets and bad B.O from patrons that the smoke used to mask. The crowds of people outside huddling to get a smoke because they are forced to if they want to socialise in a pub look a forlorn sight and a bit like the establishment punishing the smoker on very flimsy grounds.

Also, with a decent ventilation system the lingering smoke effect can be diminished quite efficiently.

Hopefully in Thailand this will be quietly slipped in a dark hole somewhere and forgotten about. Because I can bet that the smokers will simply move to go-gos that allow smoking.

Thailand courting the WHO sounds very probable. Hopefully just a phase.

Apparently not true in the places I go to (in UK) - rather an increase in family patrons, food sales, time spent per visit, investment in decor, larger markup on soft drinks and mixers, etc etc. The gloom and doom predictions have not been borne out - only the economic recession is now reducing the trade.

I would love to see bars designated for smokers so that they can go there. Fantastic idea. Maybe Patpong could be designated all smoking zone, specially set aside for the purpose....

I think there should be an enterprising soul out there somewhere. As someone mentioned earlier about the right to a smoke free workplace. Why the hel_l in the 21st century do you need a human being to pull a pint or mix a vodka tonic anyway?

[ClaytonSeymour]

Back on topic for those who asked the original question.

GG bars / bars I know of that allow it....include Hollywood 3rd floor NP, Mandarin 2nd floor, 2nd level, at Cowboy, Baccarat 2nd floor.

Night clubs - Spice club under the ambassador hotel. Soi 8 pub, Huntsmen Pub.

For those with objections to these and other establishments allowing it, you can organise a boycott of these places, perhaps even get together some picket signs and drop by on Friday night to express your thoughts. Make sure you check with the bible bangers as to what night they protest so as not to become mistaken for one of them.

With regards to the hotels flaunting the ban in their outlets, aside from the usual avenues of complaint, the following should be noted.

1. Complain to them directly.
   
2. Complain to TAT.
   
3. Complain to the tour operators who feature the hotel.
   
4. Post negative reviews on places such as Trip Advisor, Holiday Watchdog etc.
   

Photographs are extremely helpful when making any complaints.

[AndyBlueEyes]

I guess this new no smoking law will mean the demise of the 'smoke cigarette in p*ssy trick' in the Patpong shows. Oh well, at least they will still be able to do the ping pong balls.

[SoiSource]

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.

The only person i know that has died from passive smoking was that tap dancing trumpet playing roy castle. Now he worked in bars all his life so he probably passively smoked a few, more than the regular smoking pub vistor who drinks to much which is probably worse than passive smoking so whats worse? Anyway how many people die from passive smoking per year? not many i know. You have more chance of get hit by a rickshaw on the way to the NON smoking bar.

Anyway what they gonna do next ban people driving cars as you passively breath in there fumes??

Edited October 28, 2008 by SoiSource

[SoiSource]

Anyway it seems thailand is getting stricter than TV. :D :D

[ClaytonSeymour]

The only person i know that has died from passive smoking was that tap dancing trumpet playing roy castle. Now he worked in bars all his life so he probably passively smoked a few, more than the regular smoking pub vistor who drinks to much which is probably worse than passive smoking so whats worse? Anyway how many people die from passive smoking per year? not many i know. You have more chance of get hit by a rickshaw on the way to the NON smoking bar.

Anyway what they gonna do next ban people driving cars as you passively breath in there fumes??

How many people suffer ill health through passive smoking? How many have their medical conditions exacerbated through passive smoking? To say that 'You have more chance of get hit by a rickshaw on the way to the NON smoking bar' is absolute nonsense.

I know it's old (2004), but, just for you, this is from an article in New Scientist:

Passive smoking kills one bar worker a week

'Secondhand tobacco smoke kills at least 3600 people a year in the UK, according to a new study, including the death of one pub or bar worker every week.

Konrad Jamrozik at Imperial College, London, UK, says exposure to secondhand smoke in all workplaces leads to the deaths of around 700 people a year'

Full article here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4998...ker-a-week.html

Certainly a lot more than those hit by rickshaws.

[adammike]

SoiSource

Roy castle died from lung cancer he was a non-smoker.

He WORKED in smoky clubs/bars his whole WORKING life.

Do you get it?

Its about a smoke free WORKPLACE.

You know the Barman/dj/waitress/cleaners/cooks/ TRUMPET PLAYERS.

[polecat]

Mods, why are off-topic/abusive posts not being deleted here? The OP asked a question. Several people replied and then a bunch of posters came on to start the same debate that has ruined every other thread that has mentioned smoking.

There is even one post here that says "I hope smokers die chasing a breath of fresh air" or something.

How can this thread be useful for people attracted by the subject heading?

edit: And why on earth are we talking about Roy Castle? Surely it's not this Roy Castle http://www.thesmokingban.org/roy-castle.php

Edited October 28, 2008 by polecat

[ClaytonSeymour]

Mods, why are off-topic/abusive posts not being deleted here? The OP asked a question. Several people replied and then a bunch of posters came on to start the same debate that has ruined every other thread that has mentioned smoking.

There is even one post here that says "I hope smokers die chasing a breath of fresh air" or something.

How can this thread be useful for people attracted by the subject heading?

edit: And why on earth are we talking about Roy Castle? Surely it's not this Roy Castle http://www.thesmokingban.org/roy-castle.php

Perhaps they should also be deleting the posts by smokers that state where/how you can break the law?

[Maigo6]

Polecat and other addicts are just in denial, I'm quite sure most would like to give up but just can't do it, too weak willed etc, hence the need to infect my lungs with their poison of choice, like the Alcoholics who seem to insist that you have a drink and get as slaughtered as they are, cos they are.

The smoking ban is a good thing, pity that it wasn't totally outlawed everywhere and governments could find the billions of dollars in tax revenue elsewhere, I know it won't happen, but I would expect present day smokers would be thankful for the total ban in the long run.

I actually feel sorry for nicotine addicts, you are crucified by the taxman after being addicted to a government controlled drug, you have my sympathy and I would like to see bars remain open where smoking is allowed for you guys, the staff would also have a choice to work in a smoking or non smoking climate, and I would also have the choice to go smoking or non smoking. Yet non smoking bars should be exactly that, so we guys also have a choice.

Thing is the governments tax the hel_l outta smokers, then spend millions of dollars telling the smokers how bad it is, if they really thought that , they would ban it, like they have banned many other drugs, but there is just too much money involved I guess.

Edited October 28, 2008 by Maigo6

[sabaijai]

The OP has been answered, and the thread is going nowhere, so let's take an indefinite cigarette break ...