World No Tobacco Day 2010 aims to protect young female generations

Bangkok (NNT) -- The Ministry of Public Health launches a new campaign under the theme of World No Tobacco 2010 by the World Health Organization (WHO), aiming to protect women and girls from the harmful effects of tobacco.

Public Health Minister, Jurin Laksanawisit states that according to the data from WHO women comprise about 20% of the world’s more than 1 billion smokers, or in other words there are approximately more 200 millions of female smokers. And in Thailand, the population of female smokers, aging between 13-25 years, is twice compared to Thai female smokers in adulthood.

Mr Jurin added this clearly showed that female, particularly young women had become a major target for the tobacco industry. Therefore government and private sectors need to work very hard to tackle this serious problem.

The minister hoped that this year’s theme of World No Tobacco day, ‘Gender and Tobacco" with an emphasis on marketing to women will help to raise people's awareness on how much danger smoking can cause.

The World No Tobacco Day is observed around the world every year on May 31. It is meant to encourage a 24-hour period of abstinence from all forms of tobacco consumption across the globe. This day has been created by World Health Organization (WHO) since 1987.

-- NNT 2010-05-24

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

Yes and it would be good if they would start enforcing the no-smoking laws already in place.

Speaking as a smoker, the annual 'no smoking' days (or whatever they were called) in the UK, were the one day when I (and my smoking friends) smoked even more than usual! Nobody likes someone telling them what to do.

Smokers know the health problems involved and (generally) try to quit when they feel ready to do so (I've packed it in on a couple of occasions for long periods of time - only to start again when hit with a major trauma )

Before the flaming starts - I agree, smoking is a horrible, disgusting habit. Governments should go the whole hog and make it illegal (preferably treating it like any other drug - available on prescription only to us poor, addicted people). If they did this, most of us would eventually give it up once it was no longer readily available.

Hopefully Thai women will be more amenable to being told by official people that they need to quit/never start.

p.s. have to quickly add - some of the no-smoking laws are way beyond unfair.

I can understand smoking being banned in public, confined spaces - we can go outside for our 'fix'. But I was horrified to find that there are no longer smoking areas at Heathrow airport when I last went back to the UK a year or so ago! How does it harm anyone else if the smokers are confined to those awful glass boxes (that even smokers found horrific)?

Having to check in a couple of hours before the flight, facing a VERY long flight where smoking hasn't been allowed for years, its unforgivable that they deny smokers a smoking room at the airport.

Either ban it (and lose the tax revenue - which is why its not banned.....) or allow those addicted to a LEGAL habit somewhere they can smoke.

Edited May 27, 201016 yr by F1fanatic

The problem with these "World <insert issue> Days" is that there are now just too many of them. Every days seems to be a "World" day for something or other. Do they ever achieve anything except give yet another platform for photo ops for minor, and not so minor, politicians and celebrities?

As a non-smoker and the daughter of a man who smoked very heavily for many years, I am afraid I don't have loads of sympathy for smokers. I don't want to smell your smoke and if you get restricted from smoking in places, well tough luck. That said, I don't particularly mind if people smoke out of doors where its dissipated. Just don't expect sympathy from me if you don't get catered to, sorry.

As for the ads targetting women, all you have to do is look back a few years to the Virginia Slims ad campaign "you've come a long way baby" equating the ability to smoke with women's rights.

As a non-smoker and the daughter of a man who smoked very heavily for many years, I am afraid I don't have loads of sympathy for smokers. I don't want to smell your smoke and if you get restricted from smoking in places, well tough luck. That said, I don't particularly mind if people smoke out of doors where its dissipated. Just don't expect sympathy from me if you don't get catered to, sorry.

As for the ads targetting women, all you have to do is look back a few years to the Virginia Slims ad campaign "you've come a long way baby" equating the ability to smoke with women's rights.

Agree about the ads, and also agree that EVERYTHING possible should be done to stop young people starting to smoke. Which is why I said it should be made illegal.

As you are a non-smoker, whilst I can understand your antipathy to smokers, perhaps you should try putting yourself in our shoes? Our horrible habit (we hate it too) is legal - we are addicted (not to mention paying one hel_l of a lot of tax, at least in the UK) and are increasingly facing ban after ban (for our legal habit).

As I said previously, I understand and accept that smoking is banned in confined, public areas (restaurants etc.) - we can go outside for our fix. But to just get rid of the awful smoking glass booths in airports, decreeing that no provision is to be made for this LEGAL habit, even though it used to be done in a way that did not harm non-smokers???

IMO this is just ludicrous. Non-smoking people (and kids) won't even notice - its just the poor, addicted smoker (who already faces a 9? 11? 14? hour flight with no cigarettes) that is facing some sort of vendetta.

Again, either make it illegal or stop making ridiculous bans that don't protect the non-smokers, just pursue an anti-smoking agenda aimed at the addicted.

I am also a smoker. Two years ago in Geneva they did the stopping smoking in restaurants, bars etc. it lasted for 3 months the places were empty. Now the law is back, we can smoke outside. Summer is almost upon us. Therefore they will still make their money. And even in the winter there were always tables outside. One place even had blankets you could wrap yourself in. Its become a habit for me now to go outside to smoke.

I haven't read or heard statistics that the no smoking ban has made people stop smoking. But I have noticed that a lot more younger (teens, early twenties) people do not smoke.

None of my friends stopped, they just stayed at home. And we had some wicked dinner parties.

I respect non smokers. But they should also respect us - as in we need our fix before a long flight, or even short ones. I was at Gatwick in February and the Designated Smoking Area was outside, round the back, near the bins sorta way.

Edinburgh is the same, and with all the hooha about taking your shoes off, etc to get through security it means you add at least 2 hours onto your flight.

Geneva airport has a smoking room. And in the Summer an alfresco terrace.

I usually buy the Nicorette chewing gum. But after a meal and a glass of wine - just not the same`!!!

Edited May 28, 201016 yr by Patsycat

Sorry, well after i vented about smokers and non smokers

Had a nice bath with bubbles, glass of wine on the side and the cigarette. Simply Red in the background.

And the thing arrived, pottered round the side and fell in.

So Patsy and cat fell apart with not too many scratches.

Bastard

I think this a mix of the bubble bath and cigarette threads. Funny thing is, i knew the cat was going to fall in. He's done it so many times. Dumb.

Edit - called jimmi dumb

Edited May 29, 201016 yr by Patsycat

I don't actually have antipathy towards smokers. I have apathy. What you choose to do with your life is your choice, but just like drunk drivers, etc etc you do not have the right to affect my life. My non-smoking has zero effect on you. I don't make the laws and I don't push those laws to be made. Personally, I don't care where you smoke. You need a little glass box well then stand up and make yourself heard, just don't expect non-smokers to give a crap.

I am also a smoker. Two years ago in Geneva they did the stopping smoking in restaurants, bars etc. it lasted for 3 months the places were empty. Now the law is back, we can smoke outside. Summer is almost upon us. Therefore they will still make their money. And even in the winter there were always tables outside. One place even had blankets you could wrap yourself in. Its become a habit for me now to go outside to smoke.

I haven't read or heard statistics that the no smoking ban has made people stop smoking. But I have noticed that a lot more younger (teens, early twenties) people do not smoke.

None of my friends stopped, they just stayed at home. And we had some wicked dinner parties.

I respect non smokers. But they should also respect us - as in we need our fix before a long flight, or even short ones. I was at Gatwick in February and the Designated Smoking Area was outside, round the back, near the bins sorta way.

Edinburgh is the same, and with all the hooha about taking your shoes off, etc to get through security it means you add at least 2 hours onto your flight.

Geneva airport has a smoking room. And in the Summer an alfresco terrace.

I usually buy the Nicorette chewing gum. But after a meal and a glass of wine - just not the same`!!!

So Gatwick has a smokers area? I'm genuinely interested as I'd given up being able to go back home after going through Heathrow.

https://www.cancerprofiler.nexcura.com/Secu...re.asp?CB=30277

zero tolerance .

smoking within ten meters of a young child should be made a criminal offence.

I smoked from §§12 to 50 ( I'm 56) ; I quit many times

I took it back once too many.

you can PM me I might help you quit.

https://www.cancerprofiler.nexcura.com/Secu...re.asp?CB=30277

zero tolerance .

smoking within ten meters of a young child should be made a criminal offence.

I smoked from §§12 to 50 ( I'm 56) ; I quit many times

I took it back once too many.

you can PM me I might help you quit.

Of course, as should being overweight and having children (bad genes and bad example), drinking and having children (bad genes and bad example) etc. etc.

Seriously, @$%* - how intolerant do we NEED to become?

8>< SNIP: NESTED QUOTES DELETED ><8

Of course, as should being overweight and having children (bad genes and bad example), drinking and having children (bad genes and bad example) etc. etc.

Seriously, @$%* - how intolerant do we NEED to become?

We don't NEED to be intolerant; we're intolerant and bigoted because it makes us feel good. We feel superior to those we are bigoted against, and we feel good because we are protecting the innocent from those against whom we are intolerant.

Where does your intolerance lie: (that's a plural 'your', for everyone, not a singular 'thy' - I'm not having a go at any individual)

paedophiles

Pedants

pederasts

sex tourists

drink drivers

smokers

drinkers

zealots

racists

people of other religions

people of other races

intellectuals

left handers

I'm not sure I've got the order right, but I'm sure you get the general intended meaning.

Your ranking may depend upon which groups you are a member of.

SC

PS I'm a passive smoker, because I'm too lazy to do it for myself...

8>< SNIP: NESTED QUOTES DELETED ><8

Of course, as should being overweight and having children (bad genes and bad example), drinking and having children (bad genes and bad example) etc. etc.

Seriously, @$%* - how intolerant do we NEED to become?

We don't NEED to be intolerant; we're intolerant and bigoted because it makes us feel good. We feel superior to those we are bigoted against, and we feel good because we are protecting the innocent from those against whom we are intolerant.

Where does your intolerance lie: (that's a plural 'your', for everyone, not a singular 'thy' - I'm not having a go at any individual)

paedophiles

Pedants

pederasts

sex tourists

drink drivers

smokers

drinkers

zealots

racists

people of other religions

people of other races

intellectuals

left handers

I'm not sure I've got the order right, but I'm sure you get the general intended meaning.

Your ranking may depend upon which groups you are a member of.

SC

PS I'm a passive smoker, because I'm too lazy to do it for myself...

You're trying to make light of the genuine issues involved. Including so many on your list that are either entirely detestable (paedophiles) or entirely irrelevant (left handers), you're making fun of an issue that needs to be 'thought through' by far too many people that have 'knee jerk' reactions against a habit/vice they don't like.

8>< SNIP NESTED QUOTES DELETED ><8

You're trying to make light of the genuine issues involved. Including so many on your list that are either entirely detestable (paedophiles) or entirely irrelevant (left handers), you're making fun of an issue that needs to be 'thought through' by far too many people that have 'knee jerk' reactions against a habit/vice they don't like.

I am trying to offer a list that everyone will be able to draw their boundary within.

Although the saintly amongst us may be able to treat left-handers and paedophiles with the same love, and appreciate that they suffer from an illness that makes them harmful to society, and that they should be constrained to protect society and themselves. Such a saintly person might even be able to lovingly take the most effective option, rather than being constrained by some of the liberal ideals that you and I hold dear.

Remember that paedophilia is not a crime, though child abuse is; the crime is the action, not the desire. When that ceases to be the case, we will have reached a truely Orwellian condition (ref. 1984).

(that's going to be like a red rag, isn't it...).

SC

I personally can't stand the smell of cigarette smoke! Maybe because my father smoked three packs a day and he died of a heart attack at a fairly young age. So I am pretty anti smoking. They made a law in the beach city where I used to live and still have a home, against smoking on the beach. The reason given is; on beach clean up days the most collected item by far were cigarette butts! There's an old rock song by the Tubes that says; the whole word is my ash tray. Seems to be the case!

Why are they only "aiming to protect women and girls from the harmful effects of tobacco." Why not try equally hard to protect both genders? Has political correctness reached this level of stupidity?

Why are they only "aiming to protect women and girls from the harmful effects of tobacco." Why not try equally hard to protect both genders? Has political correctness reached this level of stupidity?

Let's face it, you're not interested in protecting boys and men from the effects of smoking, are you? You're just pursuing your own agenda of intolerance of Political Correctness for the sake of it, to provide yourself with some cheap satisfaction, possibly at other people's discomfort.

I don't think focus is stupid. If people want to have a "protect gay whales from left-handed drunk drivers" campaign, they are welcome to do it; the focus might make it more effective.

Please Live and let live, and stop being such a bigot.

Thanks very much

SC

I suspect the focus is on women because as the article states,

female, particularly young women had become a major target for the tobacco industry

QUOTE (F1fanatic @ 2010-06-05 16:00:09) 8>< SNIP NESTED QUOTES DELETED ><8

You're trying to make light of the genuine issues involved. Including so many on your list that are either entirely detestable (paedophiles) or entirely irrelevant (left handers), you're making fun of an issue that needs to be 'thought through' by far too many people that have 'knee jerk' reactions against a habit/vice they don't like.

I am trying to offer a list that everyone will be able to draw their boundary within.

Although the saintly amongst us may be able to treat left-handers and paedophiles with the same love, and appreciate that they suffer from an illness that makes them harmful to society, and that they should be constrained to protect society and themselves. Such a saintly person might even be able to lovingly take the most effective option, rather than being constrained by some of the liberal ideals that you and I hold dear.

Remember that paedophilia is not a crime, though child abuse is; the crime is the action, not the desire. When that ceases to be the case, we will have reached a truely Orwellian condition (ref. 1984).

(that's going to be like a red rag, isn't it...).

SC

Sorry, got the point of your posts a bit late (where's the 'embarrassed' emoticon?), but you're right.

As you say, we have to feel sorry for paedophiles (it must be horrendous having those feelings) - until they act on those feelings...

There can never be any excuse for putting your own 'wants' above someone elses needs.

Remind me of the author - first they came for....etc. etc.

Edited June 7, 201016 yr by F1fanatic