Most Night Spots In Bangkok And Pattaya Stick To Smoking Rules: Survey

[webfact]

Most night spots stick to smoking rules: survey

THE NATION

File photo. Source: wikimedia

A survey of smokers' habits by Mahidol University has found a high percentage of entertainment venues enforce no-smoking laws on their premises, while less than half of all smokers complied with them, activists reported at a Bangkok media conference yesterday.

The activists said the no-smoking laws would not be effective if smokers were not subject to fines, while venues would be unwilling to be harsh on their smoking customers.

In the survey conducted at three key entertainment strips in Bangkok and one in Pattaya, 67.7 per cent of venues were "active" in upholding no-smoking laws, while 59.5 per cent did so in Pattaya, said Assoc Prof Phimphawal Bunmongkhol.

The percentage of smokers complying and not complying with the law were close - 46 and 47 per cent respectively - while regular violators numbered 6 per cent. The number of participants and duration of the survey were not available.

Most smokers choose filtered cigarettes (86.6 per cent), while 12.9 per cent smoke baraku (water pipe) tobacco and 7 per cent choose hand-rolled cigarettes.

The survey found restrictions on cigarette promotion, on-site advertising at location and glamorous portrayals of smoking were loosely enforced by owners of concert venues.

-- The Nation 2011-12-29

[pepi2005]

Well, looking away and ignoring anything 'inconvenient' their eyes may see

is and has always been a 'strength' of Thais.

[steveyinasia]

You have to be kidding, one does not need a survey to see that most smoker dont give a dam_n about the rules and most owners dont challenge them for fear of losing the business. Another BS survey aimed at hiding the truth.

[brucegoniners]

There are no smoking laws in Pattaya? Really? I was there a couple of weeks ago and there were people smoking in EVERY BAR I went into. I don't know who was being surveyed here, but that's a load of crap IMHO.

[Langsuan Man]

A survey of smokers' habits by Mahidol University has found a high percentage of entertainment venues enforce no-smoking laws on their premises, while less than half of all smokers complied with them, activists reported at a Bangkok media conference yesterday.

Another nonsensical story. If the entertainment venues enforced the no-smoking laws on their premises, then the smokers would comply with them as was evidenced by the few times they were enforced

no enforcement = no compliance, Simple

[rmacdon61]

Sure don't smoke, wear a hospital mask and speed home without a helmet on. Give me a break!

[chrisinth]

You have to be kidding, one does not need a survey to see that most smoker dont give a dam_n about the rules and most owners dont challenge them for fear of losing the business. Another BS survey aimed at hiding the truth.

Have to agree; I was there about a month ago (for a stag night, over 2 days!) and with the exception of 2 premises we could smoke in every place.

And you are correct, the owners won't say anything for fear of losing the trade and that is the way it will stay until the enforced no-smoking laws are followed across the board. People want to smoke when they are drinking; this is a habit that has been ingrained over many years (decades in some cases) and if the chance to smoke is there, it will be used.

I still believe that the right to smoke should be up to the owner of the premises, and the customers who don't want to use it can go else where.

In this BS socially/politically correct world that we have created, as long as smoking material is legally sold across the counters, smokers have rights as well!!

[chrisinth]

A survey of smokers' habits by Mahidol University has found a high percentage of entertainment venues enforce no-smoking laws on their premises, while less than half of all smokers complied with them, activists reported at a Bangkok media conference yesterday.

Another nonsensical story. If the entertainment venues enforced the no-smoking laws on their premises, then the smokers would comply with them as was evidenced by the few times they were enforced

no enforcement = no compliance, Simple

It is strange how it works though. We built another bar outside (the wife has a small bar up here in Phits) when the anti-smoking enforcement was at its height specifically for the smokers.

Now, everyone uses the outside bar, smokers & non-smokers, and the only time people are indoors is when it is pissing down with rain and blowing a gale!

None of the non-smokers complain about this; its the smokers who complain when they can't get a seat!

[Jayman]

I still believe that the right to smoke should be up to the owner of the premises, and the customers who don't want to use it can go else where.

You are forgetting about the employees that work in there that must be subjected to the smoking environment for 12 hours of the day. Are you also saying if they don't like it they should find employment elsewhere? Anti-smoking laws around the world are for the protection of the general public that wishes to not be poisoned by the 2nd hand smoke of those that feel their right to injest what they want in their own bodies outweighs the effect it has on others.

[Arkady]

There are now quite a few bars that pay the police extra to allow smoking and even offer customers an ash tray when they walk in. If it bothers me I leave immediately and tell the waitress the reason I am leaving so quickly. Once I ordered a drink and was so nauseated by a farang who lit up a Camel and started blowing smoke all over me that I left without waiting for my drink to arrive, although I did explain the reason for the cancellation.

[Arkady]

I still believe that the right to smoke should be up to the owner of the premises, and the customers who don't want to use it can go else where.

You are forgetting about the employees that work in there that must be subjected to the smoking environment for 12 hours of the day. Are you also saying if they don't like it they should find employment elsewhere? Anti-smoking laws around the world are for the protection of the general public that wishes to not be poisoned by the 2nd hand smoke of those that feel their right to injest what they want in their own bodies outweighs the effect it has on others.

Quite right. The British Club tried to set up a smoking lounge a few months ago but the attempt was fortunately scotched by members who were opposed to it and were aware that staff were vehemently opposed to having serve members in a smoke filled room, even they didn't dare say anything to the general committee. I think the club saved itself serious legal problems by backing down. The current smoking laws not only prohibit smoking indoors in a recreation club but also prohibit it outdoors which the club in its ignorance still illegally tolerates.

[DaiHard]

You are forgetting about the employees that work in there that must be subjected to the smoking environment for 12 hours of the day. Are you also saying if they don't like it they should find employment elsewhere? Anti-smoking laws around the world are for the protection of the general public that wishes to not be poisoned by the 2nd hand smoke of those that feel their right to injest what they want in their own bodies outweighs the effect it has on others.

I suspect you are subject to a lot more carcinogens from black diesel exhaust from badly maintained engines and smoke from roadside barbecues - want to ban them too? And if the bar closed down though lack of custom the employees would lose their jobs anyway. Anti smoking laws were brought in because big Pharma companies wanted to make a killing on smoking cessation aids that don't work or have side effects that are worse that the effects of tobacco - like Chantix (look at who funds these campaigns).

[DaiHard]

Quite right. The British Club tried to set up a smoking lounge a few months ago but the attempt was fortunately scotched by members who were opposed to it and were aware that staff were vehemently opposed to having serve members in a smoke filled room.

Absolutely! They should ban alcohol next (far more deaths caused by that particular drug), then salt then... Soon be like good old blighty then.

[DaiHard]

The current smoking laws not only prohibit smoking indoors in a recreation club but also prohibit it outdoors which the club in its ignorance still illegally tolerates.

Er ... according to Public Health Minister Jurin Laksanavisit smoking areas must be located outside. He added "Those who do not provide smoking areas as required by the public health announcement could face a fine of up to 20,000 baht."

Please explain.

[Jayman]

You are forgetting about the employees that work in there that must be subjected to the smoking environment for 12 hours of the day. Are you also saying if they don't like it they should find employment elsewhere? Anti-smoking laws around the world are for the protection of the general public that wishes to not be poisoned by the 2nd hand smoke of those that feel their right to injest what they want in their own bodies outweighs the effect it has on others.

I suspect you are subject to a lot more carcinogens from black diesel exhaust from badly maintained engines and smoke from roadside barbecues - want to ban them too? And if the bar closed down though lack of custom the employees would lose their jobs anyway. Anti smoking laws were brought in because big Pharma companies wanted to make a killing on smoking cessation aids that don't work or have side effects that are worse that the effects of tobacco - like Chantix (look at who funds these campaigns).

If someone brings a diesel exhaust vehicle into the bar I'm sitting in them yes I think they should be fined add well. Also there are many laws governing the dirty exhaust that comes put of vehicles but those are often overlooked in thailand as well. I've been coming here over 20 years and you'd be blind not to see the negative effects motor vehicle pollution is causing. If you want to pull your car into your house and suck on the exhaust pipe I'm all for it. Your right to poison your body. Please don't infringe on my right to keep mine clean.

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

Edited December 29, 2011 by Jayman

[Jayman]

Quite right. The British Club tried to set up a smoking lounge a few months ago but the attempt was fortunately scotched by members who were opposed to it and were aware that staff were vehemently opposed to having serve members in a smoke filled room.

Absolutely! They should ban alcohol next (far more deaths caused by that particular drug), then salt then... Soon be like good old blighty then.

I couldn't care less if someone od's on alcohol and dies. No law needs to be passed to stop from killing off the alcoholics. But there are already laws in place to keep those that are intoxicated from driving as that then endangers the lives of others that don't chose to drink.

Seems you are really missing the point. Do what you want to yourself. Take a gun and put a bullet in your head. No laws stopping you. But try and put a bullet in me and that is illegal.

No one is trying to take away your freedoms to harm yourself. But it needs to be illegal to harm others. Don't you agree?

Edited December 29, 2011 by Jayman

[KarenBravo]

So.....why is a car driver any different than a cigarette smoker?

Both pollute the air that other people have to breathe.

Anybody driven past a school lately?

[Jayman]

So.....why is a car driver any different than a cigarette smoker?

Both pollute the air that other people have to breathe.

Anybody driven past a school lately?

There is no difference. That is why there are laws banning smoking in public as well as laws prohibiting excess pollution from your car. The reason we need these laws is it seems there are plenty of folks without the common sense to not pollute others.

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

[KarenBravo]

So.....why is a car driver any different than a cigarette smoker?

Both pollute the air that other people have to breathe.

Anybody driven past a school lately?

There is no difference. That is why there are laws banning smoking in public as well as laws prohibiting excess pollution from your car. The reason we need these laws is it seems there are plenty of folks without the common sense to not pollute others.

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

No, I don't agree. Even if your car is polluting the air within regulations, it still pollutes the air hundreds of times more than a cigarette.

People can't commit suicide by smoking twenty cigarettes at once, but, start breathing exhaust fumes in a confined space.........?

[Jayman]

So.....why is a car driver any different than a cigarette smoker?

Both pollute the air that other people have to breathe.

Anybody driven past a school lately?

There is no difference. That is why there are laws banning smoking in public as well as laws prohibiting excess pollution from your car. The reason we need these laws is it seems there are plenty of folks without the common sense to not pollute others.

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

No, I don't agree. Even if your car is polluting the air within regulations, it still pollutes the air hundreds of times more than a cigarette.

People can't commit suicide by smoking twenty cigarettes at once, but, start breathing exhaust fumes in a confined space.........?

I'm not sure what side of this you are on. Are you for or against pollution? Would you like to see more pollution or less? Would you like to have more cleaner burning fuels and alternative powered vehicles or vehicles that pollute more?

I am on the side of cleaner is better. The less pollution we can introduce into the environment we all live in the better. The reason why they have regulations on vehicle exhaust is to cut down pollution. I'm certain if OIL didn't rule the world that petrol cars would have been completely banned long ago.

So are you saying.. since we let (fill in the black) create pollution we should also let (fill in the blank) create pollution?

Edited December 29, 2011 by Jayman

[whybother]

You are forgetting about the employees that work in there that must be subjected to the smoking environment for 12 hours of the day. Are you also saying if they don't like it they should find employment elsewhere? Anti-smoking laws around the world are for the protection of the general public that wishes to not be poisoned by the 2nd hand smoke of those that feel their right to injest what they want in their own bodies outweighs the effect it has on others.

I suspect you are subject to a lot more carcinogens from black diesel exhaust from badly maintained engines and smoke from roadside barbecues - want to ban them too? And if the bar closed down though lack of custom the employees would lose their jobs anyway. Anti smoking laws were brought in because big Pharma companies wanted to make a killing on smoking cessation aids that don't work or have side effects that are worse that the effects of tobacco - like Chantix (look at who funds these campaigns).

"And if the bar closed down though lack of custom the employees would lose their jobs anyway."

- If all the bars actually applied the laws, would the smokers just stop going out drinking?

"Anti smoking laws were brought in because big Pharma companies wanted to make a killing on smoking cessation aids"

- Big Tobacco vs Big Pharma ... there's an interesting match.

[KarenBravo]

I guess my point with regard to cigarette smoke and car exhaust is to show the hypocritical nature of many non-smokers.

The fallacy that non-smokers are good and smokers are bad. The way cigarette smokers are now basically made to feel like social outcasts; virtual lepers.

Is there anything more ironic than an anti-smoker insisting on a smoker putting out their cigarette, then leaving by jumping into an air polluting machine called a car?

Just for the record, I'm an ex-cigarette smoker.

[Jayman]

I guess my point with regard to cigarette smoke and car exhaust is to show the hypocritical nature of many non-smokers.

The fallacy that non-smokers are good and smokers are bad. The way cigarette smokers are now basically made to feel like social outcasts; virtual lepers.

Is there anything more ironic than an anti-smoker insisting on a smoker putting out their cigarette, then leaving by jumping into an air polluting machine called a car?

Just for the record, I'm an ex-cigarette smoker.

Well for the record.. I'm an ex smoker as well.. And I do drive a car. But comparing the smoke from a cigarette burning right next to you in an enclosed area and a car in the great outdoors is a bit of a stretch. Please remind us all what the yearly deaths per year from car exhaust are and we can compare those to smoking and 2nd hand smoke.

[DP25]

The survey is correct in my experience in Bangkok. Most places do enforce it and try to get smokers to stop. Open air bars do not apply, it's indoors places that can't have smoking and they mostly do not allow it. Not sure how it's being enforced in farang gogo bars but in Thai bars and clubs it usually is.

I'm glad that it's being enforced. I eat at some of the pubs in Suhkumvit a lot more often now that I don't have to suck down cigarette smoke with my meal. I don't hate smoking but I don't want it with my food. It's easy enough to pop outside for 5 minutes if you need it.

Edited December 29, 2011 by DP25

[KarenBravo]

If you live in places like LA, Mexico City, Cairo, Delhi, I'll bet respiratory diseases take far more people than 2nd hand cigarette smoke. Don't forget; smoking is voluntary, so, you can't include those deaths. We are talking about dying from other peoples actions. As for all the palaver about death from 2nd hand smoke, unless you are exposed to it for years, I believe the risk is negligible, despite all the biased studies done on it.

If it increases the chance of a non-smoker getting lung cancer by 50%, then 50% of next to nothing is still next to nothing.

[TAWP]

I still believe that the right to smoke should be up to the owner of the premises, and the customers who don't want to use it can go else where.

You are forgetting about the employees that work in there that must be subjected to the smoking environment for 12 hours of the day. Are you also saying if they don't like it they should find employment elsewhere? Anti-smoking laws around the world are for the protection of the general public that wishes to not be poisoned by the 2nd hand smoke of those that feel their right to injest what they want in their own bodies outweighs the effect it has on others.

So work somewhere else.

[Jayman]

If you live in places like LA, Mexico City, Cairo, Delhi, I'll bet respiratory diseases take far more people than 2nd hand cigarette smoke. Don't forget; smoking is voluntary, so, you can't include those deaths. We are talking about dying from other peoples actions. As for all the palaver about death from 2nd hand smoke, unless you are exposed to it for years, I believe the risk is negligible, despite all the biased studies done on it.

If it increases the chance of a non-smoker getting lung cancer by 50%, then 50% of next to nothing is still next to nothing.

Your argument is becoming more and more silly. It's as if you work for Camel. Ok.. smoking is voluntary so lets not include the smokers deaths. Well, driving is voluntary as well so lets not include all the drivers in you statistics.

I'm still not sure what you are trying to fight for.. more pollution or less. Equal rights for smokers and drivers?

[TAWP]

I'm still not sure what you are trying to fight for.. more pollution or less. Equal rights for smokers and drivers?

I'm fighting for the right of a business owner, i.e. a private establishment, to make up their own rules.

[Jayman]

I'm still not sure what you are trying to fight for.. more pollution or less. Equal rights for smokers and drivers?

I'm fighting for the right of a business owner, i.e. a private establishment, to make up their own rules.

Well good luck with that, There are rules set forth in this world and just because you own a business doesn't make you immune to them. You can't break laws just because you own a business. You can't sell alcohol to minors can you? You can't sell children as sex slaves can you? So basically what you are really fighting for is for you to be able to smoke where you please and whomever doesn't like it can just leave.

By the way.. what you need it to setup a private club.. not a public business. Then you can bring in members and your members can do whatever they want inside your private club since it's not open to the public but only to paid members. There is a huge legal difference and in fact this is why many private clubs are set up. Even in the US this is how they provide alcohol to private club members in dry counties without breaking the law,

Edited December 29, 2011 by Jayman

[KarenBravo]

If you live in places like LA, Mexico City, Cairo, Delhi, I'll bet respiratory diseases take far more people than 2nd hand cigarette smoke. Don't forget; smoking is voluntary, so, you can't include those deaths. We are talking about dying from other peoples actions. As for all the palaver about death from 2nd hand smoke, unless you are exposed to it for years, I believe the risk is negligible, despite all the biased studies done on it.

If it increases the chance of a non-smoker getting lung cancer by 50%, then 50% of next to nothing is still next to nothing.

Your argument is becoming more and more silly. It's as if you work for Camel. Ok.. smoking is voluntary so lets not include the smokers deaths. Well, driving is voluntary as well so lets not include all the drivers in you statistics.

I'm still not sure what you are trying to fight for.. more pollution or less. Equal rights for smokers and drivers?

Yes, I see your point with regard to driving is voluntary, too.

I guess the point I'm trying to make and the thing I object to is the strident and sometimes hysterical attitude of non-smokers towards smokers and the rather ridiculous legislation put out by some governments. ie. cannot smoke in an outdoor public park that is surrounded on all four sides by busy roads. The way some airports have no dedicated smoking room. As another poster quite correctly pointed out, as long as cigarettes are sold legally, then smokers have rights, too.