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

[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?

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.

I understand your point as well and I'm not try to ban all smoking in the world. I was a smoker for many years. While I was in the military there was very strict rules about where and when you could smoke. This was long before the rest of the world started banning smoking in restaurants and such. Despite the strict rules on smoking we still had the choice to smoke or not. Also, they sold us cigs at the very cheapest prices I have ever seen. Just because you have the right to buy something doesn't give you the right to harm others with it. Use guns as an example if you'd like. It's proven that 2nd hand smoke causes cancer. If you must work in a smoke filled environment 6 days a week for 12 hours a day this would concern you. Like I originally said, the smoking bans are more for the safety of the employees that are working to put food on their tables and not to protect the other patrons.

[atyclb]

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.

I have dear friends that are non-smokers and smokers.

How about if you are in a pub or restaurant, or any closed and or air-conditioned area and and the person next to you or in that are starts to inject heroin (street heroin can have many toxic impurities) then forces you to be injected? In essence smokers force others to share the smoke without even needing to restrain them. Then there is issue about foul smelling clothes and hair.

Studies have shown that in venues that banned smoking business did not suffer and in cases actually improved. Google it. And yes we all know vehicle exhaust is unhealthy but it does not diminish or negate, excuse or justify cigarette smoke being subjected to others.

[KarenBravo]

I agree with a ban on smoking indoors, especially in an air-con environment, but, not in outdoor bars and restaurants. Here they can reasonably make smoking and non-smoking sections.

[Jayman]

I agree with a ban on smoking indoors, especially in an air-con environment, but, not in outdoor bars and restaurants. Here they can reasonably make smoking and non-smoking sections.

I could be wrong but I believe the original smoking ban was on indoor bars and restaurants. I don't think Thailand has any bans on outdoor smoking but I could be wrong.

[KarenBravo]

Studies have shown that in venues that banned smoking business did not suffer and in cases actually improved. Google it.

Well....I took your advice and Googled. It seems that you are wrong.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23964004-700-pubs-closed-by-smoke-ban-supermarket-beer-and-tax-rises.do

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13948624

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/196288-700-pubs-closed-since-introduction-of-smoking-ban/

http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/9265792.British_pubs_should_be_allowed_to_lift_smoking_ban_says_Wirral_Euro_MP/

http://www.theslta.co.uk/Industry-News/Smoking-Ban-To-Blame-For-Pub-Decline,-Says-New-Research-

Put that in your pipe and smoke it........

[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.

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,

I just love it when this kind of people try to play smart.

Depending on country, yes, I can sell to minors. Which is very much besides the points anyway.

You are mixing two issues.

First issue: Should the government dictate what a private business owner can and cannot allow on his premises, assuming the action in itself isn't illegal already.

Second issue: Should the government dictate what you can and cannot do, that doesn't affect others or limit their freedom.

If you really need more help understanding this, then we can have some talks about it. And you might realize why even bringing up the selling of slaves is such an odd hyperbole that it only proves you have nothing left.

Hint: Slavery was a product of non-free systems, not the opposite.

Footnote: Oh, and I don't smoke. So even that attack fails.

Edited December 29, 2011 by TAWP

[atyclb]

I agree with a ban on smoking indoors, especially in an air-con environment, but, not in outdoor bars and restaurants. Here they can reasonably make smoking and non-smoking sections.

I could be wrong but I believe the original smoking ban was on indoor bars and restaurants. I don't think Thailand has any bans on outdoor smoking but I could be wrong.

You are correct. Venues were initially worried about enforcement and fines. One place, Mojos, used to post signs informing smokers that the smoker will pay the fine, should there be enforcement.

I asked the manager what about the customers that don't smoke. His answer was a rationalization. There are even smokers that don't want to subjected to smoke all the time or while they are eating.

[atyclb]

Studies have shown that in venues that banned smoking business did not suffer and in cases actually improved. Google it.

Well....I took your advice and Googled. It seems that you are wrong.

http://www.thisislon...nd-tax-rises.do

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-13948624

http://news.stv.tv/s...of-smoking-ban/

http://www.wirralglo...Wirral_Euro_MP/

http://www.theslta.c...s-New-Research-

Put that in your pipe and smoke it........

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CGAQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tobaccofreekids.org%2Fresearch%2Ffactsheets%2Fpdf%2F0144.pdf&ei=jW78To_sAsrprQe1kqjVDw&usg=AFQjCNH2SXzwiC8dBWALibwapu3GKCJvlQ&sig2=stpSKQ2M0jTMk94i0WMKWQ

Big tobacco used to find salaried(salaried by big tobacco) scientists to counter opposing evidence to the contrary.

[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,

I just love it when this kind of people try to play smart.

Depending on country, yes, I can sell to minors. Which is very much besides the points anyway.

You are mixing two issues.

First issue: Should the government dictate what a private business owner can and cannot allow on his premises, assuming the action in itself isn't illegal already.

Second issue: Should the government dictate what you can and cannot do, that doesn't affect others or limit their freedom.

If you really need more help understanding this, then we can have some talks about it. And you might realize why even bringing up the selling of slaves is such an odd hyperbole that it only proves you have nothing left.

Hint: Slavery was a product of non-free systems, not the opposite.

Footnote: Oh, and I don't smoke. So even that attack fails.

I just love it when "this kind of people" talk down on others like they are the freedom fighters of the world. The rules are setup to protect the workers in the public businesses you speak of. Just like you MUST pay them a minimum wage and such. This is to protect you the mighty biz owner from abusing your workers. That is why they ban smoking indoors. Not some big pharma conspiracy or because non-smokers are better than smokers. Because folks that work in an environment are to be treated fairly and not subjected to harm.. This is why they have OSHA standards and such. You can take what you want and twist it how you want but we are talking about smoking in a closed environment in a public business and NOT your private house.

The point in my examples was to show that the rules apply to a business open to the public. Just because you are a pvt biz owner doesn't give you the right to abuse your workers. Take my examples how you want and twist them to slave ownership and how you can sell to minors all you want but you are completely avoiding the point.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Jayman

[TAWP]

I just love it when "this kind of people" talk down on others like they are the freedom fighters of the world. The rules are setup to protect the workers in the public businesses you speak of. Just like you MUST pay them a minimum wage and such. This is to protect you the mighty biz owner from abusing your workers. That is why they ban smoking indoors. Not some big pharma conspiracy or because non-smokers are better than smokers. Because folks that work in an environment are to be treated fairly and not subjected to harm.. This is why they have OSHA standards and such. You can take what you want and twist it how you want but we are talking about smoking in a closed environment in a public business and NOT your private house.

The point in my examples was to show that the rules apply to a business open to the public. Just because you are a pvt biz owner doesn't give you the right to abuse your workers. Take my examples how you want and twist them to slave ownership and how you can sell to minors all you want but you are completely avoiding the point.

Pathetic.

I am not avoiding the point, I am taking it at head. You are avoiding it, and throwing - again - in inane references to slave-ownership that doesn't make sense whatsoever.

Private business is private business and they should be allowed to dictate the rules of their establishment, including who to serve and what you can do there - including forbidding people from smoking.

If you are working for anyone that don't care for your health then you should alter employer.

[KarenBravo]

Studies have shown that in venues that banned smoking business did not suffer and in cases actually improved. Google it.

Well....I took your advice and Googled. It seems that you are wrong.

http://www.thisislon...nd-tax-rises.do

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-13948624

http://news.stv.tv/s...of-smoking-ban/

http://www.wirralglo...Wirral_Euro_MP/

http://www.theslta.c...s-New-Research-

Put that in your pipe and smoke it........

http://www.google.co...M0jTMk94i0WMKWQ

Big tobacco used to find salaried(salaried by big tobacco) scientists to counter opposing evidence to the contrary.

You obviously didn't read the links. Since when has the BBC worked for the tobacco lobbyists?

Check the other links, too. Nothing to do with scientists of any persuasion.

[Gary A]

I have to thank the state of Kalifornia for banning smoking in the bars. I was living as frugally as possible to save money for my retirement in Thailand. I quit going to the bars altogether so was also able to save that money.

If someone owns a bar, I think it should be up to the owner whether to permit smoking or not. There could be smoking bars and non smoking bars. That's the way a democracy should work. One of the reasons I live in Thailand is that I have no desire to live in a nanny state. I do refrain from smoking in restaurants because I do respect people who don't like the smell of tobacco smoke. Cigarettes and beer go together and if you don't like me smoking, go somewhere else that is a no smoking bar.

[Scott]

An off-topic post and replies have been deleted.

[eagleflyinghigh]

Not only the behaviour of some smokers, but even more their comments on this board explain why all over the world there are laws to avoid these people become an even bigger nuisance to their entourage.

We achieved a lot and smoking in our days is a definite no no. I remember the days planes had smoking sections... .

Regarding enforcement of the smoking ban in "entertainment" venues I am less optimistic as the activities taking place in many of these venues like prostitution and sex shows are not really legal under Thai law too.

It's all about oral complexes and needs !

[Jayman]

I just love it when "this kind of people" talk down on others like they are the freedom fighters of the world. The rules are setup to protect the workers in the public businesses you speak of. Just like you MUST pay them a minimum wage and such. This is to protect you the mighty biz owner from abusing your workers. That is why they ban smoking indoors. Not some big pharma conspiracy or because non-smokers are better than smokers. Because folks that work in an environment are to be treated fairly and not subjected to harm.. This is why they have OSHA standards and such. You can take what you want and twist it how you want but we are talking about smoking in a closed environment in a public business and NOT your private house.

The point in my examples was to show that the rules apply to a business open to the public. Just because you are a pvt biz owner doesn't give you the right to abuse your workers. Take my examples how you want and twist them to slave ownership and how you can sell to minors all you want but you are completely avoiding the point.

Pathetic.

I am not avoiding the point, I am taking it at head. You are avoiding it, and throwing - again - in inane references to slave-ownership that doesn't make sense whatsoever.

Private business is private business and they should be allowed to dictate the rules of their establishment, including who to serve and what you can do there - including forbidding people from smoking.

If you are working for anyone that don't care for your health then you should alter employer.

You're like a dumb teenager only seeing things your way and not listening to any reason that conflicts your narrow minded thoughts. So I will put it to you in terms you understand. If you don't like the laws that are in place for running your private business then close your business and find a different way to make your money. The rules aren't meant for the few but to protect the many. If you don't like it, tough sh*t. Close your doors and move somewhere else that has rules that you like. As societies progress the rules are created because folks like you think that they should be able to do whatever they want. It should be common sense but some idiot like yourself keeps doing it anyways so they they have to create a law to ban everyone from doing it because it endangers others. Using the excuse that others can just leave is childish. You leave. You are the one that don't agree with the rules. Don't tell the workers to find a new place to work. You go find a new place to make your money.

[richard_smith237]

These non-Smoking vs Smoking discussions always head the same way.

Simply put, its unfair on the many when the few smoke. It only takes one smoker to disturb a number of non-smokers.

I believe it selfish and self centered for those who smoke to impose 'smoke' on others. I used to smoke and would go outside for a smoke for this very reason. Now I've quit (3 months) and I'm happy that we are not permitted to smoke indoors.

Most of my Thai friends smoke, if the smoking ban did not exist, as some have mentioned I could vote with my feet and not go to those bars. In this case I wouldn't get to catch up with my friends (I see an unintelligent response coming to this).

All the smoking ban does is create a fair environment for everyone, protecting those from those who have chosen not to protect themselves and decided not to worry about others.

I believe smokers have rights, but not at the cost of non-smokers. Smoking rooms at airports, great. Smoking area's outside clubs, great (but not at the entrance please !). By providing for Smokers their 'legal' habit has been considered, but I believe the legal rights of the non-Smoker should be a priority.

IMO: The Smoking ban's in Thailand, the UK and many other countries work well and are a vast improvement on pre-ban conditions (with the exception of the 'farts and cheap perfume' we now smell instead !)....

[nisakiman]

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.

Ok, put this in your pipe and smoke it:

Lung cancer risk in never-smokers: a population-based case-control study of epidemiologic risk factors

"Cases and controls did not vary significantly in the total hours exposed to ETS during childhood or adulthood at home (data not shown). Among never smokers in our population, we observed no association between either exposure to ETS at home or at the workplace and lung cancer risk.."

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2927994/

The simple fact is that there is not, and never has been any risk from SHS. On the contrary, it has been noted that children from smoking households have a significantly lower risk of asthma, and are much less likely to suffer from allergy.

The reason we are led to believe that SHS is harmful (lethal, according to the more hyperbolic zealots!) is that the single-issue anti-tobacco lobby years ago identified it as being the holy grail in their drive for tobacco prohibition, and so put all their efforts into convincing the ever gullible politicians that it was deadly.

It didn't deter them that out of more than a hundred studies into SHS over the last 50 odd years, something like 80% found no significant results (null hypothesis), 12% found a positive result (a protective effect), and a mere 8% found a barely significant negative result (harmful effect). What they did was a "meta-analysis", which basically involved cherry-picking the bits they wanted, and ignoring all the stuff which didn't suit their agenda. With massive funding from the government (via the "tobacco settlement") and Big Pharma, they mounted a sustained campaign of lobbying governments, and combined it with an avalanche of press releases from supposed "experts" over a period of years.

They have been very successful with their lies. They are well on the way to denormalising and marginalising smokers. They have successfully driven a carriage and eight through the concept of liberty and freedom of choice. They have created what is fast becoming one of the most socially divisive pieces of legislation since prohibition in the US.

But that doesn't make it right.

Nor does it make it true.

Edited December 29, 2011 by nisakiman

[TAWP]

I just love it when "this kind of people" talk down on others like they are the freedom fighters of the world. The rules are setup to protect the workers in the public businesses you speak of. Just like you MUST pay them a minimum wage and such. This is to protect you the mighty biz owner from abusing your workers. That is why they ban smoking indoors. Not some big pharma conspiracy or because non-smokers are better than smokers. Because folks that work in an environment are to be treated fairly and not subjected to harm.. This is why they have OSHA standards and such. You can take what you want and twist it how you want but we are talking about smoking in a closed environment in a public business and NOT your private house.

The point in my examples was to show that the rules apply to a business open to the public. Just because you are a pvt biz owner doesn't give you the right to abuse your workers. Take my examples how you want and twist them to slave ownership and how you can sell to minors all you want but you are completely avoiding the point.

Pathetic.

I am not avoiding the point, I am taking it at head. You are avoiding it, and throwing - again - in inane references to slave-ownership that doesn't make sense whatsoever.

Private business is private business and they should be allowed to dictate the rules of their establishment, including who to serve and what you can do there - including forbidding people from smoking.

If you are working for anyone that don't care for your health then you should alter employer.

You're like a dumb teenager only seeing things your way and not listening to any reason that conflicts your narrow minded thoughts. So I will put it to you in terms you understand. If you don't like the laws that are in place for running your private business then close your business and find a different way to make your money. The rules aren't meant for the few but to protect the many. If you don't like it, tough sh*t. Close your doors and move somewhere else that has rules that you like. As societies progress the rules are created because folks like you think that they should be able to do whatever they want. It should be common sense but some idiot like yourself keeps doing it anyways so they they have to create a law to ban everyone from doing it because it endangers others. Using the excuse that others can just leave is childish. You leave. You are the one that don't agree with the rules. Don't tell the workers to find a new place to work. You go find a new place to make your money.

You are indeed childish.

So if anyone don't agree with the any rules or laws they cannot say anything, but should move somewhere else?

So...that is what we should have told you and others when the 'ban smoking' campaigns started?

"Don't come and try to ban something that is allowed. If you don't like it, move to another country."

Real mature.

I suspect we will never get above this level in this debate with you.

Fruitless.

[tombkk]

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.

I agree with you. It is up to the customers whether they want to frequent a place where they can smoke or not smoke, and it is up to the staff whether they want to work there.

As far as I understand the Thai laws, no smoking is allowed indoors unless you have a night-club licence. This makes sense to me and is in line with my first paragraph. If you don't want to inhale second-hand smoke, don't visit night clubs.

When they introduced a similar non-smoking law in Germany, they left a way out: Private membership smoking clubs were allowed. Quite a number of bars changed their concept, and you could become a member for a night or for lifetime. What's the problem? If you don't want to inhale smoke you would just avid those places.

It is really about choice. If someone brings up the statistics about second-hand smoking, my recommendation is that they don't frequent establishments that allow smoking. It's a choice.

Note: I don't smoke.

[Jayman]

http://www.cancer.go...econdhand-smoke

This issue is not about the customers that have a right not to frequent the establishment but the EMPLOYEES that are subjected to the 2nd hand smoke for countless hours everyday.

Of course if you ask TAWP he'd just tell them to go find a new job.

I mentioned to him as well about setting up a private club to get around the rules for a business open to the public but he just pushed that aside calling me a know it all.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Jayman

[tombkk]

http://www.cancer.go...econdhand-smoke

This issue is not about the customers that have a right not to frequent the establishment but the EMPLOYEES that are subjected to the 2nd hand smoke for countless hours everyday.

Of course if you ask TAWP he'd just tell them to go find a new job.

I mentioned to him as well about setting up a private club to get around the rules for a business open to the public but he just pushed that aside calling me a know it all.

I don't think anybody doubts the dangers of second-hand smoke.

I do agree with TAWP that nobody in Thailand is being forced to take a job they would otherwise reject based on fear for their lives.

[Jayman]

The simple fact is that there is not, and never has been any risk from SHS. On the contrary, it has been noted that children from smoking households have a significantly lower risk of asthma, and are much less likely to suffer from allergy.

What you are saying here is utter nonsense...

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/smokeexposure/

[whybother]

I have to thank the state of Kalifornia for banning smoking in the bars. I was living as frugally as possible to save money for my retirement in Thailand. I quit going to the bars altogether so was also able to save that money.

If someone owns a bar, I think it should be up to the owner whether to permit smoking or not. There could be smoking bars and non smoking bars. That's the way a democracy should work. One of the reasons I live in Thailand is that I have no desire to live in a nanny state. I do refrain from smoking in restaurants because I do respect people who don't like the smell of tobacco smoke. Cigarettes and beer go together and if you don't like me smoking, go somewhere else that is a no smoking bar.

If you gave up smoking, you'd have even more money.

My motto to a healthy life is "Everything in moderation, except smoking".

[nisakiman]

The simple fact is that there is not, and never has been any risk from SHS. On the contrary, it has been noted that children from smoking households have a significantly lower risk of asthma, and are much less likely to suffer from allergy.

What you are saying here is utter nonsense...

http://www.surgeonge.../smokeexposure/

In the UK in 1970, 55% of the adult population smoked. By 2010, that figure had dropped to 21%.

"15 Years Prevalence. In 1973 a survey was conducted among 12 year old children living in a defined area of South Wales. In 1988 the survey was repeated in the same area, again among 12 year old children. Questionnaires were completed for all 965 children in the population sample; peak expiratory flow rates were performed on them all, and repeated (except for five children) after an exercise provocation test. The prevalence of a history of wheeze at any time had increased from 17% to 22%, while that of a history of asthma at any time had increased from 6% to 12%. Current asthma had increased from 4% to 9%, but wheezing in the past year not attributed to asthma had remained at 6%. The exercise provocation tests suggested that both mild and severe asthma had become more common. Increases had also occurred in the frequencies of a history of eczema (from 5% to 16%) and of hay fever (from 9% to 15%). It seems that the prevalence of asthma has risen, and that this cannot be wholly explained by a greater readiness to diagnose the disease."

http://childrenaller...tatistics-2010/

As you can see, in the same period, prevalence of childhood asthma and allergy virtually doubled, despite advances in medical knowledge on the subject.

And your explanation for this juxtaposition is?

What you have to keep in mind, Jayman, is that the medical profession lie. This was amply demonstrated just recently when the BMA were pushing to ban smoking in cars. Their "facts" turned out to be from a speculative article in some unknown Canadian local rag written by an avowed anti-smoker, and had never even had a sniff of research. When they were caught out in their lie, they rapidly backed down, but it was mission accomplished for them. The original lie made the headlines. The retraction of that lie got two column inches on the back page. That's how the anti smoking lobby operate. They lie.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Joseph Goebbels - Hitler's Propaganda Minister

Interestingly, Hitler was a manic anti-smoker, and started many of the trends so enthusiastically followed by the anti-smoking lobby today.

And so it is that you will read about how successful the smoking ban has been in the UK. They don't mention the 9000 pubs that have closed since the ban, or the tens of thousands who no longer have a job because of the ban, or how the war veterans, (who laid their lives on the line so we could enjoy freedom from Nazi tyranny), no longer have any social contact, because they don't want or are unable to stand outside the British Legion Club in the freezing rain when they want a smoke. But as Goebbels so astutely points out "The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie." Hence the newspaper headlines telling us all how wonderful the smoking ban is and how even the smokers love it.

Smell a rat? I certainly do, but then I've never believed everything I read in the papers.

Edited December 29, 2011 by nisakiman

[moskito]

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.

I have been a very strong smoker for 35 years with at least 60 of this crapthings a day until a year ago.... If someone would have told ME I can quit smoking I wouldnt belived it - it is soooo easy - Just try it for ONE DAY ONLY .... one more one more...etc. After a while you will understand what it means for a NonSmoker to smell this poison.... Today I just feel pitty for every Smoker who is not strong enough to quit - If one needs Nicotin Plasters oder Pills or other little helpers to quit smoking, he will never do it btw

JUST STOP - Everybody can do it Smoking does not make you any good

and to Topic - I wish the smokers would stop just for 6 month and then they know how it smells in a smokers discothek or restaurant while having dinner

[happysoul]

As said before, this cigaret ban law is total hypocrisy. If cigarets are so bad, just stop selling them. Ya baa, marijuana and cigarets, all in the same pot. Banned ! Why is it not done ?

Then many people forget freedom. Why a bar owner couldn't choose what he wants in his bar ? When I'm in Europe, I just don't go out anymore... Much more fun to invite friends at home or go to a friend's home and share a drink while smoking.

PS : i want to make a law for no sex on Sundays as my neighbors wake me up (not good for my health) every Sunday morning having sex ! What a life ! 555 -> George Orwel 1984 written in 1942 !

Edited December 30, 2011 by happysoul

[atyclb]

Studies have shown that in venues that banned smoking business did not suffer and in cases actually improved. Google it.

Well....I took your advice and Googled. It seems that you are wrong.

http://www.thisislon...nd-tax-rises.do

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-13948624

http://news.stv.tv/s...of-smoking-ban/

http://www.wirralglo...Wirral_Euro_MP/

http://www.theslta.c...s-New-Research-

Put that in your pipe and smoke it........

http://www.google.co...M0jTMk94i0WMKWQ

Big tobacco used to find salaried(salaried by big tobacco) scientists to counter opposing evidence to the contrary.

You obviously didn't read the links. Since when has the BBC worked for the tobacco lobbyists?

Check the other links, too. Nothing to do with scientists of any persuasion.

You are right. Seems there are mixed study results

[atyclb]

The simple fact is that there is not, and never has been any risk from SHS. On the contrary, it has been noted that children from smoking households have a significantly lower risk of asthma, and are much less likely to suffer from allergy.

What you are saying here is utter nonsense...

http://www.surgeonge.../smokeexposure/

In the UK in 1970, 55% of the adult population smoked. By 2010, that figure had dropped to 21%.

"15 Years Prevalence. In 1973 a survey was conducted among 12 year old children living in a defined area of South Wales. In 1988 the survey was repeated in the same area, again among 12 year old children. Questionnaires were completed for all 965 children in the population sample; peak expiratory flow rates were performed on them all, and repeated (except for five children) after an exercise provocation test. The prevalence of a history of wheeze at any time had increased from 17% to 22%, while that of a history of asthma at any time had increased from 6% to 12%. Current asthma had increased from 4% to 9%, but wheezing in the past year not attributed to asthma had remained at 6%. The exercise provocation tests suggested that both mild and severe asthma had become more common. Increases had also occurred in the frequencies of a history of eczema (from 5% to 16%) and of hay fever (from 9% to 15%). It seems that the prevalence of asthma has risen, and that this cannot be wholly explained by a greater readiness to diagnose the disease."

http://childrenaller...tatistics-2010/

As you can see, in the same period, prevalence of childhood asthma and allergy virtually doubled, despite advances in medical knowledge on the subject.

And your explanation for this juxtaposition is?

What you have to keep in mind, Jayman, is that the medical profession lie. This was amply demonstrated just recently when the BMA were pushing to ban smoking in cars. Their "facts" turned out to be from a speculative article in some unknown Canadian local rag written by an avowed anti-smoker, and had never even had a sniff of research. When they were caught out in their lie, they rapidly backed down, but it was mission accomplished for them. The original lie made the headlines. The retraction of that lie got two column inches on the back page. That's how the anti smoking lobby operate. They lie.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Joseph Goebbels - Hitler's Propaganda Minister

Interestingly, Hitler was a manic anti-smoker, and started many of the trends so enthusiastically followed by the anti-smoking lobby today.

And so it is that you will read about how successful the smoking ban has been in the UK. They don't mention the 9000 pubs that have closed since the ban, or the tens of thousands who no longer have a job because of the ban, or how the war veterans, (who laid their lives on the line so we could enjoy freedom from Nazi tyranny), no longer have any social contact, because they don't want or are unable to stand outside the British Legion Club in the freezing rain when they want a smoke. But as Goebbels so astutely points out "The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie." Hence the newspaper headlines telling us all how wonderful the smoking ban is and how even the smokers love it.

Smell a rat? I certainly do, but then I've never believed everything I read in the papers.

I would be in 100% agreement if there were pubs, restaurants, nightclubs for smokers only. All customers, all employees. Employees might need to sign a waiver regarding health risks and possible need to pay higher health insurance rates. The no smoking laws in Thailand come about from people that are aware of the significant risks and cost to society. The weak link in the chain is enforcement.

In some countries the tax on cigarettes is quite high and subsidizes medical care. It seems Thailand does not have such a high tax? Those terrible picture of cancer on cigarettes in Thailand are rather gloomy.

Again, the heroin addict self injecting is very welcome to sit near me.

I am not vilifying cigarette smokers, there are numerous ways to enjoy smoking without forcing others to share.

I recall a cigar smoking friend was told he must put out the cigar. This in a place with many already smoking cigarettes. It would seem the cigarette smokers may not like the smell of a cigar, just another tobacco product. Sort of amusing.

The average Shisha session is the equivalent to between 100 -200 cigarettes.

[atyclb]

September 2009

The 2006 U.S. Surgeon General's Report, "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Secondhand Smoke," has concluded that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke and that, on average, children are exposed to more secondhand smoke than adults. Children are significantly affected by secondhand smoke. Children's bodies are still developing, and exposure to the poisons in secondhand smoke puts them at risk of severe respiratory diseases and can hinder the growth of their lungs. Secondhand smoke is a known cause of low birth weight, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia, middle ear infection, and other diseases.¹

Although levels of secondhand smoke exposure declined between 1988-1994 and 1999-2004 in the general population overall, children were the sub-group with the least rate of decline.²

Low Birth Weight

• Secondhand smoke is a known preventable cause of low birth weight, which contributes to infant mortality and health complications into adulthood. Secondhand smoke exposure reduces the birth weight of infants of nonsmoking mothers and contributes to additional reductions in birth weight among babies of smoking mothers.³
  
• Nonsmoking pregnant women who are exposed to secondhand smoke tend to give birth to infants who have a reduced mean birth weight of 33g or more. Secondhand smoke exposure also increases the risk of a birth weight below 2,500g by 22 percent.⁴
  

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)

• Maternal smoking is the strongest risk factor leading to SIDS.⁵
  
• Infants who die from SIDS tend to have higher concentrations of nicotine in their lungs than do control children, regardless of whether smoking is reported.⁶
  

Cognitive Impairments

• Secondhand smoke exposure impairs a child's ability to learn. It is neurotoxic even at extremely low levels. More than 21.9 million children are estimated to be at risk of reading deficits because of secondhand smoke. Higher levels of exposure to secondhand smoke are also associated with greater deficits in math and visuospatial reasoning.⁷
  
• The offspring of mothers who smoke one pack of cigarettes per day during pregnancy have an IQ score that is, on average, 2.87 points lower than children born to nonsmoking mothers.⁸
  

Behavioral Problems

• Children born to women nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and to women who smoked during pregnancy are more likely to suffer from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and conduct disorder.^{9, 10}
  
• Girls are exposed to higher rates of secondhand smoke than boys, but boys have greater problems with hyperactivity, aggression, depression, and other behavioral problems.¹¹
  

Respiratory Problems

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reported that secondhand smoke exposure increases the risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. The EPA estimates that between 150,000 and 300,000 annual cases of lower respiratory tract infections in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to secondhand smoke exposure. Of these cases, between 7,500 and 15,000 result in hospitalization.¹²
  
• Infants whose mothers smoke are 50 percent more likely to be hospitalized with a respiratory infection during their first year when compared to infants with nonsmoking mothers. Infants whose mothers smoke in the same room have a 56 percent higher risk of being hospitalized compared to infants whose mothers smoke in a separate room. There is a 73 percent higher risk if mothers smoke while holding their infants and a 95 percent higher risk if mothers smoke while feeding their infants.¹³
  
• Early exposure to cigarette smoke is a likely significant independent risk factor for subsequent respiratory disease. It is likely that in utero damage is compounded by increased susceptibility to the effects of continued postnatal secondhand smoke exposure.¹⁴
  

Asthma

http://no-smoke.org/pdf/shs_children.pdf = a compilation all referenced to medical/scientific research, articles, etc.

[Jayman]

What you have to keep in mind, Jayman, is that the medical profession lie. This was amply demonstrated just recently when the BMA were pushing to ban smoking in cars. Their "facts" turned out to be from a speculative article in some unknown Canadian local rag written by an avowed anti-smoker, and had never even had a sniff of research. When they were caught out in their lie, they rapidly backed down, but it was mission accomplished for them. The original lie made the headlines. The retraction of that lie got two column inches on the back page. That's how the anti smoking lobby operate. They lie.

I will not argue with you that many industries lie in order to forward their own agenda. I fully agree on this point. But I don't need a degree in medicine to know that smoke of any kind is unhealthy to inhale. I also fully understand that the smoke from a cig has many many many toxins in it and all you have to do is look at an old smoker to see the negative effects it's had on their bodies. So you will have a hard time convincing me that children that inhale cig smoke are better off than kids that don't. That is just complete and utter rubbish mate. You seem like a smart fellow just use your common sense on this one.