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

[moskito]

jupp, without any doubt there are still a lot of selfish fellows around. If you like to smoke, PLEASE go to a spot where WE (the people who decided PRO HEALTH) are not disturbed. Like I said before, I smoked a lot and I know it is hard to TRY quit smoking...to stop smoking it is not anymore....but you have to TRY first.

I was smoking and my beloved wife was coughing like hell....and she never touched a cigarette... So if you want damage your health, feel free to do so, but leave us alone! ....and IF you have any respect for the health of your wife or children TRY quitting you can do it

[tombkk]

jupp, without any doubt there are still a lot of selfish fellows around. If you like to smoke, PLEASE go to a spot where WE (the people who decided PRO HEALTH) are not disturbed. Like I said before, I smoked a lot and I know it is hard to TRY quit smoking...to stop smoking it is not anymore....but you have to TRY first.

I was smoking and my beloved wife was coughing like hell....and she never touched a cigarette... So if you want damage your health, feel free to do so, but leave us alone! ....and IF you have any respect for the health of your wife or children TRY quitting you can do it

I used to smoke for 20 years, but it was a recreational drug for me. I didn't smoke during working hours, but, as somebody already remarked in this thread, beer goes well with cigarettes. Especially when you are in the company of people who also smoke. In the company of non-smokers, I didn't smoke.

Then many air-conditioned restaurants in Thailand did not allow you to smoke inside any more. I saw people go outdoors for a smoke and I thought, they are addicts. I went to Europe and it was winter and people went outside to have a smoke. I thought, how can the cigarette make you do that? (I hate the cold.)

Well, I don't mind smoking people in the vicinity, but I like it that the clothes don't all smell like cold smoke when I leave the (non-smoking) pub. I would still protect the right of those who want to smoke, to have smoking-allowed pubs and restaurants. Let the people who do not tolerate the smell (or the health-risk, for that matter) avoid those places.

One thing, before anybody brings this up: A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section in a swimming pool. You wouldn't go to such a swimming pool, would you? But maybe other people like that. Let me go there, but only frequent those establishments that are smoke-free, and you'll be fine.

I defend the right of every drug user (and nicotine is a hard drug) to ruin their own body. If I don't want to be part of it, I just go somewhere else.

[atyclb]

jupp, without any doubt there are still a lot of selfish fellows around. If you like to smoke, PLEASE go to a spot where WE (the people who decided PRO HEALTH) are not disturbed. Like I said before, I smoked a lot and I know it is hard to TRY quit smoking...to stop smoking it is not anymore....but you have to TRY first.

I was smoking and my beloved wife was coughing like hell....and she never touched a cigarette... So if you want damage your health, feel free to do so, but leave us alone! ....and IF you have any respect for the health of your wife or children TRY quitting you can do it

I used to smoke for 20 years, but it was a recreational drug for me. I didn't smoke during working hours, but, as somebody already remarked in this thread, beer goes well with cigarettes. Especially when you are in the company of people who also smoke. In the company of non-smokers, I didn't smoke.

Then many air-conditioned restaurants in Thailand did not allow you to smoke inside any more. I saw people go outdoors for a smoke and I thought, they are addicts. I went to Europe and it was winter and people went outside to have a smoke. I thought, how can the cigarette make you do that? (I hate the cold.)

Well, I don't mind smoking people in the vicinity, but I like it that the clothes don't all smell like cold smoke when I leave the (non-smoking) pub. I would still protect the right of those who want to smoke, to have smoking-allowed pubs and restaurants. Let the people who do not tolerate the smell (or the health-risk, for that matter) avoid those places.

One thing, before anybody brings this up: A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section in a swimming pool. You wouldn't go to such a swimming pool, would you? But maybe other people like that. Let me go there, but only frequent those establishments that are smoke-free, and you'll be fine.

I defend the right of every drug user (and nicotine is a hard drug) to ruin their own body. If I don't want to be part of it, I just go somewhere else.

Friends that work in hospital emergency areas have told of treating facial burns from flash fire oxygen ignition in wheelchair bound smokers on constant oxygen. Their heart disease does not allow them to walk so they get around in wheelchairs with an O2 tank. I have seen many at las vegas casinos. I go there for meetings and trade shows and often access to the rooms is through the casino.

[bigbamboo]

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 !

As an occasional smoker it doesn't bother me whether I can smoke somewhere or not just as I don't need to drink. But if I do it is nice to have the choice. Personally I never smoke in enclosed areas anyway but to ban smoking outdoors is draconian and in places close to the polution ridden roads in Thailand a bit absurd! Quite simply why not let proprietors decide. You don't have to work there and customers can always go somewhere else.

[TAWP]

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.

This isn't a case of someone taking a job, thinking it is going to be non-smoking, and then suddenly being locked in a basement and being told the guest will smoke all the time.

So yes, in my world, where there would be both smoking and non-smoking bars and clubs, those that didn't wanna work in a smoking environment would know it beforehand and could change employer if they changed their mind.

Mentioning private clubs is a band-aid solution to an issue where the government has the right to dictate how people should live their lives, even on private property. But I suppose staff in private clubs are ok with people smoking and you don't complain about smoking, and you are pushing for private clubs as a solution...odd. Somewere in the middle of it all I think you lost the thread.

And again: I don't smoke and in general dislike the habit.

[atyclb]

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.

This isn't a case of someone taking a job, thinking it is going to be non-smoking, and then suddenly being locked in a basement and being told the guest will smoke all the time.

So yes, in my world, where there would be both smoking and non-smoking bars and clubs, those that didn't wanna work in a smoking environment would know it beforehand and could change employer if they changed their mind.

Mentioning private clubs is a band-aid solution to an issue where the government has the right to dictate how people should live their lives, even on private property. But I suppose staff in private clubs are ok with people smoking and you don't complain about smoking, and you are pushing for private clubs as a solution...odd. Somewere in the middle of it all I think you lost the thread.

And again: I don't smoke and in general dislike the habit.

Smokers without regard to subjecting others to their smoke in indoor / A/C Thailand venues need not worry too much because the love of money is often more important than public health, health of non smoking customers, safety, and/or human rights.

In my experience it seems a minority of A/C expat oriented venues (restaurants excluded) respect the non smoking law. BKK insomnia disko is overflowing with smoke as are many others. Interestingly mainstream Thai diskos seem to respect the no smoking law. Many places at RCA, and Rachada.

[tombkk]

Smokers without regard to subjecting others to their smoke in indoor / A/C Thailand venues need not worry too much because the love of money is often more important than public health, health of non smoking customers, safety, and/or human rights.

In my experience it seems a minority of A/C expat oriented venues (restaurants excluded) respect the non smoking law. BKK insomnia disko is overflowing with smoke as are many others. Interestingly mainstream Thai diskos seem to respect the no smoking law. Many places at RCA, and Rachada.

Whether or not a venue with a/c allows smoking may depend on their licence. I heard that a venue can allow their guests to smoke if they have a nightclub licence, whch is expensive. Does anybody know about the different licences in Thailand?

[tombkk]

As an occasional smoker it doesn't bother me whether I can smoke somewhere or not just as I don't need to drink. But if I do it is nice to have the choice. Personally I never smoke in enclosed areas anyway but to ban smoking outdoors is draconian and in places close to the polution ridden roads in Thailand a bit absurd! Quite simply why not let proprietors decide. You don't have to work there and customers can always go somewhere else.

I was in Japan and noticed that there were no-smoking signs outdoors, on the public streets. Indoors, smoking was mostly allowed. This was a few years ago.

[atyclb]

Smokers without regard to subjecting others to their smoke in indoor / A/C Thailand venues need not worry too much because the love of money is often more important than public health, health of non smoking customers, safety, and/or human rights.

In my experience it seems a minority of A/C expat oriented venues (restaurants excluded) respect the non smoking law. BKK insomnia disko is overflowing with smoke as are many others. Interestingly mainstream Thai diskos seem to respect the no smoking law. Many places at RCA, and Rachada.

Whether or not a venue with a/c allows smoking may depend on their licence. I heard that a venue can allow their guests to smoke if they have a nightclub licence, whch is expensive. Does anybody know about the different licences in Thailand?

When the no smoking law came into effect it said "any A/C and or enclosed venue and did not differentiate between nightclub, restaurant, etc etc. Even Climax disko built an enclosed room for smokers however they do not comply reportedly due to fear of losing business. The glass enclosed room is almost always empty.Even an english speaking smoking staff member says the smoke is so thick he does not like to go inside but sit by the outside entrance. Hate to say it but the smoke is so dense that even underwear smells like an ash tray, not to mention hair and outer clothes.

[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.

This isn't a case of someone taking a job, thinking it is going to be non-smoking, and then suddenly being locked in a basement and being told the guest will smoke all the time.

So yes, in my world, where there would be both smoking and non-smoking bars and clubs, those that didn't wanna work in a smoking environment would know it beforehand and could change employer if they changed their mind.

Mentioning private clubs is a band-aid solution to an issue where the government has the right to dictate how people should live their lives, even on private property. But I suppose staff in private clubs are ok with people smoking and you don't complain about smoking, and you are pushing for private clubs as a solution...odd. Somewere in the middle of it all I think you lost the thread.

And again: I don't smoke and in general dislike the habit.

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

The problem is this perfect world you speak of doesn't exist. If given the choice then the bar owners would all allow smoking and there is no non smoking bars. Before this ban how many non smoking bars were there? The choice of most biz owners is to make as much money as possible with out much thought of who is impacted negatively.this it's why laws are created to protect workers. And my point which i will make yet again is that these anti smoking laws are for the benefit of the employers rather than the customers.

I bet if you went around and did a poll of workers in smoking environments if they would rather work in a non smoking/smoking/don't care environment you would quickly see the reason for these mandatory bans.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Jayman

[spidermike007]

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.

Yes, I was in Pattaya recently, and few were enforcing the no smoking laws. When I asked the managers, they said it was too risky. Recently I was in Bangkok, and it was the opposite. They were enforcing the laws, and it was so pleasant. Smokers do not realize how unpleasant their noxious smoke is, to a non-smoker. So what if you do not light up for 30 minutes. Is that really so painful? Are you willing to admit you really have that little self control? In Koh Samui, nobody has posted signs anywhere and anyone can smoke anywhere. The absolute lawlessness of Samui continues, and the toy police do nothing. The mayor here is completely incompetent, and cares only about monetary collections.

[atyclb]

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.

Yes, I was in Pattaya recently, and few were enforcing the no smoking laws. When I asked the managers, they said it was too risky. Recently I was in Bangkok, and it was the opposite. They were enforcing the laws, and it was so pleasant. Smokers do not realize how unpleasant their noxious smoke is, to a non-smoker. So what if you do not light up for 30 minutes. Is that really so painful? Are you willing to admit you really have that little self control? In Koh Samui, nobody has posted signs anywhere and anyone can smoke anywhere. The absolute lawlessness of Samui continues, and the toy police do nothing. The mayor here is completely incompetent, and cares only about monetary collections.

Stepping outside for a quick fix is less inconvenient than forcing everyone to breath the smoke and get their hair and clothing stinky. It even benefits smokers in that the exposure is decreased compared with having stayed in the confined area constantly breathing recirculated air.

I would not vomit next to someone, I'd go outside or at least to the toilet

[tombkk]

The non-smoking laws (in any country) are only possible because the general public supports them.

If any venue allows smoking and you don't like it, why do you go there? Just go to another place that does not allow smokers. I really don't understand the non-smokers that want to force all places to be non-smoking places.

I, for one, only go to places (restaurants, bars) that I like, I don't try to force those that I don't like to change. I just don't frequent them. If they have a group of customers that support them, good for them! If they don't, they might either change or go bankrupt, I don't care. In any case, it's their own business decision.

[spidermike007]

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.

Yes, I was in Pattaya recently, and few were enforcing the no smoking laws. When I asked the managers, they said it was too risky. Recently I was in Bangkok, and it was the opposite. They were enforcing the laws, and it was so pleasant. Smokers do not realize how unpleasant their noxious smoke is, to a non-smoker. So what if you do not light up for 30 minutes. Is that really so painful? Are you willing to admit you really have that little self control? In Koh Samui, nobody has posted signs anywhere and anyone can smoke anywhere. The absolute lawlessness of Samui continues, and the toy police do nothing. The mayor here is completely incompetent, and cares only about monetary collections.

Stepping outside for a quick fix is less inconvenient than forcing everyone to breath the smoke and get their hair and clothing stinky. It even benefits smokers in that the exposure is decreased compared with having stayed in the confined area constantly breathing recirculated air.

I would not vomit next to someone, I'd go outside or at least to the toilet

Well, if it is OK to smoke next to me, then I guess it is OK, for me to piss on the floor next to the guy who is smoking, or fart in his face? Not much difference in terms of air quality.

[tombkk]

Well, if it is OK to smoke next to me, then I guess it is OK, for me to piss on the floor next to the guy who is smoking, or fart in his face? Not much difference in terms of air quality.

I wouldn't frequent a bar in which peeing on the floor is accepted, and you wouldn't frequent a bar in which smoking next to you is accepted.

What exactly is your point? Just only frequent bars that don't accept smoking, is that so difficult?

[spidermike007]

Well, if it is OK to smoke next to me, then I guess it is OK, for me to piss on the floor next to the guy who is smoking, or fart in his face? Not much difference in terms of air quality.

I wouldn't frequent a bar in which peeing on the floor is accepted, and you wouldn't frequent a bar in which smoking next to you is accepted.

What exactly is your point? Just only frequent bars that don't accept smoking, is that so difficult?

yes, that is incredibly difficult when there are so few bars enforcing the laws. That is always the argument of smokers. If you do not like it, go to another bar. Yes, the non smokers of the world should always be willing to make a sacrifice, so that the smokers can continue to demonstrate a complete lack of self control, 24/7.

[tombkk]

Well, if it is OK to smoke next to me, then I guess it is OK, for me to piss on the floor next to the guy who is smoking, or fart in his face? Not much difference in terms of air quality.

I wouldn't frequent a bar in which peeing on the floor is accepted, and you wouldn't frequent a bar in which smoking next to you is accepted.

What exactly is your point? Just only frequent bars that don't accept smoking, is that so difficult?

yes, that is incredibly difficult when there are so few bars enforcing the laws. That is always the argument of smokers. If you do not like it, go to another bar. Yes, the non smokers of the world should always be willing to make a sacrifice, so that the smokers can continue to demonstrate a complete lack of self control, 24/7.

I don't smoke, so your remark about self-control was irrelevant. Most of the bars I go to do not allow smoking inside. I live in Bangkok.

Where do you live that has only a few bars that do not allow smoking? I have friends who smoke, and sometimes it is difficult to find a bar where they are allowed to...

[Wallaby]

You think Thailand is bad. I live in Brisbane Australia. The main street in the city is now a no smoking zone and if you have anyone under 18 years old in your car you cannot smoke.

If it is so bad then just make smoking completely illegal.

Many bars in my country have closed since the advent of the no smoking laws. Seems that those that wished for smoke free bars now have less choices of bars to attend as a lot have closed.

If the majority wanted smoke free bars then I'm sure those that own the bars would ban smoking in the venues. Let the bar owners decide, they will make the choice as per the hip pocket.

And what nonsense about protecting the employees. There are many employees that DO smoke and would not have a problem working in a bar you can smoke in. I would think they could even prefer that as they would be able to smoke as well.

[nisakiman]

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.

You might find this of interest then:

Smoking as good for asthmatics–2 studies:

Treatment of Asthma by Nicotinic Acid – 1943 50-100 mg by shot or intravenous; aborted attacks, led to fewer and less frequent attacks in half the subjects.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2282923/

This 2008 paper concludes that nictotine and therefore active and passive smoking leads to less asthma and explains the biologial process by which it does;

“Nicotine Primarily Suppresses Lung Th2 but not goblet cell or muscle cell responses to allergens.”

Mishra et al, Lovelace Respiratory Research Inst, Alburquerque,

Journal of Immunology, 2008; 180

http://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/abstract/180/11/7655

From the study: “Nicotine is an anti-inflammatory, but the association between smoking and asthma is highly contentious and some report that smoking cessation increases the risk of asthma in ex-smokers….

“The results unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung …[Additionally] it significantly decreased mucus content in bronchoalveolar lavage,These results suggest that nicotine modulates allergy/asthma primarily by suppressing eosinophil trafficking and suppressing Th2 cytokine/chemokine responses without reducing goblet cell metaplasia or mucous production and may explain the lower risk of allergic diseases in smokers. To our knowledge this is the first direct evidence that nicotine modulates allergic responses.”

"The problem is this perfect world you speak of doesn't exist. If given the choice then the bar owners would all allow smoking and there is no non smoking bars. Before this ban how many non smoking bars were there? The choice of most biz owners is to make as much money as possible with out much thought of who is impacted negatively.this it's why laws are created to protect workers. And my point which i will make yet again is that these anti smoking laws are for the benefit of the employers rather than the customers.

I bet if you went around and did a poll of workers in smoking environments if they would rather work in a non smoking/smoking/don't care environment you would quickly see the reason for these mandatory bans."

If I was a bar owner (and I have been, before the bans were rolled out), and the majority of my customers wanted a non-smoking venue, then non-smoking it would be, regardless of my personal feelings on the subject.

In business, you provide what your customers want or you die.

I don't know how the figures pan out in Thailand, but in the UK, although only something like 22% of adults smoked overall, of the people who were regular pub-goers the figure was over 60%. Which is why 9000+ pubs have closed since the ban.

Had it been left to market forces (as it should have been), then there would have been a minority of pubs that went non-smoking, which would have reflected their customer base. As it is, the supposed hordes of non-smokers who were going to fill the pubs once the ban came into force never materialised. And I have to laugh (somewhat bitterly) when I read in comments sections on the subject people saying things like "it's not fair, we can't sit outside in the pub garden without smelling smoke from all the smokers out there..."! And people think that smokers are selfish!

And as for bar employees, in my experience, the vast majority smoke. There is no automatic right to a job. If you don't want to work in a noisy factory, do you insist that the factory reduces its noise levels so you can work there? Of course not. Either you find another, quieter job, or you put up with the noise.

[ttthailand]

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.

I Went into a gogo bar last night in Pattaya and the smoke was so thick that I could not hardly see the girls....now that's a problem !!! But really, The smoke was very bad. I didn't even finish my drink as I had to get the hell out of there. I pity the poor girls that have to work in that place. Laws should be enforced to at least protect the workers.

[TAWP]

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.

I Went into a gogo bar last night in Pattaya and the smoke was so thick that I could not hardly see the girls....now that's a problem !!! But really, The smoke was very bad. I didn't even finish my drink as I had to get the hell out of there. I pity the poor girls that have to work in that place. Laws should be enforced to at least protect the workers.

Your post highlights how it should be - the customer discovers how bad it is with smoke in some places and avoids them. The owners can put up big signs on the outside if they allow or disallow smoking and we can decide already outside.

Having it half-way is just silly - saying it is forbidden but allowing most people (in some places) or in some places every poiyai and not others to smoke as much as they want...meaning you non-smokers that hate smoke can never know how bad it is going to be. Unless a place is consistently bad, and you again vote with the wallet...proving my original point.

[ttthailand]

True story !!!! I was a smoker years ago but I smoked cigars. It was funny that many cigarette smokers (and others) objected to the smell of my cigar and would give me dirty looks. I could understand the non smokers but the cigarette smokers....come on give me a break. These smokers make people put up with the smell of their second hand smoke but they can't stand other types of second hand smoke. Ha ha ha

[daoyai]

Smokers stink, smoking is the equivelent of never bathing, smokers and the unwashed smell equally nasty. That is why we hate to be in rooms wth tobacco addicts.

[Wallaby]

Smokers stink, smoking is the equivelent of never bathing, smokers and the unwashed smell equally nasty. That is why we hate to be in rooms wth tobacco addicts.

Then don't go into those rooms and everyone is happy.

[nisakiman]

Smokers stink, smoking is the equivelent of never bathing, smokers and the unwashed smell equally nasty. That is why we hate to be in rooms wth tobacco addicts.

One of the first things I mentioned on the recent thread about cigarette confiscations at the airport was that I'd noticed time and time again how thoroughly offensive and unpleasant anti-smokers can be.

They adopt a holier-than-thou, self-righteous stance, and think it gives them the right to launch insulting and objectionable attacks on anyone who doesn't agree with them. They seem to think that all and sundry should adhere to their warped morality.

I have to say, rabid anti-smokers are the most unpleasant people I've ever encountered. I put them in the same classification as the worst kind of bigots and racists. Just intolerant, narrow minded fools.

The above quote is a classic example of an anti-smoker's attitude. Not clever, not pertinent, just grossly offensive.

[Jayman]

I have been watching this thread progress and I admit I am an ex-smoker. I feel that smokers have the right to smoke. No question about that. But many of the points being made here for both sides have some validity. Even when I was a 2 pack a day smoker I would never smoke at a table in a restaurant or even while others around me were eating even if we were outside and I could see that the smoke would blow in their direction. This was long before there were any mandatory rules forcing my actions. I did it out of respect for others trying to enjoy their meal.

Now more fwd to just a few years ago before the anti-smoking laws in thai restaurants started coming into effect. there were several restaurants that I enjoyed frequenting as the food was very good. They had both an indoor, a/c area that was pleasant to eat out of the heat and also the option to sit outside and watch ppl during cooler weather. This was not a cheap restaurant. On several occasions after my steak had shown up and I started eating a table full of smokers not far away would all light up after just finishing their meal or maybe waiting for it to arrive. Am I expected to leave and pay for my uneaten meal as now the environment is no longer suitable for me and my family to eat in? Don't we have rights too? If I walk into a restaurant and it's full of smokers of course I will walk out and eat elsewhere. In this case there were no smokers when we came in and ordered. Prior to the anti-smoking laws here in Thailand I could not name even 1 restaurant I have ever been in here that completely banned smoking except at the airport. Does this mean that non smokers must put up with smokers while they eat or chose not to eat out? It seems like these laws would not be needed if everyone just had some common respect for others. On many occasions I have seen smokers whose smoke was obviously bothering those around them kindly put out their cigs without even being asked. This is the common courtesy we are talking about. The kind of courtesy that keeps us (well most of us) from walking up to your table while you're eating and passing gas all around you. Obviously there is no rule banning this action but most of us use common courtesy to guide our actions in public. It's that whole "golden rule" thing we learned when we were kids.

Now as for bars I find this to be a different environment completely where smoking is commonly more tolerated since ppl are not consuming food. I still maintain that the laws are more to protect the workers than the customers just as workers in a loud environment must be issued ear protection as part of OSHA standards (not all countries obviously).

Keep in mind that smoking wasn't banned on airplanes due to the customers complaining but rather the air crew's complaints. It would have been too expensive to have smoking only flights where the air crews would have demanded to be paid more to work in the more unpleasant environments and I am willing to be that most of the smoking passengers would not be willing to pay the added costs to support the smoking only flights.

We can keep arguing that it must be up to the biz owners what they want to do but we have to have some mechanism in place to protect the less educated and more desperate workforce from the biz owners that would chose to abuse them without thought if they would make more money (again, not all biz owners are like this).

I still believe that if we all exercised a bit more common sense and had more respect for one another then most of these draconian laws would no longer be needed.

[DLock]

The war on smoking is over...we are just walking around bayonetting the wounded now.

Smokers are their own worst enemy, but I don't understand all the complaints about bars that allow smoking.

Stay out of low class, crappy bars, catering to the lowest common denominator and you won't have that problem.

[tombkk]

Now more fwd to just a few years ago before the anti-smoking laws in thai restaurants started coming into effect. there were several restaurants that I enjoyed frequenting as the food was very good. They had both an indoor, a/c area that was pleasant to eat out of the heat and also the option to sit outside and watch ppl during cooler weather. This was not a cheap restaurant. On several occasions after my steak had shown up and I started eating a table full of smokers not far away would all light up after just finishing their meal or maybe waiting for it to arrive. Am I expected to leave and pay for my uneaten meal as now the environment is no longer suitable for me and my family to eat in?

If you are smart, you look for the sign. Especially better restaurants will have a sign in the outdoor area which shows whether smoking is allowed or not.

Keep in mind that smoking wasn't banned on airplanes due to the customers complaining but rather the air crew's complaints. It would have been too expensive to have smoking only flights where the air crews would have demanded to be paid more to work in the more unpleasant environments and I am willing to be that most of the smoking passengers would not be willing to pay the added costs to support the smoking only flights.

I knew it was about money, but wasn't aware of the air crews. The airlines saved a lot of money when disallowing smoking became possible in the market, because they suddenly didn't have to change the filters in the a/c so often, cleaning became easier (no ashtray cleaning, which allowed them to squeeze the cleaning companies a few dollars per airplane), and no more seat or carpet damage due to cigarette burn.

I still believe that if we all exercised a bit more common sense and had more respect for one another then most of these draconian laws would no longer be needed.

I agree with this. Some smokers can be intolerant, and so can be some non-smokers.

[PoodMaiDai]

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.

Except you are not forced to sit behind a diesel truck for 8 - 12 hours a day and breath in the exhaust.

Thailand bars will not shut down because people can't smoke in them. That is absurd as saying people won't come to Thailand if they can't smoke indoors.

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).

Just.... wow.... yea... umm.... that is why.

[PoodMaiDai]

True story !!!! I was a smoker years ago but I smoked cigars. It was funny that many cigarette smokers (and others) objected to the smell of my cigar and would give me dirty looks. I could understand the non smokers but the cigarette smokers....come on give me a break. These smokers make people put up with the smell of their second hand smoke but they can't stand other types of second hand smoke. Ha ha ha

I think I may try this sometime. When surrounded by inconsiderate smokers, I'm going to fire up a stogie and blow it everywhere. Screw them right back.