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

[nisakiman]

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.

"In 1991, the US government approved the sale of nicotine patches on prescription and it was in that year that the Johnson foundation began funding anti-smoking projects. Since then it has given $450 million to anti-smoking projects including $84 million to the Centre for Tobacco-Free Kids, $10 million towards a campaign to raise the price of cigarettes and $99 million to the Smokeless States initiative. "

From here:

http://velvetgloveir...g-movement.html

That is just J&J in the USA. Pfeizer also funds anti-smoking initiatives to the tune of millions. Likewise Wellcome.

Worldwide.

A billion here, a billion there - pretty soon you're talking real money.

Of course, they spend all this money promoting smoking bans for altruistic reasons, don't they PoodMaiDa? Because they care, just like they say in the adverts. Nothing at all to do with the multi-billion dollar market in NRT and smoking cessation products. I mean, nothing so grubby as a profit motive there, is there! Not like the tobacco companies, are they...

Ah, PoodMaiDai, your naívity shines through.

Google is your friend. Do a search on Chantix / Champix side effects. See how much the Big Pharma care about people. Then do a search on their balance sheets, and see how much they care about profit.

Then you might realise how inane your comment (quoted) was.

[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.

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.

I am actually quite tolerent and a liberterian, I support smokers rights, just as I support the rights of people that never bath or clean their as$, I am just pointing out the fact that many people find both types of stinky people highly offensive. This is why we support smoking bans in enclosed areas and ask smokers to have more concideration around others. Just as the unwashed often don't realize or don't care about the affect they have, same with some smokers. A good start is if sitting at a table outside, and you light-up simply move to the downwind seat so the smoke blows away from the non-smoker. I realize that nicotine is highly addictive, so I undestand the sad predicament of smokers. As to clubs and bars, I used to be a working musician during the smoke anywhere days, when I arrived home at the end of a nights work in a smokey club, I would need to put my clothes in another room and wash my hair before I could sleep, I also needed to have a sepeate instrument that was used only in bars just from the stink. When the town banned smoking in the club, it was a great day. Edited January 4, 2012 by daoyai

[KarenBravo]

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.

So......you're saying that smokers are a lower class of people.

Maybe you should put your bayonet away.......

[TAWP]

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.

To be fair, and I am perhaps not completely blaming this on the smoking-ban but it highlighted the issue, but there is some places downtown where I don't go out to anymore or try to avoid when friends want to go there dud to a very clear issue with a lot of patrons and their...body odor. When people smoked this was kinda masked, but now it is much more obvious and for some of these men it seems like if they cannot smoke they get completely wasted at 11 and try to dance next to every other table to that has any females (they usually tend to show up in groups of 10+ males). It didn't used to bother me much - but more so now due to the smell-factor. And I find it a worse smell than smoke.

Just my opinion.

[tombkk]

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.

So......you're saying that smokers are a lower class of people.

Maybe you should put your bayonet away.......

LOL! Nice twist.

In fact, he didn't say that smokers are a lower class of people. But that some bars are low-class, and you can avoid those if you want to.

[atyclb]

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.

Not a clue about not wanting to have active incendiary devices on an aircraft.

[atyclb]

One more point ;

Government/ public hospitals in Thailand do not have the capacity to care for the patient load. For example at Siriraj and Ramatibodi, the medical staff work their tails off in a never ending futile effort to care for all sick people. Many patients lack the concept of prevention, early diagnosis, self help, etc etc. Typically many diseases first present at advanced stages. They are overwhelmed.

If diseases related to smoking and SHS could be lowered, it would allow them to take better care/ more complete care of all patients. Many many cases coming in are related to smoking and many can be prevented.

[atyclb]

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....les/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....act/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.

First study from 1943 at a time treatments for asthma were limited compared to today.

# Nicotinic acid was given, not nicotinic acic + thousands of other chemicals including carcinogens, toxins, and irritants as in cigarette smoke. Significant difference but still can addict. Apparently it did not lead to widespread use in treatment. Not considered a treatment for asthma/ RAD. Asthman medications not generally addicting.

Second more recent study in rats interesting but for academic researchers. Perhaps if every asthma drug has been given but failing, it wouldn't hurt to give a dose of nicotinic acid.

In both studies Nicotinic Acic was not administered in the form of cigarette smoke, a world of difference.

Hopefully posting the articles was not to imply nicotinic acid via cigarette smoke has any real use to treat asthma. That would be like isolating whatever oxygen is in a bus exhaust and saying the oxygen improved the breathing of asthmatics.

Edited January 4, 2012 by atyclb

[Jayman]

One more point ;

Government/ public hospitals in Thailand do not have the capacity to care for the patient load. For example at Siriraj and Ramatibodi, the medical staff work their tails off in a never ending futile effort to care for all sick people. Many patients lack the concept of prevention, early diagnosis, self help, etc etc. Typically many diseases first present at advanced stages. They are overwhelmed.

If diseases related to smoking and SHS could be lowered, it would allow them to take better care/ more complete care of all patients. Many many cases coming in are related to smoking and many can be prevented.

I totally agree with this and it brings me back to the point of the bans being in place to protect the employees more than the customers.

Hopefully posting the articles was not to imply nicotinic acid via cigarette smoke has any real use to treat asthma. That would be like isolating whatever oxygen is in a bus exhaust and saying the oxygen improved the breathing of asthmatics.

Did you see his previous posts with claims that SHS is good for children. Seems they have less respiratory illness or something. Is quite laughable really than anyone would believe this stuff.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Jayman

[tombkk]

One more point ;

Government/ public hospitals in Thailand do not have the capacity to care for the patient load. For example at Siriraj and Ramatibodi, the medical staff work their tails off in a never ending futile effort to care for all sick people. Many patients lack the concept of prevention, early diagnosis, self help, etc etc. Typically many diseases first present at advanced stages. They are overwhelmed.

If diseases related to smoking and SHS could be lowered, it would allow them to take better care/ more complete care of all patients. Many many cases coming in are related to smoking and many can be prevented.

I think you are really advocating that hospitals should be adequately staffed.

Of course, awareness among the general public and prevention of diseases are general issues, not limited to the hazards of smoking.

[atyclb]

One more point ;

Government/ public hospitals in Thailand do not have the capacity to care for the patient load. For example at Siriraj and Ramatibodi, the medical staff work their tails off in a never ending futile effort to care for all sick people. Many patients lack the concept of prevention, early diagnosis, self help, etc etc. Typically many diseases first present at advanced stages. They are overwhelmed.

If diseases related to smoking and SHS could be lowered, it would allow them to take better care/ more complete care of all patients. Many many cases coming in are related to smoking and many can be prevented.

I think you are really advocating that hospitals should be adequately staffed.

Of course, awareness among the general public and prevention of diseases are general issues, not limited to the hazards of smoking.

What is more reasonable and intelligent, to decrease the number of preventable diseases from occurring in the first place, or to just increase staff and facilities?

Do you continue to add combustibles while trying to extinguish a fire?

[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.

So......you're saying that smokers are a lower class of people.

Maybe you should put your bayonet away.......

LOL! Nice twist.

In fact, he didn't say that smokers are a lower class of people. But that some bars are low-class, and you can avoid those if you want to.

Thanks Tom.

My point was that the better the bar/club, the less likelihood that they would disrespect the laws and their non-smoking patrons by allowing smoking in the establishment, especially when it's such a simple problem to solve.

But the lower class bars/go go's/clubs are short sighted and ruled by the baht. They don't care if the vast majority of Customers don't smoke. They will allow thew few that do to spoil the place for everyone else, because they don't want to lose that 1 Customer.

I agree with many, let bars decide which ones allow smoking and which ones don't. Let the market decide who survives and who doesn't. Some will go bust, others thrive and some will still be mixed by choice because they are decent bars.

[atyclb]

One more point ;

Government/ public hospitals in Thailand do not have the capacity to care for the patient load. For example at Siriraj and Ramatibodi, the medical staff work their tails off in a never ending futile effort to care for all sick people. Many patients lack the concept of prevention, early diagnosis, self help, etc etc. Typically many diseases first present at advanced stages. They are overwhelmed.

If diseases related to smoking and SHS could be lowered, it would allow them to take better care/ more complete care of all patients. Many many cases coming in are related to smoking and many can be prevented.

I totally agree with this and it brings me back to the point of the bans being in place to protect the employees more than the customers.

Hopefully posting the articles was not to imply nicotinic acid via cigarette smoke has any real use to treat asthma. That would be like isolating whatever oxygen is in a bus exhaust and saying the oxygen improved the breathing of asthmatics.

Did you see his previous posts with claims that SHS is good for children. Seems they have less respiratory illness or something. Is quite laughable really than anyone would believe this stuff.

Rather than "laughable" I'd say "delusional" is the more appropriate term, all joking aside.

[atyclb]

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.

So......you're saying that smokers are a lower class of people.

Maybe you should put your bayonet away.......

LOL! Nice twist.

In fact, he didn't say that smokers are a lower class of people. But that some bars are low-class, and you can avoid those if you want to.

Thanks Tom.

My point was that the better the bar/club, the less likelihood that they would disrespect the laws and their non-smoking patrons by allowing smoking in the establishment, especially when it's such a simple problem to solve.

But the lower class bars/go go's/clubs are short sighted and ruled by the baht. They don't care if the vast majority of Customers don't smoke. They will allow thew few that do to spoil the place for everyone else, because they don't want to lose that 1 Customer.

I agree with many, let bars decide which ones allow smoking and which ones don't. Let the market decide who survives and who doesn't. Some will go bust, others thrive and some will still be mixed by choice because they are decent bars.

Yes, perhaps in theory. I am very disappointed in Insomnia BKK in that it is a very nice well done place but cigarettes and shisha counter the upscale-ness.

[TAWP]

I think you are really advocating that hospitals should be adequately staffed.

Of course, awareness among the general public and prevention of diseases are general issues, not limited to the hazards of smoking.

What is more reasonable and intelligent, to decrease the number of preventable diseases from occurring in the first place, or to just increase staff and facilities?

Do you continue to add combustibles while trying to extinguish a fire?

As long as there isn't any stupid idea such as socialized medicine introduced then it clearly is a persons own choice to start smoking and their price to pay if they get sick.

And being here a bunch of years I have never had an issue with hospitals being understaffed. But then again, I always go to the different - not expensive - private hospitals around. It is only when it becomes a government hospital that there seems to creep up things such terms as 'understaffed' and 'poorly maintained', probably because if it was privately run they couldn't count on the governments bailout to survive even if the clients avoided them.

Edited January 5, 2012 by TAWP

[atyclb]

I think you are really advocating that hospitals should be adequately staffed.

Of course, awareness among the general public and prevention of diseases are general issues, not limited to the hazards of smoking.

What is more reasonable and intelligent, to decrease the number of preventable diseases from occurring in the first place, or to just increase staff and facilities?

Do you continue to add combustibles while trying to extinguish a fire?

As long as there isn't any stupid idea such as socialized medicine introduced then it clearly is a persons own choice to start smoking and their price to pay if they get sick.

And being here a bunch of years I have never had an issue with hospitals being understaffed. But then again, I always go to the different - not expensive - private hospitals around. It is only when it becomes a government hospital that there seems to creep up things such terms as 'understaffed' and 'poorly maintained', probably because if it was privately run they couldn't count on the governments bailout to survive even if the clients avoided them.

The issues involve the health of society on the whole and diseases in children and adults that can be easily prevented by not breathing SHS. Your response is in relation to YOU. Perhaps you are the center of the universe?

Smokers have every right to smoke and do whatever they want with their health or lack thereof, as long as others are not subjected to also breathe it and smell it. It give the lung, heart and cancer specialists a lot of business.

[citizen33]

Some very dubious claims by the smokers on this thread. The only thing I would say, having seen quite a few tobacco-related endings, is that putting other people at risk may well bring its own special reward - Daihard indeed.

[tombkk]

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.

So......you're saying that smokers are a lower class of people.

Maybe you should put your bayonet away.......

LOL! Nice twist.

In fact, he didn't say that smokers are a lower class of people. But that some bars are low-class, and you can avoid those if you want to.

Thanks Tom.

My point was that the better the bar/club, the less likelihood that they would disrespect the laws and their non-smoking patrons by allowing smoking in the establishment, especially when it's such a simple problem to solve.

But the lower class bars/go go's/clubs are short sighted and ruled by the baht. They don't care if the vast majority of Customers don't smoke. They will allow thew few that do to spoil the place for everyone else, because they don't want to lose that 1 Customer.

I agree with many, let bars decide which ones allow smoking and which ones don't. Let the market decide who survives and who doesn't. Some will go bust, others thrive and some will still be mixed by choice because they are decent bars.

Your last two paragraphs seem to contradict each other. If a bar owner is only interested in the Baht (I don't doubt that these people exist), he will not survive on 1 customer but will do what the majority of his customers demand.

So (and here we come to the last paragraph), whether he'll allow smoking or not depends on his customers, yes.

We've read some statistics in this thread that smokers are more likely to go out, and that many pubs in one country (UK?) had to close when smoking was forbidden by law. How does that help the non-smokers, I wonder.

Let the people decide whether they want to go to a bar or pub where smoking is allowed. If you don't like it, do go there. Why would you want the law to enforce non-smoking so that those who like to smoke can't go there either, I wonder. What satisfaction do non-smokers get from closing just another venue down they wouldn't want to frequent anyway?

[tombkk]

One more point ;

Government/ public hospitals in Thailand do not have the capacity to care for the patient load. For example at Siriraj and Ramatibodi, the medical staff work their tails off in a never ending futile effort to care for all sick people. Many patients lack the concept of prevention, early diagnosis, self help, etc etc. Typically many diseases first present at advanced stages. They are overwhelmed.

If diseases related to smoking and SHS could be lowered, it would allow them to take better care/ more complete care of all patients. Many many cases coming in are related to smoking and many can be prevented.

I think you are really advocating that hospitals should be adequately staffed.

Of course, awareness among the general public and prevention of diseases are general issues, not limited to the hazards of smoking.

What is more reasonable and intelligent, to decrease the number of preventable diseases from occurring in the first place, or to just increase staff and facilities?

Do you continue to add combustibles while trying to extinguish a fire?

I will ignore the last sentence.

It is advisable to decrease preventable diseases but that is an educational issue, not a medical one. Providing enough staff to deal with the medical requirements is a first priority. "You did not get educated about the dangers of smoking, so now you'll have to wait for treatment" is kind of incompatible with any ethics I know.

[Jayman]

Let the people decide whether they want to go to a bar or pub where smoking is allowed. If you don't like it, do go there. Why would you want the law to enforce non-smoking so that those who like to smoke can't go there either, I wonder. What satisfaction do non-smokers get from closing just another venue down they wouldn't want to frequent anyway?

Just because you are forbidden to smoke somewhere doesn't mean that smokers "can't" go there. If that was the case then how would smokers even travel or get the medical attention they will one day surely need?

Part of the education that is being given about the harms of smoking are in the form of scare tactics (pictures on cigs), lack of accessibility (they keep all cigs for sale out of sight now), and lack of acceptability with smoking in public places. This is part of encouraging the smokers to quit and non smokers not to start. In case you haven't noticed they don't even allow the showing of someone smoking on TV here. What more do you want in the form of education to stop smoking?

[tombkk]

Let the people decide whether they want to go to a bar or pub where smoking is allowed. If you don't like it, do go there. Why would you want the law to enforce non-smoking so that those who like to smoke can't go there either, I wonder. What satisfaction do non-smokers get from closing just another venue down they wouldn't want to frequent anyway?

Just because you are forbidden to smoke somewhere doesn't mean that smokers "can't" go there. If that was the case then how would smokers even travel or get the medical attention they will one day surely need?

Huh? I have a friend in Germany who is a heavy smoker, and he hasn't been to Thailand since the airlines don't allow smoking on board any more. His choice.

Part of the education that is being given about the harms of smoking are in the form of scare tactics (pictures on cigs), lack of accessibility (they keep all cigs for sale out of sight now), and lack of acceptability with smoking in public places. This is part of encouraging the smokers to quit and non smokers not to start. In case you haven't noticed they don't even allow the showing of someone smoking on TV here. What more do you want in the form of education to stop smoking?

What you are describing is not education. It's trying to either scare or block out the thought.

[willyumiii]

Some of the worst air quality in the world, HIV and other STDs sold in cute little packages cheap and they are worried about tabacco smoke???? 55555555

[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.

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...

There are only about five bars in Koh Samui, where I live, that enforce the non-smoking laws. You are right, in Bangkok they are doing a good job. It is one place where I can count on comfort.

[Jayman]

Huh? I have a friend in Germany who is a heavy smoker, and he hasn't been to Thailand since the airlines don't allow smoking on board any more. His choice.

Wow.. maybe you just figured out why tourism is down. Hurry and notify the TAT, maybe you can save the economy by starting a pro smoker campaign. You could coordinate with Thai air and promote to the smokers to bring them back to Thailand.

Part of the education that is being given about the harms of smoking are in the form of scare tactics (pictures on cigs), lack of accessibility (they keep all cigs for sale out of sight now), and lack of acceptability with smoking in public places. This is part of encouraging the smokers to quit and non smokers not to start. In case you haven't noticed they don't even allow the showing of someone smoking on TV here. What more do you want in the form of education to stop smoking?

What you are describing is not education. It's trying to either scare or block out the thought.

Welcome to Thailand.

Would you rather they take the approach of publishing all the studies that have been posted in this thread about how SHS and smoking will make you live longer and with less problems?

FYI, placing pictures and warnings on cigs is done in many country's to try and educate the smokers that what they are doing is unhealthy. Also, most countrys have not allowed any adverts for cigs for many many years now. Cigs cannot even be sponsors for many sporting events. You call it "blocking out thought" but this is a counter campaign to the kind of "educating" that the tobacco companies try and do through the large donations they get from their addicts.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Jayman

[cup-O-coffee]

To YOU, the "activist":

Who cares if my smoke is here or there? If you think you care, then read on.

Most smokers are polite enough to put it out if you ask. Have you asked? That's about all the "activist" activity you should limit yourself to without getting e bean on the nose.

If smokers want to get together and shut themselves up in a room and gas their lungs out, then what concern is it of yours, or anyone elses?

Until you can prove that you have some sort of control over the path direction of my smoke when I exhale it outdoors, then your argument and being an "activist" is utterly absurd and there is no future in it.

There are too many wastes of human tissue in this world that can't sleep at night because they worry that others are doing things that have no circumstantial effect on anyone or anything.

[Jayman]

To YOU, the "activist":

Who cares if my smoke is here or there? If you think you care, then read on.

There are too many wastes of human tissue in this world that can't sleep at night because they worry that others are doing things that have no circumstantial effect on anyone or anything.

No one here is complaining about what you smokers want to do as long as you do it away from the rest of the public. Even smokers don't like to work in a smokey environment. I have yet to see any complaints about the smoke boxes at the airport from anyone other than perhaps the smokers who themselves find them disgusting to spend more than 1 cig of time in.

If you think that smoking in enclosed areas with other ppl is not having any effect on them you are misguided.

And if you are the kind of smoker that puts out your cig when you are told it is disturbing others then I commend you for that. Have you considered that if you were more considerate to begin with you wouldn't have to force others to take the action to stop your actions and would be aware of your disturbing behavior from the get go.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Jayman

[tombkk]

Huh? I have a friend in Germany who is a heavy smoker, and he hasn't been to Thailand since the airlines don't allow smoking on board any more. His choice.

Wow.. maybe you just figured out why tourism is down. Hurry and notify the TAT, maybe you can save the economy by starting a pro smoker campaign. You could coordinate with Thai air and promote to the smokers to bring them back to Thailand.

Why would I do that? You have not only totally missed my point, you haven't read my posts. Hint: I do not smoke.

Another hint: My reply was in reference to your saying that smokers are not avoiding places where they are not allowed to smoke. I was giving you an empirical example that shows that you are wrong. But of course you are right, many smokers will still go to non-smoking places, and just not smoke there. Why would that be a problem for you?

I am beginning to believe that your mission is not against smoking and SHS, but against smokers, who you see as evil incarnate. Anybody who would so much as tolerate them is evil by association. Am I right?

[Jayman]

Let the people decide whether they want to go to a bar or pub where smoking is allowed. If you don't like it, do go there. Why would you want the law to enforce non-smoking so that those who like to smoke can't go there either, I wonder. What satisfaction do non-smokers get from closing just another venue down they wouldn't want to frequent anyway?

Just because you are forbidden to smoke somewhere doesn't mean that smokers "can't" go there. If that was the case then how would smokers even travel or get the medical attention they will one day surely need?

Huh? I have a friend in Germany who is a heavy smoker, and he hasn't been to Thailand since the airlines don't allow smoking on board any more. His choice.

I think it is you that are constantly missing the point. I stated that just because smoking is NOT allowed does not mean smokers were banned. If smokers were banned then they couldn't get on the plane. Then you answer by saying "I know a smoker that won't fly cause he can't smoke". So what? How does that prove a point that he is banned from flying. That is his choice to not fly the same as it's his choice to smoke.

The rules are set forth to protect people from SHS in enclosed areas but you will continue to point out all the exceptions and how the laws are stupid and that education is the key and blah blah blah.

I'm an ex-smoker and the excuse that anyone that doesn't like to inhale smoke is "out to get" all the smokers is a tiresome argument. Even when I did smoke I would never sit in the smoking section in any restaurant or airplane when such things still existed. The point is that the smoke can not be kept from disturbing the others that are choosing not to inhale the smoke at that particular moment. Does that make me a hypocrite cause as a smoker I chose to not sit with smokers? I think not. It also doesn't make me anti-smoking. Folks can make the choices for themselves all they want but need to be more considerate of the others around them that are being effected by their actions.

This has been my point from post one and I will continue to say it over and over. Will your same friend that will no longer get in an airplane cause he can't smoke go to see a doctor when he is sick? Maybe he is the hypocrite by your logic?

Edited January 6, 2012 by Jayman

[DLock]

Does smoking stunt your intelligence?

Why do we always end up with multi page threads where smokers are somehow trying to defend their nasty habit and that they have rights to smoke around people who don't want to smell or inhale what they exhaled?

I don't want to smell your smoke ever. Not in a bar, not in a restaurant and not even when you walk past me in the street.

It is offensive and any attempt to defend your right to make me smell your smoke is simply arrogance and ignorance.

Smoke in your own home. Smoke in your yard. Smoke in that sad little room at the airport...but just smoke around me.

Understood?

[Wallaby]

This has been my point from post one and I will continue to say it over and over. Will your same friend that will no longer get in an airplane cause he can't smoke go to see a doctor when he is sick? Maybe he is the hypocrite by your logic?

Oh the old 'cost to the taxpayer' chestnut.

I'm sure it may be different in other countries but in mine we have taxpayer funded free medical etc. My take on it is that a person pays about $16 a packet. May be about $8 of that is tax that goes to the govt. If the govt really wants to stamp out smoking it could just make it illegal but it is making far too much money from it.

If a person gets sick from a smoking then I'm sure their $8 a day tax from the packet would cover it nicely. I should also mention that fat people go to the doctor, should they not be allowed to go because they have a bad diet?

Finally, look at how much the govt saves because smokers die at an early age. The govt doesn't have to pay for years and years of a pension because of that early death.

I think the govt is doing quite nicely out of it all and yet still finds it acceptable to make certain roads smoke free.

Though I did have to laugh at a mate a couple of weeks ago. He was having a smoke next to a no smoking sign and security asked him to move on. He told them that security should be the ones to move on because the signs all around the city are 'No Smoking Prohibited'. Instead of 'Smoking Prohibited'. The guard just had to smile and agree that the govt officers must learn English.