Experts Warn Against Clove Cigarettes: Thailand

[Siam Simon]

But if they move, their freedom of public space is being restricted.

The social contract doesn't prohibit a person from being inconvenienced, but not to be harmed.

Would that be the social contract that allows non-smokers to breathe air unpolluted by cigarette smoke everewhere they want to go in public places, or the social contract that allows smokers to pollute the air everywhere they want to go in public places?

Again, if you can prove that second hand smoke in open air has a distinct health risk, then ofcourse then you cannot smoke around others in 'public' space (as oppose to privately owned establishments).

Much like it is illegal to shot someone but it is legal to be ugly or have bad breath.

Again, it's an established fact that cigarette smoke diminishes the enjoyment of a public place by non-smokers.

And smoking is a lifestyle choice, unlike being ugly (whatever that is). And bad breath has to be really invading someone's personal space to p1ss someone off in the way that an inconsiderate smoker does. Got any more daft excuses about why the smoker verses non-smoker debate fits comfortably in your libertarian POV?

[Humphrey Bear]

_{And the usual suspects use up more than half a thread on kretek cigarettes to rant about politics. Absurd politics.}

_{Can't we have a politics-free discussion on simple matters?}

_{Kretek cigarettes were very popular in Indonesia when I was there - mainly for price, I think, but also because they were available for childen as well as adults (at least in Sumatra) and when you're introduced to a product in your early years, you tend to stick with it in later years.}

_{I far prefer English ale to continental lagers, especially Marston's Pedigree. Again, accustomed to it from an early age.}

[dangman]

smoke all you want.. just blow it up in the air, not toward my face.. thank you

[oggie911]

Don't smoke at all.

mind your own buiness i hate so called do gooders cop on people can live there own lives and dont need the likes of you to tell us what we can and can not do. Edited January 29, 2012 by oggie911

[TAWP]

Again, if you can prove that second hand smoke in open air has a distinct health risk, then ofcourse then you cannot smoke around others in 'public' space (as oppose to privately owned establishments).

Much like it is illegal to shot someone but it is legal to be ugly or have bad breath.

Again, it's an established fact that cigarette smoke diminishes the enjoyment of a public place by non-smokers.

And smoking is a lifestyle choice, unlike being ugly (whatever that is). And bad breath has to be really invading someone's personal space to p1ss someone off in the way that an inconsiderate smoker does. Got any more daft excuses about why the smoker verses non-smoker debate fits comfortably in your libertarian POV?

Since you seem unable to actually read what is written or respond without unwarranted slander I leave it to yourself to read up on the subject. Ta-da.

[Siam Simon]

Again, if you can prove that second hand smoke in open air has a distinct health risk, then ofcourse then you cannot smoke around others in 'public' space (as oppose to privately owned establishments).

Much like it is illegal to shot someone but it is legal to be ugly or have bad breath.

Again, it's an established fact that cigarette smoke diminishes the enjoyment of a public place by non-smokers.

And smoking is a lifestyle choice, unlike being ugly (whatever that is). And bad breath has to be really invading someone's personal space to p1ss someone off in the way that an inconsiderate smoker does. Got any more daft excuses about why the smoker verses non-smoker debate fits comfortably in your libertarian POV?

Since you seem unable to actually read what is written or respond without unwarranted slander I leave it to yourself to read up on the subject. Ta-da.

I can read perfectly well the prevarication that you have posted on this thread since we started our discussion. And the word you were looking for is 'libel', something that you have done to Jingthing on this very thread, and you do to other posters all the time. You would reduce a court to hysterical laughter if you presented your discussions on this forum as a libel complaint.

[TAWP]

If you want to you can go back and see who repeatedly posts unsubstantiated libel against other ideological groups in this thread. It is Jingthings M.O. Just see the Int. News forum's section.

You might see who went the 'nazi' route for example.

And again, if a person 'attacks ' you with something that you think is harming you, then you would bring a charge against that person. No need to ban something unproven, especially if the practice is only claimed to be harmful towards others when others are infact there. I.e. pre-banning of smoking in public places is nonsense - it is the damage towards others you could object against if proven.

[transam]

Strange you can't smoke in LOS but it's OK for anyone to burn shit and the rice crop residue and that seems OK.

[Siam Simon]

If you want to you can go back and see who repeatedly posts unsubstantiated libel against other ideological groups in this thread. It is Jingthings M.O. Just see the Int. News forum's section.

You might see who went the 'nazi' route for example.

And again, if a person 'attacks ' you with something that you think is harming you, then you would bring a charge against that person. No need to ban something unproven, especially if the practice is only claimed to be harmful towards others when others are infact there. I.e. pre-banning of smoking in public places is nonsense - it is the damage towards others you could object against if proven.

It would appear that in the libertarian scheme of things, everyone is ok so long a they are not being killed or physically harmed. Someone's personal quality of life or personal enjoyment of public space can be undermined by someone else's enjoyment of antisocial activity. And this because it's an aspect of a social contract that nobody has signed or even been consulted on. Seems like an interesting concept of personal freedom, this libertarianism.

[FOODLOVER]

http://www.gotvape.com/

[TAWP]

If you want to you can go back and see who repeatedly posts unsubstantiated libel against other ideological groups in this thread. It is Jingthings M.O. Just see the Int. News forum's section.

You might see who went the 'nazi' route for example.

And again, if a person 'attacks ' you with something that you think is harming you, then you would bring a charge against that person. No need to ban something unproven, especially if the practice is only claimed to be harmful towards others when others are infact there. I.e. pre-banning of smoking in public places is nonsense - it is the damage towards others you could object against if proven.

It would appear that in the libertarian scheme of things, everyone is ok so long a they are not being killed or physically harmed. Someone's personal quality of life or personal enjoyment of public space can be undermined by someone else's enjoyment of antisocial activity. And this because it's an aspect of a social contract that nobody has signed or even been consulted on. Seems like an interesting concept of personal freedom, this libertarianism.

I see that you again choose to purposefully 'misunderstand' and misrepresent what is written.

[Siam Simon]

If you want to you can go back and see who repeatedly posts unsubstantiated libel against other ideological groups in this thread. It is Jingthings M.O. Just see the Int. News forum's section.

You might see who went the 'nazi' route for example.

And again, if a person 'attacks ' you with something that you think is harming you, then you would bring a charge against that person. No need to ban something unproven, especially if the practice is only claimed to be harmful towards others when others are infact there. I.e. pre-banning of smoking in public places is nonsense - it is the damage towards others you could object against if proven.

It would appear that in the libertarian scheme of things, everyone is ok so long a they are not being killed or physically harmed. Someone's personal quality of life or personal enjoyment of public space can be undermined by someone else's enjoyment of antisocial activity. And this because it's an aspect of a social contract that nobody has signed or even been consulted on. Seems like an interesting concept of personal freedom, this libertarianism.

I see that you again choose to purposefully 'misunderstand' and misrepresent what is written.

No misunderstanding from me about what you have written in this thread. Your own words have shown me that libertarianism is a sham version of personal freedom, a world where the majority have to suffer personal restrictions of freedom in order to tolerate antisocial behaviour by others under a "social contract" that they were never party to.

[TAWP]

No misunderstanding from me about what you have written in this thread. Your own words have shown me that libertarianism is a sham version of personal freedom, a world where the majority have to suffer personal restrictions of freedom in order to tolerate antisocial behaviour by others under a "social contract" that they were never party to.

My lord, you are obtuse.

If that is really what you take away from words such as 'protect against oppression' then I am sorry for you. Perhaps you prefer when a majority can oppress a minority without reprisals. Perhaps you have just chosen this path of interpretation from a position of contrarianism or perhaps you think that talks of an implied 'social contract' is anything different what we have today with the understanding that if you live in an apartment it cannot be as silent as in your own house in the countryside.

In either way, you are as you always are.

[Skywalker69]

Cigarette producers must be the most evil people on the planet. The work of all of the world's dictators and terrorists pale in comparison with the deaths these people cause with obvious relish.

Killed more people than Stalin and Hitler together and getting money for it.

[nisakiman]

There was a pathology research on ciggarrettes vs clove cigs nearly 30 years ago. The research showed the lungs of the two. Those that smoked had black lungs with enlarged areas that reduced the capacity for breathing. The lungs of those who smoked clove ciggarettes had actual holes some small but some as large as ping pong balls.

That sounds like utter tosh to me.

Links, please.

For starters, smokers lungs do not go black. Ask any honest pathologist if when he performs an autopsy he can tell you the differece between a smoker's lungs and a non-smoker's lungs, and he will tell you "no".

The "black lungs" myth comes from the fact that lung cancer turns the outside of the affected lungs black from dead tissue. I seem to remember reading (unverifiable, I'm afraid, as I can't remember where) that the picture of "diseased and black smoker's lungs" used in shock campaigns in the UK actually came from a non-smoker who died of LC.

[Jayman]

It doesn't matter what experts warn about smoking there will always be those that disregard it and that's fine by me as long as they don't infringe on my family's enjoyment to breath fresh air.

[sabaijai]

Inhale deeper! what's the difference with a normal inhale. You are taking the nasty smoke into your lungs either way. I do not think inhaling deeper will access parts of your lungs normally unused by normal inhalation. Cloved or not, they are both nasty and will kill you eventually.

Agreed.

[Siam Simon]

No misunderstanding from me about what you have written in this thread. Your own words have shown me that libertarianism is a sham version of personal freedom, a world where the majority have to suffer personal restrictions of freedom in order to tolerate antisocial behaviour by others under a "social contract" that they were never party to.

My lord, you are obtuse.

If that is really what you take away from words such as 'protect against oppression' then I am sorry for you. Perhaps you prefer when a majority can oppress a minority without reprisals. Perhaps you have just chosen this path of interpretation from a position of contrarianism or perhaps you think that talks of an implied 'social contract' is anything different what we have today with the understanding that if you live in an apartment it cannot be as silent as in your own house in the countryside.

In either way, you are as you always are.

I'm not the one being obtuse. I have no idea why you bring the subjects of oppression and apartment dwellers into this. Just seems like more prevarication to me. And all this prevarication just to avoid coming up with a decent answer to a straightforward conundrum, and thus avoid having to admit that your libertarian pie-in-the-sky falls on it's ar$e over this.

[TAWP]

No misunderstanding from me about what you have written in this thread. Your own words have shown me that libertarianism is a sham version of personal freedom, a world where the majority have to suffer personal restrictions of freedom in order to tolerate antisocial behaviour by others under a "social contract" that they were never party to.

My lord, you are obtuse.

If that is really what you take away from words such as 'protect against oppression' then I am sorry for you. Perhaps you prefer when a majority can oppress a minority without reprisals. Perhaps you have just chosen this path of interpretation from a position of contrarianism or perhaps you think that talks of an implied 'social contract' is anything different what we have today with the understanding that if you live in an apartment it cannot be as silent as in your own house in the countryside.

In either way, you are as you always are.

I'm not the one being obtuse. I have no idea why you bring the subjects of oppression and apartment dwellers into this. Just seems like more prevarication to me. And all this prevarication just to avoid coming up with a decent answer to a straightforward conundrum, and thus avoid having to admit that your libertarian pie-in-the-sky falls on it's ar$e over this.

Uh, no, since it is to clearly present what one will expect their actions to be judged upon.

Just because you don't like something someone else is doing doesn't and shouldn't make it 'wrong' or 'illegal'.

Only if their actions is intruding more on your right not to be harmed or oppressed than their right to carry out actions of their will, should there be an intervention.

So at some point you can find 'edge-cases' where the needle tips one way or the other with a very thin margin. And that is life. But it doesn't invalidate a full ideological movement or its base tenants.

You don't like smoking, fine. I don't like smoking either. But I am not going to propose that people cannot smoke just because I dislike it. Only if their smoking can harm others that has not agreed upon taking part of the event.

Out of interest, what is your [political] view on personal freedom and right to not be oppressed - and smoking?

[exeter]

Essence of cloves is very good for toothache, far better than trying to smoke them.

[Siam Simon]

Uh, no, since it is to clearly present what one will expect their actions to be judged upon.

Just because you don't like something someone else is doing doesn't and shouldn't make it 'wrong' or 'illegal'.

Only if their actions is intruding more on your right not to be harmed or oppressed than their right to carry out actions of their will, should there be an intervention.

So at some point you can find 'edge-cases' where the needle tips one way or the other with a very thin margin. And that is life. But it doesn't invalidate a full ideological movement or its base tenants.

You don't like smoking, fine. I don't like smoking either. But I am not going to propose that people cannot smoke just because I dislike it. Only if their smoking can harm others that has not agreed upon taking part of the event.

You continue to avoid the realities with pie-in-the-sky arguments. Masturbation,defacation and urination are not, in themselves, illegal acts. They are also, in most circumstances, not physically harmful to people nearby. But it's safe to state that the vast majority of people would get very upset if they witnessed a stranger carrying out one of those acts in a public place. And so would any police officers if they were made aware of the situation. Can you now understand why many non-smokers should be entitled to enjoy public places without being upset by the discomfort of breathing second-hand cigarette smoke? And it's a problem greatly compounded when one has children present.

Out of interest, what is your [political] view on personal freedom and right to not be oppressed - and smoking?

It's a legal anomaly borne out of smokers historically being in the vast majority that laws have been slow to catch up with modern perceptions of smoking. Personally (and writing as someone who has never smoked), I think that the issues of smoking haven't been handled very well by the legislation that I've seen. For instance, smoking is banned in enclosed public spaces in many countries (including Thailand), but I feel that's an unnecessarily strict law in a lot of circumstances: If the operators of a public building wish to spend money on one of the very efficient, high-powered extraction systems that are now available, in an area set aside for smokers, that should be allowed; I think that private places that cater for adult members of the public should be able to make their own call; I think that private places that cater for families should be legally required to have similar systems to the first example if they want to allow smoking; I think that the laws need to be changed wrt smoking in outside public places because too many smokers show no willingness to be considerate to non-smokers around them, and smoking should only be allowed in designated places. And I think that smokers and businesses who break smoking laws should be punished appropriately by enforcement of those laws.

[transam]

Uh, no, since it is to clearly present what one will expect their actions to be judged upon.

Just because you don't like something someone else is doing doesn't and shouldn't make it 'wrong' or 'illegal'.

Only if their actions is intruding more on your right not to be harmed or oppressed than their right to carry out actions of their will, should there be an intervention.

So at some point you can find 'edge-cases' where the needle tips one way or the other with a very thin margin. And that is life. But it doesn't invalidate a full ideological movement or its base tenants.

You don't like smoking, fine. I don't like smoking either. But I am not going to propose that people cannot smoke just because I dislike it. Only if their smoking can harm others that has not agreed upon taking part of the event.

You continue to avoid the realities with pie-in-the-sky arguments. Masturbation,defacation and urination are not, in themselves, illegal acts. They are also, in most circumstances, not physically harmful to people nearby. But it's safe to state that the vast majority of people would get very upset if they witnessed a stranger carrying out one of those acts in a public place. And so would any police officers if they were made aware of the situation. Can you now understand why many non-smokers should be entitled to enjoy public places without being upset by the discomfort of breathing second-hand cigarette smoke? And it's a problem greatly compounded when one has children present.

Out of interest, what is your [political] view on personal freedom and right to not be oppressed - and smoking?

It's a legal anomaly borne out of smokers historically being in the vast majority that laws have been slow to catch up with modern perceptions of smoking. Personally (and writing as someone who has never smoked), I think that the issues of smoking haven't been handled very well by the legislation that I've seen. For instance, smoking is banned in enclosed public spaces in many countries (including Thailand), but I feel that's an unnecessarily strict law in a lot of circumstances: If the operators of a public building wish to spend money on one of the very efficient, high-powered extraction systems that are now available, in an area set aside for smokers, that should be allowed; I think that private places that cater for adult members of the public should be able to make their own call; I think that private places that cater for families should be legally required to have similar systems to the first example if they want to allow smoking; I think that the laws need to be changed wrt smoking in outside public places because too many smokers show no willingness to be considerate to non-smokers around them, and smoking should only be allowed in designated places. And I think that smokers and businesses who break smoking laws should be punished appropriately by enforcement of those laws.

So, ''you'' don't breath in burnt diesel fumes when your out and about or are you going to ban motors too, or it's OK to breath in exhaust gas cos folk can't walk everywhere and you need your McD's delivery or your going to stop planes flying over your house dumping fuel or burning kerosene that you are breathing in CONSTANTLY. .

[Jayman]

Uh, no, since it is to clearly present what one will expect their actions to be judged upon.

Just because you don't like something someone else is doing doesn't and shouldn't make it 'wrong' or 'illegal'.

Only if their actions is intruding more on your right not to be harmed or oppressed than their right to carry out actions of their will, should there be an intervention.

So at some point you can find 'edge-cases' where the needle tips one way or the other with a very thin margin. And that is life. But it doesn't invalidate a full ideological movement or its base tenants.

You don't like smoking, fine. I don't like smoking either. But I am not going to propose that people cannot smoke just because I dislike it. Only if their smoking can harm others that has not agreed upon taking part of the event.

You continue to avoid the realities with pie-in-the-sky arguments. Masturbation,defacation and urination are not, in themselves, illegal acts. They are also, in most circumstances, not physically harmful to people nearby. But it's safe to state that the vast majority of people would get very upset if they witnessed a stranger carrying out one of those acts in a public place. And so would any police officers if they were made aware of the situation. Can you now understand why many non-smokers should be entitled to enjoy public places without being upset by the discomfort of breathing second-hand cigarette smoke? And it's a problem greatly compounded when one has children present.

Out of interest, what is your [political] view on personal freedom and right to not be oppressed - and smoking?

It's a legal anomaly borne out of smokers historically being in the vast majority that laws have been slow to catch up with modern perceptions of smoking. Personally (and writing as someone who has never smoked), I think that the issues of smoking haven't been handled very well by the legislation that I've seen. For instance, smoking is banned in enclosed public spaces in many countries (including Thailand), but I feel that's an unnecessarily strict law in a lot of circumstances: If the operators of a public building wish to spend money on one of the very efficient, high-powered extraction systems that are now available, in an area set aside for smokers, that should be allowed; I think that private places that cater for adult members of the public should be able to make their own call; I think that private places that cater for families should be legally required to have similar systems to the first example if they want to allow smoking; I think that the laws need to be changed wrt smoking in outside public places because too many smokers show no willingness to be considerate to non-smokers around them, and smoking should only be allowed in designated places. And I think that smokers and businesses who break smoking laws should be punished appropriately by enforcement of those laws.

So, ''you'' don't breath in burnt diesel fumes when your out and about or are you going to ban motors too, or it's OK to breath in exhaust gas cos folk can't walk everywhere and you need your McD's delivery or your going to stop planes flying over your house dumping fuel or burning kerosene that you are breathing in CONSTANTLY. .

Yup.. I've been waiting for this argument to surface. Seems in every thread about smoking someone brings in the point that cars create pollution. Not sure how many of them are in enclosed areas with cars running but it becomes a tiresome comparison.

If your point is that "x" can pollute so "y" should have the right to pollute then you are welcome to go live in China where the air is nice and clean. Believe it or not, there are regulations on pollution from a vehicle as well. It's quite unfortunate that oil drives the world still in this day and age where alternatives do exist. But I digress... this thread is about the harms of smoking and not about the harms of breathing.......

[transam]

So JM, for you it's OK for one pollutant (cos you drive a car) but not another. I would suggest that burning rice fields, motor emissions, planes etc are doing you more harm than the odd bloke sitting in the park having a fag.

[Jayman]

So JM, for you it's OK for one pollutant (cos you drive a car) but not another. I would suggest that burning rice fields, motor emissions, planes etc are doing you more harm than the odd bloke sitting in the park having a fag.

I most certainly don't think it's OK nor have I ever said that. In some countries they have more strict regs on burning Vegitation and vehicle emissions. I just want my family to be able to breathe clean air. Is that too much to ask? Or are you saying that you'll stop smoking when I stop driving?

Edited February 3, 2012 by Jayman

[transam]

So JM, for you it's OK for one pollutant (cos you drive a car) but not another. I would suggest that burning rice fields, motor emissions, planes etc are doing you more harm than the odd bloke sitting in the park having a fag.

I most certainly don't think it's OK nor have I ever said that. In some countries they have more strict regs on burning Vegitation and vehicle emissions. I just want my family to be able to breathe clean air. Is that too much to ask? Or are you saying that you'll stop smoking when I stop driving?

Who said l smoked. I smoke tyres pretty regularly though.

Nearly forgot, when l lived in London l was on a puffer inhaler daily to clear my lungs, didn't smoke, within 3 weeks of moving to LOS the puffer was chucked over the wall and l haven't needed one since. Now l even have a fag with no problem at all. Admit, no burning rice fields near me, Explain that.

As soon as ''you'' walk out the door and start your motor your kids are breathing shit. Noooooooooooo question, you must get your house in order before having a go at a fag smoker that is doing less to your kids than your ride.

Edited February 3, 2012 by transam

[Jayman]

So JM, for you it's OK for one pollutant (cos you drive a car) but not another. I would suggest that burning rice fields, motor emissions, planes etc are doing you more harm than the odd bloke sitting in the park having a fag.

Who said I drive?.. see how silly this thread turns when you start talking about cars when the thread is about smoking?

Edited February 3, 2012 by Jayman

[transam]

So JM, for you it's OK for one pollutant (cos you drive a car) but not another. I would suggest that burning rice fields, motor emissions, planes etc are doing you more harm than the odd bloke sitting in the park having a fag.

Who said I drive?.. see how silly this thread turns when you start talking about cars when the thread is about smoking?

Well, stuff should stay in perspective. Folk like you say smoking is a big evil BECAUSE you can see it and smell it. BUT, the stuff that is killing your kids you cannot see or smell.

DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME, JM, sit near a guy smoking and see what happens, eeeeeeeeeeeer nothing, NOW, sit the same distance from your rides exhaust pipe and see what happens. YEP, your dead in short order. Keep stuff in perspective and don't blame a few fag smokers for whats in the air your kids breath cos YOU are contributing to the stuff that is harming your kids.

[Jayman]

So JM, for you it's OK for one pollutant (cos you drive a car) but not another. I would suggest that burning rice fields, motor emissions, planes etc are doing you more harm than the odd bloke sitting in the park having a fag.

Who said I drive?.. see how silly this thread turns when you start talking about cars when the thread is about smoking?

Well, stuff should stay in perspective. Folk like you say smoking is a big evil BECAUSE you can see it and smell it. BUT, the stuff that is killing your kids you cannot see or smell.

DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME, JM, sit near a guy smoking and see what happens, eeeeeeeeeeeer nothing, NOW, sit the same distance from your rides exhaust pipe and see what happens. YEP, your dead in short order. Keep stuff in perspective and don't blame a few fag smokers for whats in the air your kids breath cos YOU are contributing to the stuff that is harming your kids.

As always the harm in smoking threads get hijacked by some "non" smoker that feels that everyone is looking at the wrong problem.

Keep it in perspective dude.. you are inhaling o2 and exhaling co2 which if you don't replenish with more o2 will kill us all. Plant a tree and <deleted> before you kill us all.

[transam]

So JM, for you it's OK for one pollutant (cos you drive a car) but not another. I would suggest that burning rice fields, motor emissions, planes etc are doing you more harm than the odd bloke sitting in the park having a fag.

Who said I drive?.. see how silly this thread turns when you start talking about cars when the thread is about smoking?

Well, stuff should stay in perspective. Folk like you say smoking is a big evil BECAUSE you can see it and smell it. BUT, the stuff that is killing your kids you cannot see or smell.

DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME, JM, sit near a guy smoking and see what happens, eeeeeeeeeeeer nothing, NOW, sit the same distance from your rides exhaust pipe and see what happens. YEP, your dead in short order. Keep stuff in perspective and don't blame a few fag smokers for whats in the air your kids breath cos YOU are contributing to the stuff that is harming your kids.

As always the harm in smoking threads get hijacked by some "non" smoker that feels that everyone is looking at the wrong problem.

Keep it in perspective dude.. you are inhaling o2 and exhaling co2 which if you don't replenish with more o2 will kill us all. Plant a tree and <deleted> before you kill us all.

So, you will stop flying eh. Yes/No.

Your home visit burns ooooooooooooooodles of litres of stuff for your holiday, that OK or do you go by canoe. ?