Smokers To Face Harsher Punishment For Smoking In Public: Thailand

[Nisa]

Stretching the topic but interesting this article came out today ...

Is eating egg yolks as bad as smoking?

The

study

published online in the journal Atherosclerosis found eating egg yolks regularly increases plaque buildup about two-thirds as much as smoking does.

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/15/is-eating-egg-yolks-as-bad-as-smoking/?hpt=hp_c2

How long until eating eggs in public will become a crime. And are people getting second hand yolk from the grills of places that serve eggs?

[nisakiman]

Ha! Second-hand yolk! I like it! Makes about as much sense as second-hand smoke!

[DrTuner]

I though everybody had moved to e-sigs already. I'm a shisha-smoker which happens in private quartes, so I guess this won't apply. Wouldn't care if it did, such laws are not made to be enforced, they are the brainfarts of governments who have bigger issues to deal with.

[MAJIC]

Easy targets,saves them from doing some real police work!

[kimamey]

It would be nice if they would just enforce the existing laws. Far too many bars and restaurants currently allow smoking inside their air conditioned spaces. I would just like to see all areas that should be smoke free under the current laws actually be smoke free.

There are plenty of places to go where smoking isn't allowed. In fact, the vast majority of air conditioned places do not allow smoking. I personally believe if an owner of a business wants to allow smoking it is their business and you don't have to work there or go there if you don't like it. If safety is involved (company that stores say gasoline) that is a different story but as for second hand smoke being dangerous, that is nonsense. These claims are all false and started out based on reports where a higher level of cancer was detected in people who lived in homes of smokers but what nobody mentions if the levels were within the margins of error making the report truly mean there is no increase or risk.

Insurance companies are largely to blame for this myth because they don't want people to smoke. Not because of second hand smoke but because it does effect the health of those who smoke.

Common sense should tell you the dangerous of being around second hand smoke are considerably less than driving in traffic. You can lock your self away in a small room with smokers for days and the result is going to be smelling like smoke but try putting yourself in a locked room with a running vehicle for just 30-minutes.

As for smoking in parks and such, there is little reason for having a law against it but should be heavy fines for littering a discarded cigarette. On the other hand, I have no issue with banning smoking in places where kids tend to hangout such as parks because it is a bad habit and often hurts the health of the user.

http://yourdoctorsor...ond-hand-smoke/

http://www.freedom-o...ice.com/AS3.htm

http://abcnews.go.co...=1#.UCzfQt2PWSo

The whole Tobacco Control Industry gravy-train is built on foundations of sand. Junk science, piss-poor epidemiology and cherry-picked and fudged statistics.

If you really are interested in the depths to which the anti-tobacco zealots are prepared to sink in their mania to compel people to adopt their favoured lifestyles, have a look at this website:

http://tctactics.org...x.php/Main_Page

Trashed economies, ruined businesses, destroyed social lives, stolen property rights; they don't care. Just collateral damage on their idealogical road to an unachievable "smoke-free" utopia.

Amply aided and abetted to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars by the pharmaceutical industry, whose 'Nicotine Replacement Therapy' (NRT) products are a multi-billion dollar market. That perhaps wouldn't be quite so bad if NRT actually worked. But with NRT aided quit rates as low as 0.2%, it's hardly a resounding endorsement of their products. And it certainly doesn't even begin to justify the denormalisation and demonisation of smokers that is the current trend, so enthusiastically encouraged by those same pharmaceutical companies.

As always, if you want to know why things are happening the way they are, just follow the money, and all will be revealed.

Well if you follow the money in the UK then you'll find that the government derives a lot of revenue from smokers so their anti smoking laws actually cost them money if they succeed. The tobacco companies have a lot of influence but the government still passes new anti smoking laws so I'm not sure your argument adds up. I can't really see the point of a ban in open spaces as unless there is a packed crowd of people then the effect would be minimal.

As for the post by Nisa I haven't got the time to look through all your links but I had a quick look at the first one. There is a lot of talk about research which doesn't support the view on the dangers of second hand smoke being accused of bias if it's funded by the tobacco industry. As far as I'm concerned it has to be paid for and so long as it's accurate the funding source doesn't matter. I did notice one section on the site.

Second Hand Smoke and Lung Cancer

If second hand smoke exposure is a significant risk factor for developing lung cancer, then we should expect to see increased numbers of cancer cases in non-smokers who are exposed to regular doses of second hand smoke. Has there been an increase in the incidence of lung cancer among nonsmokers over the last 40 years? The answer is quite simply… No. Data from national mortality studies show that rates of lung cancer among non-smoking women remained stable between the 1950’s to the 1980’s (very few women smoked during those years) and didn’t rise until substantial numbers of women started smoking in more recent years.

To me this doesn't seem to make sense, well not in the way it's meant to at least. Smoking didn't start in the 1950s so second hand smoke was around long before that so there's no reason that cancer deaths should go up between the 50s and 80s. I would expect that deaths might go down as less people smoke but then it doesn't clarify this but just says deaths didn't go up. It also doesn't say if these non smokers are living with a smoker or not. I'm not a scientist but it makes sense to me that if a cigarette gives off smoke that is harmful to the person smoking then some of that will go towards other people who will inhale it where it will have the same effect. Obviously this effect will be greatly reduced and I'm not in a position to answer that.

I think that the smoking bans are about more than second hand smoke although this may not be true in Thailand. The aim seems to be to reduce the number of people who smoke and who are therefore at risk of smoking related diseases. Whilst it could be argued that adults should be able to make up their own minds most people start smoking before they reach their late teens and so are not considered adults. I personally know many people who started smoking at age 15 or earlier. Usually by their own admission because it made them feel grown up and because their friends were doing it and of course a lot of them have now tried or succeeded in giving up . I felt the same pressure at the time. My mother who is in her mid eighties said one of her big worries when she was young was that when the time came that her friends started smoking she wouldn't be able to do it. In the end she didn't start. I've only ever known one person who started smoking after their teens.

The aim therefore is to stop children starting to smoke at a young age which will make them unlikely to start at all. There are many ways of doing this and one is to cut down their exposure to adults smoking, hence the bans and also stop anything that might glamorise smoking such as films or music videos. I believe there is evidence that this works although I don't have link for that. I know that some smokers who have wanted to give up have found it easier when they are not exposed to smokers at work or leisure. I would have thought this would help although I admit that I used my willpower in my teens so I don't have that problem now.

The problem for governments who tax tobacco at a high rate is how to take a moral stance on their population's reliance on tobacco with it's effects on their health whilst trying to reduce their own dependence on it's revenue.

Well I'm glad i got that off my chest. Time to get drunk maybe.

[Nisa]

It would be nice if they would just enforce the existing laws. Far too many bars and restaurants currently allow smoking inside their air conditioned spaces. I would just like to see all areas that should be smoke free under the current laws actually be smoke free.

There are plenty of places to go where smoking isn't allowed. In fact, the vast majority of air conditioned places do not allow smoking. I personally believe if an owner of a business wants to allow smoking it is their business and you don't have to work there or go there if you don't like it. If safety is involved (company that stores say gasoline) that is a different story but as for second hand smoke being dangerous, that is nonsense. These claims are all false and started out based on reports where a higher level of cancer was detected in people who lived in homes of smokers but what nobody mentions if the levels were within the margins of error making the report truly mean there is no increase or risk.

Insurance companies are largely to blame for this myth because they don't want people to smoke. Not because of second hand smoke but because it does effect the health of those who smoke.

Common sense should tell you the dangerous of being around second hand smoke are considerably less than driving in traffic. You can lock your self away in a small room with smokers for days and the result is going to be smelling like smoke but try putting yourself in a locked room with a running vehicle for just 30-minutes.

As for smoking in parks and such, there is little reason for having a law against it but should be heavy fines for littering a discarded cigarette. On the other hand, I have no issue with banning smoking in places where kids tend to hangout such as parks because it is a bad habit and often hurts the health of the user.

http://yourdoctorsor...ond-hand-smoke/

http://www.freedom-o...ice.com/AS3.htm

http://abcnews.go.co...=1#.UCzfQt2PWSo

The whole Tobacco Control Industry gravy-train is built on foundations of sand. Junk science, piss-poor epidemiology and cherry-picked and fudged statistics.

If you really are interested in the depths to which the anti-tobacco zealots are prepared to sink in their mania to compel people to adopt their favoured lifestyles, have a look at this website:

http://tctactics.org...x.php/Main_Page

Trashed economies, ruined businesses, destroyed social lives, stolen property rights; they don't care. Just collateral damage on their idealogical road to an unachievable "smoke-free" utopia.

Amply aided and abetted to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars by the pharmaceutical industry, whose 'Nicotine Replacement Therapy' (NRT) products are a multi-billion dollar market. That perhaps wouldn't be quite so bad if NRT actually worked. But with NRT aided quit rates as low as 0.2%, it's hardly a resounding endorsement of their products. And it certainly doesn't even begin to justify the denormalisation and demonisation of smokers that is the current trend, so enthusiastically encouraged by those same pharmaceutical companies.

As always, if you want to know why things are happening the way they are, just follow the money, and all will be revealed.

Well if you follow the money in the UK then you'll find that the government derives a lot of revenue from smokers so their anti smoking laws actually cost them money if they succeed. The tobacco companies have a lot of influence but the government still passes new anti smoking laws so I'm not sure your argument adds up.

Doesn't the government in the UK foot the bill for healthcare? There is absolutely no question that smoking is harmful and causes many ailments. Would the Gov;t not be like the insurance companies I mentioned motivated to get people to stop smoking? And on the flip side, the people in government are no different than the general public when it comes to believing myths such as those about second hand smoke. There are a number of things very respected people repeat that is believed to be common knowledge which in fact is false or not backed up by facts.

[kimamey]

Doesn't the government in the UK foot the bill for healthcare? There is absolutely no question that smoking is harmful and causes many ailments. Would the Gov;t not be like the insurance companies I mentioned motivated to get people to stop smoking? And on the flip side, the people in government are no different than the general public when it comes to believing myths such as those about second hand smoke. There are a number of things very respected people repeat that is believed to be common knowledge which in fact is false or not backed up by facts.

Apparently the tax collected is more than the cost of the healthcare so they still make money. As for governments believing the myths, you may be right but I just wonder how we're supposed to know that the people who say they are myths are correct.

[hgma]

marketing stunt Thai style.

Thailand-NON Smoking paradise.

A drop in inbound tourist stats guaranteed.

top 3 Prohibitions

1. Prostitution

2. Drink and drive

3. Public smoking.

[webfact]

UPDATE:

Smokers face harsher fines, age limits in new law

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Smokers who light up in public places would face a harsher punishment and the minimum age of cigarette buyers will be raised to 20 if efforts to push through a tougher anti-smoking law are successful.

"They will be fined Bt5,000 instead of Bt2,000," Deputy Public Health Minister Surawit Khonsomboon said yesterday.

The draft law would raise the minimum age of cigarette buyers from 18 to 20 years old. It would also ban cigarette-vending machines, Internet-based cigarette sales and the sale of loose individual cigarettes.

"We will also be seeking to bar cigarette firms from doing corporate social responsibility activities," Surawit said.

Dr Pornthep Siriwanarangsan, director-general of the Disease Control Department, said the draft law is being presented in public hearings.

"After this, we will present the draft law to the National Tobacco Control Board and the Cabinet," he said.

There are about 13 million smokers in Thailand. They start lighting up at the average age of 17.4 years.

-- The Nation 2012-08-17

[toenail]

BS BS BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The ordinance/law? to not smoke inside bars or restaurants have been ignored - up to the owner in Bangkok or Pattaya. As I have learned living in Thailand...LAWS ARE "GUIDE LINES",not to be enforced (unless there is some $ to be made by the police.)

[Pseudolus]

The only bars and restaurants that allow smoking inside are paying off the police for the privilege. Same as those night clubs that stay open and serve booze well into the night. On the occasions when the owners forget to pay up, they get a visit and either pay up or get closed until they do.

A lot of points made about the police enforcing the existing laws. this is making a huge mistake in thinking that those guys you see dressed in black and holding guns are actually police men who actually police the country. Rather than thinking of them as coppers, instead understand that they are hench men for various Al Capone / Don Corleone characters who run crime syndicates and have hundred of armed men out pounding the streets extorting money from everyone, and offer the most protection to criminals themselves ensuring that no one who is "connected" ever feels the true weight and sentiment of the law.

[tuky]

If there is really transparency and honour in collecting fines from people smoking in public places rather than just skimming for crooked boys in brown, no one would mind. Thai's are not targeted, only farang, I have yet to see a Thai nailed for this. Really stupid law if it gets thru. I would hazard a guess the BiB have never been held to book for any fine taken from a smoker. Love to be proven wrong.

If falong no smoke where no spose smoke - falong no need worry

Sorry Nisa but <deleted>?

Edited August 17, 2012 by tuky

[malcyx]

if im given an ashtray or there is one at my table then i smoke...

if this in an illegal area then surley its upto the owner to pay fine not the smoker..

[ronthai]

Anyone worried about second had smoke from cig smoke, should not drive or ride in a fossil fueled vehicle, and stay out of bars, or stay out of Bangkok.

Go for a morning jog in Bangkok, and inhale deeply my friend.

Or Pattaya. Or Chiang Mai.

This is about making money and nothing to do with the nation's health. Do something about the buses, lorries, tuk tuks and two stroke motor bikes.

Agree, everytime I go from home to anywhere on the bike, I always end up in a haze of traffic "breathing". One car after an other with black oily smoke come from them. Not to mention the big buses. Makes me very thirsty also, so really need a fast cold beer to wash it all down, and of course a good smoke to balance the lungs.

Edited August 17, 2012 by ronthai

[pattayaorganic]

It would be nice if they would just enforce the existing laws. Far too many bars and restaurants currently allow smoking inside their air conditioned spaces. I would just like to see all areas that should be smoke free under the current laws actually be smoke free.

There are plenty of places to go where smoking isn't allowed. In fact, the vast majority of air conditioned places do not allow smoking. I personally believe if an owner of a business wants to allow smoking it is their business and you don't have to work there or go there if you don't like it. If safety is involved (company that stores say gasoline) that is a different story but as for second hand smoke being dangerous, that is nonsense. These claims are all false and started out based on reports where a higher level of cancer was detected in people who lived in homes of smokers but what nobody mentions if the levels were within the margins of error making the report truly mean there is no increase or risk.

Insurance companies are largely to blame for this myth because they don't want people to smoke. Not because of second hand smoke but because it does effect the health of those who smoke.

Common sense should tell you the dangerous of being around second hand smoke are considerably less than driving in traffic. You can lock your self away in a small room with smokers for days and the result is going to be smelling like smoke but try putting yourself in a locked room with a running vehicle for just 30-minutes.

As for smoking in parks and such, there is little reason for having a law against it but should be heavy fines for littering a discarded cigarette. On the other hand, I have no issue with banning smoking in places where kids tend to hangout such as parks because it is a bad habit and often hurts the health of the user.

http://yourdoctorsor...ond-hand-smoke/

http://www.freedom-o...ice.com/AS3.htm

http://abcnews.go.co...=1#.UCzfQt2PWSo

Sorry but your myth buster is actually complete bunk. The most common ill health effect of smoking is not lung cancer, but COPD. These feeble attempts as putting a "feel good about smoking" measure on involuntary smoke inhalation all use the same pseudo-science tactic of only focusing on lung cancer. Yes one's chances of dying of lung cancer are small whether or not you smoke in the whole realm of possible causes of death.

However, if you look at, for example, the lifetime health care costs of smokers vs. non-smokers there is an indisputable difference and this is why you will pay more for health insurance if you smoke. Lung cancer is only a small slice of the possible health issues that people exposed through direct or indirect smoke face, but these articles and pseudoscience promoters treat it as if it is the only thing you have to worry about.

Emphysema, arteriolosclerosis, hyperlipidemia, metabolic syndrome, COPD are all the major health issues related to smoking but all of the false "smoking is good for you" papers totally ignore these health impacts. Have you ever seen inside the lung of a smoker vs. non-smoker? It really takes only common sense backed by myriads of well designed scientific studies to show the fact that smoke is bad for you and since second hand smoke doesn't go through a filter, there are even more noxious chemicals in that smoke stream than that inhaled through the filter.

Finally, notwithstanding any of the above, a majority of the people think it just smells foul. Pardon my language but if I were to take a pile of fresh feces and place on the table where you are trying to enjoy a drink, would you be pleased? Because to me and a host of others your smoke smell is no less offending that the pile of shit I placed on your table. The argument is beyond the health effects.

Smokers should be provided space where they can enjoy their activity if they so desire without impinging on the right of other members of the public to enjoy themselves in public places without having to deal with the offensive odors. Even one smoker in a room of a hundred can make the experience extremely unpleasant for the other 99, hence the need to protect the public places.

When I go out, I go to the one bar that I know that strictly enforces the smoking ban and I can enjoy myself and go home without having to go to the nuclear decon process before going to sleep. This particular bar is full of patrons every night of the week and I suspect they are making a killing by recognizing the simple truth that a majority of punters prefer a smoke-free environment.

When I first went to JPN 20 years ago, there were no smoke-free places whatsoever. When Starbucks opened in Japan it was revolutionary that there was a coffee shop that one could go without the extra olfactory stimulation. Needless to say this was a major factor in their success in the highly competitive Japanese coffee market.

[DGS1244]

I wonder how many of those 2000 baht fines have ever been levied...

Against unsuspecting tourists in central Bangkok, thousands.

They even tried to extort collect money from a tourist near Emporium and he did not even smoke. It was great fun watching the argument that went on.

[TackyToo]

I think they mean anywhere that displays a no smoking sign such as parks etc. The down side thought is that the waste of space feckless coppers will now extort 5k instead of 2k from Farangs all the time now. Wonder if this came from Chalerm? He was a copper I believe and is most likely the top of the graft pyramid for the cops now?

Btw, what's fine these days for being high on ear medicine in Parliament...?

[sunshine51]

I think they mean anywhere that displays a no smoking sign such as parks etc. The down side thought is that the waste of space feckless coppers will now extort 5k instead of 2k from Farangs all the time now. Wonder if this came from Chalerm? He was a copper I believe and is most likely the top of the graft pyramid for the cops now?

Btw, what's fine these days for being high on ear medicine in Parliament...?

I don't think (only on Wednesdays)....there is a law for this yet.

[Jawnie]

Maybe the government of Thailand should stop being the sole manufacturer and distributor of cigarettes in Thailand. Du-uhhhhh!

[PETERTHEEATER]

Apparently they're going to fine 100% more than they currently do.

What!? Both of them?

[pacovl46]

It would be nice if they would just enforce the existing laws. Far too many bars and restaurants currently allow smoking inside their air conditioned spaces. I would just like to see all areas that should be smoke free under the current laws actually be smoke free.

There are plenty of places to go where smoking isn't allowed. In fact, the vast majority of air conditioned places do not allow smoking. I personally believe if an owner of a business wants to allow smoking it is their business and you don't have to work there or go there if you don't like it. If safety is involved (company that stores say gasoline) that is a different story but as for second hand smoke being dangerous, that is nonsense. These claims are all false and started out based on reports where a higher level of cancer was detected in people who lived in homes of smokers but what nobody mentions if the levels were within the margins of error making the report truly mean there is no increase or risk.

Insurance companies are largely to blame for this myth because they don't want people to smoke. Not because of second hand smoke but because it does effect the health of those who smoke.

Common sense should tell you the dangerous of being around second hand smoke are considerably less than driving in traffic. You can lock your self away in a small room with smokers for days and the result is going to be smelling like smoke but try putting yourself in a locked room with a running vehicle for just 30-minutes.

As for smoking in parks and such, there is little reason for having a law against it but should be heavy fines for littering a discarded cigarette. On the other hand, I have no issue with banning smoking in places where kids tend to hangout such as parks because it is a bad habit and often hurts the health of the user.

http://yourdoctorsor...ond-hand-smoke/

http://www.freedom-o...ice.com/AS3.htm

http://abcnews.go.co...=1#.UCzfQt2PWSo

Mate, smoking cigarettes can cause cancer. And there's now way that anyone can tell me that second hand smoke is not dangerous or cannot cause cancer in someone who lives with a smoker or who works in an environment where smoking is allowed like in bars or clubs for example. That doesn't mean, though, that everyone who's exposed to second hand smoke will get cancer from it.

[sysardman]

It would be nice if they would just enforce the existing laws. Far too many bars and restaurants currently allow smoking inside their air conditioned spaces. I would just like to see all areas that should be smoke free under the current laws actually be smoke free.

There are plenty of places to go where smoking isn't allowed. In fact, the vast majority of air conditioned places do not allow smoking. I personally believe if an owner of a business wants to allow smoking it is their business and you don't have to work there or go there if you don't like it. If safety is involved (company that stores say gasoline) that is a different story but as for second hand smoke being dangerous, that is nonsense. These claims are all false and started out based on reports where a higher level of cancer was detected in people who lived in homes of smokers but what nobody mentions if the levels were within the margins of error making the report truly mean there is no increase or risk.

Insurance companies are largely to blame for this myth because they don't want people to smoke. Not because of second hand smoke but because it does effect the health of those who smoke.

Common sense should tell you the dangerous of being around second hand smoke are considerably less than driving in traffic. You can lock your self away in a small room with smokers for days and the result is going to be smelling like smoke but try putting yourself in a locked room with a running vehicle for just 30-minutes.

As for smoking in parks and such, there is little reason for having a law against it but should be heavy fines for littering a discarded cigarette. On the other hand, I have no issue with banning smoking in places where kids tend to hangout such as parks because it is a bad habit and often hurts the health of the user.

http://yourdoctorsor...ond-hand-smoke/

http://www.freedom-o...ice.com/AS3.htm

http://abcnews.go.co...=1#.UCzfQt2PWSo

Mate, smoking cigarettes can cause cancer. And there's now way that anyone can tell me that second hand smoke is not dangerous or cannot cause cancer in someone who lives with a smoker or who works in an environment where smoking is allowed like in bars or clubs for example. That doesn't mean, though, that everyone who's exposed to second hand smoke will get cancer from it.

Roy Castle is a famous example of lung cancer from second hand smoke - although a non-smoker he played gigs in smokey nightclubs for years unitl finally succumbing to the disease. A not so famous case was my next door neighbour and his wife, he was a non-smoker and his wife a chain smoker. He died of cancer a few years back and his wife a few months ago after a long period of suffering.

[jcw]

Min of health in OZ now talking about a ban in the next ten years or so on cigs altogether. Now law has passed banning any packaging other than drab green with health warning. Also no duty free cigs into OZ.

Wrong, allowed 25 cancer sticks each duty free.

[HerbalEd]

Ahhh yes. Idle politicians drafting toothless legislation to restrict individual rights on issues that nobody is actually concerned about. Reminds me of home.

Actually many people are concerned about. Esp. non smokers who are fed up with thoughtless, selfish smokers who can't imagine why someone would object to tobacco smoke in their face and nose.

Personally I don't care if someone chooses to smoke ... just keep it out of my face and body ... and stop using the street/ground/beach as your ash tray.

My only satisfaction when experiencing rude smokers is knowing what it's doing to their body/health.

[Reasonableman]

It would be nice if they would just enforce the existing laws. Far too many bars and restaurants currently allow smoking inside their air conditioned spaces. I would just like to see all areas that should be smoke free under the current laws actually be smoke free.

There are plenty of places to go where smoking isn't allowed. In fact, the vast majority of air conditioned places do not allow smoking. I personally believe if an owner of a business wants to allow smoking it is their business and you don't have to work there or go there if you don't like it. If safety is involved (company that stores say gasoline) that is a different story but as for second hand smoke being dangerous, that is nonsense. These claims are all false and started out based on reports where a higher level of cancer was detected in people who lived in homes of smokers but what nobody mentions if the levels were within the margins of error making the report truly mean there is no increase or risk.

Insurance companies are largely to blame for this myth because they don't want people to smoke. Not because of second hand smoke but because it does effect the health of those who smoke.

Common sense should tell you the dangerous of being around second hand smoke are considerably less than driving in traffic. You can lock your self away in a small room with smokers for days and the result is going to be smelling like smoke but try putting yourself in a locked room with a running vehicle for just 30-minutes.

As for smoking in parks and such, there is little reason for having a law against it but should be heavy fines for littering a discarded cigarette. On the other hand, I have no issue with banning smoking in places where kids tend to hangout such as parks because it is a bad habit and often hurts the health of the user.

http://yourdoctorsor...ond-hand-smoke/

http://www.freedom-o...ice.com/AS3.htm

http://abcnews.go.co...=1#.UCzfQt2PWSo

The claim that passive smoking/secondhand smoke is not injurious to health is not substantiated by scientific findings or government policy. The only people who remain unconvinced, it seems, are smokers.

https://www.health.g...ile/tobpass.pdf

Children of parents who smoke are likely to:

■ inhale about the same amount of nicotine as if they were actively smoking 60 to 150 cigarettes a year;

■ have more serious lung infections, such as croup, bronchitis and pneumonia;

■ have more middle ear infections, including ‘glue ear’, the most common cause of childhood deafness;

■ have reduced lung function;

■ suffer more asthma attacks;

■ twice as likely to be obese as those of non-smoking mothers;

■ be shorter than average at all ages; and

■ be absent from school more often (passive smoking accounts for one in seven school days lost). Children exposed to environmental tobacco smoke are 40% more likely to suffer from asthma symptoms than children who are not exposed. An estimated 8% of childhood asthma in Australia is attributable to passive smoking and is estimated to contribute to the symptoms of asthma in 46,500 Australian children a year.

Inhaling environmental tobacco smoke causes acute irritation in the upper and (to a lesser extent) the lower airways of even healthy people. It can worsen the condition of those with existing breathing problems.There is growing evidence that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke increases the risk of developing lung cancer. People who never smoke but live with a smoker have a 30% greater risk of developing lung cancer than people who never smoke and live with a non-smoker. It may be linked to the development of other cancers as well – studies suggest that those exposed to environmental tobacco smoke may be more likely to suffer heart disease, heart attacks and sudden death due to heart failure.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Reasonableman

[HerbalEd]

Anyone worried about second had smoke from cig smoke, should not drive or ride in a fossil fueled vehicle, and stay out of bars, or stay out of Bangkok.

Go for a morning jog in Bangkok, and inhale deeply my friend.

Yeah ... don't budge one millimeter. Why should you care about others? Non smokers are just a bunch of whiners, right?

[HerbalEd]

I wonder how many of those 2000 baht fines have ever been levied...

Against unsuspecting tourists in central Bangkok, thousands.

Thousands?? Really?? I seriously doubt you actually have evidence of this. I live in BKK and have never seen nor heard of any farangs ever being fined for public smoking. Not saying it hasn't happened ... but thousands??

[Mr Brown]

Nothing worse, then sitting down in a restaurant for a nice meal. Only to have half a dozen people on the next table light up and start puffing away. Unfortunately there are a couple of nationalities that don’t give a rats, when it comes to any laws or common curtsey which exist in Thailand. I have even seen some use a plate as an ash tray. A total disregard and disrespect to the Thais working there and other patrons

[sysardman]

Nothing worse, then sitting down in a restaurant for a nice meal. Only to have half a dozen people on the next table light up and start puffing away. Unfortunately there are a couple of nationalities that don’t give a rats, when it comes to any laws or common curtsey which exist in Thailand. I have even seen some use a plate as an ash tray. A total disregard and disrespect to the Thais working there and other patrons

Might want to try a larger font size

As for you comment I totally agree - there's nothing more disgusting than the cigarette floating about in the half finished coffee cup to ruin the appetite

[JulesMad]

If I want to smoke in a 'public' place, I always stand next to a police-man who smokes

Never had a problem