Smokers To Face Harsher Punishment For Smoking In Public: Thailand

F1fanatic · August 17, 2012

It came as a suprise to me to learn that smoking is banned in (open) public areas! It had never crossed my mind that it was illegal.

orangeodissey · August 17, 2012

Wait, It's not allowed to smoke in public in Thailand?!?!?!?!?!?!

Tchooptip · August 17, 2012

No harsh punishment for being inebriate in public ?

Tchooptip · August 17, 2012

It came as a suprise to me to learn that smoking is banned in (open) public areas! It had never crossed my mind that it was illegal.

Same for me !

ozziebloke · August 17, 2012

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

Are you a smoker ?

ozziebloke · August 17, 2012

Anything to stop Kids taking up the filthy habit

connda · August 17, 2012

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

Well, for the Cigarette Police who are targeting Farang tourists who are ignorant of this law (and can't read the Thai "No Smoking" signs I imagine that business is brisk. Now that they are collecting 5K instead of 2K, I'm sure the kickback bonus is pretty darn good! (Hypothetically that is) More reason to target "rich" (and ignorant) Farang!

Tchooptip · August 17, 2012

Pattaya - Is smoking in closed / air-conditioned bars allowed or not? Where I go, I see "No Smoking" signs up, but usually within minutes some idiot shows up and starts smoking and blowing me the smoke in the face. Really pisses me off. Most of these guys are so disrespectful towards non-smokers. JL.

You are absolutely right... I presume they are not disrespectful "towards non smokers", disrespectful in every situations, I do smoke, however never did I do that. But in the streets for instance, as far as I know it's public, is it forbidden too ?

ozziebloke · August 17, 2012

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.

I was a smoker and smoked for 21 years and would argue anything that would put pressure on me to give up or raise the price on my habit! I gave up one night 12 years ago because my daughter said she wished i would so i would not die at an early age, She was 6 years old then. My dissapointment now is when she became a Teen she took up smoking, Caused i beleive by peer pressure and the possibillity of marketting and targetting the younger vulnerable generation. so for me anything that will change the mind of any young person to take up the bad habit is a good thing

ozziebloke · August 17, 2012

Australia now has the toughest laws on smoking. So for all you smokers in Thailand enjoy while you can because the world is looking at Australia and considering initiating our laws

spidermark · August 17, 2012

Except for Koh Samui. Land of the toothless mayor, the toy police, the incompetent governor, and nobody in ANY tourism agency giving a rats ass about the welfare of a single tourist. They have never once enforced the no smoking law in Samui. Never once. We had repeatedly complained to the feckless mayor, and the health dept. Guess what the reply was? You guessed right. I have seen good enforcement in bangkok and on the mainland. Terrible enforcement in Pattaya. Zero in Samui. Land of the forgotten.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect App

ozziebloke · August 17, 2012

I love the add at the bottom of the page ( How Will You Look Old?) Smoking Health Articles

SiamRose · August 17, 2012

I gave up one night 12 years ago because my daughter said she wished i would so i would not die at an early age, She was 6 years old then. My dissapointment now is when she became a Teen she took up smoking

Now its your turn to return the favour.

ozziebloke · August 17, 2012

I gave up one night 12 years ago because my daughter said she wished i would so i would not die at an early age, She was 6 years old then. My dissapointment now is when she became a Teen she took up smoking

Now its your turn to return the favour.

Its my turn to try and help prevent young people taking up the filthy habit because i have experiance.

Andre0720 · August 17, 2012

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.

My experience shows me that anyone who tries to defend smoking, has a schooling of grade 12 or less. People university educated who smoke, are just quiet about it, as they cannot quit this most dangerous drug, more addictive than cocaine.

So many people smokers die around me, of lung cancer. Must be a connexion... and meanwhile, when I hear the smoker's cough, if one does not think it is an early sign. better think again.

And people who have this kind of attitude of conspiracy against smokers, cetainly do not show any respect for other non-smoking people around them. In Phuket town, I can go get a meal without being bothered by the stinking smell of tobacco smoke. In Patong, Kata-Karon, Chalong....forget it.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death.

Worldwide, tobacco use causes more than 5 million deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than 8 million deaths annually by 2030.³
In the United States, tobacco use is responsible for about one in five deaths annually (i.e., about 443,000 deaths per year, and an estimated 49,000 of these smoking-related deaths are the result of secondhand smoke exposure).¹
On average, smokers die 13 to 14 years earlier than nonsmokers.⁴

Nisa · August 17, 2012

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.

My experience shows me that anyone who tries to defend smoking, has a schooling of grade 12 or less. People university educated who smoke, are just quiet about it, as they cannot quit this most dangerous drug, more addictive than cocaine.

So many people smokers die around me, of lung cancer. Must be a connexion... and meanwhile, when I hear the smoker's cough, if one does not think it is an early sign. better think again.

And people who have this kind of attitude of conspiracy against smokers, cetainly do not show any respect for other non-smoking people around them. In Phuket town, I can go get a meal without being bothered by the stinking smell of tobacco smoke. In Patong, Kata-Karon, Chalong....forget it.

http://www.cdc.gov/t...facts/index.htm

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death.

Worldwide, tobacco use causes more than 5 million deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than 8 million deaths annually by 2030.³

In the United States, tobacco use is responsible for about one in five deaths annually (i.e., about 443,000 deaths per year, and an estimated 49,000 of these smoking-related deaths are the result of secondhand smoke exposure).¹

On average, smokers die 13 to 14 years earlier than nonsmokers.⁴

Did somebody say smoking wasn't bad for you? The post you are responding says the opposite. The question (or lack of) is that scientific tests (by groups with those above level 12 education) have shown no proof that passive second hand smoke poses any increase to one's health. Really not up for debate if you just search out the facts. The legitimate reports that are used to say there is a link all fall within the margin of error ... meaning there is no statistical facts to back up such claims and keep in mind these reports examined not people who were exposed in public but people who lived many years with people in enclosed areas that smoked.

If you want to prove secondhand smoke causes the same kinds of health risks such as cancer and heart disease than provide a link to an actual study.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Nisa

Nisa · August 17, 2012

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.

In fact, study after study has shown no clear statistical difference between those who live or work with smokers and those who don't when it comes to cancer or heart disease. All legitimate studies fall within the margin of error including the ones that show a decrease for those who are around smokers.

I have a feeling that nobody would be able to tell you either that sex offenders actually are overwhelmingly not likely to re-offend and that they actually re-offend less than most other serious crimes. The stats are out there and posted by justice departments but because people are told so much that these people cannot be stopped, it has been accepted as fact. Just do the research.

It really is true that is something is repeated enough people will believe it but what is troubling is that once they believe false information even facts often will not get them to reevaluate their belief.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Nisa

Andre0720 · August 17, 2012

Nisa wrote:

Did somebody say smoking wasn't bad for you? The post you are responding says the opposite. The question (or lack of) is that scientific tests (by groups with those above level 12 education) have shown no proof that passive second hand smoke poses any increase to one's health. Really not up for debate if you just search out the facts. The legitimate reports that are used to say there is a link all fall within the margin of error ... meaning there is no statistical facts to back up such claims and keep in mind these reports examined not people who were exposed in public but people who lived many years with people in enclosed areas that smoked.

And my reply....

Well also, I was not writing about a possibility of second-hand smoke being deleterious or not for otheres. (Even if I believe the results that show some correlation).

But I did talk about the difficulty of enjoying a nice meal in a restaurant without being bothered by someone puffing away one stinky cigarette...

ozziebloke · August 17, 2012

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.

In fact, study after study has shown no clear statistical difference between those who live or work with smokers and those who don't when it comes to cancer or heart disease. All legitimate studies fall within the margin of error including the ones that show a decrease for those who are around smokers.

I asked you earlier if you were a smoker but you didn't reply ? maybe you didn't see and thats ok but my feeling is that you are a smoker ?

Nisa · August 17, 2012

Nisa wrote:

Did somebody say smoking wasn't bad for you? The post you are responding says the opposite. The question (or lack of) is that scientific tests (by groups with those above level 12 education) have shown no proof that passive second hand smoke poses any increase to one's health. Really not up for debate if you just search out the facts. The legitimate reports that are used to say there is a link all fall within the margin of error ... meaning there is no statistical facts to back up such claims and keep in mind these reports examined not people who were exposed in public but people who lived many years with people in enclosed areas that smoked.

And my reply....

Well also, I was not writing about a possibility of second-hand smoke being deleterious or not for otheres. (Even if I believe the results that show some correlation).

But I did talk about the difficulty of enjoying a nice meal in a restaurant without being bothered by someone puffing away one stinky cigarette...

My apologies as I misread your post (seriously).

A more appropriate response might have been ... I find it impossible to enjoy a nice meal in a restaurant without being bothered by someone scarfing down on smelly heart disease causing egg yolks. But where do we go from here? (not so seriously)

Edited August 17, 2012 by Nisa

Nisa · August 17, 2012

I asked you earlier if you were a smoker but you didn't reply ? maybe you didn't see and thats ok but my feeling is that you are a smoker ?

Are you a non smoker?

Andre0720 · August 17, 2012

Andre0720, on 20 minutes ago, said:

Nisa wrote:

Did somebody say smoking wasn't bad for you? The post you are responding says the opposite. The question (or lack of) is that scientific tests (by groups with those above level 12 education) have shown no proof that passive second hand smoke poses any increase to one's health. Really not up for debate if you just search out the facts. The legitimate reports that are used to say there is a link all fall within the margin of error ... meaning there is no statistical facts to back up such claims and keep in mind these reports examined not people who were exposed in public but people who lived many years with people in enclosed areas that smoked.

And my reply....

Well also, I was not writing about a possibility of second-hand smoke being deleterious or not for otheres. (Even if I believe the results that show some correlation).

But I did talk about the difficulty of enjoying a nice meal in a restaurant without being bothered by someone puffing away one stinky cigarette...

My apologies as I misread your post (seriously).

A more appropriate response might have been ... I find it impossible to enjoy a nice meal in a restaurant without being bothered by someone scarfing down on smelly heart disease causing egg yolks. But where do we go from here? (not so seriously)

Edited by Nisa, 3 minutes ago.

Perhaps you should stick to being serious. A fatty one enjoying a smeely heart disease causing egg yolks does not bother me...or my arteries. A stinky cigarette does bother me though

ozziebloke · August 17, 2012

I asked you earlier if you were a smoker but you didn't reply ? maybe you didn't see and thats ok but my feeling is that you are a smoker ?

Are you a non smoker?

I was a smoker 12 years ago but not now. and i do know how addictive it is and i know how it effects your health and your pocket and i know how those who smoke will find any excuse to defend the habit

Edited August 17, 2012 by ozziebloke

ozziebloke · August 17, 2012

And i smoked for 21 years

spidermike007 · August 17, 2012

While there is a chance that the laws will be better enforced in Bangkok, the chances of it every being enforced on the forgotten land of Samui, are very low. The fabulously incompetent Mayor, Jaikwong Ramnate, continues to do very little for Samui, besides improve the roads, a little bit at a time. The governor of Surat Thani province in completely absent, from any recognition of Samui. The central government does not care, the local "sheriff" is out to lunch, and the local "toy police" are not interested. Will anyone step up? I go to air conditioned places all the time, and anyone can smoke whenever they want. I was in Buddy Bar last night, and someone lit up. The whole restaurant stank within 5 minutes. There are only a few spots, like the Spa, that care, and enforce this. I do not want to hear from the smokers of the world, defending the most heinous and annoying habit on the planet. Smoke in your own dam_n house, or car, or outdoors. When we are eating, the last thing we want if for a human chimney to light up, and disturb our meal. Show me some restraint, please.

nisakiman · August 17, 2012

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death.

Worldwide, tobacco use causes more than 5 million deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than 8 million deaths annually by 2030.³

In the United States, tobacco use is responsible for about one in five deaths annually (i.e., about 443,000 deaths per year, and an estimated 49,000 of these smoking-related deaths are the result of secondhand smoke exposure).¹

On average, smokers die 13 to 14 years earlier than nonsmokers.⁴

The WHO lists the following as the top 10 causes of death:

Ischaemic heart disease
Stroke and other cerebrovascular diseases
Lower respiratory infections
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Diarrhoeal diseases
HIV/AIDS
Trachea, bronchus, lung cancers
Tuberculosis
Diabetes mellitus
Road traffic accidents

Of these causes, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, some lower respiratory infections, COPD, trachea, bronchus and lung cancers are labeled as smoking related by the medical establishment. See: ^{[Claim1 3]} Smoking related disease Current Former Never Any smoking-related chronic disease 36.9% 26.0% 37.1% Lung 20.9% 61.2% 17.9% Other cancers 38.8% 33.2% 28.0% Coronary heart disease 29.3% 31.8% 38.9% Stroke 30.1% 23.0% 47.0% Emphysema 49.1% 28.6% 22.3% Chronic bronchitis 41.1% 20.0% 38.9% Other chronic disease 23.0% 23.5% 53.5% No chronic disease 19.3% 16.4% 64.3%

However, since there is no disease proper to smoking because they're all multi-factorial diseases, anyone – current, former or never smoker – can get a smoking related disease . As it pertains to smokers, despite the best anti-tobacco experts, including Sir Richard Doll, who testified in the Scottish landmark legal case MRS MARGARET McTEAR vs. IMPERIAL TOBACCO LIMITED, it could not be proven that had it not been for an individual's cigarette smoking, he would not have contracted lung cancer. ^{[Claim1 4]} This applies to any of the diseases labeled as smoking related.

When one looks at how smoking related diseases are distributed within the USA population for example (see chart on the right), one can draw complete different conclusions from the sound-bite Tobacco is the first avoidable cause of mortality in the world. Indeed according to this chart based on real people with real diseases giving real answers as opposed to computer estimates using cherry picked risk factors as their base model, not one smoking related disease is more prevalent in current smokers than former and never smokers.

http://tctactics.org/index.php/Sound_Bites

My experience shows me that anyone who tries to defend smoking, has a schooling of grade 12 or less. People university educated who smoke, are just quiet about it, as they cannot quit this most dangerous drug, more addictive than cocaine.

The multiple authors of the Wiki style site tctactics.org are overwhelmingly university educated, up to doctorate level. As for the claim that nicotine is more addictive than cocaine, that is obviously demonstrable tosh. The majority of successful quitters do so with no effort at all, which clearly wouldn't be the case if nicotine were as addictive as you suggest. The reason many fail to quit is because they don't actually want to quit, but are doing so under pressure from the propagandists and legislation. Those who have decided that they want to quit normally do so with no problems (and no NRT 'aids'} at all.

"Nicotine is almost universally believed to be the major factor that motivates smoking and impedes

cessation. Authorities such as the Surgeon General of the USA and the Royal College of Physicians in

the UK have declared that nicotine is as addictive as heroin and cocaine. This book is a critique of the

nicotine addiction hypothesis, based on a critical review of the research literature that purports to prove

that nicotine is as addictive drug. The review is based on a re-examination of more than 700 articles and

books on this subject, including animal and human experimental studies, effects of `nicotine replacement

therapies', and many other relevant sources. This review concludes that on present evidence, there is

every reason to reject the generally accepted theory that nicotine has a major role in cigarette smoking.

A critical examination of the criteria for drug addiction demonstrates that none of these criteria is met by

nicotine, and that it is much more likely that nicotine in fact limits rather than facilitates smoking."

A Critique of Nicotine Addiction

by

Hanan Frenk

Dept. of Psychology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Reuven Dar

Dept. of Psychology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Andre, you must be a most unusual person: "So many people smokers die around me, of lung cancer"

Lung cancer is a very rare disease. I'm in my 60s, and not only have I never known anyone who died of lung cancer, but nor have any of my friends ever known anyone who died of lung cancer. From your statement, one might almost think that you yourself must be a contributory factor to the disease!

And to the person who brought up Roy Castle. he apparently liked to smoke cigars. That, however is unlikely to have been the sole cause of his cancer, as all cancers are multi-factorial, genetics being one major factor.

nisakiman · August 17, 2012

My apologies, I posted a table, but the system here on TV didn't accept it. I'll try another way perhaps.

Edited August 17, 2012 by nisakiman

ozziebloke · August 17, 2012

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death.

Worldwide, tobacco use causes more than 5 million deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than 8 million deaths annually by 2030.³

In the United States, tobacco use is responsible for about one in five deaths annually (i.e., about 443,000 deaths per year, and an estimated 49,000 of these smoking-related deaths are the result of secondhand smoke exposure).¹

On average, smokers die 13 to 14 years earlier than nonsmokers.⁴

The WHO lists the following as the top 10 causes of death:

Ischaemic heart disease

Stroke and other cerebrovascular diseases

Lower respiratory infections

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Diarrhoeal diseases

HIV/AIDS

Trachea, bronchus, lung cancers

Tuberculosis

Diabetes mellitus

Road traffic accidents

Of these causes, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, some lower respiratory infections, COPD, trachea, bronchus and lung cancers are labeled as smoking related by the medical establishment. See: ^{[Claim1 3]} Smoking related disease Current Former Never Any smoking-related chronic disease 36.9% 26.0% 37.1% Lung 20.9% 61.2% 17.9% Other cancers 38.8% 33.2% 28.0% Coronary heart disease 29.3% 31.8% 38.9% Stroke 30.1% 23.0% 47.0% Emphysema 49.1% 28.6% 22.3% Chronic bronchitis 41.1% 20.0% 38.9% Other chronic disease 23.0% 23.5% 53.5% No chronic disease 19.3% 16.4% 64.3%

However, since there is no disease proper to smoking because they're all multi-factorial diseases, anyone – current, former or never smoker – can get a smoking related disease . As it pertains to smokers, despite the best anti-tobacco experts, including Sir Richard Doll, who testified in the Scottish landmark legal case MRS MARGARET McTEAR vs. IMPERIAL TOBACCO LIMITED, it could not be proven that had it not been for an individual's cigarette smoking, he would not have contracted lung cancer. ^{[Claim1 4]} This applies to any of the diseases labeled as smoking related.

When one looks at how smoking related diseases are distributed within the USA population for example (see chart on the right), one can draw complete different conclusions from the sound-bite Tobacco is the first avoidable cause of mortality in the world. Indeed according to this chart based on real people with real diseases giving real answers as opposed to computer estimates using cherry picked risk factors as their base model, not one smoking related disease is more prevalent in current smokers than former and never smokers.

http://tctactics.org...php/Sound_Bites

My experience shows me that anyone who tries to defend smoking, has a schooling of grade 12 or less. People university educated who smoke, are just quiet about it, as they cannot quit this most dangerous drug, more addictive than cocaine.

The multiple authors of the Wiki style site tctactics.org are overwhelmingly university educated, up to doctorate level. As for the claim that nicotine is more addictive than cocaine, that is obviously demonstrable tosh. The majority of successful quitters do so with no effort at all, which clearly wouldn't be the case if nicotine were as addictive as you suggest. The reason many fail to quit is because they don't actually want to quit, but are doing so under pressure from the propagandists and legislation. Those who have decided that they want to quit normally do so with no problems (and no NRT 'aids'} at all.

"Nicotine is almost universally believed to be the major factor that motivates smoking and impedes

cessation. Authorities such as the Surgeon General of the USA and the Royal College of Physicians in

the UK have declared that nicotine is as addictive as heroin and cocaine. This book is a critique of the

nicotine addiction hypothesis, based on a critical review of the research literature that purports to prove

that nicotine is as addictive drug. The review is based on a re-examination of more than 700 articles and

books on this subject, including animal and human experimental studies, effects of `nicotine replacement

therapies', and many other relevant sources. This review concludes that on present evidence, there is

every reason to reject the generally accepted theory that nicotine has a major role in cigarette smoking.

A critical examination of the criteria for drug addiction demonstrates that none of these criteria is met by

nicotine, and that it is much more likely that nicotine in fact limits rather than facilitates smoking."

A Critique of Nicotine Addiction

by

Hanan Frenk

Dept. of Psychology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Reuven Dar

Dept. of Psychology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Andre, you must be a most unusual person: "So many people smokers die around me, of lung cancer"

Lung cancer is a very rare disease. I'm in my 60s, and not only have I never known anyone who died of lung cancer, but nor have any of my friends ever known anyone who died of lung cancer. From your statement, one might almost think that you yourself must be a contributory factor to the disease!

And to the person who brought up Roy Castle. he apparently liked to smoke cigars. That, however is unlikely to have been the sole cause of his cancer, as all cancers are multi-factorial, genetics being one major factor.

And you have cherry picked your argument as well

OZEMADE · August 17, 2012

Well I was just informed by a friend of mine that just flew into Thailand, that on his return next month he is only allowed to take 50 cigarettes back into Australia.

So that will help a few give it up, especially if there is a big fine. The new law comes into effect on the 1st September 2012.

Andre0720 · August 17, 2012