Smokers To Face Harsher Punishment For Smoking In Public: Thailand

[Reasonableman]

Emphysema is another smoking-related disease. It is extremely debilitating. Yes i have seen it happen to a close friend.

Yes i have also seen smokers die in hospital icu from lung cancer, wheezing on oxygen until they eventually suffocate and die a horrible slow death. The look of terror and shock on their faces, as though they thought they were exempt, would cure you of smoking in a millisecond. And the angst of the families they leave behind. Wake up. You really are only fooling yourselves.

[ozziebloke]

Emphysema is another smoking-related disease. It is extremely debilitating. Yes i have seen it happen to a close friend.

Yes i have also seen smokers die in hospital icu from lung cancer, wheezing on oxygen until they eventually suffocate and die a horrible slow death. The look of terror and shock on their faces, as though they thought they were exempt, would cure you of smoking in a millisecond. And the angst of the families they leave behind. Wake up. You really are only fooling yourselves.

My mum and grandmum, Grandfather all died of cancer/Emphysema. All smoked and suffered a terrible death

[Nisa]

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

• 
  
  • 
    

But it bothers some people as does somebody with too much perfume. Shouldn't it be up to an individual business to decide if they want to allow smoking or serving eggs or people wearing too much perfume?

[Andre0720]

Andre0720, on Today, 06:59 , said:

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

• 
  

But it bothers some people as does somebody with too much perfume. Shouldn't it be up to an individual business to decide if they want to allow smoking or serving eggs or people wearing too much perfume?

Andre0720

The problem with asking businesses to decide, is to determine on what basis they would decide.

A farang lady in Phuket town asked the owner if she could come in the restaurant with her cigarette.

I was looking at her bemused. I was wondering why she did not ask EVERYBODY in the restaurant if she could smoke...

But it was in Phuket town. And the owner replied that is was not permitted.

I suppose this is why laws are required, otherwise, how would we know if we could go have a meal and have only the smell of the wonderful food in Thailand.

[Nisa]

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

Okay, so you have a bias and clearly that was what your questions was trying to suggest. I can say without a any doubt what-so-ever I have absolutely no bias and simply was pointing out the reality of second hand smoke. I have no issue with people who don't like it but believe it should be up to a business to decide if they want to allow smoking and not the government. If the Government wants to pass laws related to property they control, so be it but don't say it has anything to do with second hand smoke when there is absolutely no proven correlation to second hand smokers suffering the same diseases as first hand smokers. Should smokers show respect to those who don't smoke, for sure but at the same time somebody who doesn't smoke should show respect towards smokers. If somebody is sitting at a bar and a smoker pulls up next to them, they should ask if it is okay if they light up but a non-smoker shouldn't sit down next to a smoker and then start hacking and waving their hand around because they sat next to a smoker. And let the bar owner decide if he wants to allow smoking or provide a smoking area or ban it all together. No need for government and police intervention but simply a business enforcing their own rules.

[ozziebloke]

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

• 
  

But it bothers some people as does somebody with too much perfume. Shouldn't it be up to an individual business to decide if they want to allow smoking or serving eggs or people wearing too much perfume?

I have read many posts you have subscribed on different issues and you have always put up a reasonable argument. But this time you sound like a child arguing over a toy !

[Nisa]

Andre0720, on Today, 06:59 , said:

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

• 
  

But it bothers some people as does somebody with too much perfume. Shouldn't it be up to an individual business to decide if they want to allow smoking or serving eggs or people wearing too much perfume?

Andre0720

The problem with asking businesses to decide, is to determine on what basis they would decide.

A farang lady in Phuket town asked the owner if she could come in the restaurant with her cigarette.

I was looking at her bemused. I was wondering why she did not ask EVERYBODY in the restaurant if she could smoke...

But it was in Phuket town. And the owner replied that is was not permitted.

I suppose this is why laws are required, otherwise, how would we know if we could go have a meal and have only the smell of the wonderful food in Thailand.

Lets have the government decide what kind of music can be played in bars and restaurants too as to not offend anyone. I cannot tell you the number of times I have been in places that have played songs that I disliked and there was no sign on the door with their play list for me to know in advance such as a smoking or no-smoking sign outside a business would offer people a choice to go there or somewhere else.

[wannascuba]

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

• 
  

But it bothers some people as does somebody with too much perfume. Shouldn't it be up to an individual business to decide if they want to allow smoking or serving eggs or people wearing too much perfume?

I have read many posts you have subscribed on different issues and you have always put up a reasonable argument. But this time you sound like a child arguing over a toy !

Whats the question? again....

[ozziebloke]

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

Okay, so you have a bias and clearly that was what your questions was trying to suggest. I can say without a any doubt what-so-ever I have absolutely no bias and simply was pointing out the reality of second hand smoke. I have no issue with people who don't like it but believe it should be up to a business to decide if they want to allow smoking and not the government. If the Government wants to pass laws related to property they control, so be it but don't say it has anything to do with second hand smoke when there is absolutely no proven correlation to second hand smokers suffering the same diseases as first hand smokers. Should smokers show respect to those who don't smoke, for sure but at the same time somebody who doesn't smoke should show respect towards smokers. If somebody is sitting at a bar and a smoker pulls up next to them, they should ask if it is okay if they light up but a non-smoker shouldn't sit down next to a smoker and then start hacking and waving their hand around because they sat next to a smoker. And let the bar owner decide if he wants to allow smoking or provide a smoking area or ban it all together. No need for government and police intervention but simply a business enforcing their own rules.

I can agree with everything you have said without argument. My interest is trying to stop the influence on the young to start up a habit that they have no benefit what so ever from! Can you put up an argument to what i am trying to do ?

[ozziebloke]

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

• 
  

But it bothers some people as does somebody with too much perfume. Shouldn't it be up to an individual business to decide if they want to allow smoking or serving eggs or people wearing too much perfume?

I have read many posts you have subscribed on different issues and you have always put up a reasonable argument. But this time you sound like a child arguing over a toy !

Whats the question? again....

Smoking or not Smoking

[ozziebloke]

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?

you asked me if i was a non smoker? I replied you i was a smoker but gave up 12 years ago. You have still not stated if you are a smoker or not ? It dosn't matter either way but will give reason for your argument on this subject ! My only interest in this subject is that i used to smoke many many years ago and i know the downfalls for it and i know the problems it can cause physically and economically and i know how the very young can get sucked into this very dirty habit only to line the pockets of those who are involved with the Tobacco trade wether that be legal or not.

[metisdead]

I don't want to steer this off topic but

A post has been removed. Stay on this topic:

Smokers To Face Harsher Punishment For Smoking In Public: Thailand

[ozziebloke]

I can agree with everything you have said without argument. My interest is trying to stop the influence on the young to start up a habit that they have no benefit what so ever from! Can you put up an argument to what i am trying to do ?

110% agree ... smoking is an TERRIBLE habit that without a doubt KILLS smokers and am all for honest efforts to help people stop and to do what we can to prevent kids from smoking without it infringing on people's and business rights. We don't want kids drinking either (that kills many a year too) but they have not banned that in resteraunts or is there a need to hide beer being sold at the 7/11 or to put graphic labels on bottles ... why? Because they will get too that soon but they start with the freedom controlling laws many can accept before moving on to tell everyone what they are not free to do regardless if they like it or not.

And to be clear .. I see nothing wrong with forcing cigarette smoker to clearly post the dangerous of smoking on their product as this is honest and people should know what they are buying. As for hiding products in the store, that just makes kids more curious about trying it. It is amazing when law makers get old that they forget what it is like being a kid and only know how to focus on getting adults worked up about things to the point of allowing irrational laws to pass.

Yes good argument about government and laws but there is one difference between alchohol and tobacco and that is Alchohol consumed moderatly as in wine can be of benefit and alchohol if used moderatly has not been proven to be a health issue. On the other hand smoking has been proved to be detrimental to health even in minor consumption

[metisdead]

An off topic post with messed up quotes has been removed. Learn to use the Quote or Multiquote feature in the lower right hand corner of the post you are responding to.

[oops]

As an exsmoker, the worst critics of smoking I am happy to see that they will entertain the idea. Even when I did smoke I didn't push my habit on anyone else.

Unfortunitly most everyone else can'r be so kind or thoughtfull. Exspecially the people who work as road side venders. They put tents up that are barely high enough to allow you to stand up straight. Then they smoke walking down the paths with their cigs at eye level for children. I hate the people who go out side to stand and smoke at the F'n door, <deleted> of building so when you open the door you suck in a lung full of smoke then they throw their butts on the ground.

And I am expecially glad they will move the age up now it will make it even more profitable for the stores to sell to children just like they do with beer.

I see kids go to the store and by beer all the time so I am guessing the drinking laws are more relaxed

[oops]

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.

I do but I use a filter..

Edited August 17, 2012 by oops

[brianb1944]

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.

Smokers of the world unite lol

[F1fanatic]

I'm a smoker - but hate being addicted to a nasty habit that will obviously affect my health, whilst having no benefits whatsoever!

On the other hand, I also dislike non-smokers (generally those that have been able to 'pack it in') demanding that nobody should be allowed to smoke pretty much anywhere...

I agree with them that it is extremely un-caring to smoke in confined places where there are non-smokers, but to ban smoking in outdoor areas or 'smoking cubicles' in airports - I really don't understand. Edit - the airport smoking 'cubicles' are horrendous even for smokers - ensuring they smoked as few cigs as possible whilst at the airport! But it came as a horrible shock to learn on my last visit back to the UK, to learn that there there was NOWHERE to smoke in an airport anymore. Having arrived more than 2 hours before the flight and facing an 11 (?) hour flight - I was not amused, and purely for that reason, will not be visiting again.

The ONLY way to stop children from taking up this nasty, damaging habit is to ban cigarettes entirely (treat it as a Class A drug). But governments aren't prepared to do this as either they make too much money from the tax charged or, too the population has a large percentage of smokers - and it would be a vote loser...

Edited August 18, 2012 by F1fanatic

[ggold]

timjonespserve, on 2012-08-16 17:15:56, said:

Might be a stupid question, but what defines "public space"? is that anywhere outside of privately owned land?

It will be where ever the plod choose to enforce it. I can imagine the BiB are rubbing their hands and licking their chops with this news.

Sent from my GT-P6200 using Thaivisa Connect App

Indeed, as the BiB can't set up rush hour road check points anymore, I would think this will become their number one source of income!

[nisakiman]

Anyone believing such a thing is beyond help.

And yes, in Kata, when I ask where a given individual is, the response is he died of lung cancer. Another at the hospital, smoking too much. Two of my neighbours in Canada died recently of lung cancer. Smokers.

My cousin finally quit after finding it nealrly impossible to breathe. Emphysema. A friend of mine the same.

I suggest you read on Anthony Robbins on the subject.

And it might just be that you are showing your level of education by posting such rubbish studies...

I gather, from the way you keep on harping on about it, that you have a university education.

If so, I would suggest that it was wasted on you.

University is supposed to inculcate a mind that seeks elucidation, a mind that that questions everything. You, however, seem to have accepted without question what you've read in the "Daily Rag", and swallowed it hook, line and sinker. You've not even noticed the anomalies in the propaganda being broadcast by the mass media. You claim that people are dying all around you of lung cancer, yet the rates of lung cancer are:

"From 2005-2009, the median age at diagnosis for cancer of the lung and bronchus was 70 years of age³. Approximately 0.0% were diagnosed under age 20; 0.2% between 20 and 34; 1.5% between 35 and 44; 8.8% between 45 and 54; 21.3% between 55 and 64; 31.3% between 65 and 74; 28.3% between 75 and 84; and 8.4% 85+ years of age.

The age-adjusted incidence rate was 62.6 per 100,000 men and women per year. These rates are based on cases diagnosed in 2005-2009 from 18 SEER geographic areas."

http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/lungb.html

So either, as I said, you are an extraordinarily unusual individual, or you are telling porkies.

Likewise COPD is unusual.

And to go back to the anomalies that you seem not to have noticed, smoking prevalence in the USA in 1980 was 33.2%, and deaths from COPD ran at 14.9 per 100,000.

In 2007, smoking prevalence in USA had dropped to 20.8%, however, COPD deaths had climbed to 39.7 per 100,000.

http://www.lung.org/finding-cures/our-research/trend-reports/copd-trend-report.pdf

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762370.html

That is just one example (of very many) that any properly educated, inquiring mind should have picked up on.

Which is why, if you actually look around on the internet, you will find that the people who are shouting loudest about the lies and calumny (being brought to bear by the tobacco control zealots) are all educated to masters or doctors level. And they have not been so easily seduced by the siren calls of the self-righteous puritans who would dictate to us how we live.

The "experts", of whom you seem to be in awe, are often as not nothing of the sort. In many cases their professorships are honorary, given because they are singing the party line. Of those that really are experts, they are faced with the choice of either going along with the junk science or losing their jobs / funding. For example: Pulmonologist, president of the Necker Research Institute in Paris, France. Professor Even appeared in what the French newspaper Le Parisien called "a shocking interview" on the day of his retirement, May 31. 2010. He said the French smoking ban was built on a lie about the risk of passive smoking:

- Clearly, the harm (of passive smoking) is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low. The psychosis began with the publication of a report by IARC of the World Health Organization. The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It's everything but a scientific approach. They have created a fear based on nothing.

- Why did you not speak up earlier?

- As a civil servant and dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held by my duty to confidentiality.

If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences.

Today, I am a free man.

http://cagecanada.homestead.com/InterviewWithPrEven.html

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that smoking does not carry a risk. Of course there is a risk, as there is with any pursuit of pleasure, be it smoking, drinking, eating, sports, mountaineering, surfing, sex, driving, whatever. And all those things impact on, and can disturb other people to a greater or lesser extent. But what I

am

saying is that in the case of tobacco smoking, those risks have been grossly overstated, and anyone who is prepared to actually do a bit of independant research (like a university graduate should) will discover a whole murky underbelly to the vilification of tobacco, and indeed to the whole Tobacco Control Industry (for Industry is what it is).

However, what most of the people who will undoubtedly pour scorn on my stance don't realise is that I'm not actually defending smoking

per se

. I'm defending all (yes, you too) our basic freedoms. You may say "smoking is different", because that's what you've been conditioned to say, but it's not. Smoking is just the thin end of the wedge. Now they have (almost) successfully de-normalised smoking, alcohol will be next. It's started already. And then fast food. (It's started already) And then sugar. (It's started...) And then salt. (It's started...) And on. And on. And on. The zealots will never be satisfied. There will always, for them, be something that needs to be banned. And you who are going along aiding and abetting the anti-smokers will, a few years down the line, wonder how and why they are banning something that

you

enjoy. Remember

Niemöller.

A couple of pertinent quotes that can be readily applied here:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Joseph Goebbels - Hitler's Propaganda Minister

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

(Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler; 1925)

And don't anyone quote Godwin's law to me. The anti-smoking laws are based on the concept of physicalism, or to give it it's proper name, eugenics. Conceived in pre-war California and then enthusiastically adopted and expanded upon by the Nazis. Unsurprisingly, Hitler was a manic anti-smoker.

[nisakiman]

Oh, as an addendum, you might find this interesting:

http://www.formindep.org/Le-mythe-de-l-addiction-a-la.html (The myth of addiction to nicotine)

It's in French, but if your French isn't up to it you can always use Google Translate. You'll get the gist of it.

[Reasonableman]

Smoking is good.... It's all a Commie/nazi/CIA/ (insert name of favorite conspiracist boogeyman here) plot.

[Naam]

Smoking is good.... It's all a Commie/nazi/CIA/ (insert name of favorite conspiracist boogeyman here) plot.

sounds reasonable

[Shiver]

I am a smoker, but I've found many times that if I want to smoke, and I look around me and see that the place is predominantly full of non smokers I will go outside, and the owner would say "it's okay you can smoke inside". I say words to the effect of "thanks, but I don't want to because the other people aren't smokers", and the owner will often thank me (even though I would never have known of their distaste of the habit had I not taken first action). I am deeply aware of my imposition should I have a cigarette in the vacinity of other people, and it creases me to watch another smoker thoughtlessly allowing smoke to waft across the face of someone nearby (even if they are also a smoker - because getting it in your face is not pleasant even if you are an addict of the stuff).

That all said. Why are we not making laws to ensure that 2-stroke motorcycles, trucks, buses etc are kept well serviced and not putting benzine derivatives down our throats? Even though I stated I'm a smoker, I have to hold my breath often when travelling. My preferred mode of transport varies depending on the intent at the time, but is often walking. I also have a bicycle, motorcycle and a car. With a car you don't really notice it, and walking isn't too bad, but on a bicycle or motorcycle, being behind a vehicle putting out that crap is a nightmare.

Above and beyond that, I see people putting McDonalds in their bodies, and football and fox news in their brains, so I don't take advice from these people easily.

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.

[softgeorge]

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.

We were at a restuarant last week in Chiangmai (Dukes/Nice food) two of our party are smokers and we were shown a table outside which is apparently a designated smoking area and the tables were set with ashtrays. Those that may know the place the tables are to the right as you approach the entrance. There was a couple of farangs seated at another table and one was smoking when we arrived. Anyway we there for 1/4 of an hour or so when another small party of farangs arrived and sat at the table between our two groups after they had been there for about 10 minutes they started complaining to the patrons about thier smoke and demanding that the cease immeadiately. After one group (dutch I think) try to explain to them that it was designated smoking area I thought world war three was going to break out. The non smoking party (American or Canadian not sure) became very intimidating and complaining about thier rights and health. There were free tables outside in another in another area and free tables inside but these stubbin fools refused to move and continued to complain about how thier evening and health was being destroyed even tho the chose of thier own free will to sit amongst smokers in a designated smoking area when there were non smoking areas where they would of had nothing to complain about.

I myself am a non smoker but I have the sense to know that if I sat in a smoking area there is the very real possibiliy that people will smoke. If people smoking really annoys me then I stay well away from them.

[Pseudolus]

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.

We were at a restuarant last week in Chiangmai (Dukes/Nice food) two of our party are smokers and we were shown a table outside which is apparently a designated smoking area and the tables were set with ashtrays. Those that may know the place the tables are to the right as you approach the entrance. There was a couple of farangs seated at another table and one was smoking when we arrived. Anyway we there for 1/4 of an hour or so when another small party of farangs arrived and sat at the table between our two groups after they had been there for about 10 minutes they started complaining to the patrons about thier smoke and demanding that the cease immeadiately. After one group (dutch I think) try to explain to them that it was designated smoking area I thought world war three was going to break out. The non smoking party (American or Canadian not sure) became very intimidating and complaining about thier rights and health. There were free tables outside in another in another area and free tables inside but these stubbin fools refused to move and continued to complain about how thier evening and health was being destroyed even tho the chose of thier own free will to sit amongst smokers in a designated smoking area when there were non smoking areas where they would of had nothing to complain about.

I myself am a non smoker but I have the sense to know that if I sat in a smoking area there is the very real possibiliy that people will smoke. If people smoking really annoys me then I stay well away from them.

I was in a smoking seat on a plane once, half empty, and the guy next to me was a non smoking American. He whined and bitched for about 10 minutes until I assured him he could simply move to a vacant seat. Why do they chose a smoking seat? Always thought smoking on planes was crazy though as the whole cabin was basically full of smoke. Same as trains as well.

[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.

We were at a restuarant last week in Chiangmai (Dukes/Nice food) two of our party are smokers and we were shown a table outside which is apparently a designated smoking area and the tables were set with ashtrays. Those that may know the place the tables are to the right as you approach the entrance. There was a couple of farangs seated at another table and one was smoking when we arrived. Anyway we there for 1/4 of an hour or so when another small party of farangs arrived and sat at the table between our two groups after they had been there for about 10 minutes they started complaining to the patrons about thier smoke and demanding that the cease immeadiately. After one group (dutch I think) try to explain to them that it was designated smoking area I thought world war three was going to break out. The non smoking party (American or Canadian not sure) became very intimidating and complaining about thier rights and health. There were free tables outside in another in another area and free tables inside but these stubbin fools refused to move and continued to complain about how thier evening and health was being destroyed even tho the chose of thier own free will to sit amongst smokers in a designated smoking area when there were non smoking areas where they would of had nothing to complain about.

I myself am a non smoker but I have the sense to know that if I sat in a smoking area there is the very real possibiliy that people will smoke. If people smoking really annoys me then I stay well away from them.

You are forgetting that Americans are the World Police (f*** yeah) there to enforce the law but not observe the law. You're lucky they didn't call up the marines