Call For Total Smoking Ban At Thailand's Main International Airports

[OldSalty]

D-Lock this is now getting really funny, have you ever been in an elevator with 10 Koreans after they had their morning Kim-Chi with lots of garlic? I think you would prefer to have smokers around or do you want to ban also garlic?

[DLock]

D-Lock this is now getting really funny, have you ever been in an elevator with 10 Koreans after they had their morning Kim-Chi with lots of garlic? I think you would prefer to have smokers around or do you want to ban also garlic?

No.

You are reaching now.

[mrfill]

The biggest problem is the lack of ventilation - Dubai and Qatar smoking rooms are such smoke-filled hell holes that I always change my shirt before boarding. A good example to follow is Cape Town Intl: The smoking room is a large modern bar with internet access points, comfortable seats and large floor to ceiling windows (so that you don't feel like a prisoner) - the ventilation is excellent (No 'hanging smoke').

May I also recommend Incheon airport in Seoul. A spacious, clean, well ventilated, pleasant smoking lounge with splendid views - certainly the most pleasant I have found anywhere.

Both cases just show that with a tiny amount of effort the problem can be alleviated.

[lungmi]

I agree with the rights of non-smokers scaring for their health.

If they are consistent in their mind, they have to leave North Thailand for two months a year.

One day in the toxic haze.......

[bobl]

Am I the only one wishing Dlock and Itchybum would just get a room already?

[HarryMilton]

.

Can you even see us normal mortals, up there from your high horse? Judging a bit harshly I would say.

Shall we compile a list with geniouses who smoked and a list with the most stupid non-smokers? Does that prove anything?

A better idea would be to compile a list of genius smokers and genius non-smokers and then compare them. Genius.

[thhMan]

Grown ups take the good with the bad.

Children complain...

I agree.

Look at all the children complaining about not being able to pollute the planet as if it is their given right.

Oh.. and one more... dingbats take things literally...

Edited May 8, 2013 by thhMan

[Andre0720]

I don't smoke, but I used to. I loved smoking. If I found out that the world was going to end tomorrow, I would go out and buy three packs of cigarettes, sit on my balcony and enjoy the setting sun right up to the last minute.

Flying is very hard for smokers. It's better to keep the rooms and give them a little comfort and stress relief.

I don't smoke, but I used to. I loved smoking. If I found out that the world was going to end tomorrow, I would go out and buy three packs of cigarettes, sit on my balcony and enjoy the setting sun right up to the last minute.

Flying is very hard for smokers. It's better to keep the rooms and give them a little comfort and stress relief.

Breathing is hard for those who have trouble with the stinking odour of smokers.

I wish smokers would give them a bit of comfort sometimes...

[Andre0720]

I don't like smoking, and hope everyone can quit, but this is overkill.

Yeah sure.

It was an overkill when smoking was forbidden in cinemas.

It was an overkill when smoking was forbidden in airplanes.

It was an overkill when smoking was forbidden in shopping centres.

It was an overkill when smoking was forbidden in public transportation

It was an overkill when smoking was forbidden in government buildings

It was an overkill when smoking was forbidden at work.

It was an overkill when smoking was forbidden in major restaurants

It was an overkill when smoking was forbidden in hospitals

And then another overkill now..

Yeah sure...

[Thai at Heart]

What about purely domestic airports?

[Andre0720]

Let's look at this logically, people fart - no problem, fat people take up too much space - no problem, the brainless espouse their opinion - no problem, drunks are obnoxious - no problem - people smoke - big problem! Now, why don't we all try and get a brain and think logically - farts pollute the world (and stink) - fat people expect to squeeze everyone else up with no problem (disgusting) - the brainless espouse their opinion and expect everyone to listen to the waffle (total crap) - drunks are totally obnoxious and cost every county more money in health care than any other disease (quite apart from causing more problems, getting arrested and, blaming alcohol for every offence they commit) - people screw and bring unwanted kid's (which they have no intention of looking after) into this world -

Smokers smoke, pay more tax which supports the above and only ask one thing - if you don't like it, please move away! Oh, and please keep your mouth shut!

…and beginning next year we will arrest everyone smoking in his home with open windows!

So you arrive here in a second hand smoke free airport building in one of Asia’s 6 most polluted cities, than you drive downtown Bangkok and choke for the rest of your stay from half a million daily charcoal fires, millions of motorbikes with worthless exhaust pipes, hundred thousand workshops blowing out undefined toxic materials, thousands of public buses pumping emission rates out that would get you arrested and your vehicle scrapped in a civilized country!

But you can be proud to have banned the smoker’s lounges at airports, because that was the easy wayout.

You are sooo clever!

Just think about it.

Some day you may understand.

A lot of industries and services create pollution. We are all aware of that. We accept it because we want the resulting goods and services. And we are ready to pay for them.

SMOKING generates nothing worthy, nothing that anybody wants, no goods, and no services.

Can you understand that?

[Thai at Heart]

Let's look at this logically, people fart - no problem, fat people take up too much space - no problem, the brainless espouse their opinion - no problem, drunks are obnoxious - no problem - people smoke - big problem! Now, why don't we all try and get a brain and think logically - farts pollute the world (and stink) - fat people expect to squeeze everyone else up with no problem (disgusting) - the brainless espouse their opinion and expect everyone to listen to the waffle (total crap) - drunks are totally obnoxious and cost every county more money in health care than any other disease (quite apart from causing more problems, getting arrested and, blaming alcohol for every offence they commit) - people screw and bring unwanted kid's (which they have no intention of looking after) into this world -

Smokers smoke, pay more tax which supports the above and only ask one thing - if you don't like it, please move away! Oh, and please keep your mouth shut!

and beginning next year we will arrest everyone smoking in his home with open windows!

So you arrive here in a second hand smoke free airport building in one of Asias 6 most polluted cities, than you drive downtown Bangkok and choke for the rest of your stay from half a million daily charcoal fires, millions of motorbikes with worthless exhaust pipes, hundred thousand workshops blowing out undefined toxic materials, thousands of public buses pumping emission rates out that would get you arrested and your vehicle scrapped in a civilized country!

But you can be proud to have banned the smokers lounges at airports, because that was the easy wayout.

You are sooo clever!

Just think about it.

Some day you may understand.

A lot of industries and services create pollution. We are all aware of that. We accept it because we want the resulting goods and services. And we are ready to pay for them.

SMOKING generates nothing worthy, nothing that anybody wants, no goods, and no services.

Can you understand that?

Tobacco growing supports literally millions of farmers globally. It is the most profitable crop per area in Thailand and (most other countries) where there are approximately 120k smallhold family farmers.

[Andre0720]

Let's look at this logically, people fart - no problem, fat people take up too much space - no problem, the brainless espouse their opinion - no problem, drunks are obnoxious - no problem - people smoke - big problem! Now, why don't we all try and get a brain and think logically - farts pollute the world (and stink) - fat people expect to squeeze everyone else up with no problem (disgusting) - the brainless espouse their opinion and expect everyone to listen to the waffle (total crap) - drunks are totally obnoxious and cost every county more money in health care than any other disease (quite apart from causing more problems, getting arrested and, blaming alcohol for every offence they commit) - people screw and bring unwanted kid's (which they have no intention of looking after) into this world -

Smokers smoke, pay more tax which supports the above and only ask one thing - if you don't like it, please move away! Oh, and please keep your mouth shut!

and beginning next year we will arrest everyone smoking in his home with open windows!

So you arrive here in a second hand smoke free airport building in one of Asias 6 most polluted cities, than you drive downtown Bangkok and choke for the rest of your stay from half a million daily charcoal fires, millions of motorbikes with worthless exhaust pipes, hundred thousand workshops blowing out undefined toxic materials, thousands of public buses pumping emission rates out that would get you arrested and your vehicle scrapped in a civilized country!

But you can be proud to have banned the smokers lounges at airports, because that was the easy wayout.

You are sooo clever!

Just think about it.

Some day you may understand.

A lot of industries and services create pollution. We are all aware of that. We accept it because we want the resulting goods and services. And we are ready to pay for them.

SMOKING generates nothing worthy, nothing that anybody wants, no goods, and no services.

Can you understand that?

Tobacco growing supports literally millions of farmers globally. It is the most profitable crop per area in Thailand and (most other countries) where there are approximately 120k smallhold family farmers.

Oh and what about production of Ya bahh, and heroin, and cocaine, and ammunition, all these profitable domains.

Go back to the thinking board pls.

[Andre0720]

Let's look at this logically, people fart - no problem, fat people take up too much space - no problem, the brainless espouse their opinion - no problem, drunks are obnoxious - no problem - people smoke - big problem! Now, why don't we all try and get a brain and think logically - farts pollute the world (and stink) - fat people expect to squeeze everyone else up with no problem (disgusting) - the brainless espouse their opinion and expect everyone to listen to the waffle (total crap) - drunks are totally obnoxious and cost every county more money in health care than any other disease (quite apart from causing more problems, getting arrested and, blaming alcohol for every offence they commit) - people screw and bring unwanted kid's (which they have no intention of looking after) into this world -

Smokers smoke, pay more tax which supports the above and only ask one thing - if you don't like it, please move away! Oh, and please keep your mouth shut!

and beginning next year we will arrest everyone smoking in his home with open windows!

So you arrive here in a second hand smoke free airport building in one of Asias 6 most polluted cities, than you drive downtown Bangkok and choke for the rest of your stay from half a million daily charcoal fires, millions of motorbikes with worthless exhaust pipes, hundred thousand workshops blowing out undefined toxic materials, thousands of public buses pumping emission rates out that would get you arrested and your vehicle scrapped in a civilized country!

But you can be proud to have banned the smokers lounges at airports, because that was the easy wayout.

You are sooo clever!

Just think about it.

Some day you may understand.

A lot of industries and services create pollution. We are all aware of that. We accept it because we want the resulting goods and services. And we are ready to pay for them.

SMOKING generates nothing worthy, nothing that anybody wants, no goods, and no services.

Can you understand that?

Tobacco growing supports literally millions of farmers globally. It is the most profitable crop per area in Thailand and (most other countries) where there are approximately 120k smallhold family farmers.

Oh and what about production of Ya bahh, and heroin, and cocaine, and ammunition, all these profitable domains.

Go back to the thinking board pls.

Yes, but, one is legal, yabaa isn't grown, and the others are illegal. And that isn't changing any time soon.

So ban all of it, fund a million mouths that tobacco feeds quite well in the fields, and then increase everyone's income tax 1 baht to make up the difference.

The only crop they can come up with which gets close, is sustainable and profitable on Afghanistan is oriental tobacco.

Ok finally, you see what I mean.

Grants - 2005 Recipients Project: Helping NC's Farmers in Transition from Tobacco Production Improve Water Quality While Protecting Natural Resources for the Public

Grants are offered in the states and also Australia to transition from tobacco farming to other farming.

Thailand could do the same surely.

[nisakiman]

I went to a BBQ at a mates placeawhile back and we were sitting around the table outside having a few beers and a chat when the mate and a couple of others lit up. Well one woman went right off tap, moaning and complaining about it being a filthy habit and thier 2nd hand smoke is ruining her health. She refused to move and continued ranting and demanding they put thier ciggies out until the mate stood up and told her to politely shut and move as it was his home and he can do what he wants and won't be dictated to by non smokers in his own property. Got a few laughs around the table even from non smokers.

Interesting that you should use the BBQ situation as your anecdote:

"A study by the French environmental campaigning group Robin des Bois

found that a typical two-hour barbecue can release the same level of

dioxins as up to 220,000 cigarettes. Dioxins are a group of chemicals

known to increase the likelihood of cancer."

So, all you BBQ loving anti-smokers who are paranoid about a whiff of tobacco smoke being lethal, stick that in your pipe and smoke it! And enjoy your next BBQ! 220,000 fags, remember!

The reality is, of course, that the whole concept of "second-hand smoke" is a construct of the Tobacco Control Industry.

It was Sir George Godber, one of the early anti-tobacco zealots, who in a speech to the 3rd World Conference on Smoking and

Health (“The Worldwide Campaign Against Smoking”) which was held in New York from June 2 June 5, 1975, said that what they must do is to “foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily” to secondhand smoke.

To this end, because the research that had been done already didn't give them the answers they wanted (in fact 80% of the studies came up with an insignificant risk factor, 12% of the studies found SHS exposure to have a beneficial effect, and 8% of the studies found a very slightly raised risk factor), they moved the epidemiological goalposts and cherry-picked the figures they needed, and - ABRACADABRA, HEY PRESTO! - second-hand smoke kills! It's amazing what you can do with a bit of junk science!

Now they use a computer model, from which they produce figures, like rabbits out of a hat, showing that something like 600,000 people die every year from SHS. Only problem is, they don't die. There are no body bags, only computer generated 'virtual' deaths. As with any computer program, the results depend entirely on the data you input. Garbage In, Garbage Out. If you don't believe me, try to find one, (just one, anywhere in the world) death that has been attributed to SHS. Google is your friend. Try it. You'll find lots and lots of scary numbers, but no actual deaths. And before anyone comes up with the standard answer "Roy Castle", read this:

"...on the Five Live phone-in, the chief executive of the Roy Castle

Lung Cancer Foundation, Dr Rosemary Gillespie, was asked a direct

question: did Roy Castle smoke cigars? Her reply:

"I am not prepared to discuss whether Roy Castle smoked."

In fact it was common knowledge that he smoked cigars, but that fact notwithstanding many non-smokers die of lung cancer regardless of whether they've ever been exposed to SHS or not. They still don't understand the mechanism. They can't explain why the majority of (even very heavy) smokers don't get LC, and some do. And why nearly as many non-smokers get LC. In fact, despite all the research, the link between smoking and LC is still only correlation. Causation has not yet been established.

As for airport smoking areas, they are very often deliberately small, cramped and poorly ventilated. It is part of the "denormalisation" programme. The Tobacco Control Industry is well funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and wield undue influence with governments. It is they who dictate that smoking rooms should be as uncomfortable and as inconvenient as possible. The more difficult they make it for smokers, the more people will be driven to give up. The more people driven to give up, the more Nicorette Big Pharma sells. It's no wonder the pharmaceutical industry pours hundreds of millions of dollars into anti-smoking groups; the nicotine replacement therapy market has grown into a multi-billion global empire on the back of the bans.

[itchybum]

Am I the only one wishing Dlock and Itchybum would just get a room already?

Not a smoking room thats for sure.

[Andre0720]

I went to a BBQ at a mates placeawhile back and we were sitting around the table outside having a few beers and a chat when the mate and a couple of others lit up. Well one woman went right off tap, moaning and complaining about it being a filthy habit and thier 2nd hand smoke is ruining her health. She refused to move and continued ranting and demanding they put thier ciggies out until the mate stood up and told her to politely shut and move as it was his home and he can do what he wants and won't be dictated to by non smokers in his own property. Got a few laughs around the table even from non smokers.

Interesting that you should use the BBQ situation as your anecdote:

"A study by the French environmental campaigning group Robin des Bois

found that a typical two-hour barbecue can release the same level of

dioxins as up to 220,000 cigarettes. Dioxins are a group of chemicals

known to increase the likelihood of cancer."

So, all you BBQ loving anti-smokers who are paranoid about a whiff of tobacco smoke being lethal, stick that in your pipe and smoke it! And enjoy your next BBQ! 220,000 fags, remember!

The reality is, of course, that the whole concept of "second-hand smoke" is a construct of the Tobacco Control Industry.

It was Sir George Godber, one of the early anti-tobacco zealots, who in a speech to the 3rd World Conference on Smoking and

Health (“The Worldwide Campaign Against Smoking”) which was held in New York from June 2 June 5, 1975, said that what they must do is to “foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily” to secondhand smoke.

To this end, because the research that had been done already didn't give them the answers they wanted (in fact 80% of the studies came up with an insignificant risk factor, 12% of the studies found SHS exposure to have a beneficial effect, and 8% of the studies found a very slightly raised risk factor), they moved the epidemiological goalposts and cherry-picked the figures they needed, and - ABRACADABRA, HEY PRESTO! - second-hand smoke kills! It's amazing what you can do with a bit of junk science!

Now they use a computer model, from which they produce figures, like rabbits out of a hat, showing that something like 600,000 people die every year from SHS. Only problem is, they don't die. There are no body bags, only computer generated 'virtual' deaths. As with any computer program, the results depend entirely on the data you input. Garbage In, Garbage Out. If you don't believe me, try to find one, (just one, anywhere in the world) death that has been attributed to SHS. Google is your friend. Try it. You'll find lots and lots of scary numbers, but no actual deaths. And before anyone comes up with the standard answer "Roy Castle", read this:

"...on the Five Live phone-in, the chief executive of the Roy Castle

Lung Cancer Foundation, Dr Rosemary Gillespie, was asked a direct

question: did Roy Castle smoke cigars? Her reply:

"I am not prepared to discuss whether Roy Castle smoked."

In fact it was common knowledge that he smoked cigars, but that fact notwithstanding many non-smokers die of lung cancer regardless of whether they've ever been exposed to SHS or not. They still don't understand the mechanism. They can't explain why the majority of (even very heavy) smokers don't get LC, and some do. And why nearly as many non-smokers get LC. In fact, despite all the research, the link between smoking and LC is still only correlation. Causation has not yet been established.

As for airport smoking areas, they are very often deliberately small, cramped and poorly ventilated. It is part of the "denormalisation" programme. The Tobacco Control Industry is well funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and wield undue influence with governments. It is they who dictate that smoking rooms should be as uncomfortable and as inconvenient as possible. The more difficult they make it for smokers, the more people will be driven to give up. The more people driven to give up, the more Nicorette Big Pharma sells. It's no wonder the pharmaceutical industry pours hundreds of millions of dollars into anti-smoking groups; the nicotine replacement therapy market has grown into a multi-billion global empire on the back of the bans.

Smokers stink. They make people around them stink.

They stink

[khh]

by now most societies have pissing and s**tting more or less under control. we tell ourselves how civilized we are because we're not like our ancestors in the dark ages who pissed and s**t in the street. some males have poor aim, especially when drunk, which makes life unpleasant for cleaners... but in general, people don't spray their piss or smear their s**t on others, or even on themselves. and if they do, they're likely to be very very apologetic about it!

if somebody decided to s**t in public -- or do it in private but smear some of it on his clothes -- and he got self righteous about it when told that his s**t stinks, most people would laugh at him and wonder what mental hospital he just came out of. and the law (unless there isn't one because nobody thought of it!) would be on the side of the people telling him his s**t stinks, not on the side of the stinker who's stopping everyone else from enjoying a public place.

smoking isn't necessary (unlike pissing and s**tting) but neither are lots of things that some people enjoy... i don't mind smokers smoking as long as they do it as politely and discreetly as most people answer the call of nature. they're still causing harm indirectly no matter how polite and discreet they are -- it's air pollution after all, it doesn't just disappear, and there's also the ground and eventually water pollution from the cigarette butts (remember it's not just tobacco, there are many other things in there making a toxic chemical soup)... but i agree there are bigger and more urgent sources of pollution.

Edited May 8, 2013 by khh

[khh]

re sir richard doll: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/19799.php

Sir Richard Doll, a contributor to the report and one of the doctors who discovered the link between lung cancer and smoking in 1950, said:

"As recently as 2003, one UK tobacco company said that it did not know whether smoking causes lung cancer. Now tobacco companies are using the same techniques to undermine the conclusion that passive smoking causes fatal disease.

"The evidence that it does is clear. As a responsible citizen, I believe that nobody should have to work in an atmosphere polluted by other people's smoke."

getting back to the original topic:

banning smoking rooms will encourage smoking around the building's entrances, making the smoke more noticeable to more people, and i bet more of it will get into the building through open doors...

others will smoke in the washrooms where they're likely to get away with it, and again it will be more noticeable to more people and circulate through the building.

so i say keep designated areas for smokers, away from everyone else, with good (outdoor?) ventilation so as little smoke as possible sticks to them.

Edited May 8, 2013 by khh

[kohphangan]

Thai at Heart, you are right and that is were the problem is, it is greed and and intolerance by non smokers.

...or is it the arrogance and overreaching sense of entitlement of smokers?

Well, one could look at it from a purely financial perspective. By excluding all smokers from any business, you are basically discounting to remove 25 to 35% of any country's population. Why there cannot be a happy medium to provide for ALL I have never really understood. I am a smoker, who tries his best not to annoy anyone, and that's fair enough. But, to not cater for 30% of all the passengers going through a building, with restricted access due to security, seems a bit stupid to me.

I am all for bars, since the owner, owns his business, to choose whether they allow smokers or not, and in that situation, the bar tenders and employees should have a choice whether to work there or not. The idea that in the modern day it is absolutely impossible to separate bars and restaurants so that people can smoke should they wish, and non smokers avoid smokers should they wish is absolutely non-sensical to me, it is just a matter of cost of ventilation and the such.

But then again, 100% of all passengers need a p**s potentially, in the airport, and yet they didn't cater sufficiently for them either. Just make better rooms, with better filters and ventilation systems. Isn't that a better answer than trying to BAN it all together, since there will always be someone trying to sneak one somewhere.

You misread.

I have been consistent in that as long as smokers do not affect me, I don't care what you do.

So, giving you a special room with better ventilation or outside smoking areas is great...as long as it doesn't affect me.

I don't want to smell you 2nd hand smoke. It's that simple. Nothing to do with a health concern. I just find breathing in what you breathed out pretty disgusting.

I don't think I am being unreasonable in my requests, but smokers seem to want special treatment and some sort of entitlement.

Next time you kiss a women just remember where her mouth has been, and exchanging all that mouth slaver .... And I presume you wear a face mask at all times ?... Or are City fumes , car pollution and all the other crap floating about quite expectable to your nose.

[fasteddie]

Well where's my freedom in able to having a smoke while waiting many hours at an airport.

Your habit involves damaging the health of others. SO I say you have no say.

<

p>

<

blockquote>

Why is it we all know Alcohol is the root of all evil, but this is permitted at all times at airports and during the flight.

I know who I would rather sit next to...... Someone just come out of a smoking room than someone on Alcohol any day !!

So you anti smokers who like a drink.... Let's take your rights away also... No Alcohol in all airports! Why should you sit and be able to consume something that kills and destroys life's ever

yday butwe can not.

I would be perfectly fine with makeing all flights (and airports) alcohol free. Smoke free too.

"Your habit involves damaging the health of others"

Not true, Sir Richard Doll, when asked in an interview with the BBC, how he would feel about being in a room full of smokers, replied he wouldn't give it another thought as the risk is so tiny.

Talking about risking the health of others, the airlines are putting peoples health at risk because since the smoking ban they have no need to refresh the air on flights and now just recirculate the air to save money.

Hey Sloweddie, I don't know or care who Sir Richard Doll is or what he thinks. It's irrelevant.

I also don't really care about the health risks or your warped idea about putting peoples health at risk because of non smoking on flights. It's irrelevant.

Simply put, I don't want to inhale or smell your second hand smoke.

Is that too much to ask?

Hey Dcock, I just don't care what you say, it's irrelevant.

[fasteddie]

re sir richard doll: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/19799.php

Sir Richard Doll, a contributor to the report and one of the doctors who discovered the link between lung cancer and smoking in 1950, said:

"As recently as 2003, one UK tobacco company said that it did not know whether smoking causes lung cancer. Now tobacco companies are using the same techniques to undermine the conclusion that passive smoking causes fatal disease.

"The evidence that it does is clear. As a responsible citizen, I believe that nobody should have to work in an atmosphere polluted by other people's smoke."

getting back to the original topic:

banning smoking rooms will encourage smoking around the building's entrances, making the smoke more noticeable to more people, and i bet more of it will get into the building through open doors...

others will smoke in the washrooms where they're likely to get away with it, and again it will be more noticeable to more people and circulate through the building.

so i say keep designated areas for smokers, away from everyone else, with good (outdoor?) ventilation so as little smoke as possible sticks to them.

Hitting the headlines

His findings have sometimes sparked controversy. So too has the man.

In 2001, he riled the anti-smoking lobby after appearing to downplay the risks from second-hand smoke.

In an interview on BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs, he said: "The

effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't

worry me."

That's what he really said, and that was in the wiki profile on him but has now been removed, wikipedia is not a reliable source.

[MarkCyr]

I'm a hardcore non smoker...but I don't give a rat's ass if other people smoke in some smoker's room. It's their life. And given that it's a legal addiction, it makes sense for an airport to have those rooms, if for no other reason than to stop people from wigging out due to withdrawal when the airplane is about to take off.

Plus, I find it interesting to watch the glass zoo of smokers and just be amazed at how addictive something has to be to get you to spend time in a room like that.

Also, just an FYI for the smokers who love that you can still smoke in the bars due to police bribes...well, the government is going to be taking enforcement away from the mafia...I mean, the cops (understandable slip up)...and hand it over to the health agency. Those guys are well educated and driven people who won't be out for bribes. Once that change over happens, expect BKK at first, then Pattaya and Phuket to be 100% smoke free in bars and restaurants. It will be so nice to be able to go out and not reek of smoke.

[nisakiman]

Smokers stink. They make people around them stink.

They stink

How very eloquent.

Do you know why it never occurred to people to make statements like that 20 - 30 years ago? It's because they hadn't been subjected to the relentless propaganda that you have been subjected to. So it never occurred to them to be so rude about something so trivial. And in those days of course, they didn't mind about other people smoking, even if they didn't smoke themselves. But then the fanatics started with the brainwashing agenda. You were obviously a perfect subject, since you parrot the mantra so well. The Tobacco Control Industry will be most gratified, I'm sure, that their army of idiots is growing apace.

However, don't get too smug about being one of the brainwashed mob; the anti-smoker's edifice is built on foundations of sand, and those foundations are starting to crumble as the tidal eddies of truth wash around them. They are discovering the veracity of that old adage: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time". Their lies and exaggerations are starting to come back and bite them now. A few years hence, Andre, and you won't dare make statements like you just did because you won't have your gang of anti-smoking bully-boys standing behind you nodding their approval. They will be far too busy trying to save their professional careers. Believe me. I have my ear to the ground on this subject, and (to mix metaphors) I know better than most which way the wind is blowing. It is poised to change direction.

This change of direction will come sooner than I had originally expected, and the reason for that is the totally unanticipated advent of the e-cigarette. The e-cigarette has pulled the rug out from under the feet of the anti-smoking fanatics, and they are struggling to deal with it. For the last couple of decades they have hidden their prohibitionist agenda under the cloak of 'Public Health', but now we have e-cigs they have been exposed for the agenda-driven ideologues that they are. They are now reduced to indignant utterances like "But it looks like smoking....", and "But it means they're getting round the ban on smoking in bars...".

E-cigs are odourless, emit water vapour (which is anyway all around us to a greater or lesser degree depending on humidity) and have no known or anticipated health issues. They are neither tobacco products nor tobacco cigarettes. So the anti-smoking lobby should love them, right? After all, it's all about health and (let's not forget) the chiiildren. Ha! Hoist by their own petard! Joe Public is not so stupid as to not notice that the objections to e-cigs have nothing to do with health and everything to do with ideological fanaticism.

[derge]

It's obvious to all that smoking is dangerous to everyone and smokers can harm others through their addiction but to get between a person and their addiction can be just as dangerous at times

[Payboy]

Call for total smoking ban at main international airports

What's a guy gotta do after sex?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/525866-japanese-adult-movie-with-thai-actress-use-suvarnabhumi-airport/

[bobl]

I just find breathing in what you breathed out pretty disgusting.

You better sit down, this is gonna freak you out.

You're doing that all day, every day, anyway - whether or not it's a smoker you're sitting next to.

[Thai at Heart]

Smokers stink. They make people around them stink.

They stink

How very eloquent.

Do you know why it never occurred to people to make statements like that 20 - 30 years ago? It's because they hadn't been subjected to the relentless propaganda that you have been subjected to. So it never occurred to them to be so rude about something so trivial. And in those days of course, they didn't mind about other people smoking, even if they didn't smoke themselves. But then the fanatics started with the brainwashing agenda. You were obviously a perfect subject, since you parrot the mantra so well. The Tobacco Control Industry will be most gratified, I'm sure, that their army of idiots is growing apace.

However, don't get too smug about being one of the brainwashed mob; the anti-smoker's edifice is built on foundations of sand, and those foundations are starting to crumble as the tidal eddies of truth wash around them. They are discovering the veracity of that old adage: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time". Their lies and exaggerations are starting to come back and bite them now. A few years hence, Andre, and you won't dare make statements like you just did because you won't have your gang of anti-smoking bully-boys standing behind you nodding their approval. They will be far too busy trying to save their professional careers. Believe me. I have my ear to the ground on this subject, and (to mix metaphors) I know better than most which way the wind is blowing. It is poised to change direction.

This change of direction will come sooner than I had originally expected, and the reason for that is the totally unanticipated advent of the e-cigarette. The e-cigarette has pulled the rug out from under the feet of the anti-smoking fanatics, and they are struggling to deal with it. For the last couple of decades they have hidden their prohibitionist agenda under the cloak of 'Public Health', but now we have e-cigs they have been exposed for the agenda-driven ideologues that they are. They are now reduced to indignant utterances like "But it looks like smoking....", and "But it means they're getting round the ban on smoking in bars...".

E-cigs are odourless, emit water vapour (which is anyway all around us to a greater or lesser degree depending on humidity) and have no known or anticipated health issues. They are neither tobacco products nor tobacco cigarettes. So the anti-smoking lobby should love them, right? After all, it's all about health and (let's not forget) the chiiildren. Ha! Hoist by their own petard! Joe Public is not so stupid as to not notice that the objections to e-cigs have nothing to do with health and everything to do with ideological fanaticism.

Actually, I think the objection is more from governments who can't find a legitimate way to tax e- cigarettes.

I wouldn't put it past them to be encouraging the anti smoking lobby to push this opposition to e'cigarettes for them.

[bobl]

Joe Public is not so stupid as to not notice that the objections to e-cigs have nothing to do with health and everything to do with ideological fanaticism.

I rather think their objections to e-cigs is more to do with the billions - probably trillions worldwide - tobacco revenue from the massive duties they were able to impose under the guise of "to pay for the healthcare of smokers". Kinda hard to justify massive duties on e-cigs, since they don't have that excuse, so if everyone started using e-cigs tomorrow there'd be a rather large hole in their budget.

(Smoking related disease in the UK is estimated to cost the NHS around £2B. Tobacco revenue is £12B.)

[metisdead]

Some inflammatory posts have been removed.