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

[SteeleJoe]

Many things in Thailand are illegal but they are still done...

Isn't this the reason we like Thailand, because it isn't a nanny state?.

"Isn't a nanny state" = No Rule of Law. (No Rule of Law = equals rampant self-perpetuating and systemic corruption, no hope of true democracy, terrible abuses of power, unpunished criminals, and more of an unjust society among other things. Nope, not really the reason I like Thailand ).

But, that's well off topic. Carry on.

Edited May 9, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[FDog]

Many things in Thailand are illegal but they are still done...

Isn't this the reason we like Thailand, because it isn't a nanny state?.

"Isn't a nanny state" = No Rule of Law. (No Rule of Law = equals rampant self-perpetuating and systemic corruption, no hope of true democracy, terrible abuses of power, unpunished criminals, and more of an unjust society among other things. Nope, not really the reason I like Thailand ).

But, that's well off topic. Carry on.

I'm not sure of the definition. Many Australians consider Oz to be a Nanny State because the govt has too many laws to 'protect' us from ourselves. Basically we can't scratch our balls without being fined.

In Oz it is also illegal to smoke in a car if a passenger is under 16 years old. Playgrounds are being taken down because it is now too dangerous as little Johnny may scrach his knee etc etc.

That's the type of govt control we refer to as nanny state but of course that may not fit the official version. But yes, off topic.

[utalkin2me]

This is probably due to additive effects of the recent findings we have on the effects of second hand smoke, cigarettes being the leading cause of preventable death WORLDWIDE, and the pressure from a more informed public.

"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

"...and the pressure from a more informed public."

For that, read "...and the pressure from a brainwashed and misinformed public."

Most of the stuff you read about smoking is pure, unadulterated guff. If you go back to the original research behind the press releases, you will find that in most cases statements have been taken out of context and presented as fact without mentioning any of the opposing (and thus unhelpful to the 'cause') aspects and conditions.

The site I've linked to above exposes many of the subterfuges used by the Tobacco Control Industry in pursuit of their ideological dogma. All the info is linked back to the original research - it's not just an opinion site, it's about facts. Facts most people are unaware of because they've had the wool pulled over their eyes for so long.

Yes, smoking and second hand smoke are good for people. Right? It is a known carcinogen for no reason at all. Cancer.org and all this nonsense about second hand smoke being harmful is just a bunch of rubbish. Yes! And this total rubbish about it being the number one cause of preventable death is simply untrue. It is all just a giant conspiracy. By golly you've got it.

I don't even feel the need to give a proper response to you to be honest. Seriously, go email a real researcher and see what he says - try not to argue with him after he responds.

Next "argument".....

Edited May 9, 2013 by utalkin2me

[metisdead]

Trolling nonsense posts and replies have been removed.

[SteeleJoe]

I'm not sure of the definition. Many Australians consider Oz to be a Nanny State because the govt has too many laws to 'protect' us from ourselves. Basically we can't scratch our balls without being fined.In Oz it is also illegal to smoke in a car if a passenger is under 16 years old. Playgrounds are being taken down because it is now too dangerous as little Johnny may scrach his knee etc etc.That's the type of govt control we refer to as nanny state but of course that may not fit the official version. But yes, off topic.

No, I get that. My point was you linked laws not being enforced - not a lack of laws - with Thailand not being a nanny state. And said that was a positive point.

Thailand has a lot of the same laws "nanny states" do - they just don't matter. Now in the case of laws we think petty or unnecessary etc, that might seem a good thing but...well, I said it already: being a place where the law doesn't matter is not really a positive in the grand scheme of things.

[Fozfromoz]

This is probably due to additive effects of the recent findings we have on the effects of second hand smoke, cigarettes being the leading cause of preventable death WORLDWIDE, and the pressure from a more informed public.

"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 "...and the pressure from a more informed public." For that, read "...and the pressure from a brainwashed and misinformed public." Most of the stuff you read about smoking is pure, unadulterated guff. If you go back to the original research behind the press releases, you will find that in most cases statements have been taken out of context and presented as fact without mentioning any of the opposing (and thus unhelpful to the 'cause') aspects and conditions. The site I've linked to above exposes many of the subterfuges used by the Tobacco Control Industry in pursuit of their ideological dogma. All the info is linked back to the original research - it's not just an opinion site, it's about facts. Facts most people are unaware of because they've had the wool pulled over their eyes for so long.

Yes, smoking and second hand smoke are good for people. Right? It is a known carcinogen for no reason at all. Cancer.org and all this nonsense about second hand smoke being harmful is just a bunch of rubbish. Yes! And this total rubbish about it being the number one cause of preventable death is simply untrue. It is all just a giant conspiracy. By golly you've got it. I don't even feel the need to give a proper response to you to be honest. Seriously, go email a real researcher and see what he says - try not to argue with him after he responds. Next "argument".....

Seeing as the OP is about smoking rooms at international airports in Thailand, care to share how much time you spend around these rooms, that inconveniences you so much? The way you are going on about it one would be forgiven for thinking that you lived next to one.

[utalkin2me]

This is probably due to additive effects of the recent findings we have on the effects of second hand smoke, cigarettes being the leading cause of preventable death WORLDWIDE, and the pressure from a more informed public.

"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 "...and the pressure from a more informed public." For that, read "...and the pressure from a brainwashed and misinformed public." Most of the stuff you read about smoking is pure, unadulterated guff. If you go back to the original research behind the press releases, you will find that in most cases statements have been taken out of context and presented as fact without mentioning any of the opposing (and thus unhelpful to the 'cause') aspects and conditions. The site I've linked to above exposes many of the subterfuges used by the Tobacco Control Industry in pursuit of their ideological dogma. All the info is linked back to the original research - it's not just an opinion site, it's about facts. Facts most people are unaware of because they've had the wool pulled over their eyes for so long.

Yes, smoking and second hand smoke are good for people. Right? It is a known carcinogen for no reason at all. Cancer.org and all this nonsense about second hand smoke being harmful is just a bunch of rubbish. Yes! And this total rubbish about it being the number one cause of preventable death is simply untrue. It is all just a giant conspiracy. By golly you've got it. I don't even feel the need to give a proper response to you to be honest. Seriously, go email a real researcher and see what he says - try not to argue with him after he responds. Next "argument".....

Seeing as the OP is about smoking rooms at international airports in Thailand, care to share how much time you spend around these rooms, that inconveniences you so much? The way you are going on about it one would be forgiven for thinking that you lived next to one.

It is funny, I have gotten this "argument" twice now. Nothing does in fact say a lot.

You do know this thread is about the smoke going outside of the smoking rooms, correct?

As mentioned, the question in this thread is if smoking should be banned from our public airports here. Thew lead article suggests the airports have higher than expected levels of second hand smoke outside the smoking rooms. All my arguments speak to how smoking should be banned in public places, especially those which are enclosed. If you need it spelled out.... yes, I think smoking should be banned from the airports.

Since the thread is about second hand smoke, we should all know that it comes in two forms. One is the smoke exhaled by the smoker, the other is called "sidestream smoke" and comes from the actual tip of the cigarette. Sidestream smoke is more dangerous than inhaled smoke per given volume. Its particles are smaller, and it contains more cancer causing agents. I would very much like it if I could decide how much of this carcinogen I am exposed to, and not have people like you telling me how much you think is ok for me to inhale.

Edited May 9, 2013 by utalkin2me

[ginjag]

Have to smile at tourists, example, 12 hour flight London to Bkk, as soon as they emerge from passport control they run to a smoking area outside of arrival gate 2, and CONSUME 4 cigs in 20 mins, to make up for the ones they couldn't smoke on route, then desperate again to have to have a 2 hour drive to Jomptien on the airport bus cig-less.

Edited May 9, 2013 by ginjag

[utalkin2me]

This is admittedly off topic, but very interesting nonetheless.

For anybody interested, maybe do a "find" (ctrl f) for "cigarettes" within the pdf. You can go to page 34 for a good summary.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6762/568234.pdf

Here are some excerpts:

Smokers’ materials (i.e. cigarettes, cigars or pipe tobacco) were the most frequent

source of ignition causing accidental dwelling fire deaths, accounting for over a third of

all accidental dwelling fire deaths in 2010-11. For every 1,000 accidental dwelling fires

(where smokers’ materials were the source of ignition), 35 people were killed in 2010-

11.

The injury rate was highest for fires started by candles - 442 per 1,000 fires, a total of

474 injuries in 2010-11. The next highest was for fires caused by cigarette lighters –

423 per 1,000 fires, a total of 110 injuries in 2010-11.

Of the 306 deaths in dwellings in 2010-11, 268 (88%) were of accidental causes.

The main cause was careless handling of fire or hot substances (e.g. careless Fire Statistics, Great Britain, 2010-11 11

disposal of cigarettes), amounting to 39% of all deaths due to accidental causes

(para 2.7 & 2.8). The highest fatality rate is for fires which started in the living or

dining room (para 2.21).

Once again, the leading cause of fatal accidental dwelling fires was careless handling

of fire or hot substances (mostly cigarettes which accounted 96 deaths. This has now

claimed over 1,200 deaths in accidental dwelling fires in Britain in the last 10 years.

Although the latest figure is an increase of 4 deaths on the 2008-09 figure, there has

been a general downward trend in such deaths over the last decade.

Cigarettes are the gift that just keeps on givin, huh? They are greeeeeeat!

Edited May 9, 2013 by utalkin2me

[rgs2001uk]

Mighty Mouse, on 09 May 2013 - 13:26, said:

FDog, on 09 May 2013 - 11:15, said:

utalkin2me, on 09 May 2013 - 11:02, said:

If someone allows smoking in an establishment then those that don't like it are free to go to other places where it is not allowed.

Don't go into a smoking allowed environment then complain about it.

"If someone????" Do you mean a bar or restaurant owner who allows smoking in their establishment, irrespective of an existing non-smoking law that prohibits smoking in those premises?

That decision is not up to 'someone'. The law overrides a business owners attitude towards smoking on his premises.

If it is a private home, and that 'someone' happens to be the home owner, then I'd agree with your comments above..

The only decision a customer has to make is either stay or leave. If the owner of a bar decides he/she wants to break the law by allowing smokers then that is their choice. You can argue with them. But if the smokers are allowed to smoke and you don't like it then move.

I sometimes don't go into bars because there are too many smokers in there. But I won't go in and tell them all to stop so I can enjoy a beer. It is purely the owners choice who they allow in there.

Many things in Thailand are illegal but they are still done. Do you jump up and down every time you see a person J walking? Do you complain when a bar stays open after hours so you can have another ale?

Isn't this the reason we like Thailand, because it isn't a nanny state? Must take the good with the bad and in my view, people smoking in bars is down the bottom of my concerns because there are many places to go that are smoke free.

Many things in Thailand are illegal but they are still done.

Hits nail on head, if the PC nanny state brigade had their way, there would be no need to come to Thailand, exit stage left for Singapore.

Smoking laws not being enforced, what about counterfeit goods, dodgy software, no prostitution in the country, OTC drugs sold you couldnt buy in your home country, Full Moon party drug rages, farangs coming onto these forums and boasting about driving drunk, <deleted> tourists with no insurance being hospitalised and expecting the Thai taxpayer to pick up the bill, farang coffin dodgers with no insurance, bars open beyond the regular hours.

Be careful what you wish for, you just may get it, save your airfare and stay home.

BTW a non smoker posting. before the self righteous brigade jump all over me.

Edited May 9, 2013 by rgs2001uk

[bobl]

Meanwhile in America

http://www.theonion.com/articles/epa-warns-americans-not-to-breathe,32347/

[morrobay]

So are they going to ban Alcohol in airports also ?

Some one we all know very well is on her high horse over freedom of speech..... Well where's my freedom in able to having a smoke while waiting many hours at an airport.

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 everyday but we can not.

And comments about it being a passive evil killer will be ignored!! Just better air circulation is needed and if it says "smoking room" this way only..... I suggest you turn around

ps... That's to you also English Airports !! Ban smoking... Ban alcohol.... make it fair please

Your freedom to smoke stops where my health starts Bud. And as usual, another smoker in a state of denial about diffusion of smoke from smoke rooms to surroundings.

Is it difficult for you to undestand that when someone is having a drink that is not the same as someone smoking? The drink , unlike smoke is not forced down the throats

of the non drinkers. And its not the smokers health , its my health that Im concerned about. By the way when a reeking smoker sits near me , I get up and move.

[utalkin2me]

My current concern: why is this thread all whacked out now, I have to scroll way over to read the posts. Only me? I guess this will make a "like" worth a little more on this page

Edited May 10, 2013 by utalkin2me

[SteeleJoe]

Laws being enforced equal PC/ nanny state?

The mind boggles.

So dumb on so many levels.

[bobl]

My current concern: why is this thread all whacked out now, I have to scroll way over to read the posts. Only me? I guess this will make a "like" worth a little more on this page

I'd like an answer to that too, if only to satisfy professional curiosity...

Clearly someone's post contains some messed up html that's made the page super-wide

(usually happens when someone posts a particularly large photo but I haven't see it

happen with text posts before.)

Edit: for anyone now wondering "huh??" - it happened on page 9.

Edited May 10, 2013 by bobl

[morrobay]

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.

What a lode. And your accusing others of being brainwashed ??

[utalkin2me]

So are they going to ban Alcohol in airports also ?

Some one we all know very well is on her high horse over freedom of speech..... Well where's my freedom in able to having a smoke while waiting many hours at an airport.

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 everyday but we can not.

And comments about it being a passive evil killer will be ignored!! Just better air circulation is needed and if it says "smoking room" this way only..... I suggest you turn around

ps... That's to you also English Airports !! Ban smoking... Ban alcohol.... make it fair please

Your freedom to smoke stops where my health starts Bud. And as usual, another smoker in a state of denial about diffusion of smoke from smoke rooms to surroundings.

Is it difficult for you to undestand that when someone is having a drink that is not the same as someone smoking? The drink , unlike smoke is not forced down the throats

of the non drinkers. And its not the smokers health , its my health that Im concerned about. By the way when a reeking smoker sits near me , I get up and move.

I am convinced based on all I have seen that most smokers are in one of two categories:

1) Those who smoke around others and simply don't care one iota about their habit and its effect on others.

2) Those who have rationalized the fact that second hand smoke in small doses is "not that bad for you", and thus effectively want to tell others how much second hand smoke is ok for them to inhale.

Either way, there is some serious arrogance there. I'll decide for myself and my family how much of a carcinogen I think is ok to inhale.

In fairness, I'll mention that there are people who are very considerate with their habit, and they must be recognized. That is really all anybody asks.

Edited May 10, 2013 by utalkin2me

[morrobay]

So are they going to ban Alcohol in airports also ?

Some one we all know very well is on her high horse over freedom of speech..... Well where's my freedom in able to having a smoke while waiting many hours at an airport.

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 everyday but we can not.

And comments about it being a passive evil killer will be ignored!! Just better air circulation is needed and if it says "smoking room" this way only..... I suggest you turn around

ps... That's to you also English Airports !! Ban smoking... Ban alcohol.... make it fair please

The difference between someone having a quiet beer, for example, and someone else having a quiet smoke is that the drinker usually doesn't throw his beer all over everyone nearby, he keeps it to himself. When you can ensure that your cigarette smoke stays with you and doesn't affect others nearby will be the time that you can compare smoking and drinking fairly.

Correct HarryMilton- But the fact that smokers continue to make that lame case indicates that :

1. They are in a state of denial regarding their inconsideration to others

2. That smoking not only degrades physically but also mentally.

[SteeleJoe]

In fairness, I'll mention that there are people who are very considerate with their habit, and they must be recognized. That is really all anybody asks.

I have two brothers in law who smoke. I've never had to say a word about it in 20 years of visits from them - both of them (they rarely have visited at the same time) - always go outside for a walk when they want to smoke (and gently tell my kids that they can't come along and that what they are doing is not good). When they come back, they extinguish the butt and put it in the trash can in front of the house. All of this on their own initiative. And they do the same at other family members homes as well.

(When I mentioned it to my wife one time, her response was along the lines of, "Of course. They are pretty good guys". And she's right.)

[morrobay]

Here we go again, the anti smoking lobby has a field day. Please leave us smokers alone, as we leave the non smokers alone or start banning cars, heavy industry, booze and other things that not healthy for the general public. We have an ex-chancelor in Germany who is now 94, healthy and still a heavy smoker. He does not give TV interviews, if he is not allowed to smoke, so there is one law for the public and one for a few of us. I guess, when he went to China and Singapore lately, he was also allowed to smoke. So why not have an airline for smokers, no it is not allowed by law, so all you non-smokers are hiding behind your government and their rules. Lighten up and be more relaxed and be more tolerant, like you want everyone else to be.

I have a better idea - how about a separate continent for smokers. And we will shut up when we do not have to breath your !@#$% smoke

[bobl]

Here we go again, the anti smoking lobby has a field day. Please leave us smokers alone, as we leave the non smokers alone or start banning cars, heavy industry, booze and other things that not healthy for the general public. We have an ex-chancelor in Germany who is now 94, healthy and still a heavy smoker. He does not give TV interviews, if he is not allowed to smoke, so there is one law for the public and one for a few of us. I guess, when he went to China and Singapore lately, he was also allowed to smoke. So why not have an airline for smokers, no it is not allowed by law, so all you non-smokers are hiding behind your government and their rules. Lighten up and be more relaxed and be more tolerant, like you want everyone else to be.

I have a better idea - how about a separate continent for smokers. And we will shut up when we do not have to breath your !@#$% smoke

It would be easier to make a separate continent for anti-smoking zealots. Heck, you could fit them on a modest island. How about you stop acting like you speak for all non smokers.

[Neilly]

I have a better idea - how about a separate continent for smokers.

Okay...I choose Asia

[kohphangan]

So are they going to ban Alcohol in airports also ?

Some one we all know very well is on her high horse over freedom of speech..... Well where's my freedom in able to having a smoke while waiting many hours at an airport.

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 everyday but we can not.

And comments about it being a passive evil killer will be ignored!! Just better air circulation is needed and if it says "smoking room" this way only..... I suggest you turn around

ps... That's to you also English Airports !! Ban smoking... Ban alcohol.... make it fair please

Your freedom to smoke stops where my health starts Bud. And as usual, another smoker in a state of denial about diffusion of smoke from smoke rooms to surroundings.

Is it difficult for you to undestand that when someone is having a drink that is not the same as someone smoking? The drink , unlike smoke is not forced down the throats

of the non drinkers. And its not the smokers health , its my health that Im concerned about. By the way when a reeking smoker sits near me , I get up and move.

I am convinced based on all I have seen that most smokers are in one of two categories:

1) Those who smoke around others and simply don't care one iota about their habit and its effect on others.

2) Those who have rationalized the fact that second hand smoke in small doses is "not that bad for you", and thus effectively want to tell others how much second hand smoke is ok for them to inhale.

Either way, there is some serious arrogance there. I'll decide for myself and my family how much of a carcinogen I think is ok to inhale.

In fairness, I'll mention that there are people who are very considerate with their habit, and they must be recognized. That is really all anybody asks.

What gives you the right to tell me I can not do something just because you don't like it?

I am sure Bud!! there are many things that you do that are not to my liking!

So don't you ever go telling me my freedom stops because YOU don't like something Morrobay!

[utalkin2me]

I have found this discussion to have sparked my interest. I was reading about bans in the United States, even bans on entire campuses and hospitals (ie outside as well as inside). In one hospital, after they banned cigs from the entire property, smokers started going to the edge of the hospital property, which happened to be a sidewalk. The people that lived near there grew fed up with them, because they were getting smoke inside their residences, and the smokers were throwing their butts all over the sidewalk. It seems no matter where smokers get pushed to, the surrounding people are just totally repulsed by them. I would argue that the attitude of the typical smoker is what is going to be their ultimate downfall. Where are we going to put all these littering, inconsiderate smokers? There does not seem to be a solution given their attitude and incorrigibility. I would seriously bet that this trend in the states of banning smoking even in outdoor, public spaces will continue in the coming decade, and inconsiderate smokers would have nobody to blame other than themselves.

I personally think it is very considerate of places to build smoking rooms and similar places. Yet, smokers don't seem to want to reciprocate that consideration. You see the attitude right here in the thread: "you will not tell me what to do and invade upon my rights". It will be your downfall.

[morrobay]

So are they going to ban Alcohol in airports also ?

Some one we all know very well is on her high horse over freedom of speech..... Well where's my freedom in able to having a smoke while waiting many hours at an airport.

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 everyday but we can not.

And comments about it being a passive evil killer will be ignored!! Just better air circulation is needed and if it says "smoking room" this way only..... I suggest you turn around

ps... That's to you also English Airports !! Ban smoking... Ban alcohol.... make it fair please

Your freedom to smoke stops where my health starts Bud. And as usual, another smoker in a state of denial about diffusion of smoke from smoke rooms to surroundings.

Is it difficult for you to undestand that when someone is having a drink that is not the same as someone smoking? The drink , unlike smoke is not forced down the throats

of the non drinkers. And its not the smokers health , its my health that Im concerned about. By the way when a reeking smoker sits near me , I get up and move.

I am convinced based on all I have seen that most smokers are in one of two categories:

1) Those who smoke around others and simply don't care one iota about their habit and its effect on others.

2) Those who have rationalized the fact that second hand smoke in small doses is "not that bad for you", and thus effectively want to tell others how much second hand smoke is ok for them to inhale.

Either way, there is some serious arrogance there. I'll decide for myself and my family how much of a carcinogen I think is ok to inhale.

In fairness, I'll mention that there are people who are very considerate with their habit, and they must be recognized. That is really all anybody asks.

What gives you the right to tell me I can not do something just because you don't like it?

I am sure Bud!! there are many things that you do that are not to my liking!

So don't you ever go telling me my freedom stops because YOU don't like something Morrobay!

What gives you the right to threaten my heath. Im sure I do alot of things that you dont like . But there is a difference between not liking something, mental, and a physical health

issuue. You smokers are so inconsiderate about this or in such a state of denial that you cannot comprehend this simple distinction. Like I said before::If I have to be exposed to your !@#$% smoke you are going to hear about it, Bozo

Tell you what I have nothing else to say to you or any other smoker.

Edited May 10, 2013 by morrobay

[morrobay]

I have found this discussion to have sparked my interest. I was reading about bans in the United States, even bans on entire campuses and hospitals (ie outside as well as inside). In one hospital, after they banned cigs from the entire property, smokers started going to the edge of the hospital property, which happened to be a sidewalk. The people that lived near there grew fed up with them, because they were getting smoke inside their residences, and the smokers were throwing their butts all over the sidewalk. It seems no matter where smokers get pushed to, the surrounding people are just totally repulsed by them. I would argue that the attitude of the typical smoker is what is going to be their ultimate downfall. Where are we going to put all these littering, inconsiderate smokers? There does not seem to be a solution given their attitude and incorrigibility. I would seriously bet that this trend in the states of banning smoking even in outdoor, public spaces will continue in the coming decade, and inconsiderate smokers would have nobody to blame other than themselves.

I personally think it is very considerate of places to build smoking rooms and similar places. Yet, smokers don't seem to want to reciprocate that consideration. You see the attitude right here in the thread: "you will not tell me what to do and invade upon my rights". It will be your downfall.

Ill give the smokers some Rights. Maybe I should explain why Im steamed about this : .For example when Im on a songkow in Pattaya and someone boards with

a cigarette, I say no smoking please. Well some are considerate. The problem is that some say ---- off !. Then I have to get off the bus.

Another smoker asked me what my problem was ? I said 'your my problem' With the attidude these smokers have ...The day is coming.

Edited May 10, 2013 by morrobay

[morrobay]

I have found this discussion to have sparked my interest. I was reading about bans in the United States, even bans on entire campuses and hospitals (ie outside as well as inside). In one hospital, after they banned cigs from the entire property, smokers started going to the edge of the hospital property, which happened to be a sidewalk. The people that lived near there grew fed up with them, because they were getting smoke inside their residences, and the smokers were throwing their butts all over the sidewalk. It seems no matter where smokers get pushed to, the surrounding people are just totally repulsed by them. I would argue that the attitude of the typical smoker is what is going to be their ultimate downfall. Where are we going to put all these littering, inconsiderate smokers? There does not seem to be a solution given their attitude and incorrigibility. I would seriously bet that this trend in the states of banning smoking even in outdoor, public spaces will continue in the coming decade, and inconsiderate smokers would have nobody to blame other than themselves.

I personally think it is very considerate of places to build smoking rooms and similar places. Yet, smokers don't seem to want to reciprocate that consideration. You see the attitude right here in the thread: "you will not tell me what to do and invade upon my rights". It will be your downfall.

Good post and I agree. You would be hard pushed to find a group of arrogant and selfish people. I seriously believe that smoking either makes people dumber or only the dumb start smoking.

Fortunately the war against smoking has been won...we are just walking around bayonetting the wounded now...

It has not been won in Pattaya - The city of smokers . Where about 80% are cigarette smokers.I heard a foreigner say he was leaving Pattaya because of all the cigarette smoke. Edited May 10, 2013 by morrobay

[chrisinth]

I hate cigarettes, and second-hand smoke, BUT, I respect the responsible smokers rights to light up in a smokers room.

Tobacco usage is NOT unlawful, yet smokers are made to feel like lepers. They are being squeezed out of places to have a puff more and more.

Heroin usage IS unlawful, yet the world wants to console the downtrodden addicts. Cities around the world have government approved shooting galleries, where junkies can go, obtain free syringes at the counter, and then find a comfortable private room to inject.

If BKK Airport closes down its smoking rooms, they can use the space for heroin shooting galleries. No horrible odour of tobacco smoke then.

But what about the dragons??........................

[theslime]

I stand in the middle of BKk and cant smell my cigs as the truck /car/bus exhaust is over powering. Get a life and leave smoking rooms alone. How much poisoned air is generated when flying to and fro. My ciggies versus jet turbine exhaust.

[bobl]

Ok, let's hear from some professionals who are not part of the 'Tobacco Control' circus.

It's interesting that you mention antisemitism and Goebbels. If you were trying to avoid Godwin's Law don't worry - Nazi has already been used several times in this thread as have the usual straw man arguments from the anti smokers ("so you think you should be allowed to kill me?" etc)

Anyway, surely Godwin's law doesn't apply when you're talking about the man himself. It was through his utter hatred of smokers that the term 'Passivrauchen' (Passive Smoking) came into existence in a book by Fritz Lickint. They were masters of the "big lie technique" that's in use more than ever today, by lobbyists with various agendas, and Fritz was not shy about promoting "passivrauchen" as evil despite having absolutely no evidence to support his theory. He was equally certain that coffee causes cancer, by the way. We are fortunate that the Fuhrer did not hate coffee.