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

[OldSalty]

If the smokers are in fact funding their own smoking rooms, and the
rooms are effective (reportedly not the case here), then I have no
problem with it whatsoever.

Yes I am willing to pay maybe 30 baht for that privilege, but than I would like to have a bar like smoking room, with chairs, tables, go-go girls etc and you will se a lot of non-smoking nazis in there!!!

[utalkin2me]

To many, smoking was a choice when the ramifications to ones health was not known. It could be called a habit but I think it is an addiction. I believe it is the nicotine that is addictive.

So really, there are many where it is not actually a choice to be addicted when they didn't know it was like that at the time.

There are many things some don't like to pay for. I don't the Oz govt giving $5k to a woman to have a child. That is their choice to have the child, why should my taxes be for their benefit when I have chosen not to have children. I don't like my taxes subsidising people who use day care centres, out of my taxes when I don't have children. I don't like my taxes going to some stupid research centre to find out if a snails fart smells etc.

PS: Admin, it is a real pain to try and quote but notified there are too many quotes. I used to be able to delete the unnecessary quotes to allow me to respond directly to the quote but I can't do that anymore.

I agree in a way with another poster that the negative effects of smoking have been known for a very long time. Long enough for almost everybody who started in the 60's (or after) to quit, that is for sure. You can extrapolate the argument a little and say they have a choice to quit or not.

And let me ask you, what type of things could trigger that choice to quit ? In my opinion, something like not being able to smoke in airports would be a very feasible last straw for smokers who have been on the verge of quitting.

[bobl]

I try not to be too condescending, but you guys need to come up with some arguments that don't involve other negative aspects of society. For example..... the public should build smoking rooms in airports because _________________________ (try to use just reason, and an argument in the underlined space, and not bring up things like bbq smoke and car exhaust).

Another example "Smokers should be allowed to smoke around other non smokers because _____________________________ (again, an articulated argument without the use of things in society which are not even close to analogous in the first place, like alcohol and fires).

When you try that, and you find it difficult, there is a reason!! Because there are no reasons we should build smoking rooms for smokers, there are no valid reasons we should allow smokers to smoke around others. IF there are, tell me without the regurgitated veil of illogical associations. If you can't do that, it should be assumed by all that your arguments are flawed.

Despite the fact that you spectacularly failed to not be condescending, I'll play your game.

"The public should build smoking rooms in airports because_____" they shouldn't.

How desperate do you need to be in support of a cause, to extrapolate a business installing facilities to satisfy it's customers to mean "the public should build smoking rooms"

and

"smokers should be allowed to smoke around non smokers because_____" No-one is suggesting that smokers should be allowed to sit and torment anti-smokers by sitting next to them and blowing smoke in their faces, which if you're being honest with yourself is the picture you're trying to paint.

To ban smoking altogether - your real agenda - affects 1.4 Billion people. All to satisfy the ravings of an extremely vocal but very small minority of non smokers known as ANTI-smokers, for whom ample measures have already been taken.

How do I know these zealots are a very small minority? I'm glad you asked. Because I don't personally know even ONE non smoker who doesn't respect a smoker's right to smoke. I'd be prepared to bet there are very many smokers and non smokers alike, who can say the same.

[utalkin2me]

I try not to be too condescending, but you guys need to come up with some arguments that don't involve other negative aspects of society. For example..... the public should build smoking rooms in airports because _________________________ (try to use just reason, and an argument in the underlined space, and not bring up things like bbq smoke and car exhaust).

Another example "Smokers should be allowed to smoke around other non smokers because _____________________________ (again, an articulated argument without the use of things in society which are not even close to analogous in the first place, like alcohol and fires).

When you try that, and you find it difficult, there is a reason!! Because there are no reasons we should build smoking rooms for smokers, there are no valid reasons we should allow smokers to smoke around others. IF there are, tell me without the regurgitated veil of illogical associations. If you can't do that, it should be assumed by all that your arguments are flawed.

Despite the fact that you spectacularly failed to not be condescending, I'll play your game.

"The public should build smoking rooms in airports because_____" they shouldn't.

How desperate do you need to be in support of a cause, to extrapolate a business installing facilities to satisfy it's customers to mean "the public should build smoking rooms"

and

"smokers should be allowed to smoke around non smokers because_____" No-one is suggesting that smokers should be allowed to sit and torment anti-smokers by sitting next to them and blowing smoke in their faces, which if you're being honest with yourself is the picture you're trying to paint.

To ban smoking altogether - your real agenda - affects 1.4 Billion people. All to satisfy the ravings of an extremely vocal but very small minority of non smokers known as ANTI-smokers, for whom ample measures have already been taken.

How do I know these zealots are a very small minority? I'm glad you asked. Because I don't personally know even ONE non smoker who doesn't respect a smoker's right to smoke. I'd be prepared to bet there are very many smokers and non smokers alike, who can say the same.

So, we agree on many points, for example, smokers should not smoke around others.

It is funny you mention I am desperate. I have countered very well every "argument" from car exhaust to bbq fires, yet I am the desperate one? You are arguing by bringing up analogies which are not even close to analogous, and I am desperate, ha. I would think just the fact that a person who would bring up bbq in this context would indicate who is desperate for a valid argument, and who isn't. In fact, let's roll with your "argument" a little......

Where do we have bbq fires? Oh, wow........ OUTSIDE!!! You mean to tell me your argument is about how bbq fire is just as dangerous as cig smoke, and we all know that bbqs are pretty much only permitted outside, which is where we all want smokers to go? Great argument you have brought up here. But I am desperate and reaching. I love that one, really. I do like how you are learning though, I notice you are not bringing up car exhaust or bbq smoke anymore. Gotta applaud progress.

Above you say "satisfying it's customers" (improper use of "it's" by the way, should be "its"). Yet, non-smokers are in the majority, and they are paying for the rooms. I am asking why, just because I want to use an airport, my airport fees should have to go to fund other people's bad habit, when they can do something simple like quit if they don't like it. But, as I have said, if smokers are funding the rooms, and they are effective, I really have no problem, probably something impossible to find out here in Thailand though.

Edited May 12, 2013 by utalkin2me

[DLock]

I have never been sure why we need to cater in any way to a cigarette smokers.

Therein lies the problem. This one sentence, is what puts you in the vocal minority of anti-smokers with irrational arguments. as opposed to the vast majority which comprises both smokers and non smokers who respond to reason, facts, logic and with whom one can have a reasonable debate.

You're not sure why we need to cater to smokers? Are you sure why we need to cater to drinkers? Why do we have bars? Has it not been proven (far more factually and scientifically than any study into SHS) that deaths with a verifiable, direct link to alcohol are very high? Please spare me the "but somebody drinking doesn't affect MY health" argument. Try that on someone who's family's been wiped out by a drunk driver and see how you fare.

When were you last at a barbeque? A 5Kg bag of charcoal smoke contains exactly the same carcinogens and other boogeymen as the smoke from 160 packs of cigarettes. Perhaps we should stop catering (no pun intended) to those too. Think about that next time you're standing waiting for your bbq prawns while freaking out because somebody's smoking 100 meters away...

It is very easy to counter your post. Sorry. The reason we have bars is they are businesses that make a profit. Businessmen want to make bars. We dont cater to the drinkers in a bar, they pay! If you want to compel smokers to go into a smoking-bar to smoke, and charge them the fees for ventilation etc, I think that is a great idea, so we agree in a way I guess. You are almost arguing for me without knowing it by bringing up the bars.

If i want to go to a bbq, that is my choice, stipulating your statements about bbq smoke are even true that is (which I don't actually agree). Could you have a bbq in the airport terminal. No, of course not, and there is the point of this entire thread. I appreciate the help you have given me with your examples, but I really don't need help.

What I would like to see however is an argument as to why others should front the cost for somebody else's bad habit. I'll give you the answer right now though - there is no reason we should front that cost. The only reason it is done is we feel sorry for smokers who have been manipulated in some way into a very addictive habit, and we feel they need help. They made the choice, and they should have bear the responsibility for that choice.

Because smokers are people too.

People with disabilities are catered to with ramps and special wheelchairs to get on a plane and staff to assist. Do you deny them this because you may be paying for it?

The public is made up of many different types, smokers are included.

So, let me understand this.

You are saying that smokers have some sort of disability?

And you compare yourself to people in wheelchairs who do not have a choice to be in the wheelchair or not.

You should be ashamed of yourself. You lost all credibility in this thread.

[HeavyDrinker]

So, let me understand this.

You are saying that smokers have some sort of disability?

And you compare yourself to people in wheelchairs who do not have a choice to be in the wheelchair or not.

You should be ashamed of yourself. You lost all credibility in this thread.

I think he's saying that while everyone else's wishes/requirements are catered to, why shouldn't smokers be catered to as well?

Hope that helps.

[metisdead]

Off topic and nonsense posts have been removed.

[SteeleJoe]

So, let me understand this.

You are saying that smokers have some sort of disability?

And you compare yourself to people in wheelchairs who do not have a choice to be in the wheelchair or not.

You should be ashamed of yourself. You lost all credibility in this thread.

I think he's saying that while everyone else's wishes/requirements are catered to, why shouldn't smokers be catered to as well?

Hope that helps.

Well, if that's what he's staying he's quite wrong.

People who want walk around naked - their wishes aren't catered to. People who want to ride a donkey to the departure gate - their wishes aren't catered to. People who need to smoke crack cocaine every 20 minutes - their wishes aren't catered to. People who want to travel with no children ever annoying them - their wishes aren't catered to. Claiming the everyone - except smokers - wishes are catered to is almost as absurd as the examples I have given of those who aren't.

Do you REALLY call making sure that people who are, through no choice of their own (note the last 5 words), disabled have access to all the essential services that anyone else has (like transport), and not adding more adversity to an already hard and challenging life they live "catering to their wishes"...well, I don't. I think that's a blizzard and sort of ugly way to put it, in fact.

And the implication that nicotine addicts deserve the same sort of consideration and compassion as disabled people is to me an indication of someone astonishingly lacking in self awareness...or something.

[utalkin2me]

So, let me understand this.

You are saying that smokers have some sort of disability?

And you compare yourself to people in wheelchairs who do not have a choice to be in the wheelchair or not.

You should be ashamed of yourself. You lost all credibility in this thread.

I think he's saying that while everyone else's wishes/requirements are catered to, why shouldn't smokers be catered to as well?

Hope that helps.

Well, if that's what he's staying he's quite wrong.

People who want walk around naked - their wishes aren't catered to. People who want to ride a donkey to the departure gate - their wishes aren't catered to. People who need to smoke crack cocaine every 20 minutes - their wishes aren't catered to. People who want to travel with no children ever annoying them - their wishes aren't catered to. Claiming the everyone - except smokers - wishes are catered to is almost as absurd as the examples I have given of those who aren't.

Do you REALLY call making sure that people who are, through no choice of their own (note the last 5 words), disabled have access to all the essential services that anyone else has (like transport), and not adding more adversity to an already hard and challenging life they live "catering to their wishes"...well, I don't. I think that's a blizzard and sort of ugly way to put it, in fact.

And the implication that nicotine addicts deserve the same sort of consideration and compassion as disabled people is to me an indication of someone astonishingly lacking in self awareness...or something.

I thought it was, yet another, very poor analogy too. Their own analogies often make their arguments look weaker when closely examined, that is the telling part.

Fdog's arguments have been dubious. He actually stipulated in one post that smoking is in fact a choice, and his reason that we should cater to smokers was because many became addicted at a time when its effects were not understood. Even if we assume his argument is 100% bullet proof, well, doesn't that just mean that in a few years, that all people who choose to smoke should not be catered to because they will have made an informed choice? In essence, he was using the time frame as his only argument, yet I think that time frame does not work as an argument anymore (or at least in the near future). People have known about smoking's pitfalls for decades now.

Edited May 12, 2013 by utalkin2me

[SteeleJoe]

Just noticed typos, baffling syntax and weird auto correct errors in my last. So to try to make that convoluted me a tiny bit clearer, I'll try again:

Making sure that people who are disabled, through no choice of their own (note the last 5 words), have access to all the essential services that anyone else has (like transport), and that we don't add MORE adversity to their already hard and challenging lives - do you REALLY call that "catering to their wishes"? Well, I don't. I think that's a bizarre and sort of ugly way to put it, in fact.

And the implication that nicotine addicts deserve the same sort of consideration and compassion as disabled people is to me an indication of someone astonishingly lacking in self awareness...or something.

[hellodolly]

Thank Buddha I quite smoking over 5 years ago, but I totally think they should have smoking lounges for those that need it. Invest a few Baht into better ventilation and sealing of the rooms. With the amount of cash the airports receive in taxes cut down on the corruption and invest.

I feel much the same as you do. I have not had or had to have a smoke in 29 years. but I do understand the inability of a smoker to not have one. How ever it is not their rite to pollute the air every one else breathes.

Not sure as to how much they would have to do to seal the rooms of completely to protect the rest of the public or if they have to do any thing other than what they are doing. I don't see people hanging around the doors trying to get a whiff.

[khh]

do you not care about the people who work in airports or do you just not think about them?

or do you say to them "if you don't like smoke just work in a non-smoking airport and let the smokers work in this one"?

Another straw man argument. Funny you should mention that. The zealots conducted a study which failed to produce the desired condemnation of SHS even with barmen exposed to SHS all day, every day. So they buried it. To date they still claim that SHS "kills" 60,000 people a year yet can't name one - not one, from their (now millions) of 'victims'. This is primarily because their results are not those of proper scientific studies (I also exclude those paid for by, e.g., manufacturers of nicotine patches and gum), but are produced by statistics - which are easily manipulated to produce the desired results.

But to address your question - if the smoking room didn't leak, what exactly would be the impact on the people who work in the airport?

i was specifically responding to the "it doesn't matter because you only use the airport briefly a few times a year" argument. that kind of thinking completely ignores people who have to breathe the airport's indoor air every working day of their lives -- especially whoever gets stuck cleaning the smoking room! (and some are talking about having attendants to serve them drinks...)

you can say in theory if the smoking room doesn't leak too much air pollution to the rest of the building then you can breathe it all the time.

BUT the point of the OP is that according to the experts the safe exposure limits ARE being exceeded so it does matter.

IF the smoking room doesn't leak (impossible) or doesn't leak enough to exceed the safe exposure limit (and gets cleaned by robots) then there's still a problem: you come out of the room smelling like an ashtray and spread your ashes to the next place you sit.

SO... why not have the smoking area up on the roof where the wind will blow the smoke away from the building AND away from the smokers and their clothes?

[khh]

btw i still agree that smoke leaking from the smoking room at the airport is a smaller issue than stuff like vehicle pollution and open buring. but i think it's going to be a long time before there's much improvement in those areas, sad though that is. smoking is something where most people by now are aware it's bad and won't object to tighter controls.

[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.

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.

instead of telling us how unreliable wikipedia is (did i mention it?) you could spend your energy finding a source for your quotation here (different wording from your earlier post btw).

you could also ask yourself, if that's what doll allegedly said in 2001, were his words in 2003 not clearer? and did he not go out of his way to clarify his position in 2003 because he was alarmed at his words in 2001 having been taken out of context?

the website that nisakiman loves has another quotation from doll (in a 1981 article he co-wrote):

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

[E]pidemiological observations ... have serious disadvantages ... [T]hey can seldom be made according to the strict requirements of experimental science and therefore may be open to a variety of interpretations. A particular factor may be associated with some disease merely because of its association with some other factor that causes the disease, or the association may be an artefact due to some systematic bias in the information collection

other than the case from scotland, that's the only time he comes up on their website. funny, if doll had been such a good advocate for big tobacco you'd think he'd have some better lines than that wouldn't you?

you can quote statistics all day long, most of us won't bother reading them. every study you could cite showing unclear results could be refuted by more studies showing very clear results. who's funding the studies? who's doing them? and so on and so on..... if you've smoked in the past (yourself or heavily 2nd hand) and quit you probably know the score from your own experience. even if it doesn't kill you, it changes the quality of your life.

the reason why it took centuries for humans to figure out how bad it is might be that tobacco itself is not so bad but the average cigarette today is -- how many of those chemicals existed 100 years ago anyway? but it's too late, tobacco is on the way out like opium -- probably not to be banned completely but to be controlled to the point where most people won't even notice it. it'll be a strange hobby for rich people or an experience for tourists who think it's quaint, like how opium is generally seen nowadays. ever hear someone say "i want to go to a real opium den -- like in those old photographs"?

"you could also ask yourself, if that's what doll allegedly said in 2001,

were his words in 2003 not clearer? and did he not go out of his way to

clarify his position in 2003 because he was alarmed at his words in

2001 having been taken out of context?"

What out of context? I think his words in 2001 are clear enough and not open to question.

Could it not be that his words in 2003 were to appease the whining winnies?, I imagine he got lots of stick for his honesty in his original statement.

Anyway, to get back on topic, why can't swampy just build properly sealed and ventilated areas for smokers? No need to ban it outright, millions of people still smoke and it's still legal.

oh sure, not open to question at all... especially when there's no source!

and if one person makes two conflicting statements you should automatically believe the first statement. of course...

[Thai at Heart]

do you not care about the people who work in airports or do you just not think about them?

or do you say to them "if you don't like smoke just work in a non-smoking airport and let the smokers work in this one"?

Another straw man argument. Funny you should mention that. The zealots conducted a study which failed to produce the desired condemnation of SHS even with barmen exposed to SHS all day, every day. So they buried it. To date they still claim that SHS "kills" 60,000 people a year yet can't name one - not one, from their (now millions) of 'victims'. This is primarily because their results are not those of proper scientific studies (I also exclude those paid for by, e.g., manufacturers of nicotine patches and gum), but are produced by statistics - which are easily manipulated to produce the desired results.

But to address your question - if the smoking room didn't leak, what exactly would be the impact on the people who work in the airport?

Scientific American , A science journal , that does proper scientific studies : Did an article called " Prevetable causes of death in the U.S/year: From memory.

Heart Disease ( lifestyle ) about 600 000/yr

Smokimg 500, 000/yr

Second hand smoke 100,000 * that would be for heavy exposures, bar workers and spouses of heavy smokers

alcohol and drugs - somewhere around 60,000/

gunshots 35, 000

Does anyone actually believe that second hand smoke represents 100 k deaths if smoking is 500 k?

[morrobay]

do you not care about the people who work in airports or do you just not think about them?

or do you say to them "if you don't like smoke just work in a non-smoking airport and let the smokers work in this one"?

Another straw man argument. Funny you should mention that. The zealots conducted a study which failed to produce the desired condemnation of SHS even with barmen exposed to SHS all day, every day. So they buried it. To date they still claim that SHS "kills" 60,000 people a year yet can't name one - not one, from their (now millions) of 'victims'. This is primarily because their results are not those of proper scientific studies (I also exclude those paid for by, e.g., manufacturers of nicotine patches and gum), but are produced by statistics - which are easily manipulated to produce the desired results.

But to address your question - if the smoking room didn't leak, what exactly would be the impact on the people who work in the airport?

Scientific American , A science journal , that does proper scientific studies : Did an article called " Prevetable causes of death in the U.S/year: From memory.

Heart Disease ( lifestyle ) about 600 000/yr

Smokimg 500, 000/yr

Second hand smoke 100,000 * that would be for heavy exposures, bar workers and spouses of heavy smokers

alcohol and drugs - somewhere around 60,000/

gunshots 35, 000

Does anyone actually believe that second hand smoke represents 100 k deaths if smoking is 500 k?

This is why I have nothing to do with cigarrette smokers whatsoever I dont talk to or associate with them. Their ignorance and state of denial is unbelievable .Especially evident to someone with a science background. Someone asks for facts and I site a scientific study. But since those facts conflict with a smokers degraded mindset they try to disregard it. Do you still think the earth is flat ?.

[watcharacters]

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.

It sure didn't take the world ending the next day for me to buy three packs. Years ago I used to puff away that many and more on a daily basis.

I say let smokers have their room at the airport.

[bobl]

This is why I have nothing to do with cigarrette smokers whatsoever I dont talk to or associate with them.

Finally confirms what we all knew, an extremist anti-smoker.

[DLock]

This is why I have nothing to do with cigarrette smokers whatsoever I dont talk to or associate with them.

Finally confirms what we all knew, an extremist anti-smoker.

I am more extreme.

I have about 45 employees in Bangkok. During every interview, I casually ask if they smoke cigarettes. If the answer is yes, then that's pretty much the end of the interview.

I won't tolerate a smoker taking 5 or 6 breaks during the day of 10-15 minutes each, while the rest of the staff work. It's not fair and people notice. Not to mention the smell the smokers bring back into the office.

Is that extreme? Yes. Does it make my office more productive and smell free? Absolutely.

[Sing_Sling]

This is why I have nothing to do with cigarrette smokers whatsoever I dont talk to or associate with them.

Finally confirms what we all knew, an extremist anti-smoker.

How about you being an extreme smoker and you feel you have the right to tread on non-smokers' rights . . . sounds childish, doesn't it . . . re-read your post

Oh, and please refrain from using 'we' as you do NOT speak for me nor seemingly the majority of people here

[bobl]

I am more extreme.

I already knew that, also. There are three or four of you on this thread, claiming to represent non smokers when in fact you represent a very small group of extremists. I have, in the past, had over 200 employees. I must be very stupid, because I employed them on the merits of their skills and experience. Their personal lives were none of my business. That said I didn't allow smoking at work nor did I allow smoke breaks. See how that works? Respect their rights to conduct their personal lives as they see fit, while also satisfying my requirements of my employees. No need for fascist (and in many countries, illegally discriminatory) extremes.

Just a guess, but are you perhaps one of those employers who think it's okay to demand your employees Facebook password also.

How about you being an extreme smoker and you feel you have the right to tread on non-smokers' rights . . . sounds childish, doesn't it . . . re-read your post

Oh, and please refrain from using 'we' as you do NOT speak for me nor seemingly the majority of people here

I am a non smoker. I have absolutely no more issue with non smokers rights, than I do with smokers rights. I do have an issue with anti-smokers. Pretty hilarious that you launch into a diatribe because I used a "we", then claim to represent non smokers and "the majority of people here".

[OldSalty]

I am more extreme.

I have about 45 employees in Bangkok. During every interview, I
casually ask if they smoke cigarettes. If the answer is yes, then that's
pretty much the end of the interview.

I won't tolerate a smoker taking 5 or 6 breaks during the day of
10-15 minutes each, while the rest of the staff work. It's not fair and
people notice. Not to mention the smell the smokers bring back into the
office.

Is that extreme? Yes. Does it make my office more productive and smell free? Absolutely.

yuou are absolutelt full of BS and I would nor work in your company anyhow and than God I don't have to

[SteeleJoe]

yuou are absolutelt full of BS and I would nor work in your company anyhow and than God I don't have to

Well, I guess you told him!

[Sing_Sling]

I am more extreme.

I already knew that, also. There are three or four of you on this thread, claiming to represent non smokers when in fact you represent a very small group of extremists. I have, in the past, had over 200 employees. I must be very stupid, because I employed them on the merits of their skills and experience. Their personal lives were none of my business. That said I didn't allow smoking at work nor did I allow smoke breaks. See how that works? Respect their rights to conduct their personal lives as they see fit, while also satisfying my requirements of my employees. No need for fascist (and in many countries, illegally discriminatory) extremes.

Just a guess, but are you perhaps one of those employers who think it's okay to demand your employees Facebook password also.

>

How about you being an extreme smoker and you feel you have the right to tread on non-smokers' rights . . . sounds childish, doesn't it . . . re-read your post

Oh, and please refrain from using 'we' as you do NOT speak for me nor seemingly the majority of people here

I am a non smoker. I have absolutely no more issue with non smokers rights, than I do with smokers rights. I do have an issue with anti-smokers. Pretty hilarious that you launch into a diatribe because I used a "we", then claim to represent non smokers and "the majority of people here".

My statement is valid as my observation is based on the on the majority of posters' opinion - what do you base yours on . . . and I call bs on your claim to have employed x-hundred people and not allowed smoking during working hours . . . how many did you have to sack for breaking the rules?

Hang on . . . I once employed 50.000 people and all gave up smoking because I said so . . .

[Thai at Heart]

Well I am sitting in the restaurant in an up country airport. And it honks of feet and stir fry.

Lovely

[bobl]

My statement is valid as my observation is based on the on the majority of posters' opinion - what do you base yours on . . . and I call bs on your claim to have employed x-hundred people and not allowed smoking during working hours . . . how many did you have to sack for breaking the rules?

Hang on . . . I once employed 50.000 people and all gave up smoking because I said so . . .

I based mine on the fact that there are only a handful (about 4) of anti smokers posting opinions, alongside smokers and non smokers alike.

Please do not put words into my mouth. I did not say I didn't allow smoking during working hours. Read again and try to comprehend, I know it's difficult when you're blinded by hatred but do try.

I said I didn't allow smoking at work and I didn't allow smoke breaks. They were free to smoke during their morning and afternoon coffee breaks, and their lunch break, in designated areas. Were there a few who might've taken the occasional 'toilet break' to sneak off and have a fag? Probably. To the extent they were abusing it? Not to my knowledge.

[OldSalty]

My statement is valid as my observation is based on the on the
majority of posters' opinion - what do you base yours on . . . and I
call bs on your claim to have employed x-hundred people and not allowed
smoking during working hours . . . how many did you have to sack for
breaking the rules?

Hang on . . . I once employed 50.000 people and all gave up smoking because I said so . . .

blah, blah, blah and you worked for united carbine in bohpal, thank you not with me and I like people sittting up north and having lunch

[itchybum]

yuou are absolutelt full of BS and I would nor work in your company anyhow and than God I don't have to

Well, I guess you told him!

Thats a shame, I am sure they were looking for someone with your unique skills.

[OldSalty]

Another one who does not know about Bhopal, get back into your cave!!!!

[Sing_Sling]

blah, blah, blah and you worked for united carbine in bohpal, thank you not with me and I like people sittting up north and having lunch

Rather sweet, really . . .

yuou are absolutelt full of BS and I would nor work in your company anyhow and than God I don't have to

Well, I guess you told him!

Thats a shame, I am sure they were looking for someone with your unique skills.

Aw, bless . . . forgive him for he does not know of what he speaks - old salty, eh!