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

[Sing_Sling]

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

Bhopal? One can see the effects of the tragedy . . . poor salty.

[TackyToo]

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?

So you mean there are good (acceptible) reasons for pollution and the rest is just doing it for pleasure ( inacceptible)? That makes sense.

[DLock]

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

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

Let me help you.

"You are absolutely full of BS and I would never work in your company anyhow and thank God I don't have to".

4 words of 22 were incorrectly spelt or made no sense = 18%. That's quite an effort.

So, you are correct that you would never work in my company.

Learn how to use the Quote function also.

[itchybum]

Let me help you.

"You are absolutely full of BS and I would never work in your company anyhow and thank God I don't have to".

4 words of 22 were incorrectly spelt or made no sense = 18%. That's quite an effort.

So, you are correct that you would never work in my company.

Learn how to use the Quote function also.

Ya cannae expect him to see the keys proper like through all that smoke.

[FDog]

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.

Extremism both for and against is very ugly. It makes people comment with rage and prejudice instead of facts.

Please read the thread before blindly commenting in error.

I do not compare myself to people in wheelchairs because I do NOT smoke.

If you read the thread you would know this.

Edited May 13, 2013 by FDog

[utalkin2me]

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".

What is your current point? That there are a few people who are upset with having to put up with decades of cigarette smoke in their faces by inconsiderate smokers. That is a point?

Your arguments have deteriorated from car exhaust (countered in post 190 and others), to BBQ smoke (which is almost laughable). I noticed you wisely didn't attempt to defend those arguments. Saying nothing does say a lot.

Now you have lowered yourself to the smoking zealot "argument".... where "the few are trying to ruin it for all". Dude, you need to get a clue first, then get an argument.

What is your argument at this point? Preferably one that hasn't been effectively countered already. The bbq smoke one just aint working.

Edited May 13, 2013 by utalkin2me

[watcharacters]

I wonder how many who have so many times said they moved to Thailand for the freedom, and to escape a nanny state, are now all for this nanny state rule?

WEll put. I've little doubt your comment applies to many.

Every smoker is aware of the issues regarding smoking. I know when I stopped 6 or more years ago I swore to myself I'd never even come close the the holier than thou former smokers or non smokers.

Hell, charge an admission price for well ventilated rooms at the airport fur christ sake if that's what it takes.

[utalkin2me]

Hell, charge an admission price for well ventilated rooms at the airport fur christ sake if that's what it takes.

[Thai at Heart]

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".

What is your current point? That there are a few people who are upset with having to put up with decades of cigarette smoke in their faces by inconsiderate smokers. That is a point?

Your arguments have deteriorated from car exhaust (countered in post 190 and others), to BBQ smoke (which is almost laughable). I noticed you wisely didn't attempt to defend those arguments. Saying nothing does say a lot.

Now you have lowered yourself to the smoking zealot "argument".... where "the few are trying to ruin it for all". Dude, you need to get a clue first, then get an argument.

What is your argument at this point? Preferably one that hasn't been effectively countered already. The bbq smoke one just aint working.

Actually, defending second hand smoke is pointless, but the issue with barbecues is absolutely true.

[utalkin2me]

Actually, defending second hand smoke is pointless, but the issue with barbecues is absolutely true.

That "argument" has been effectively countered back a page or two, at least to the point where the poster didn't want to defend it. You are more than welcome to take up its defense if you want

[OldSalty]

Hell, charge an admission price for well ventilated rooms at the airport fur christ sake if that's what it takes.

That is a good comment from the anti smoking lobby but others will see the spelling mistake, because they are perfect.

[fasteddie]

I wonder how many who have so many times said they moved to Thailand for the freedom, and to escape a nanny state, are now all for this nanny state rule?

WEll put. I've little doubt your comment applies to many.

Every smoker is aware of the issues regarding smoking. I know when I stopped 6 or more years ago I swore to myself I'd never even come close the the holier than thou former smokers or non smokers.

Hell, charge an admission price for well ventilated rooms at the airport fur christ sake if that's what it takes.

"Hell, charge an admission price for well ventilated rooms at the airport fur christ sake if that's what it takes"

Excuse me! I've paid my admission fee in the form of all the taxes I've paid on my smoking paraphernalia over 48yrs of smoking.

The taxes paid by smokers and all those in smoking related industries can be used to build sealed ventilated smoking rooms, no problem"

[itchybum]

No, those fees and taxes can go to pay for the sick and dying you have caused over 48 years of blissful ignorance.

[chooka]

If they ban these rooms will the "National Pride of Thailand" being Suvarnbhumi Airport then slip further down the scale? It has now slipped from 24 to 35, whilst places like Changi with rooms have risen.

[bobl]

Actually, defending second hand smoke is pointless, but the issue with barbecues is absolutely true.

That "argument" has been effectively countered back a page or two, at least to the point where the poster didn't want to defend it. You are more than welcome to take up its defense if you want

Oh, the 4th musketeer's back...

"argument"?? "Effectively countered"??? Where do you think you are, the presidential debates?

You seem to be referring to me so if, when you say argument, you're referring to my mentioning BBQ smoke - well perhaps you should go read the post again. I just had a quick scroll back and see you're on about vehicle exhaust also.

First - I have never mentioned vehicle exhaust. Why you are saying I did and claiming "victory" in some counterpoint, I don't know.

Second - On the issue of BBQ smoke I was not the first person to bring it up. Someone else did and I found it interesting, so I went and spent half an hour looking it up - you know, like any open minded, reasonable person would do. Anyway, the figures I came across and quoted simply said that x amount of toxins are released per y amount of charcoal and that it was the equivalent of z amount of cigarette smoke. I couldn't find any 'debunking' of these figures. I still find them interesting. And the rebuttal you 'effectively countered' with was, if I may paraphrase, "Bah".

I will keep quiet now since you clearly have a need to "win" and somehow equate this to having the last word, so off you pop and start hammering out rebuttals, then give yourself a biscuit.

[hyperdimension]

How about installing vaporizers in the rooms, like the Arizer V-Tower? Less smoke would mean less pollution, and cleaner lungs for smokers.

[itchybum]

Vaporise the smokers, yeah cool idea.

I'll be up for that.

[Neilly]

Oh, the 4th musketeer's back...

"argument"?? "Effectively countered"??? Where do you think you are, the presidential debates?

I will keep quiet now since you clearly have a need to "win" and somehow equate this to having the last word, so off you pop and start hammering out rebuttals, then give yourself a biscuit.

I'd call it quits if I were you and leave the trolls zealots to play amongst themselves...it wouldn't matter how many facts you put up...they don't like it and will argue till they're blue in the face and slobbering that everyone should listen to them

[utalkin2me]

Actually, defending second hand smoke is pointless, but the issue with barbecues is absolutely true.

That "argument" has been effectively countered back a page or two, at least to the point where the poster didn't want to defend it. You are more than welcome to take up its defense if you want

Oh, the 4th musketeer's back...

"argument"?? "Effectively countered"??? Where do you think you are, the presidential debates?

You seem to be referring to me so if, when you say argument, you're referring to my mentioning BBQ smoke - well perhaps you should go read the post again. I just had a quick scroll back and see you're on about vehicle exhaust also.

First - I have never mentioned vehicle exhaust. Why you are saying I did and claiming "victory" in some counterpoint, I don't know.

Second - On the issue of BBQ smoke I was not the first person to bring it up. Someone else did and I found it interesting, so I went and spent half an hour looking it up - you know, like any open minded, reasonable person would do. Anyway, the figures I came across and quoted simply said that x amount of toxins are released per y amount of charcoal and that it was the equivalent of z amount of cigarette smoke. I couldn't find any 'debunking' of these figures. I still find them interesting. And the rebuttal you 'effectively countered' with was, if I may paraphrase, "Bah".

I will keep quiet now since you clearly have a need to "win" and somehow equate this to having the last word, so off you pop and start hammering out rebuttals, then give yourself a biscuit.

Right, you counter with bbq smoke in a thread about smoking rooms in an airport terminal. You don't find it stupid that your own "argument" (bbq's) does not happen in airport terminals? So, what on earth is your point? There isn't one, in fact, you seem to suggest you don't have one. Why are you here then? To use knee jerk phrases like "smoking nazis". What great points you have there. Bravo.

Talk all you want, there has not been one single argument here that hasn't been a poorly based analogous one.

Why don't I paste some of your "arguments" in so people can get an idea of how ridiculous you are:

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? Um, because they are businesses that make a profit, and smoking rooms aren't. Do you know what cater means? Do you know what "stupid argument" means?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. You don't seem to understand the entire discussion. Smoking affects others by way of them inhaling chemicals. When a person drinks, the person sitting 10 feet away doesn't drink also, right? You are confused I can see. You are talking about illegal behaviors (ie drunk driving, which IS illegal lol), but the thread is about the passing of chemicals from one person to another. If you don't get it by now, you probably never will. But, don't let that stop you from raring back and throwing out another falsely based analogous argument you haven't thought through.

Edited May 14, 2013 by utalkin2me

[hyperdimension]

Why can't smokers just switch to vaporizing their tobacco e.g. via e-cigarettes or vaporizers (e.g. portable ones like the Arizer Solo)? It would be so much cleaner for both the smokers and the people around them who may not want to breathe any of the smoke.

What is so wrong with using e-cigarettes instead of having to burn the tobacco and breathe in the smoke?

[FDog]

No, those fees and taxes can go to pay for the sick and dying you have caused over 48 years of blissful ignorance.

No, the smokers pay more than enough to cover that as well. Don't forget they also die of a young age so they also save the govt in pension payments.

Smokers more than cover any associated costs.

Funny how we never hear of any second hand smoke deaths from decades ago, must be a new phenomenon.

But then again, I have worked in civil suits where statistics where used as to the amount of deaths from smoking related diseases was an exhibit.

It was soon found that there were many 'anomalies' in those statistics ie: If you have a heart attack and are a smoker you are automatically put on that statistic as dying from a smoking related disease, even though your family may have a history of heart problems. If you had a stroke and were a smoker you were automatically put on that statistic even though other evidence indicated smoking was not the cause.

Quite simply, it was apparent that if you smoked and died you were on that statistic unless it was road crash victim or shark attack or something similar that just could not be hidden in those statistics.

And there are dummies out there that just take it all in as gospel.

I'm now so concerned about getting cancer that I just can't make myself go to the airport a couple of times a year and inadvertantly take a bit of smoke into my lungs after a pristine day in Bangkok.

I guess some just live life on the edge.

[bobl]

You are talking about illegal behaviors (ie drunk driving, which IS illegal lol),

I can tell from your tone and the need to now start posting in red, that your blood pressure's maybe a bit high. You should watch out for that, it could seriously damage your health. Wasn't it you (apologies if it wasn't, I really can't be bothered to go through the thread again) who brought up the argument that decades of pollutants being pumped into the atmosphere by various entities is okay because they're "businesses that make a profit" (alluded to again in your counter argument above that drunk driving is an acceptable risk because bars are businesses that make a profit)?

Anyway I will close with the simplest answer of all, to your rant, that even you can not be confused by. I'm glad you brought up the legal situation.

Smoking is legal. Have a nice day.

[hyperdimension]

Smoking is legal.

...only in some places, and hopefully fewer in the future. Have you tried e-cigarettes or vaporizers?

[utalkin2me]

You are talking about illegal behaviors (ie drunk driving, which IS illegal lol),

I can tell from your tone and the need to now start posting in red, that your blood pressure's maybe a bit high. You should watch out for that, it could seriously damage your health. Wasn't it you (apologies if it wasn't, I really can't be bothered to go through the thread again) who brought up the argument that decades of pollutants being pumped into the atmosphere by various entities is okay because they're "businesses that make a profit" (alluded to again in your counter argument above that drunk driving is an acceptable risk because bars are businesses that make a profit)?

Anyway I will close with the simplest answer of all, to your rant, that even you can not be confused by. I'm glad you brought up the legal situation.

Smoking is legal. Have a nice day.

More of the same, stating nothing and not backing up your bbq smoke and alcohol positions because you are unable.

I never said drunk driving was an acceptable risk. Why on earth would I say that? Drunk driving is ILLEGAL, as it should be, did you know that? Why do you bring it up as an analogy to smoking in the airport? Are you saying smoking in the airport should be illegal?? lol. Ok, you have finally got a point. You are a seriously dense one if you can't see that your alcohol argument is completely nonsensical in this context. It does not prove your point, it proves mine. Don't join the debate team, I'll tell you that much.

What is happening to you is that you are so confused that you can't tell the difference between the illegal activity of drunk driving, and the legal activity of smoking, so you use alcohol as an analogy even though it makes you look incompetent in the process. But you didn't realize that, so you pompously sounded off and said "smoking is legal" at the end there....... so, your argument is, "smoking is legal, but why isn't drunk driving illegal". Wow..... IT IS ILLEGAL!! Why on earth do you keep bringing it up as an analogy and therefore indicating smoking should be illegal?? lol

Do some soul searching or something and get back to me.

Edited May 15, 2013 by utalkin2me

[FDog]

You are talking about illegal behaviors (ie drunk driving, which IS illegal lol),

I can tell from your tone and the need to now start posting in red, that your blood pressure's maybe a bit high. You should watch out for that, it could seriously damage your health. Wasn't it you (apologies if it wasn't, I really can't be bothered to go through the thread again) who brought up the argument that decades of pollutants being pumped into the atmosphere by various entities is okay because they're "businesses that make a profit" (alluded to again in your counter argument above that drunk driving is an acceptable risk because bars are businesses that make a profit)?

Anyway I will close with the simplest answer of all, to your rant, that even you can not be confused by. I'm glad you brought up the legal situation.

Smoking is legal. Have a nice day.

More of the same, stating nothing and not backing up your bbq smoke and alcohol positions because you are unable. You don't even understand what we are talking about. I never said drunk driving was an acceptable risk. Why on earth would I say that? Drunk driving is ILLEGAL, did you know that? Why do you bring it up as an analogy to smoking in the airport? Are you saying smoking in the airport should be illegal?? lol. Ok, you have finally got a point. You are a seriously dense one if you can't see that your alcohol argument is completely nonsensical in this context. It does not prove your point, it proves mine. Don't join the debate team, I'll tell you that much.

Yes, seems your stress level is way too high, perhaps a smoke may calm you down.

[utalkin2me]

You are talking about illegal behaviors (ie drunk driving, which IS illegal lol),

I can tell from your tone and the need to now start posting in red, that your blood pressure's maybe a bit high. You should watch out for that, it could seriously damage your health. Wasn't it you (apologies if it wasn't, I really can't be bothered to go through the thread again) who brought up the argument that decades of pollutants being pumped into the atmosphere by various entities is okay because they're "businesses that make a profit" (alluded to again in your counter argument above that drunk driving is an acceptable risk because bars are businesses that make a profit)?

Anyway I will close with the simplest answer of all, to your rant, that even you can not be confused by. I'm glad you brought up the legal situation.

Smoking is legal. Have a nice day.

More of the same, stating nothing and not backing up your bbq smoke and alcohol positions because you are unable. You don't even understand what we are talking about. I never said drunk driving was an acceptable risk. Why on earth would I say that? Drunk driving is ILLEGAL, did you know that? Why do you bring it up as an analogy to smoking in the airport? Are you saying smoking in the airport should be illegal?? lol. Ok, you have finally got a point. You are a seriously dense one if you can't see that your alcohol argument is completely nonsensical in this context. It does not prove your point, it proves mine. Don't join the debate team, I'll tell you that much.

Yes, seems your stress level is way too high, perhaps a smoke may calm you down.

Right, you guys are so cool, calm and collected that you can't even bring up a single good point beyond bbq smoke, which is used to cook that little thing called food I guess if cigarettes could cook food, and thus have a reason for existing other than a selfish smoker, you may actually have something.

Honestly though, you really do have to love these rationalizations. The way I read people's statements on bbq is like this: "fires are legal, so smoking cigarettes inside a terminal should be legal too". Ummm, people kinda need fire for things - do we not know this?????? Not to mention the fact that you CAN'T set a fire in the places we are talking about. You can only have one outside. Another analogy proving only the opposite of what you want to prove; our discussion here is about the inside of a terminal. I don't know, it truly all mystifies.

Edited May 15, 2013 by utalkin2me

[rookball]

no biggie. the smoking room had lesser smoking particles than the outside of the changmai airport in certain months.

[DocN]

Some of the comments on here surely tell you, why we need a "nanny"-state, because some addults are obviously not able to live and let live.

[fasteddie]

No, those fees and taxes can go to pay for the sick and dying you have caused over 48 years of blissful ignorance.

No, the smokers pay more than enough to cover that as well. Don't forget they also die of a young age so they also save the govt in pension payments.

Smokers more than cover any associated costs.

Funny how we never hear of any second hand smoke deaths from decades ago, must be a new phenomenon.

But then again, I have worked in civil suits where statistics where used as to the amount of deaths from smoking related diseases was an exhibit.

It was soon found that there were many 'anomalies' in those statistics ie: If you have a heart attack and are a smoker you are automatically put on that statistic as dying from a smoking related disease, even though your family may have a history of heart problems. If you had a stroke and were a smoker you were automatically put on that statistic even though other evidence indicated smoking was not the cause.

Quite simply, it was apparent that if you smoked and died you were on that statistic unless it was road crash victim or shark attack or something similar that just could not be hidden in those statistics.

And there are dummies out there that just take it all in as gospel.

I'm now so concerned about getting cancer that I just can't make myself go to the airport a couple of times a year and inadvertantly take a bit of smoke into my lungs after a pristine day in Bangkok.

I guess some just live life on the edge.

"Funny how we never hear of any second hand smoke deaths from decades ago, must be a new phenomenon"

and we also don't hear about second hand smoke related deaths now, because there aren't any!.

[Sing_Sling]

No, those fees and taxes can go to pay for the sick and dying you have caused over 48 years of blissful ignorance.

No, the smokers pay more than enough to cover that as well. Don't forget they also die of a young age so they also save the govt in pension payments.

Smokers more than cover any associated costs.

Funny how we never hear of any second hand smoke deaths from decades ago, must be a new phenomenon.

But then again, I have worked in civil suits where statistics where used as to the amount of deaths from smoking related diseases was an exhibit.

It was soon found that there were many 'anomalies' in those statistics ie: If you have a heart attack and are a smoker you are automatically put on that statistic as dying from a smoking related disease, even though your family may have a history of heart problems. If you had a stroke and were a smoker you were automatically put on that statistic even though other evidence indicated smoking was not the cause.

Quite simply, it was apparent that if you smoked and died you were on that statistic unless it was road crash victim or shark attack or something similar that just could not be hidden in those statistics.

And there are dummies out there that just take it all in as gospel.

I'm now so concerned about getting cancer that I just can't make myself go to the airport a couple of times a year and inadvertantly take a bit of smoke into my lungs after a pristine day in Bangkok.

I guess some just live life on the edge.

"Funny how we never hear of any second hand smoke deaths from decades ago, must be a new phenomenon"

and we also don't hear about second hand smoke related deaths now, because there aren't any!.

Not as fast as your nic, eh?

Let google be your friend:

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

http://www.livescience.com/23562-secondhand-smoke-kills-nonsmokders.html

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/life-vie/shs-fs-eng.php

http://www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/secondhandsmoke.html

Ok, genius - I'm sure you'll make a sweeping comment of derision regarding these institutions . . . because you know better