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

[FDog]

People who have privately owned petrol vehicles really have no right to tell other people not to belch out smoke. Surely that is a statement we can all agree upon, or there is very little point debating at all.

That aside.

Both main anti smokers in this debate seem oblivious to the fact that there is already a comprehensive ban in place against smoking in public. If that is not being enforced in and around Bangkok you are 100% right to complain and nearly everyone on this board would agree. If this is not a good enough arrangement then one must conclude you want smoking banned full stop. Again that is a valid opinion but why don't you state so.

The smoker's at the airport are provided with a designated room away from the main areas of the airport. They are entitled to smoke there as guests.

If the room has inadequate ventilation is that really the hapless smoker's fault and surely it would have been cheaper and easier to undertake such a repair than do some silly study.

For the last time, cars and transport are a necessary part of society, cigarettes are not. Why is that so hard to understand? Cigarettes are simply a person's bad habit which affect others. There is a big difference. There are only so many ways a person can say it. So, there is no agreeing upon your statement. Just the fact that you would say that indicates your lack of understanding. It's like you guys aren't understanding the uniqueness of cigarettes in the slightest. Cigarettes are harmful, they kill, AND they are not necessary in society. Please get that through your head before arguing further.

We have already been through this, but why should smokers be entitles to a room in the airport? Why should they be catered to? I am all ears. If they want to pay an entry fee to go into an effectively ventilated room, I am all for it. That would mean THEY are taking the responsibility for their bad habit. Why in the world should they not have to do that? But I will tell you what would happen if you forced them to pay for their smoking rooms, they would scream bloody murder. It is ludicrous. They feel entitled to these rooms for their habit they started by choice, and they want others to pay for them. It is the height of irresponsibility and arrogance in my opinion. For those of you who would be happy to front the money for your own smoking rooms, I have no problem with that. I would also have no problem personally with them banning smoking from the terminal altogether as the op states. Smokers should have to take care of their own problem in their own space away from others. And, if that is already the case, so be it. I am happy with that, but the op seems to indicate otherwise.

One lives in hope that it is indeed the last time.

Smokers are actually people and the airport is content to cater to them. If you have an issue then bring it up with them, not the smokers who are doing what they have been asked to do.

[mommysboy]

"For the last time, cars and transport are a necessary part of society".

This does seem to be something of a major point of disagreement and I guess there is no right or wrong and I really don't understand too why you are so closed on the issue.

There are parallels you know, one inescapable comparison is that one set of people is doing something injurious to another for the sake of their own convenience, by exuding dangerous fumes. You argue necessity, I say it is still hurting me quite badly and I object to that. And I can understand why you feel the same about smoking and you have been adequately catered for.

Public transport is essential yes, taxi drivers yes, goods vehicles sure, and maybe tens of thousands of workers, but personal car users and most commuters; come off it. They really cause me pain you know, truly, I suppose you could argue I need not be in Bangkok, but equally tens of thousands of car users need not be on the road particularly in Bangkok of all places, why should they have a right to poison me so they can get ever fatter and even more of a burden on society?.

The article is surely about a health official calling for a ban and nothing else can be inferred as far as I can deduce. Clearly the airport sees fit to allow a smoking room and it just needs upgrading not banning. As to who pays is another matter, perhaps smokers could be charged 20 baht each or whatever. But then again aren't they paying airport taxes anyway? I'm not sure how this works.

Hopefully as technology advances, smokers will be able to vape away on egigs without fear of offending someone, I've tried one they are indisputably safe for others as they don't create fumes and there might be no need excuse for anyone to light up a so called analogue cig at all.

And fingers crossed, safer fuel will become available for cars, believe me that is really needed above all else.

Oh, maybe moving to Pattaya or similar is the best option for me I hope I can galvanise myself in to action and arrange work details to suit, still a bit tough on me i'm sure you'll agree. And there a million, maybe many millions, like me too.

[FDog]

"For the last time, cars and transport are a necessary part of society".

This does seem to be something of a major point of disagreement and I guess there is no right or wrong and I really don't understand too why you are so closed on the issue.

There are parallels you know, one inescapable comparison is that one set of people is doing something injurious to another for the sake of their own convenience, by exuding dangerous fumes. You argue necessity, I say it is still hurting me quite badly and I object to that. And I can understand why you feel the same about smoking and you have been adequately catered for.

Public transport is essential yes, taxi drivers yes, goods vehicles sure, and maybe tens of thousands of workers, but personal car users and most commuters; come off it. They really cause me pain you know, truly, I suppose you could argue I need not be in Bangkok, but equally tens of thousands of car users need not be on the road particularly in Bangkok of all places, why should they have a right to poison me so they can get ever fatter and even more of a burden on society?.

The article is surely about a health official calling for a ban and nothing else can be inferred as far as I can deduce. Clearly the airport sees fit to allow a smoking room and it just needs upgrading not banning. As to who pays is another matter, perhaps smokers could be charged 20 baht each or whatever. But then again aren't they paying airport taxes anyway? I'm not sure how this works.

Hopefully as technology advances, smokers will be able to vape away on egigs without fear of offending someone, I've tried one they are indisputably safe for others as they don't create fumes and there might be no need excuse for anyone to light up a so called analogue cig at all.

And fingers crossed, safer fuel will become available for cars, believe me that is really needed above all else.

Oh, maybe moving to Pattaya or similar is the best option for me I hope I can galvanise myself in to action and arrange work details to suit, still a bit tough on me i'm sure you'll agree. And there a million, maybe many millions, like me too.

The smoke is hurting you quite badly?

Just how often does he use the airport?

Edited May 19, 2013 by FDog

[khh]

Public transport is essential yes, taxi drivers yes, goods vehicles sure, and maybe tens of thousands of workers, but personal car users and most commuters; come off it. They really cause me pain you know, truly, I suppose you could argue I need not be in Bangkok, but equally tens of thousands of car users need not be on the road particularly in Bangkok of all places, why should they have a right to poison me so they can get ever fatter and even more of a burden on society?.

And fingers crossed, safer fuel will become available for cars, believe me that is really needed above all else.

taxis cause more pollution than personal cars whenever the driver is just looking for a passenger and not really going anywhere.

we all want cleaner fuel but upgrades will take a long time and meanwhile traffic keeps getting worse, so increasing public transit (other than taxis) is necessary.

even if ecigs are safe i'm sure many smokers will say they prefer "real" cigs (and how do the prices compare?) so the issue will still exist for a long time.

Edited May 19, 2013 by khh

[chooka]

I think all the burning around the country is far more harmful than a 1 second walk past a door at an airport. Might be a real issue if you were living outside the smoking room.

[Mighty Mouse]

Mightymouse. What is your opinion about environmental pollution, you know the small unimportant stuff like traffic pollution, road carnage, global warming.

Presumably you have equal disgust for these things or something would seem a bit awry.

I speak as a non smoker. Just interested.

We're getting off the topic here, but as you asked for my opinion, I'll state it.

Traffic pollution:

I doubt that anybody could successfully argue that emissions from automobiles are not the greatest air polluter. In my opinion, they are, and every day there are more and more automobiles crowding our freeways.

Petrol emissions are a proven health hazard, but in recent years governments did outlaw leaded petrol, which has helped somewhat.

Diesel emissions are worse.

Car occupants can always wind up their windows if they want, Pedestrians can wear gas masks if they want.

Electric cars could be the answer.

Bring back the horse and buggy and promote bicycle riding as an alternative.

Global Warming:

I think that global warming is a load of crap. I don't need to add anything further.

Steering this post back towards the subject topic, world governments continue to introduce laws to limit the harms of these air pollutants. Similar to anti-smoking laws.

Local governments promote the use of public transport to travel to and from places of employment. - Leave your car at home.

Local governments are slowly introducing restrictions to keep private cars out of business/commercial areas, thus reducing air pollutants and improving air quality for workers. Again, similar to smoking laws.

I am not disgusted at these pollutants, as you have suggested, I accept that we don't live in perfect world, but I would be disgusted at the various governments and authorities if they all sat on their hands and did nothing to try improve the situation.

Progress might be slow in some areas but there are definite signs that overall health of the population is on the improve, with a marked increase in life expectancy, largely as a result of such on-going progress.

Now, to come back right on topic, the NO SMOKING laws have been introduced to benefit everybody, smokers included. Whilst these laws may inconvenience some smokers somewhat, in that they now have limited areas in which they can legally smoke, you would have to be totally ignorant not to see that the benefits far exceed any minor inconvenience.

By recognizing that governments are progressively introducing bans, restrictions, laws etc. aimed at improving the quality of life for all humans, you must also recognize that pointing to other known health hazards as a means of nullifying the harm caused by tobacco smoking, is a ludicrous argument.

[utalkin2me]

The fact that you can't drive a car into the airport terminal pretty much eliminates any sort of argument car exhaust cold possibly bring forth here though. It is ironic the more you think about it, the more people that bring up cars and bbq, the more they seem to not realize these are things done outside - which is where I'd like the smokers to go. In essence, I truly believe they are arguing against themselves by bringing these issues up.

Edited May 20, 2013 by utalkin2me

[FDog]

The fact that you can't drive a car into the airport terminal pretty much eliminates any sort of argument car exhaust cold possibly bring forth here though. It is ironic the more you think about it, the more people that bring up cars and bbq, the more they seem to not realize these are things done outside - which is where I'd like the smokers to go. In essence, I truly believe they are arguing against themselves by bringing these issues up.

If smokers were all outside I'm sure you'd still have something to whine about.

The smokers are doing what is being asked of them in the airport. But you see a problem with that, take it up with the airport, not the smokers.

Edited May 20, 2013 by FDog

[utalkin2me]

The fact that you can't drive a car into the airport terminal pretty much eliminates any sort of argument car exhaust cold possibly bring forth here though. It is ironic the more you think about it, the more people that bring up cars and bbq, the more they seem to not realize these are things done outside - which is where I'd like the smokers to go. In essence, I truly believe they are arguing against themselves by bringing these issues up.

If smokers were all outside I'm sure you'd still have something to whine about.

The smokers are doing what is being asked of them in the airport. But you see a problem with that, take it up with the airport, not the smokers.

ok. The article seems to indicate they are already thinking that way. Who knows. Ideal for me would be smokers get their room, it is very nice and they have to pay for it. I also like the proposed rooftop smoking idea. I think people should have to take responsibility for their own habits. Novel thought I know. Anyway, when is happens, then we'll see who is whining. Only difference is, for them the squeaky wheel aint EVER going to get any oil.

Edited May 20, 2013 by utalkin2me

[utalkin2me]

"For the last time, cars and transport are a necessary part of society".

This does seem to be something of a major point of disagreement and I guess there is no right or wrong and I really don't understand too why you are so closed on the issue.

There are parallels you know, one inescapable comparison is that one set of people is doing something injurious to another for the sake of their own convenience, by exuding dangerous fumes. You argue necessity, I say it is still hurting me quite badly and I object to that. And I can understand why you feel the same about smoking and you have been adequately catered for.

Public transport is essential yes, taxi drivers yes, goods vehicles sure, and maybe tens of thousands of workers, but personal car users and most commuters; come off it. They really cause me pain you know, truly, I suppose you could argue I need not be in Bangkok, but equally tens of thousands of car users need not be on the road particularly in Bangkok of all places, why should they have a right to poison me so they can get ever fatter and even more of a burden on society?.

The article is surely about a health official calling for a ban and nothing else can be inferred as far as I can deduce. Clearly the airport sees fit to allow a smoking room and it just needs upgrading not banning. As to who pays is another matter, perhaps smokers could be charged 20 baht each or whatever. But then again aren't they paying airport taxes anyway? I'm not sure how this works.

Hopefully as technology advances, smokers will be able to vape away on egigs without fear of offending someone, I've tried one they are indisputably safe for others as they don't create fumes and there might be no need excuse for anyone to light up a so called analogue cig at all.

And fingers crossed, safer fuel will become available for cars, believe me that is really needed above all else.

Oh, maybe moving to Pattaya or similar is the best option for me I hope I can galvanise myself in to action and arrange work details to suit, still a bit tough on me i'm sure you'll agree. And there a million, maybe many millions, like me too.

That was well stated, I still think you have to get past the fact that cars are not allowed in the terminals though. So how is it relevant here? There really is no parallel here; the big issue is enclosed spaces. Also, you said I could argue you needn't live in BKK, that isn't at all what I'd say. I'd argue along the lines of if you live here, you need transport. Where did the hot dog you just bought come from, or the bottled water? Transport is an essential part of society.

On the other hand, cigs are uniquely non-essential. They are also deleterious, and they must be either filtered well via a smoking room, or banned from the airport altogether. In essence, I think most of us actually agree..... build a nice smoking room, I think they should charge entry, and all will be happy. The great part for me is that I feel it would discourage people from smoking (depending on the fee), which I think is great. I still feel putting the room on the roof is brilliant. Maybe not possible at swampy though.

Edited May 20, 2013 by utalkin2me

[mommysboy]

Some great postings lately particularly from mightymouse.

I suppose my argument is simply what goes for one should also go for another.

There are a number of activities which by common consent are unacceptable and often injurious to others, smoking is an obvious one because it is so visible, and my pet hate car pollution. But we might also call in to question noise pollution, or alcohol abuse. And for that matter even obesity has wider societal implications.

What upsets people most is unfair discrimination.

If we impose a harsh set of restrictions on one group then it is only right and fair that the same should apply to other cohorts.

It is an impossibility of course so perhaps the answer is compromise. In my opinion smokers have done that already. We should really thank them for their compliance and accord them full protection of their rights.

It is unfair to criticise smokers in a smoking room, or to harangue someone puffing away in his own garden.

Has that flaming carpenter turned up yet and did he bring any sealant with him?

[mommysboy]

"For the last time, cars and transport are a necessary part of society".

This does seem to be something of a major point of disagreement and I guess there is no right or wrong and I really don't understand too why you are so closed on the issue.

There are parallels you know, one inescapable comparison is that one set of people is doing something injurious to another for the sake of their own convenience, by exuding dangerous fumes. You argue necessity, I say it is still hurting me quite badly and I object to that. And I can understand why you feel the same about smoking and you have been adequately catered for.

Public transport is essential yes, taxi drivers yes, goods vehicles sure, and maybe tens of thousands of workers, but personal car users and most commuters; come off it. They really cause me pain you know, truly, I suppose you could argue I need not be in Bangkok, but equally tens of thousands of car users need not be on the road particularly in Bangkok of all places, why should they have a right to poison me so they can get ever fatter and even more of a burden on society?.

The article is surely about a health official calling for a ban and nothing else can be inferred as far as I can deduce. Clearly the airport sees fit to allow a smoking room and it just needs upgrading not banning. As to who pays is another matter, perhaps smokers could be charged 20 baht each or whatever. But then again aren't they paying airport taxes anyway? I'm not sure how this works.

Hopefully as technology advances, smokers will be able to vape away on egigs without fear of offending someone, I've tried one they are indisputably safe for others as they don't create fumes and there might be no need excuse for anyone to light up a so called analogue cig at all.

And fingers crossed, safer fuel will become available for cars, believe me that is really needed above all else.

Oh, maybe moving to Pattaya or similar is the best option for me I hope I can galvanise myself in to action and arrange work details to suit, still a bit tough on me i'm sure you'll agree. And there a million, maybe many millions, like me too.

That was well stated, I still think you have to get past the fact that cars are not allowed in the terminals though. So how is it relevant here? There really is no parallel here; the big issue is enclosed spaces. Also, you said I could argue you needn't live in BKK, that isn't at all what I'd say. I'd argue along the lines of if you live here, you need transport. Where did the hot dog you just bought come from, or the bottled water? Transport is an essential part of society.

On the other hand, cigs are uniquely non-essential. They are also deleterious, and they must be either filtered well via a smoking room, or banned from the airport altogether. In essence, I think most of us actually agree..... build a nice smoking room, I think they should charge entry, and all will be happy. The great part for me is that I feel it would discourage people from smoking (depending on the fee), which I think is great. I still feel putting the room on the roof is brilliant. Maybe not possible at swampy though.

UK introduced smoking huts and shelters at pubs and bars, somewhat like your idea of a smokers rooftop retreat. Sadly, I think there would be health and security issues, but otherwise a somewhat appropriate place for an airport, up, up and way! I like it.

On even further reflection upon already revised reflection, it is traffic in big cities which is the major issue really and I wouldn't want a complete ban anywhere and do not perceive a threat in smaller towns or the world at large really. In and around the airport it is a non issue, and of course some traffic flow is essential, as it is in inner cities.

I must admit I drove for many, many years and of course have been in the passenger seat just this year perhaps a dozen times, so there is complexity involved here, whereas smoking as you point out is an altogether more cut and dried (and smoked)affair.

It's coming back for me to the argument of reasonableness and moderation, eg, there is still quite a traffic flow in Pattaya Town but for some reason I am pretty much unaffected as indeed I am in the UK, whereas in Bangkok it's awful in the main and I'd contend it has a great effect on the inhabitants health one way or another. But I feel somewhat like the beleagured King Canute, it aint going to change is it?

Where I differ from most is that I do find smokers interesting people as a whole and like having them around. I suppose deep at heart I am still a smoker and the only difference is I haven't put a cigarette in my mouth for 5 or more years. I have struggled of late and actually documented my own plight on the health board. But I know now I will never go back to ordinary cigarettes.

I was brought up in a smoking household and right from an early age liked being around my Dad when he smoked and it is no surprise I took to the habit early on. It is an enjoyable pastime for some and indeed the only 'sin' many have left as we move in to middle age. In the end we've all given up although happily none of us ever suffered a serious health issue from it. So you'll appreciate it is not always easy to relate to smoking as all that dangerous or unpleasant.

I can't bellieve I ever had the ignorance to smoke around non smokers in a room, nevertheless that's what we did. it seems absolutely incredulous now, but it was just the norm. I'm glad the law changed.

[utalkin2me]

"For the last time, cars and transport are a necessary part of society".

This does seem to be something of a major point of disagreement and I guess there is no right or wrong and I really don't understand too why you are so closed on the issue.

There are parallels you know, one inescapable comparison is that one set of people is doing something injurious to another for the sake of their own convenience, by exuding dangerous fumes. You argue necessity, I say it is still hurting me quite badly and I object to that. And I can understand why you feel the same about smoking and you have been adequately catered for.

Public transport is essential yes, taxi drivers yes, goods vehicles sure, and maybe tens of thousands of workers, but personal car users and most commuters; come off it. They really cause me pain you know, truly, I suppose you could argue I need not be in Bangkok, but equally tens of thousands of car users need not be on the road particularly in Bangkok of all places, why should they have a right to poison me so they can get ever fatter and even more of a burden on society?.

The article is surely about a health official calling for a ban and nothing else can be inferred as far as I can deduce. Clearly the airport sees fit to allow a smoking room and it just needs upgrading not banning. As to who pays is another matter, perhaps smokers could be charged 20 baht each or whatever. But then again aren't they paying airport taxes anyway? I'm not sure how this works.

Hopefully as technology advances, smokers will be able to vape away on egigs without fear of offending someone, I've tried one they are indisputably safe for others as they don't create fumes and there might be no need excuse for anyone to light up a so called analogue cig at all.

And fingers crossed, safer fuel will become available for cars, believe me that is really needed above all else.

Oh, maybe moving to Pattaya or similar is the best option for me I hope I can galvanise myself in to action and arrange work details to suit, still a bit tough on me i'm sure you'll agree. And there a million, maybe many millions, like me too.

That was well stated, I still think you have to get past the fact that cars are not allowed in the terminals though. So how is it relevant here? There really is no parallel here; the big issue is enclosed spaces. Also, you said I could argue you needn't live in BKK, that isn't at all what I'd say. I'd argue along the lines of if you live here, you need transport. Where did the hot dog you just bought come from, or the bottled water? Transport is an essential part of society.

On the other hand, cigs are uniquely non-essential. They are also deleterious, and they must be either filtered well via a smoking room, or banned from the airport altogether. In essence, I think most of us actually agree..... build a nice smoking room, I think they should charge entry, and all will be happy. The great part for me is that I feel it would discourage people from smoking (depending on the fee), which I think is great. I still feel putting the room on the roof is brilliant. Maybe not possible at swampy though.

UK introduced smoking huts and shelters at pubs and bars, somewhat like your idea of a smokers rooftop retreat. Sadly, I think there would be health and security issues, but otherwise a somewhat appropriate place for an airport, up, up and way! I like it.

On even further reflection upon already revised reflection, it is traffic in big cities which is the major issue really and I wouldn't want a complete ban anywhere and do not perceive a threat in smaller towns or the world at large really. In and around the airport it is a non issue, and of course some traffic flow is essential, as it is in inner cities.

I must admit I drove for many, many years and of course have been in the passenger seat just this year perhaps a dozen times, so there is complexity involved here, whereas smoking as you point out is an altogether more cut and dried (and smoked)affair.

It's coming back for me to the argument of reasonableness and moderation, eg, there is still quite a traffic flow in Pattaya Town but for some reason I am pretty much unaffected as indeed I am in the UK, whereas in Bangkok it's awful in the main and I'd contend it has a great effect on the inhabitants health one way or another. But I feel somewhat like the beleagured King Canute, it aint going to change is it?

Where I differ from most is that I do find smokers interesting people as a whole and like having them around. I suppose deep at heart I am still a smoker and the only difference is I haven't put a cigarette in my mouth for 5 or more years. I have struggled of late and actually documented my own plight on the health board. But I know now I will never go back to ordinary cigarettes.

I was brought up in a smoking household and right from an early age liked being around my Dad when he smoked and it is no surprise I took to the habit early on. It is an enjoyable pastime for some and indeed the only 'sin' many have left as we move in to middle age. In the end we've all given up although happily none of us ever suffered a serious health issue from it. So you'll appreciate it is not always easy to relate to smoking as all that dangerous or unpleasant.

I can't bellieve I ever had the ignorance to smoke around non smokers in a room, nevertheless that's what we did. it seems absolutely incredulous now, but it was just the norm. I'm glad the law changed.

Another nice post.

One stark memory I have, and this is more just baggage than a point. I remember going to a baseball game with my dad in the 80's. The lady in front of us was smoking. My dad was never that crazy about it, so he asked her to stop. She did to her credit, and then later on she lit one up again. Man that one instance stuck with me. It really was a bummer.

As this discussion winds down, I'll stipulate (of course) that there are MANY very considerate smokers out there. The thing is, we only notice the arrogant a-holes, right? Smokers are in a very awkward position of necessarily always getting a really bad rap because of this. It is so cliche, but those few smokers really can (and perhaps have) ruined it for everybody.

The last note I have is one of permanence and fairness. I wonder sometimes too; difficult choices. There was once this area about 100 meters squared near the house where I grew up. There were houses all around it, but they never built there because some indian artifacts had been found there. The developers were held off for years because of this fact.... time and time again they were denied access to this plot. I always rooted against the developers; I was lucky to have lived in a pretty cool little town. Anyway, one year I guess the time had come, and a big complex of houses went up there It kinda stuck with me, because as obvious as this may sound, the people trying to save the land "won" with their board votes or whatever about a dozen times. The developers won only once, yet it was theirs forever. Imagine winning 12 out of 13 games of anything and being the loser forever! We really do have to weigh that in, the permanence of these decisions. Anyway, those were just some thoughts to taper off with. Hope to see the nice smoking rooms at Swampy

Edited May 21, 2013 by utalkin2me

[itchybum]

It seems that many of those posters arguing in favour of smoking around other people, honestly believe that second hand smoke is harmless.

This belief flies in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary.

It also seems that many of those posters arguing in favour of smoking around other people, honestly believe that the little non-smoking man in the street is responsible for the introduction of NO SMOKING laws.

This belief also flies in the face of the facts. Smoking bans can be traced back to the 1500's. Modern day smoking bans were introduced by various governments because of mounting scientific and medical evidence showing that smoking was bad for the health of those coming into contact with tobacco smoke.

Any government that didn't act upon such solid evidence shouldn't be in office.

Medical evidence highlights the fact that following the introduction of smoking bans in various establishments, the general health of the workers performing duties in such establishments, improved significantly. This evidence cannot be refuted.

This thread is about providing a ventilated smoking room at Swampy. There is strong evidence that the extracted fumes still contain most of the contaminants of the second hand smoke. Whilst the smoking room might be situated in a remote area of the airport, the extracted fumes are pumped out into the atmosphere where they can directly affect airport workers. Therefore, the health hazards still exist.

Rather than continually, and childishly, throw the Nanny State excuse, the zealots and whinger accusations at non-smokers, why not face the facts that smoking is socially unacceptable, unhealthy and will be totally banned everywhere over the world in the not-too-distant-future.

By smoking in places that you are not legally entitled to smoke is reason enough for the backlash that now confronts you.

Making excuses and listing other contaminates as a means of justifying your smoking habits, shows just how immature you are.

If you want to continue smoking, that's fine by me, but find yourself an area, outdoors and well away from others, where you can smoke legally. Your smoking buddies will soon die off and before you know it, you'll have that little area all to yourself.

The moon would be a nice place for them to go.

But then they would litter the place all up.

[hyperdimension]

Can anyone answer the question of why you would rather breathe in the ash from burning the tobacco than only the vapor from vaporizing it? Wouldn't breathing in the vapor be a more pleasant experience? It certainly would be for any non-smokers who happen to be nearby.