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

[Mighty Mouse]

I am a smoker and I know that smoking is bad for my health as well as others who maybe around me. I try to find a quiet place alone without anyone else around when I choose to smoke.

You are a considerate smoker, rare among those who choose to puff away whenever, and wherever it suits them.

If all smokers were courteous enough to walk outdoors to enjoy a quiet smoke, away from others, there would be no need for authorities to introduce strict 'No Smoking' laws. But sadly, there are too many arrogant smokers who spoil it for those around them, thus forcing the authorities to introduce and to apply the regulations

Smokers are now a minority....a dying breed...literally.

Rather than come into this forum crying, demanding, begging for a fair go, why not show how big and tough you really are, and quit the habit. You'll then be able to smell the roses and actually taste how good Thai food really is.

I presume you at least take part in at least one of these..... Drive a car, a glass of wine ,a beer ,ladies of the night (which you pay for which is illegal).. Ride a motor bike ,fly in a plane ( Oh dear big fumes) .

The list could go on.... Now as of today give all these up and lets see how big and tough you are giving up your habits.

And if you say you do not take part in any of these activities then I hope your not close enough to me to catch my passive smoke, because that means i'm sitting in the company of a very boring person.

The bit you just do not seem to get is taking something away from someone and telling you, you Can Not have it.. is Wrong!! What next are we being told we can not have.

This time in does not affect you so it's great.... What ever your craving or habit may be... You can not have it! Be more open with your views and fair..

You are obviously one of the weak willed smokers who are totally in the grip of nicotine and don't have the inner strength to quit the habit.

It's only a tiny cigarette that fits into the palm of your hand. You can crush it, but the effects that come from smoking it have taken control of your body and mind to the extent that you now resort to attacking those who speak out against your filthy smoking habit.

Yes, I do drive a car, love flying in a 'plane, I like to sip wine, sink a few beers but I'm happily settled with my woman so no lady-of-the-night engagements for me.

It's pointless listing other air pollutants in an attempt to justify what smokers do to another person's clean breathing air. Those things that you mentioned, driving cars, flying 'planes, drinking alcohol, Thailand prostitution etc., are all covered by laws and/or regulations. All of which can be, and are enforced. It's exactly the same as the laws and/or regulations covering smoking.

I don't drive my car or motor bike into a restaurant and allow the vehicle exhaust to spoil the air quality. There is a law against it.

I don't drink alcohol in public areas other than in establishments where it is legal to do so.

I do my best to abide by the laws of the land....including Thailand.

Likewise, I don't object to smokers partaking in their habit in areas where they can legally smoke. If you read my post above correctly, you would have worked that out for yourself.

I do however, strongly object to smokers who impose their habit onto others and expect those others to tolerate their habit, in locations, establishments or areas where the law specifically states that smoking is not allowed.

If those areas or establishments where smoking is currently permitted are now being outlawed by the authorities, then smokers have a choice to either search harder for places where they can legally smoke, or they can quit the habit altogether. But don't expect all those people who don't enjoy your second hand smoke to turn a blind eye just because you aren't courteous enough to take your cravings elsewhere.

[itchybum]

How sad an individual would you have to be to sit there with an e-cigarette?

I mean seriously, do you know how stupid you look?

I think hair plugs and e-cigs go well together though.

[bobl]

How sad an individual would you have to be to sit there with an e-cigarette?

I mean seriously, do you know how stupid you look?

I think hair plugs and e-cigs go well together though.

How sad and arrogant an individual do you need to be, to be bothered by (and feel qualified to criticise) how someone else looks?

Or are you just the internet's least effective troll (I don't see your highly inflammatory comments producing much of the desired result).

[itchybum]

How sad an individual would you have to be to sit there with an e-cigarette?

I mean seriously, do you know how stupid you look?

I think hair plugs and e-cigs go well together though.

How sad and arrogant an individual do you need to be, to be bothered by (and feel qualified to criticise) how someone else looks?

Or are you just the internet's least effective troll (I don't see your highly inflammatory comments producing much of the desired result).

Apart from you right?

[FDog]

I feel very sorry that some people lead such a sad existence that they are so worried they may experience a molecule of smoke whilst in a terminal they will frequent but a couple of times a year.<br /><br />For that small an exposure I think they are just serial whiners with nothing better to do.

[bobl]

How sad an individual would you have to be to sit there with an e-cigarette?

I mean seriously, do you know how stupid you look?

I think hair plugs and e-cigs go well together though.

How sad and arrogant an individual do you need to be, to be bothered by (and feel qualified to criticise) how someone else looks?

Or are you just the internet's least effective troll (I don't see your highly inflammatory comments producing much of the desired result).

Apart from you right?

Again, wrong. I am neither infuriated nor enraged, in fact I couldn't be more calm. You need to go read trolling 101 again.

[SteeleJoe]

I feel very sorry that some people lead such a sad existence that they are so worried they may experience a molecule of smoke whilst in a terminal they will frequent but a couple of times a year.<br /><br />For that small an exposure I think they are just serial whiners with nothing better to do.

I can understand that.

I think even sadder is an existence where people are so addicted (to a substance that has nothing redeeming about it whatsoever but loads of significant downsides) that they get all outraged and start vehemently demanding their right to succumb to their addiction in public places, without limits, censure or opprobrium...

Ever seen smokers huddled around on the street in cold weather (or some other miserable smoking area), hating it but doing it anyway? That's sad.

[toybits]

They should make smoking rooms as uncomfortable as possible. Why give them preferential treatment when they ruin the day of the non-smoking majority?

[utalkin2me]

What is this argument about "let's ban cars too"...... so hackneyed. The sad thing is, you think you are actually making a good point when you regurgitate this swill.

People, we NEED cars. Are you seriously not able to see that? What would happen if all transportation was banned (answer in your head)? What would happen if all smoking was banned? Nothing would happen except the world would be a better place maybe. This isn't even taking into account that cigarette smoke is a carcinogen, and the leading cause of preventable death.

A lot of things on earth cause cancer people. Fires included. "Let's ban all fires" in not an argument in this context. People actually need fires worldwide to cook with, stay warm etc. We simply DO NOT NEED cigarettes. YOU need cigarettes, so smoke in places that do not include others.

A valid argument does not exist as to why we should keep an individual's bad habit a right, when it effects other people's health. Argue all you want, you are wrong. It would be like saying... "I can put a little poison in somebody's drink, just because I like to do it, and there is so much other bad stuff in the world." Just stupid, sorry... the truth hurts.

When smoking of cigarettes originated, we did not have a good understanding of the negative effects it has on children, pregnant mothers, and other people in general. We do now - go look it up, please (I'll spare you the links). IF cigarettes just so happened to be invented today, there is no way they would even be allowed to be smoked in public given our current understanding.

The only reason smoking is permitted in modern day society is because of these illogical smoker's rights "arguments" that were borne from a time when smoking was deemed not to be dangerous to others. Smoke kills, we know that now. The tobacco lobby has also played a big part in this of course. But don't think for a second that smoking would be legal if it were invented today; it is only here based on our flawed understanding of the effects in the past. And what does all that tell you? It tells you that your right to smoke is simply a vestige of our own ignorance.

Get real with the arguments. Smoking is a habit, nothing else. To compare it to transportation only makes you look inept. Next argument....?

Edited May 9, 2013 by utalkin2me

[FDog]

I feel very sorry that some people lead such a sad existence that they are so worried they may experience a molecule of smoke whilst in a terminal they will frequent but a couple of times a year.<br /><br />For that small an exposure I think they are just serial whiners with nothing better to do.

I can understand that.

I think even sadder is an existence where people are so addicted (to a substance that has nothing redeeming about it whatsoever but loads of significant downsides) that they get all outraged and start vehemently demanding their right to succumb to their addiction in public places, without limits, censure or opprobrium...

Ever seen smokers huddled around on the street in cold weather (or some other miserable smoking area), hating it but doing it anyway? That's sad.

Well I agree there is nothing redeeming about it NOW, but many years ago it was cool, it was also not publicly known that it was bad for you so many got addicted without knowledge.

I don't see anyone saying they should be able to wander the terminal smoking but I may be wrong.

All this thread is about is having a smoking room in a terminal. Does that cause you so much worry? Are you really so concerned at how silly they will look? Or will you just use the terminal a couple of times a year, check in and go to your plane without given them a thought?

Surely a smoking room in a place you will rarely frequent can't be that much of an issue for anyone that it would cause such worry. I would think most non smokers wouldn't even notice smoking rooms in airports.

Or could it be that some on here are just so against smokers in general and their view has nothing to do with a smoking room.

And by the way, I don't smoke, never have. My brothers do though. But I just can't understand why anyone would be so concerned that a smoking room would impact them in any way.

[SteeleJoe]

What is this argument about "let's ban cars too".... "let's ban alcohol too".... so hackneyed. The sad thing is, you think you are actually making a good point when you regurgitate this swill.

People, we NEED cars. Are you seriously not able to see that? What would happen if all transportation was banned (answer in your head)? What would happen if all smoking was banned? Nothing would happen except the world would be a better place maybe. This isn't even taking into account that cigarette smoke is a carcinogen, and the leading cause of preventable death.

A lot of things on earth cause cancer people. Fires included. "Let's ban all fires" in not an argument in this context. People actually need fires worldwide to cook with, stay warm etc. We simply DO NOT NEED cigarettes. YOU need cigarettes, so smoke in places that do not include others.

A valid argument does not exist as to why we should keep an individual's bad habit to infect other people's health a right.

When smoking of cigarettes originated, we did not have a good understanding of the negative effects it has on children, pregnant mothers, and other people in general. We do now - go look it up, please (I'll spare you the links). IF cigarettes just so happened to be invented today, there is no way they would even be allowed to be smoked in public given our current understanding.

The only reason smoking is permitted in modern day society is because of these illogical smokers right "arguments" that were borne from a time when smoking was deemed not to be dangerous to others. Smoke kills, we know that now. The tobacco lobby has also played a big part in this of course. But don't think for a second that smoking would be legal if it were invented today; it is only here based on our flawed understanding of the effects in the past. And what does all that tell you? It tells you that your right to smoke is simply a vestige of our own ignorance.

Get real with the arguments. Smoking is a habit, nothing else. To compare it to transportation only makes you look inept. Next argument....?

'What is this argument about "let's ban cars too".... "let's ban alcohol too".... so hackneyed.'

Indeed.

The other problem about that sort of argument, aside from the fact that these other things aren't analogous, there is a logical fallacy that one sees with other issues which comes down to: 'other things are bad too, so why stop this one?'

Think about how little sense that makes.

People die from heart attacks too! Why ban drunk driving just because it might kill someone?!

[FDog]

They should make smoking rooms as uncomfortable as possible. Why give them preferential treatment when they ruin the day of the non-smoking majority?

So tell me, how does people smoking in a smoking room in an airport terminal ruin the day for others.

[toybits]

Read post Number 01.

They should make smoking rooms as uncomfortable as possible. Why give them preferential treatment when they ruin the day of the non-smoking majority?

So tell me, how does people smoking in a smoking room in an airport terminal ruin the day for others.

[FDog]

What is this argument about "let's ban cars too".... "let's ban alcohol too".... so hackneyed. The sad thing is, you think you are actually making a good point when you regurgitate this swill.

People, we NEED cars. Are you seriously not able to see that? What would happen if all transportation was banned (answer in your head)? What would happen if all smoking was banned? Nothing would happen except the world would be a better place maybe. This isn't even taking into account that cigarette smoke is a carcinogen, and the leading cause of preventable death.

A lot of things on earth cause cancer people. Fires included. "Let's ban all fires" in not an argument in this context. People actually need fires worldwide to cook with, stay warm etc. We simply DO NOT NEED cigarettes. YOU need cigarettes, so smoke in places that do not include others.

A valid argument does not exist as to why we should keep an individual's bad habit a right, when it effects other people's health. Argue all you want, you are wrong. It would be like saying... "I can put a little poison in somebody's drink, just because I like to do it, and there is so much other bad stuff in the world." Just stupid, sorry... the truth hurts.

When smoking of cigarettes originated, we did not have a good understanding of the negative effects it has on children, pregnant mothers, and other people in general. We do now - go look it up, please (I'll spare you the links). IF cigarettes just so happened to be invented today, there is no way they would even be allowed to be smoked in public given our current understanding.

The only reason smoking is permitted in modern day society is because of these illogical smoker's rights "arguments" that were borne from a time when smoking was deemed not to be dangerous to others. Smoke kills, we know that now. The tobacco lobby has also played a big part in this of course. But don't think for a second that smoking would be legal if it were invented today; it is only here based on our flawed understanding of the effects in the past. And what does all that tell you? It tells you that your right to smoke is simply a vestige of our own ignorance.

Get real with the arguments. Smoking is a habit, nothing else. To compare it to transportation only makes you look inept. Next argument....?

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

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

But this is about a smoking room in an airport terminal. Is that such an issue for you to be concerned? Does it have any impact on you?

[FDog]

Read post Number 01.

They should make smoking rooms as uncomfortable as possible. Why give them preferential treatment when they ruin the day of the non-smoking majority?

So tell me, how does people smoking in a smoking room in an airport terminal ruin the day for others.

So with airport sealing the room properly you will have no issue at all with it.

[SteeleJoe]

.Well I agree there is nothing redeeming about it NOW, but many years ago it was cool, it was also not publicly known that it was bad for you so many got addicted without knowledge.I don't see anyone saying they should be able to wander the terminal smoking but I may be wrong.All this thread is about is having a smoking room in a terminal. Does that cause you so much worry? Are you really so concerned at how silly they will look? Or will you just use the terminal a couple of times a year, check in and go to your plane without given them a thought?Surely a smoking room in a place you will rarely frequent can't be that much of an issue for anyone that it would cause such worry. I would think most non smokers wouldn't even notice smoking rooms in airports.Or could it be that some on here are just so against smokers in general and their view has nothing to do with a smoking room.And by the way, I don't smoke, never have. My brothers do though. But I just can't understand why anyone would be so concerned that a smoking room would impact them in any way.

* Yes, nothing redeeming about it now - which is where we are: the present. Besides, I question how cool it really made anyone or the worth of that.

* The OP is about the airport and the discussion has broadened considerably. People are expressing outrage at limitations on smoker's "rights". Those are the people I refer to (and not just on this thread or this forum: I've heard it for many years).

* People smoking in a room at a terminal causes me no worry whatsoever. I've never suggested it did and even explicitly expressed the opposite sort of sentiment earlier in the thread.

* I am not "against smokers". I don't even precisely what that would mean but it seems a ridiculous position.

* Sorry about your brothers.

[utalkin2me]

I feel very sorry that some people lead such a sad existence that they are so worried they may experience a molecule of smoke whilst in a terminal they will frequent but a couple of times a year.<br /><br />For that small an exposure I think they are just serial whiners with nothing better to do.

As another astute poster noted, I feel sad that smokers feel perfectly at ease while infecting others with a potentially lethal, known carcinogen. How can anybody be comfortable with that, especially when children and pregnant mothers are involved? The only reasonable answer is, "I can't".

[utalkin2me]

What is this argument about "let's ban cars too".... "let's ban alcohol too".... so hackneyed. The sad thing is, you think you are actually making a good point when you regurgitate this swill.

People, we NEED cars. Are you seriously not able to see that? What would happen if all transportation was banned (answer in your head)? What would happen if all smoking was banned? Nothing would happen except the world would be a better place maybe. This isn't even taking into account that cigarette smoke is a carcinogen, and the leading cause of preventable death.

A lot of things on earth cause cancer people. Fires included. "Let's ban all fires" in not an argument in this context. People actually need fires worldwide to cook with, stay warm etc. We simply DO NOT NEED cigarettes. YOU need cigarettes, so smoke in places that do not include others.

A valid argument does not exist as to why we should keep an individual's bad habit a right, when it effects other people's health. Argue all you want, you are wrong. It would be like saying... "I can put a little poison in somebody's drink, just because I like to do it, and there is so much other bad stuff in the world." Just stupid, sorry... the truth hurts.

When smoking of cigarettes originated, we did not have a good understanding of the negative effects it has on children, pregnant mothers, and other people in general. We do now - go look it up, please (I'll spare you the links). IF cigarettes just so happened to be invented today, there is no way they would even be allowed to be smoked in public given our current understanding.

The only reason smoking is permitted in modern day society is because of these illogical smoker's rights "arguments" that were borne from a time when smoking was deemed not to be dangerous to others. Smoke kills, we know that now. The tobacco lobby has also played a big part in this of course. But don't think for a second that smoking would be legal if it were invented today; it is only here based on our flawed understanding of the effects in the past. And what does all that tell you? It tells you that your right to smoke is simply a vestige of our own ignorance.

Get real with the arguments. Smoking is a habit, nothing else. To compare it to transportation only makes you look inept. Next argument....?

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

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

But this is about a smoking room in an airport terminal. Is that such an issue for you to be concerned? Does it have any impact on you?

Actually, I support smoking rooms, if they work. Keep all the smoke in there, or ~99% of it, and let the smokers dwell in that which they clearly love so much. But now you want ventilation too. How about if you get ventilation, you must pay a small fee to go into the room. Don't infect others in public spaces and I am fine is the bottom line. So, if your smoking rooms follow that guideline, so be it. The article in question seems to state otherwise however - yet even I am skeptical of Thai "science"

[bobl]

They should make smoking rooms as uncomfortable as possible. Why give them preferential treatment when they ruin the day of the non-smoking majority?

So tell me, how does people smoking in a smoking room in an airport terminal ruin the day for others.

Don't waste your time. While smokers and non smokers can have a lively debate, you might as well talk to the wall as debate an anti-smoker. Interesting that they rank themselves among the majority (which non-smokers, could be true) when they are in fact a small minority themselves.

[baboon]

I don't smoke myself, but the anti-smoking Nazis really take things too far. Now I don't want to sit next to someone smoking on a plane, but at an airport bar or other designated area, I say carry on - Suvarnaphumi is hardly a confined space, is it?

[bra]

All airports should have smoking rooms (sealed) or preferably outside areas (Changi, Brisbane and many others). If smoking is prohibited at airports, eventually passengers (especially those who transit airports with no smoking rooms and who may not have smoked for several hours) smoke in the aircraft toilets with potentially disastrous consequences - just ask the airlines how many buts they still find in the waste disposal bins in toilets.

I am not a smoker and only ask to be able to eat and drink in areas where smoking is not allowed. In my native Australia this applies (enforced by fines) in all eating and drinking areas inside and outside. Many bars and restaurants in Thailand apply this rule - but far too many do not. Expecting a law to enforce this in Asia is asking for too much.

Nanny state? No just applying sensible rules for the majority. Smoking is an addiction and I support all those who are trying to give it up. Screw the tobacco companies and their advertisers.

[FDog]

I feel very sorry that some people lead such a sad existence that they are so worried they may experience a molecule of smoke whilst in a terminal they will frequent but a couple of times a year.<br /><br />For that small an exposure I think they are just serial whiners with nothing better to do.

As another astute poster noted, I feel sad that smokers feel perfectly at ease while infecting others with a potentially lethal, known carcinogen. How can anybody be comfortable with that, especially when children and pregnant mothers are involved? The only reasonable answer is, "I can't".

'infecting'??

It isn't an infectious disease.

I do think you need to take stock of just how little second hand smoke has on you and stop the worrying.

If you are stuck in an enclosed room full of smokers the effects on you would not be good. But a couple of breaths of it a day would be of no significance at all when you consider what else you have breathed in and also what is put in your food.

You should be concerned with other things in life.

[FDog]

What is this argument about "let's ban cars too".... "let's ban alcohol too".... so hackneyed. The sad thing is, you think you are actually making a good point when you regurgitate this swill.

People, we NEED cars. Are you seriously not able to see that? What would happen if all transportation was banned (answer in your head)? What would happen if all smoking was banned? Nothing would happen except the world would be a better place maybe. This isn't even taking into account that cigarette smoke is a carcinogen, and the leading cause of preventable death.

A lot of things on earth cause cancer people. Fires included. "Let's ban all fires" in not an argument in this context. People actually need fires worldwide to cook with, stay warm etc. We simply DO NOT NEED cigarettes. YOU need cigarettes, so smoke in places that do not include others.

A valid argument does not exist as to why we should keep an individual's bad habit a right, when it effects other people's health. Argue all you want, you are wrong. It would be like saying... "I can put a little poison in somebody's drink, just because I like to do it, and there is so much other bad stuff in the world." Just stupid, sorry... the truth hurts.

When smoking of cigarettes originated, we did not have a good understanding of the negative effects it has on children, pregnant mothers, and other people in general. We do now - go look it up, please (I'll spare you the links). IF cigarettes just so happened to be invented today, there is no way they would even be allowed to be smoked in public given our current understanding.

The only reason smoking is permitted in modern day society is because of these illogical smoker's rights "arguments" that were borne from a time when smoking was deemed not to be dangerous to others. Smoke kills, we know that now. The tobacco lobby has also played a big part in this of course. But don't think for a second that smoking would be legal if it were invented today; it is only here based on our flawed understanding of the effects in the past. And what does all that tell you? It tells you that your right to smoke is simply a vestige of our own ignorance.

Get real with the arguments. Smoking is a habit, nothing else. To compare it to transportation only makes you look inept. Next argument....?

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

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

But this is about a smoking room in an airport terminal. Is that such an issue for you to be concerned? Does it have any impact on you?

Actually, I support smoking rooms, if they work. Keep all the smoke in there, or ~99% of it, and let the smokers dwell in that which they clearly love so much. But now you want ventilation too. How about if you get ventilation, you must pay a small fee to go into the room. Don't infect others in public spaces and I am fine is the bottom line. So, if your smoking rooms follow that guideline, so be it. The article in question seems to state otherwise however - yet even I am skeptical of Thai "science"

Sure, let them pay for the entry to the room. I don't use the travelators so can we charge people to use them? I don't go to duty free, can we charge people entry to them? I don't use a wheelchair but hey, let's charge people for thier use to cover the cost of them and also the time for staff to assist them.

Yeah great idea, user pays, Air Asia business plan, just pay for what you use.

Don't blame the smokers for doing what is legal, in the room, when it is the airport that hasn't done it correctly. Your vent is misdirected.

[FDog]

All airports should have smoking rooms (sealed) or preferably outside areas (Changi, Brisbane and many others). If smoking is prohibited at airports, eventually passengers (especially those who transit airports with no smoking rooms and who may not have smoked for several hours) smoke in the aircraft toilets with potentially disastrous consequences - just ask the airlines how many buts they still find in the waste disposal bins in toilets.

I am not a smoker and only ask to be able to eat and drink in areas where smoking is not allowed. In my native Australia this applies (enforced by fines) in all eating and drinking areas inside and outside. Many bars and restaurants in Thailand apply this rule - but far too many do not. Expecting a law to enforce this in Asia is asking for too much.

Nanny state? No just applying sensible rules for the majority. Smoking is an addiction and I support all those who are trying to give it up. Screw the tobacco companies and their advertisers.

Yes your thoughts are correct. But don't blame the smokers if laws are not enforced. Blame the owners.

Funny thing in Oz is that because of the licencing laws, on a golf course they must make 50% smoke free. So some courses have signs saying you can only smoke on even holes and other courses where you can somke in the rough.

Unfortunately I am always in the rough so spend most of my day with the smokers.

Luckily common sense is also used and that law on the golf course is just not enforced.

[utalkin2me]

What is this argument about "let's ban cars too".... "let's ban alcohol too".... so hackneyed. The sad thing is, you think you are actually making a good point when you regurgitate this swill.

People, we NEED cars. Are you seriously not able to see that? What would happen if all transportation was banned (answer in your head)? What would happen if all smoking was banned? Nothing would happen except the world would be a better place maybe. This isn't even taking into account that cigarette smoke is a carcinogen, and the leading cause of preventable death.

A lot of things on earth cause cancer people. Fires included. "Let's ban all fires" in not an argument in this context. People actually need fires worldwide to cook with, stay warm etc. We simply DO NOT NEED cigarettes. YOU need cigarettes, so smoke in places that do not include others.

A valid argument does not exist as to why we should keep an individual's bad habit a right, when it effects other people's health. Argue all you want, you are wrong. It would be like saying... "I can put a little poison in somebody's drink, just because I like to do it, and there is so much other bad stuff in the world." Just stupid, sorry... the truth hurts.

When smoking of cigarettes originated, we did not have a good understanding of the negative effects it has on children, pregnant mothers, and other people in general. We do now - go look it up, please (I'll spare you the links). IF cigarettes just so happened to be invented today, there is no way they would even be allowed to be smoked in public given our current understanding.

The only reason smoking is permitted in modern day society is because of these illogical smoker's rights "arguments" that were borne from a time when smoking was deemed not to be dangerous to others. Smoke kills, we know that now. The tobacco lobby has also played a big part in this of course. But don't think for a second that smoking would be legal if it were invented today; it is only here based on our flawed understanding of the effects in the past. And what does all that tell you? It tells you that your right to smoke is simply a vestige of our own ignorance.

Get real with the arguments. Smoking is a habit, nothing else. To compare it to transportation only makes you look inept. Next argument....?

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

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

But this is about a smoking room in an airport terminal. Is that such an issue for you to be concerned? Does it have any impact on you?

Actually, I support smoking rooms, if they work. Keep all the smoke in there, or ~99% of it, and let the smokers dwell in that which they clearly love so much. But now you want ventilation too. How about if you get ventilation, you must pay a small fee to go into the room. Don't infect others in public spaces and I am fine is the bottom line. So, if your smoking rooms follow that guideline, so be it. The article in question seems to state otherwise however - yet even I am skeptical of Thai "science"

Sure, let them pay for the entry to the room. I don't use the travelators so can we charge people to use them? I don't go to duty free, can we charge people entry to them? I don't use a wheelchair but hey, let's charge people for thier use to cover the cost of them and also the time for staff to assist them.

Yeah great idea, user pays, Air Asia business plan, just pay for what you use.

Don't blame the smokers for doing what is legal, in the room, when it is the airport that hasn't done it correctly. Your vent is misdirected.

My "vent" as you call it is about why or why not smoking should be allowed in public places. That is what this thread is about. It was not "misdirected". I believe as I stated in post #190.

If you want to counter any of my points about why an individual should be allowed to smoke in a public area, be my guest. But, "because the amount of smoke is so small it doesn't matter" is not a real argument. It is real kind of you to tell other people how much of a carcinogen they should feel comfortable inhaling, but, If you don't mind, I'd like to make that decision myself, and not have some stranger like you making it for me.

[Mighty Mouse]

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

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

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

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

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

[utalkin2me]

Well my eyes are burning but that's more to do with the tool who set fire to the hillsides next door. I'm a non smoker (or rather an ex smoker). Fortunately the two extremes of inconsiderate smokers and anti-smoking nazis like yourself, are in a very small minority, and I choose not to let them wind me up. If that exhibits a failure of common sense, so be it.

I totally disagree with you when you say the inconsiderate smokers are in the minority. In fact, I feel the exact opposite. I guess we'd need to stipulate what inconsiderate is. To me, if you don't care about anybody around you, and you smoke a cigarette, you are inconsiderate. How many of them are like that. Most.

I will stipulate however that there are less inconsiderate smokers now, but not in the minority by any means. This is probably due to additive effects of the recent findings we have on the effects of second hand smoke, cigarettes being the leading cause of preventable death WORLDWIDE, and the pressure from a more informed public.

Edited May 9, 2013 by utalkin2me

[utalkin2me]

What is this argument about "let's ban cars too".... "let's ban alcohol too".... so hackneyed. The sad thing is, you think you are actually making a good point when you regurgitate this swill.

People, we NEED cars. Are you seriously not able to see that? What would happen if all transportation was banned (answer in your head)? What would happen if all smoking was banned? Nothing would happen except the world would be a better place maybe. This isn't even taking into account that cigarette smoke is a carcinogen, and the leading cause of preventable death.

A lot of things on earth cause cancer people. Fires included. "Let's ban all fires" in not an argument in this context. People actually need fires worldwide to cook with, stay warm etc. We simply DO NOT NEED cigarettes. YOU need cigarettes, so smoke in places that do not include others.

A valid argument does not exist as to why we should keep an individual's bad habit to infect other people's health a right.

When smoking of cigarettes originated, we did not have a good understanding of the negative effects it has on children, pregnant mothers, and other people in general. We do now - go look it up, please (I'll spare you the links). IF cigarettes just so happened to be invented today, there is no way they would even be allowed to be smoked in public given our current understanding.

The only reason smoking is permitted in modern day society is because of these illogical smokers right "arguments" that were borne from a time when smoking was deemed not to be dangerous to others. Smoke kills, we know that now. The tobacco lobby has also played a big part in this of course. But don't think for a second that smoking would be legal if it were invented today; it is only here based on our flawed understanding of the effects in the past. And what does all that tell you? It tells you that your right to smoke is simply a vestige of our own ignorance.

Get real with the arguments. Smoking is a habit, nothing else. To compare it to transportation only makes you look inept. Next argument....?

'What is this argument about "let's ban cars too".... "let's ban alcohol too".... so hackneyed.'

Indeed.

The other problem about that sort of argument, aside from the fact that these other things aren't analogous, there is a logical fallacy that one sees with other issues which comes down to: 'other things are bad too, so why stop this one?'

Think about how little sense that makes.

People die from heart attacks too! Why ban drunk driving just because it might kill someone?!

Yes. I agree 100%. That is the fallacy that almost all of these so called arguments are based on too, as far as I can see anyway.

[nisakiman]

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

"However, since there is no disease proper to smoking because they're

all multi-factorial diseases, anyone – current, former or never smoker –

can get a smoking related disease . As it pertains to smokers,

despite the best anti-tobacco experts, including Sir Richard Doll, who

testified in the Scottish landmark legal case MRS MARGARET McTEAR

vs. IMPERIAL TOBACCO LIMITED, it could not be proven that had it not

been for an individual's cigarette smoking, he would not have contracted

lung cancer. ^{[Claim1 4]} This applies to any of the diseases labeled as smoking related.

When one looks at how smoking related diseases are

distributed within the USA population for example (see chart on the

right), one can draw complete different conclusions from the sound-bite Tobacco is the first avoidable cause of mortality in the world.

Indeed according to this chart based on real people with real diseases

giving real answers as opposed to computer estimates using cherry picked

risk factors as their base model, not one smoking related disease is more prevalent in current smokers than former and never smokers."

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

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

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

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

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

[FDog]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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