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

[Tomtomtom69]

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

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

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

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

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

Funny how inconsiderate western smokers are in foreign countries. In the west, even the most determined smokers wouldn't be able to get away with trying to smoke on a bus, for example. Come to Thailand and at least some suddenly light up on the back of a songthaew. Incidentally, I generally drive myself everywhere in Asia, Thailand included so I don't know exactly what happens on public transport, but as I have ridden on songthaews myself in the past, I have never encountered a local that tried to smoke on one here in Thailand. Yes, they may be "open-air" but in a way you are still surrounded by other people so smoking on the back of a songthaew is rude and inconsiderate. As a foreigner, you should be mindful of what you do in front of the locals. If locals are NOT smoking on the backs of songthaews, then foreigners doing so makes locals think very, very poorly of such misbehaved foreigners.

[FDog]

utalkin2me, on 10 May 2013 - 10:31, said:

morrobay, on 10 May 2013 - 10:12, said:

kohphangan, on 07 May 2013 - 19:50, said:

So are they going to ban Alcohol in airports also ?

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

Why is it we all know Alcohol is the root of all evil, but this is permitted at all times at airports and during the flight.

I know who I would rather sit next to...... Someone just come out of a smoking room than someone on Alcohol any day !!

So you anti smokers who like a drink.... Let's take your rights away also... No Alcohol in all airports! Why should you sit and be able to consume something that kills and destroys life's everyday but we can not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes you are completely correct. You will decide if you want any carcinogen into your body. So don't go and frequent bars that allow smoking. And smokers won't smoke in bars that don't allow smoking.

It really is that simple.

But all I hear is non smokers whinging and whining that people smoke in a bar that allows smokers. If a bar doesn't allow smokers then the smokers won't go there.

Is that so difficult.

[FDog]

morrobay, on 10 May 2013 - 15:24, said:

utalkin2me, on 10 May 2013 - 11:38, said:

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

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

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

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

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

Who are you to decide if the songkow in Pattaya is smoking or non smoking?

[utalkin2me]

utalkin2me, on 10 May 2013 - 10:31, said:

morrobay, on 10 May 2013 - 10:12, said:

kohphangan, on 07 May 2013 - 19:50, said:

So are they going to ban Alcohol in airports also ?

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

Why is it we all know Alcohol is the root of all evil, but this is permitted at all times at airports and during the flight.

I know who I would rather sit next to...... Someone just come out of a smoking room than someone on Alcohol any day !!

So you anti smokers who like a drink.... Let's take your rights away also... No Alcohol in all airports! Why should you sit and be able to consume something that kills and destroys life's everyday but we can not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes you are completely correct. You will decide if you want any carcinogen into your body. So don't go and frequent bars that allow smoking. And smokers won't smoke in bars that don't allow smoking.

It really is that simple.

But all I hear is non smokers whinging and whining that people smoke in a bar that allows smokers. If a bar doesn't allow smokers then the smokers won't go there.

Is that so difficult.

This thread is about second hand smoke leaking out of smoking rooms at the airport. I have repeated this three times.

They need to do a study on cigarette smoke's possible effects on reading comprehension next it seems.

[metisdead]

A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed.

[khh]

re sir richard doll: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/19799.php

Sir Richard Doll, a contributor to the report and one of the doctors who discovered the link between lung cancer and smoking in 1950, said:

"As recently as 2003, one UK tobacco company said that it did not know whether smoking causes lung cancer. Now tobacco companies are using the same techniques to undermine the conclusion that passive smoking causes fatal disease.

"The evidence that it does is clear. As a responsible citizen, I believe that nobody should have to work in an atmosphere polluted by other people's smoke."

getting back to the original topic:

banning smoking rooms will encourage smoking around the building's entrances, making the smoke more noticeable to more people, and i bet more of it will get into the building through open doors...

others will smoke in the washrooms where they're likely to get away with it, and again it will be more noticeable to more people and circulate through the building.

so i say keep designated areas for smokers, away from everyone else, with good (outdoor?) ventilation so as little smoke as possible sticks to them.

Hitting the headlines

His findings have sometimes sparked controversy. So too has the man.

In 2001, he riled the anti-smoking lobby after appearing to downplay the risks from second-hand smoke.

In an interview on BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs, he said: "The

effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't

worry me."

That's what he really said, and that was in the wiki profile on him but has now been removed, wikipedia is not a reliable source.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[khh]

Smokers stink. They make people around them stink.

They stink

How very eloquent.

Do you know why it never occurred to people to make statements like that 20 - 30 years ago? It's because they hadn't been subjected to the relentless propaganda that you have been subjected to. So it never occurred to them to be so rude about something so trivial. And in those days of course, they didn't mind about other people smoking, even if they didn't smoke themselves. But then the fanatics started with the brainwashing agenda. You were obviously a perfect subject, since you parrot the mantra so well. The Tobacco Control Industry will be most gratified, I'm sure, that their army of idiots is growing apace.

However, don't get too smug about being one of the brainwashed mob; the anti-smoker's edifice is built on foundations of sand, and those foundations are starting to crumble as the tidal eddies of truth wash around them. They are discovering the veracity of that old adage: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time". Their lies and exaggerations are starting to come back and bite them now. A few years hence, Andre, and you won't dare make statements like you just did because you won't have your gang of anti-smoking bully-boys standing behind you nodding their approval. They will be far too busy trying to save their professional careers. Believe me. I have my ear to the ground on this subject, and (to mix metaphors) I know better than most which way the wind is blowing. It is poised to change direction.

This change of direction will come sooner than I had originally expected, and the reason for that is the totally unanticipated advent of the e-cigarette. The e-cigarette has pulled the rug out from under the feet of the anti-smoking fanatics, and they are struggling to deal with it. For the last couple of decades they have hidden their prohibitionist agenda under the cloak of 'Public Health', but now we have e-cigs they have been exposed for the agenda-driven ideologues that they are. They are now reduced to indignant utterances like "But it looks like smoking....", and "But it means they're getting round the ban on smoking in bars...".

E-cigs are odourless, emit water vapour (which is anyway all around us to a greater or lesser degree depending on humidity) and have no known or anticipated health issues. They are neither tobacco products nor tobacco cigarettes. So the anti-smoking lobby should love them, right? After all, it's all about health and (let's not forget) the chiiildren. Ha! Hoist by their own petard! Joe Public is not so stupid as to not notice that the objections to e-cigs have nothing to do with health and everything to do with ideological fanaticism.

thank you for bringing a smile to my face, that's one of the funniest rants i've read in a long time.

imagine it from a non-smoker's point of view/smell. you might as well have said:

Do you know why it never occurred to people to make statements like "your s**t stinks!" a few centuries ago? It's because they hadn't been subjected to the relentless propaganda that you have been subjected to. So it never occurred to them to be so rude about something so trivial. And in those days of course, they didn't mind about other people s**tting wherever they wanted, even if they only did it in private themselves. But then the fanatics started with the brainwashing agenda. You were obviously a perfect subject, since you parrot the mantra so well. The Sanitation Crusaders will be most gratified, I'm sure, that their army of idiots is growing apace.

However, don't get too smug about being one of the brainwashed mob; the Sanitation Crusader's edifice is built on foundations of sand, and those foundations are starting to crumble as the tidal eddies of truth wash around them. They are discovering the veracity of that old adage: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time". Their lies and exaggerations (about the public health impact of s**tting or not s**tting in public) are starting to come back and bite them now. A few years hence, and you won't dare make statements like you just did because you won't have your gang of sanitation bully-boys standing behind you nodding their approval. They will be far too busy trying to save their professional careers. Believe me. I have my ear to the ground on this subject, and (to mix metaphors) I know better than most which way the wind is blowing. It is poised to change direction.

honestly i don't know about e-cigarettes. if they're truly safe (at least for everyone but the users) then good, i think the health of innocent bystanders is more important than outward appearances. but we haven't had decades and decades of studies on e-cigarettes and on the other hand we have had decades and decades of propaganda from big tobacco so you should expect people to be skeptical.

[khh]

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.

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

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

[fasteddie]

re sir richard doll: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/19799.php

Sir Richard Doll, a contributor to the report and one of the doctors who discovered the link between lung cancer and smoking in 1950, said:

"As recently as 2003, one UK tobacco company said that it did not know whether smoking causes lung cancer. Now tobacco companies are using the same techniques to undermine the conclusion that passive smoking causes fatal disease.

"The evidence that it does is clear. As a responsible citizen, I believe that nobody should have to work in an atmosphere polluted by other people's smoke."

getting back to the original topic:

banning smoking rooms will encourage smoking around the building's entrances, making the smoke more noticeable to more people, and i bet more of it will get into the building through open doors...

others will smoke in the washrooms where they're likely to get away with it, and again it will be more noticeable to more people and circulate through the building.

so i say keep designated areas for smokers, away from everyone else, with good (outdoor?) ventilation so as little smoke as possible sticks to them.

Hitting the headlines

His findings have sometimes sparked controversy. So too has the man.

In 2001, he riled the anti-smoking lobby after appearing to downplay the risks from second-hand smoke.

In an interview on BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs, he said: "The

effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't

worry me."

That's what he really said, and that was in the wiki profile on him but has now been removed, wikipedia is not a reliable source.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2001 having been taken out of context?"

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

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

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

[bobl]

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

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

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

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

[bobl]

A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed.

That would be my post, since it has disappeared. Would you care to enlighten me as to what "fair use policy" is, and how I have violated it? The post was neither inflammatory nor scurrilous, merely informative. So?

You're very unlikely to get an answer from a mod since it's also against policy to discuss moderation, but for what it's worth you probably quoted a chunk of text from a site that doesn't allow it and/or linked to such a site.

[morrobay]

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

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

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

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

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

Heart Disease ( lifestyle ) about 600 000/yr

Smokimg 500, 000/yr

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

alcohol and drugs - somewhere around 60,000/

gunshots 35, 000

[Fookhaht]

So are they going to ban Alcohol in airports also ?

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

Why is it we all know Alcohol is the root of all evil, but this is permitted at all times at airports and during the flight.

I know who I would rather sit next to...... Someone just come out of a smoking room than someone on Alcohol any day !!

So you anti smokers who like a drink.... Let's take your rights away also... No Alcohol in all airports! Why should you sit and be able to consume something that kills and destroys life's everyday but we can not.

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

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

Excellent extrapolation. They should also ban loud cell-phone ringers on buses between 11pm and 6 am, which wake everyone up while the owner fumbles in their bag for 5 minutes looking for it.

[morrobay]

morrobay, on 10 May 2013 - 15:24, said:

utalkin2me, on 10 May 2013 - 11:38, said:

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

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

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

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

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

Who are you to decide if the songkow in Pattaya is smoking or non smoking?

The Pattaya City Hall decided that songkows are no smoking. I went up to city hall about 6 months ago to get this confirmed and the clerk gave me a 10 inch stack of

adhesive ' No smoking stickers . 2000 baht fine. that were supossed to be placed in all songkows, but of course were not.

So I passed them out to the drivers myself.

[utalkin2me]

re sir richard doll: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/19799.php

Sir Richard Doll, a contributor to the report and one of the doctors who discovered the link between lung cancer and smoking in 1950, said:

"As recently as 2003, one UK tobacco company said that it did not know whether smoking causes lung cancer. Now tobacco companies are using the same techniques to undermine the conclusion that passive smoking causes fatal disease.

"The evidence that it does is clear. As a responsible citizen, I believe that nobody should have to work in an atmosphere polluted by other people's smoke."

getting back to the original topic:

banning smoking rooms will encourage smoking around the building's entrances, making the smoke more noticeable to more people, and i bet more of it will get into the building through open doors...

others will smoke in the washrooms where they're likely to get away with it, and again it will be more noticeable to more people and circulate through the building.

so i say keep designated areas for smokers, away from everyone else, with good (outdoor?) ventilation so as little smoke as possible sticks to them.

Hitting the headlines

His findings have sometimes sparked controversy. So too has the man.

In 2001, he riled the anti-smoking lobby after appearing to downplay the risks from second-hand smoke.

In an interview on BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs, he said: "The

effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't

worry me."

That's what he really said, and that was in the wiki profile on him but has now been removed, wikipedia is not a reliable source.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2001 having been taken out of context?"

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

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

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

This is a fairly decent question. I will try to answer with some compassion, I know my answer wont be popular, but this is just what I believe, so be it.....

I have never been sure why we need to cater in any way to a cigarette smokers. Isn't the very fact that we feel obligated to cater to them necessitated by the fact that the cigarettes are so addictive. It is ironic, isn't it? IF cigarettes weren't so addictive, maybe we would not need to build these public smoking rooms. It is as if the most reprehensible aspect of cigarettes is what saves them. That is not the way it should work in my opinion, quite the opposite actually. If something is exorbitantly addictive, we need to try and weed it out, not perpetuate it!! I think we have the logic on smoking rooms backwards, and I think it should be the problem of the individual smoker to find a spot to smoke in that does not molest the health rights of others. What this would do is curtail the use of cigarettes, which has to be a good thing for everyone.

I'll admit, this is a farce example perhaps, but what if all the sudden heroin was legalized in many places. Are we just supposed to build heroin room for people to shoot up in? Why in the world would that be our problem, it should be up to them to take care of their habit out of the public's sight.

I really think somebody has to lay out a proper argument as to why we should in fact build smoking rooms to appease people's bad habits. The arguments up until this point are something like "because cigarettes are legal, and it is a very addictive habit". So, we reward the cigarette companies for making an exorbitantly addictive product? Another argument may be "because smokers will smoke in illegal areas if we don't give them a legal spot to smoke in". Again, the notoriously addictive nature of the cigarette is what is going to perpetuate its use? I don't see the logic in that, and I challenge someone to put forth an argument about why other travelers or taxpayers should have to front the cost of smoking rooms to supports another person's habit.

Smoking is kind of like having children; you were the one who delved into it in the first place, so you should have the responsibility for it. You should have known what was coming, and YOU made your choice accordingly. Why are you demanding OTHERS to bear the responsibility for you? Makes no logical sense to me.

Edited May 11, 2013 by utalkin2me

[bobl]

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

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

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

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

[utalkin2me]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited May 11, 2013 by utalkin2me

[FDog]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because smokers are people too.

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

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

[FDog]

morrobay, on 10 May 2013 - 15:24, said:

utalkin2me, on 10 May 2013 - 11:38, said:

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

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

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

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

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

Who are you to decide if the songkow in Pattaya is smoking or non smoking?

The Pattaya City Hall decided that songkows are no smoking. I went up to city hall about 6 months ago to get this confirmed and the clerk gave me a 10 inch stack of

adhesive ' No smoking stickers . 2000 baht fine. that were supossed to be placed in all songkows, but of course were not.

So I passed them out to the drivers myself.

So, who are you to decide if it is smoking or non smoking. Are you an official?

Nothing to do with you.

Or are you the type that keeps an eye out for anything anybody does that annoys you. Do you admonish J walkers too?

[SteeleJoe]

Because smokers are people too.

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

.

Wow.

[rubl]

A total smoking ban. Obviously this is a consequence of PM Yingluck indicating that the ToT should aim at "higher level tourists" rather than a larger number of whatever tourists.

[utalkin2me]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because smokers are people too.

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

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

None of the people you mentioned are in those positions by choice. Or, I guess somebody could choose to incapacitate themselves because they thought wheelchairs are cool or something? Anyway, smoking is a bad habit........ a choice. Disabilities are not.

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

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

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

Edited May 11, 2013 by utalkin2me

[Chicog]

The base levels in the airport are going to be high to start with due to ambient pollution levels.

She probably went and stuck the meter right in the crack in the door, the jobsworth harridan.

You wouldn't even know there are smoking rooms at Swampy unless you know where to look, let alone notice the smell.

Utter pile of crap.

[FDog]

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

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

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

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

[Neilly]

The Pattaya City Hall decided that songkows are no smoking. I went up to city hall about 6 months ago to get this confirmed and the clerk gave me a 10 inch stack of

adhesive ' No smoking stickers . 2000 baht fine. that were supossed to be placed in all songkows, but of course were not.

So I passed them out to the drivers myself.

You sad little zealot you ...and as for the other anti smoking zealots out there

[fasteddie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"What I would like to see however is an argument as to why others should front the cost for somebody else's bad habit"

There is no argument, because you don't!

Smokers taxes pay!

What are you? C.E.O. of Nicorette or something..

[fasteddie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"What I would like to see however is an argument as to why others should front the cost for somebody else's bad habit"

There is no argument, because you don't!

Smokers taxes pay!

What are you? C.E.O. of Nicorette or something..

Add to those the combined taxes from all those working in smoking related industries and I think we've paid for first class smoking lounges wherever we may need them.

Case closed, thank you and goodnight! I'm off for a fag.

[Mighty Mouse]

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

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

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

Smoking health related issues were raised back in 1602. In the 1920's, a link between smoking and lung cancer was established.

Source: http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/31899/reduce-risks/smoking-reduce-risks/tobacco-facts/a-brief-history-of-smoking/?pp=31899

Teenagers took up the habit mainly out of curiosity and peer pressure. The addictive nature of tobacco made it most difficult for them to quit the habit. Being 'cool' turned into an on-going nightmare.

It is mostly these addicted old timers who today feel that they have a right to smoke whenever the nicotine urge dictates, with no thought as to wherever they might happen to be.

Today, smoking is considered unsociable and thankfully, the kids of today are smart enough to see how smoking can screw up your health.......and your attitude to non-smokers.

With regard to your PS. above, I too urge Admin to tweak the software so that posters can properly use the 'quote' button by isolating paragraphs from target posts, rather than having to capture so much unwanted material. .

[utalkin2me]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"What I would like to see however is an argument as to why others should front the cost for somebody else's bad habit"

There is no argument, because you don't!

Smokers taxes pay!

What are you? C.E.O. of Nicorette or something..

If the smokers are in fact funding their own smoking rooms, and the rooms are effective (reportedly not the case here), then I have no problem with it whatsoever. I bet if you looked into it, travelers who use swampy would be fronting much of the cost though. I would be happy to hear anything about who in fact has fronted the money for the rooms at swampy.

Edited May 12, 2013 by utalkin2me

[OldSalty]

the public should build smoking rooms in airports because
_________________________ (try to use just reason, and an argument in
the underlined space, and not bring up things like bbq smoke and car
exhaust).

Because there are already "smoking rooms" in airports for rich people, VIPs, High ranking government officials, diplomats and high ranking airline officials, so why not for the public?????

And to Neilly 267 : I hope you have a working permit, because by giving the stickers to the taxi drivers, you took work away from government officials!!!!

Edited May 12, 2013 by OldSalty