Call for higher tax, tougher law on smoking

[rwdrwdrwd]

The American Cancer Society had reported that cells exposed to smoke from e-cigarettes turned carcinogenic.

"This means any claim that 'electronic' cigarettes will save smokers from cancers is untrue," he said.

Completely inaccurate, the only report referring to e cigarettes and carcinogens mentions that 2 of the many tested products contained known carcinogens - all the others did not. It is not necessary that e cigarettes contain these, demonstrated by all of the other tested products that do not. This means, that with correct regulation it is perfectly feasible to ensure that e-liquids do not contain known carcinogens.

"When you smoke one 'electronic' cigarette, you take in an amount of nicotine similar to that from six common cigarettes," he said.

People do not 'smoke' an entire e-cigarette in one go - you take a few drags and put it away, on account of it not burning away. It's either an infantile misunderstanding ill-befitting of a 'Doctor' or pure weasel words, the same as the Thai doctor that highlighted the ingredients in the battery as if users actually ingested the battery

The nicotine percentage can be easily and thoroughly determined during the manufacturing process. As another user has already posted the sole required components of e-liquid are nicotine and a balance of VG (Vegetable Glycerine) and PG (Propylene Glycol) - all pharmaceutical grade. Any other components are pure flavouring, and this is where potential carcinogens can be introduced - this can be solved with correct regulation.

Edited June 2, 2014 by rwdrwdrwd

[hawker9000]

...or prohibition, if the abuse by the makers is that widespread.

[rwdrwdrwd]

...or prohibition, if the abuse by the makers is that widespread.

Akin to banning roofing tiles because asbestos existed.

Edited June 2, 2014 by rwdrwdrwd

[Roychua]

Most smokers have no problem with the rising of taxation and regulation of smoking, but when some intolerant non-smoker start spewing abuse and insult on "all smoker" because of their preference on certain smell, then I for one feels that there is no need to extend any courtesy to these people.

"Respect goes both ways"

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[DLock]

...can be dangerous, yes. But not nearly as dangerous, to oneself as well as to others, as smoking.

Bottom line is that many smokers feel as free to smoke around others, in complete disregard of their wishes and health, as the law allows. Literally. 'Leaves non-smokers little recourse but to return this lack of consideration, and do all they can to see that laws are passed (and enforced, as they are currently not in Thailand) to place further restrictions and punitive taxes on what is essentially and obviously an anti-social, if not actually a self-destructive and dangerous, behavior. Smokers who cannot govern their own behavior will simply have to be governed. I do lament the fact that the more considerate smokers get caught in this net, but as this thread shows, they really don't have much sympathy for the non-smokers, and are inclined to give lip service only to their pleas.

Govern yourselves or be governed. Smokers have made their choice. Their decision: "if you don't like it, leave..." The message they're sending is loud 'n clear. OK then. Got it. Now it's non-smoker decision time. And THEIR decision is, "tax & regulate the heck out of tobacco, however long it takes.

Excellent post.

[DrTuner]

A few weeks ago I saw the locals rolling up their own with tobacco that they bought from a pickup doing rounds in the village. Sold by weight. Tax that

[transam]

...can be dangerous, yes. But not nearly as dangerous, to oneself as well as to others, as smoking.

Bottom line is that many smokers feel as free to smoke around others, in complete disregard of their wishes and health, as the law allows. Literally. 'Leaves non-smokers little recourse but to return this lack of consideration, and do all they can to see that laws are passed (and enforced, as they are currently not in Thailand) to place further restrictions and punitive taxes on what is essentially and obviously an anti-social, if not actually a self-destructive and dangerous, behavior. Smokers who cannot govern their own behavior will simply have to be governed. I do lament the fact that the more considerate smokers get caught in this net, but as this thread shows, they really don't have much sympathy for the non-smokers, and are inclined to give lip service only to their pleas.

Govern yourselves or be governed. Smokers have made their choice. Their decision: "if you don't like it, leave..." The message they're sending is loud 'n clear. OK then. Got it. Now it's non-smoker decision time. And THEIR decision is, "tax & regulate the heck out of tobacco, however long it takes.

Excellent post.

Do any of you two drive diesel rides.....?

[hawker9000]

...can be dangerous, yes. But not nearly as dangerous, to oneself as well as to others, as smoking.

Bottom line is that many smokers feel as free to smoke around others, in complete disregard of their wishes and health, as the law allows. Literally. 'Leaves non-smokers little recourse but to return this lack of consideration, and do all they can to see that laws are passed (and enforced, as they are currently not in Thailand) to place further restrictions and punitive taxes on what is essentially and obviously an anti-social, if not actually a self-destructive and dangerous, behavior. Smokers who cannot govern their own behavior will simply have to be governed. I do lament the fact that the more considerate smokers get caught in this net, but as this thread shows, they really don't have much sympathy for the non-smokers, and are inclined to give lip service only to their pleas.

Govern yourselves or be governed. Smokers have made their choice. Their decision: "if you don't like it, leave..." The message they're sending is loud 'n clear. OK then. Got it. Now it's non-smoker decision time. And THEIR decision is, "tax & regulate the heck out of tobacco, however long it takes.

Excellent post.

Do any of you two drive diesel rides.....?

Wildly off-topic, as are most efforts to defend smoking in public places... (Also pretty juvenile. "But look what Billy did, Mommy!!")

Edited June 2, 2014 by hawker9000

[transam]

...can be dangerous, yes. But not nearly as dangerous, to oneself as well as to others, as smoking.

Bottom line is that many smokers feel as free to smoke around others, in complete disregard of their wishes and health, as the law allows. Literally. 'Leaves non-smokers little recourse but to return this lack of consideration, and do all they can to see that laws are passed (and enforced, as they are currently not in Thailand) to place further restrictions and punitive taxes on what is essentially and obviously an anti-social, if not actually a self-destructive and dangerous, behavior. Smokers who cannot govern their own behavior will simply have to be governed. I do lament the fact that the more considerate smokers get caught in this net, but as this thread shows, they really don't have much sympathy for the non-smokers, and are inclined to give lip service only to their pleas.

Govern yourselves or be governed. Smokers have made their choice. Their decision: "if you don't like it, leave..." The message they're sending is loud 'n clear. OK then. Got it. Now it's non-smoker decision time. And THEIR decision is, "tax & regulate the heck out of tobacco, however long it takes.

Excellent post.

Do any of you two drive diesel rides.....?

Wildly off-topic, as are most efforts to defend smoking in public places... (Also pretty juvenile. "But look what Billy did, Mommy!!")

Answer the question, NOT off topic as some (YOU) seem a fag is the end of the world yet MOST, ME, know that an exhaust does more harm to the innocent than a fag..........

[hawker9000]

<sigh> My state has some of the most stringent emissions control laws in the nation. Maybe the world. I paid for those controls when I bought my car, and in keeping it maintained to comply with those requirements on a continuing basis. If it fails inspection, I can't drive it until it's brought back into compliance, retested, and certified. During the entire time I've owned it, it's consistently tested well above the legal standards (zero emissions in most cases, actually). I keep the car in tip-top condition, over & above the emissions control standards.

Now get back on topic. (If you can...)

[transam]

<sigh> My state has some of the most stringent emissions control laws in the nation. Maybe the world. I paid for those controls when I bought my car, and in keeping it maintained to comply with those requirements on a continuing basis. If it fails inspection, I can't drive it until it's brought back into compliance, retested, and certified. During the entire time I've owned it, it's consistently tested well above the legal standards (zero emissions in most cases, actually). I keep the car in tip-top condition, over & above the emissions control standards.

Now get back on topic. (If you can...)

We ARE in LOS....................Stay on topic regarding LOS eh.......

You fly in an airplane, you drive a car, you have electricity provided by coal or oil.............?

If your answer is YES, THEN you are a hypocrite..............

[hawker9000]

Yes, we are in LOS. Where there actually is a prohibition on smoking in public places... Go turn yourself in. Or better yet, show us what a real warrior you are, get out from behind your big bad keyboard, and throw a couple of ciggy butts down on the ground in front of a thai cop. Be sure and let us know how that goes.

Edited June 2, 2014 by hawker9000

[transam]

Yes, we are in LOS. Where there actually is a prohibition on smoking in public places... Go turn yourself in. Or better yet, show us what a real warrior you are, get out from behind your big bad keyboard, and throw a couple of ciggy butts down on the ground in front of a thai cop. Be sure and let us know how that goes.

Weeeeeeeell, perhaps your cops have been told how to make a few baht from a farang, I am positive they know nothing about pollution, the ozone and all that stuff. BUT, folk like yourself ALWAYS dodge the pollution question regarding THEIR input to pollution.

Now, answer my question, does an airplane burn ooooooooooooodles of fuel for you from time to time. Do you drive a car that burns fuel, do you have electricity at your place provided by oil or gas.......YES or NO......Really simple questions considering you want to decapitate a bloke who likes a fag..........

[55Jay]

...can be dangerous, yes. But not nearly as dangerous, to oneself as well as to others, as smoking.

Bottom line is that many smokers feel as free to smoke around others, in complete disregard of their wishes and health, as the law allows. Literally. 'Leaves non-smokers little recourse but to return this lack of consideration, and do all they can to see that laws are passed (and enforced, as they are currently not in Thailand) to place further restrictions and punitive taxes on what is essentially and obviously an anti-social, if not actually a self-destructive and dangerous, behavior. Smokers who cannot govern their own behavior will simply have to be governed. I do lament the fact that the more considerate smokers get caught in this net, but as this thread shows, they really don't have much sympathy for the non-smokers, and are inclined to give lip service only to their pleas.

Govern yourselves or be governed. Smokers have made their choice. Their decision: "if you don't like it, leave..." The message they're sending is loud 'n clear. OK then. Got it. Now it's non-smoker decision time. And THEIR decision is, "tax & regulate the heck out of tobacco, however long it takes.

That's quite a battle cry you've got going on there. I agree with some in the abstract, but it's usually the militant, frothing at the mouth stuff that loses me.

When the medical backdrop gets yanked out from under, the narrative switches to consideration of others. Far as I know, non-smokers don't rate extra rights or consideration over smokers. Non-smokers might believe they do, in their own smug way, which actually illustrates my point brilliantly.

Non-smoking lobby has worked hard to caste smoking and smokers as "less than" members in our society, so non-smokers have been led to believe their wishes trump those of smokers. Further, that non-smokers consider they've got the government in their pocket now, so can toss around loose talk about punitive taxes and enacting more legislation and controls, like a walk in the park. It has nothing to do with revenue or even getting more people to become non-smokers. It's about power, control, governing the group that, in one group's opinion, needs to be governed because their behavior doesn't meet with their approval.

Your diatribe about smog inspection standards for your vehicle was in the present tense, so are you in the US now? Are you in Kalifornia by chance?

[55Jay]

Yes, we are in LOS. Where there actually is a prohibition on smoking in public places... Go turn yourself in. Or better yet, show us what a real warrior you are, get out from behind your big bad keyboard, and throw a couple of ciggy butts down on the ground in front of a thai cop. Be sure and let us know how that goes.

Did you just assume Transam was a smoker because he disagrees or is challenging you?

If I disagreed with one side of the political spectrum here, would you instantly label me as one of the other colored t-shirt people?

[ukrules]

Yes, we are in LOS. Where there actually is a prohibition on smoking in public places... Go turn yourself in. Or better yet, show us what a real warrior you are, get out from behind your big bad keyboard, and throw a couple of ciggy butts down on the ground in front of a thai cop. Be sure and let us know how that goes.

Not quite true, there are smoking regulations about air conditioned enclosed spaces in Thailand from what I understand.

I think a lot of this comes down to people not liking the smell. That's just hard luck. I walked near to a drain earlier today and there was quite a smell coming out from there, who knows what I was breathing in, I'll bet it wasn't good for me but I won't be campaigning for them to be banned.

I first noticed people becoming 'allergic' to cigarette smoke in the US shortly after smoking bans were introduced in certain states a long time ago back when I would occasionally travel in that part of the world. Before those laws were introduced I'd never heard anyone complain about being allergic to cigarette smoke, not once ever. Now it's happening everywhere.

[55Jay]

Yes, we are in LOS. Where there actually is a prohibition on smoking in public places... Go turn yourself in. Or better yet, show us what a real warrior you are, get out from behind your big bad keyboard, and throw a couple of ciggy butts down on the ground in front of a thai cop. Be sure and let us know how that goes.

Not quite true, there are smoking regulations about air conditioned enclosed spaces in Thailand from what I understand.

I think a lot of this comes down to people not liking the smell. That's just hard luck. I walked near to a drain earlier today and there was quite a smell coming out from there, who knows what I was breathing in, I'll bet it wasn't good for me but I won't be campaigning for them to be banned.

I first noticed people becoming 'allergic' to cigarette smoke in the US shortly after smoking bans were introduced in certain states a long time ago back when I would occasionally travel in that part of the world. Before those laws were introduced I'd never heard anyone complain about being allergic to cigarette smoke, not once ever. Now it's happening everywhere.

Classic observation.

I had also never heard of ADD but it seems to be rampant in the US, requiring medication. We used to call it fidgeting when I was a young student and the medication was a solid whack with a ruler from a robustly built female teacher of Eastern European extraction. Sorted.

[Roychua]

Yes, we are in LOS. Where there actually is a prohibition on smoking in public places... Go turn yourself in. Or better yet, show us what a real warrior you are, get out from behind your big bad keyboard, and throw a couple of ciggy butts down on the ground in front of a thai cop. Be sure and let us know how that goes.

You should also get out from behind your big bad keyboard and show us what a real warrior you are by letting the next smoker(straight at their face) know how strongly you feel about them next time you see someone lighting up a ciggy next to you. Be sure and let us know how it goes. Edited June 2, 2014 by Roychua

[hawker9000]

http://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/legislation/country/thailand/summary

At least get educated, THEN post the nonsense.

Edited June 2, 2014 by hawker9000

[Roychua]

http://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/legislation/country/thailand/summary

At least get educated, THEN post the nonsense.

Please educate us on what your article prove that we are posting nonsense. Up until now, there is no one refuting those fact shown in the article that some area is not allow for smoking. You are the one who is spouting insult and you should be the one getting educated for better manners.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[englishoak]

Hawker your opinion is of course your own but as others have stated, when you drive there is pollution that affects others, you fly same thing in fact it is worse due to the effect on nature and the like, smoking is much less affecting others yet you clearly drive and fly and think nothing of it.

Problem with weekend warriors is they pick one thing to champion and conveniently omit other glaring areas that make them a hypocrite, not by intention but by unthinkingly claiming a moral high ground on one subject.

You are also using ridicule to try to win an argument, which isnt going too well i notice.

I had a similar conversation with a vegetarian and the argument of animals rights and its disgusting, damaging to your body and forcing others like children to think its ok etc, and they were standing there talking to me wearing leather shoes and a leather jacket with a car with leather seats... its hypocrisy and I have to say I laughed in his face

I know one person that is truly vegetarian that wont touch any animal product and thats because he hates animals and cant stand being anywhere near anything to do with them. I dont laugh at him and respect his reasoning. He also dosnt bang the drum but gets on with his life and his choice.

Tolerance of others and their choice, you step outside and your being bombarded with fumes and other chemicals all the time doing you no good at all, you also take part in spreading that about to others too, you just choose to ignore it. Much the same as I ignore a smoker when he lights up... no big deal, just vote with your feet and be happy your not paying a tax they are.

[hawker9000]

This is becoming steadily more pointless. I'm happy with the ever-increasing taxes & regulation, thanks. Deal with it (as non-smokers have had to). You don't want to give any consideration: don't expect any.

'Smoke 'em if you've got 'em. (While you still can. Lol. I can wait.)

Apparently, I have to buy a vehicle in Thailand (and NOT use public transportation), even though I'm subject to some of the most stringent emission controls in the world where I actually LIVE (!) or I'm a "hypocrite". And then of course I'll be a hypocrite anyway. Can it GET any more absurd? Really, the effects of cerebral oxygen deprivation are becoming self-evident here.

[englishoak]

This is becoming steadily more pointless. I'm happy with the ever-increasing taxes & regulation, thanks. Deal with it (as non-smokers have had to). You don't want to give any consideration: don't expect any.

'Smoke 'em if you've got 'em. (While you still can. Lol. I can wait.)

Apparently, I have to buy a vehicle in Thailand (and NOT use public transportation), even though I'm subject to some of the most stringent emission controls in the world where I actually LIVE (!) or I'm a "hypocrite". And then of course I'll be a hypocrite anyway. Can it GET any more absurd? Really, the effects of cerebral oxygen deprivation are becoming self-evident here.

The point I was trying to get across was you are judging others by the choices they make and do it with bad grace, which is uncalled for. You also did not choose your emission controls but have to live with it right ? yet there are still emissions and had there been no controls you would no doubt not pay voluntarily. In the same light smoking has been seriously curtailed in public and taxed ( just as vehicles have tax depending on emissions ) that IS called consideration.

Let me ask you a different question as you say it is becoming a pointless and circular discussion.

if they manage to take out the tar and harmful chemicals but leave the nicotine then would you still be disgusted by lets say the smell alone and still want them taxed and if so for what reason ?

[55Jay]

The anti-tobacco lobby wouldn't care. They want to ban tobacco but they realized early on they would never win in a frontal assault on tobacco because the industry is a huge cash crop for the government. So, they attack the user, and where the users use it, concoct information, stigmatize the product and dehumanize the users. They chip away around the edges and they could care less about how it smells or the health concerns. It's about winning. It's about control. It's about damaging the industry financially and driving it out of business. Death by a million cuts.

Smokers are just the dummies in the sump getting kicked around, and the non-smokers who get all frothy at the mouth are the anti-smoking lobby's unpaid dancing idiots.

Edited June 3, 2014 by 55Jay

[tesco1]

Why in Thailand the law is

2008, Thailand announced further restrictions that came into force on 10 February 2008, in that smoking would be banned (indoors and outdoors) in establishments open to the public, including restaurants, bars, and open-air markets. Members of the public face a 2,000 baht fines for not complying, and establishments face a 20,000 baht fine for not enforcing the ban (including not displaying mandated 'no smoking' signs). In addition to fines, those who fail to comply may be arrested.

So why are bars still have smoking and dont have no smoking signs

[DrTuner]

Why in Thailand the law is 2008, Thailand announced further restrictions that came into force on 10 February 2008, in that smoking would be banned (indoors and outdoors) in establishments open to the public, including restaurants, bars, and open-air markets. Members of the public face a 2,000 baht fines for not complying, and establishments face a 20,000 baht fine for not enforcing the ban (including not displaying mandated 'no smoking' signs). In addition to fines, those who fail to comply may be arrested. So why are bars still have smoking and dont have no smoking signs

As usual, when that law was made ashtrays disappeared for a couple of days, after which tentative checks were made and once it was found nobody was enforcing the law, to hell with it. I kinda like that in the Thais, practical.