Cigarette purchase restriction

[emilymat]

There's no restriction, it would hurt government earnings too much. As of tax rises every shop is normally forced to raise prices immediately, especially 7/11 and all the big stores selling with sales slips, they have to pay the higher taxes without delay. But most of the small shops take also advantage, always enjoying some extra profit (telling you that they have to obey the law and they fear controlls, but that's another story..).

Im pretty sure they (the stores) pay the tax when they purchase the cigarettes from the supplier. Paying tax when they are sold makes no sense. How would they possibly keep track of that?

The whole reason they were limiting the amount at the one store was because they could sell them at the new rate later even though they paid the old tax rate.

Absolutely. Exactly my point in an earlier post. They were hanging on to present stock, to be able to sell them at the higher price later.

[chickenslegs]

Cigarettes in AU are a little more than $25 per packet = 630THB now thats a grab at your arse for tax.

I don't smoke but think if a government believes that it so bad, then ban it.

If they ban smoking, smokers will still get their supplies (from criminals).

Hospitals will still have to treat the smoking related illnesses at great cost to the taxpayer.

More taxpayers money will be needed to enforce the tobacco ban law.

The government will lose the revenue from tobacco and will have to raise taxes on other things.

Everyone loses - except the criminals.

[MAJIC]

Not sure but for me a non smoke I think it is a great idea can save lots of life's .

Good on the thai government if it is true should do it in the west as well .

You probably also think that stopping people from buying beer in the 7/11 between 2pm and 5pm is going to save loads of lives as well ?

It will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop smokers from buying what they want they will just go elsewhere. Something that nevers seems to occur to people like yourself or the people who make these ridiculous laws

We are not talk about drinking we are talking about smoking.

You need to look at what smoking cost the governments in the long run with what happens to long time smoking it is a dirty habit and if I had my way I would have here like back home smokers smoke in the car park not were people eat .

And back home the new laws come in next year no more smoking in mall and were people eat out side the best thing that can happen.

Because people like you that smoke don't care about non smokers like me .

Agreed and I'm a smoker. If cigarettes were introduced today and with the health effects and addiction known, they wouldn't be legal.

I hate them. But I also love them.

[Bangkokhatter]

What happened to the supposed 5 to 10 Baht increase ?

LM red have gone up 19 Baht....robbing bar stewards.

[bbbbooboo]

It might be that people who are addicted to the nicotine in tobacco ordinarily do what addicts do to feed their addiction.This is probably easier to do in Thailand than some other countries with their smoke-free policies

[emilymat]

What happened to the supposed 5 to 10 Baht increase ?

LM red have gone up 19 Baht....robbing bar stewards.

Yep. See post 25.

I have no problem with this price when compared with the UK/Oz and other places.

However, I have lost track of the amount of posters on ThaiVisa who give one of the main resons for living here, is to escape the 'nanny state' back home, whether it's Europe/Oz/US or wherever.

However, when it comes to smoking there is often an 'obsession' on here to bring in a nanny state. Not from current posters on this subject, but fags seem to bring out a real reaction in some people. The old taboo subjects at dinner parties used to be religion and politics. They should now add smoking.

I do not drink booze at all. Just never have. I can clearly see a road safetyand health reason for banning it, but I would never ever support such a proposition.

The other think is the 'cost' to health services caused by the evil weed. Well, according to my spies, obesity and overweight are the big issues in the UK NHS and casualty departments struggle to cope with the amount of booze related incidences in the late evening and early morning.

So, I guess I'm saying. Lets have some tolerance. I don't want another argument with the guy who passionately believed that me, sitting on a park bench 200 yards away having a quiet Woodbine,was polluting his air.

Finally, I just don't believe the underlying reason for these substantial increases is a public health campaign. It's to raise revenue, particularly with the drop in oil prices. However, like all governments, you have todress it up for something it is not.

[Bangkokhatter]

What happened to the supposed 5 to 10 Baht increase ?

LM red have gone up 19 Baht....robbing bar stewards.

Yep. See post 25.

I have no problem with this price when compared with the UK/Oz and other places.

However, I have lost track of the amount of posters on ThaiVisa who give one of the main resons for living here, is to escape the 'nanny state' back home, whether it's Europe/Oz/US or wherever.

However, when it comes to smoking there is often an 'obsession' on here to bring in a nanny state. Not from current posters on this subject, but fags seem to bring out a real reaction in some people. The old taboo subjects at dinner parties used to be religion and politics. They should now add smoking.

I do not drink booze at all. Just never have. I can clearly see a road safetyand health reason for banning it, but I would never ever support such a proposition.

The other think is the 'cost' to health services caused by the evil weed. Well, according to my spies, obesity and overweight are the big issues in the UK NHS and casualty departments struggle to cope with the amount of booze related incidences in the late evening and early morning.

So, I guess I'm saying. Lets have some tolerance. I don't want another argument with the guy who passionately believed that me, sitting on a park bench 200 yards away having a quiet Woodbine,was polluting his air.

Finally, I just don't believe the underlying reason for these substantial increases is a public health campaign. It's to raise revenue, particularly with the drop in oil prices. However, like all governments, you have todress it up for something it is not.

Your preaching to the converted.

I drink and smoke and enjoy both knowing full well 1 or other will kill me. If i didn't drink or smoke i will die from some other disease.

I pay alot of extra taxes to enjoy my vices, if both were outlawed tomorrow where would the various governments around the world get that tax from ?

Would be interesting to see the reaction of all the pious folk when the tax on their mineral water goes up 30 % overnight.

Having had me rant i will say i am a considerate smoker and do think some smokers should be more aware of their surroundings before lighting up.

[chickenslegs]

The "Nanny State" argument is just a diversion. The 'State' couldn't care less about your individual health or welfare.

But, a State has to be able to derive income in order to provide basic services for the masses.

State income normally comes from two sources - Tax on income and tax on expenditure (VAT).

The most fair way to collect taxes (IMHO) is tax on expenditure.

So (again IMHO) it seems reasonable that taxes should be lower on basic needs (food, clothing, education, etc.) and higher on luxury goods.

Some things, those which are not only luxury goods but also cause a great deal of cost to the State (alcohol, tobacco, etc.) should (IMHO) be taxed at a much higher rate. Alcohol and tobacco are not necessities of life.

If the higher taxation helps people to give up their addiction that is a desirable side-effect.

I am an ex-smoker who enjoys alcohol in many forms. I would never deny anyone the right to smoke or drink, if they do so considerately and are willing to pay the price.

[1BADDAT]

This has got to be a record..3 logical and well written posts about a subject in a row! Whoops..I just ruined the streak....

[uksomchai]

I ALWAYS find that the ex-smokers are the biggest whingers, not the never have smoked crew. Once a smoker always a smoker I say, they whinge and whine because they still crave. I believe in quality not quantity. If have tried to give up many times and I can tell you that live is miserable craving all the time and its miserable for everyone around me....if they stick around!!

NO I can confirm it is just YOU

I gave up years ago after many years of 3 packs a day. I will never have another one again but others smoking doesn't bother me in the slightest and found the whole process easy once I had decided I really wanted to stop. I simply stopped, didn;t use patches or gum but just never smoked again.

The trouble lies in those people who have to come up with these methods of getting people to stop. These people tend to have never smoked before so think that the lunacy like plain packages and photos of diseased lungs on the packets will stop people. They wont and never will. Anyone that will get out of bed and walks 3 miles to the nearest all night garage at 3am when it is pouring down with rain to get a packet of smokes isn't going to be put buying a pack because of lunacy like they come up with. Something a non smoker will never understand

[Bangkokhatter]

The "Nanny State" argument is just a diversion. The 'State' couldn't care less about your individual health or welfare.

But, a State has to be able to derive income in order to provide basic services for the masses.

State income normally comes from two sources - Tax on income and tax on expenditure (VAT).

The most fair way to collect taxes (IMHO) is tax on expenditure.

So (again IMHO) it seems reasonable that taxes should be lower on basic needs (food, clothing, education, etc.) and higher on luxury goods.

Some things, those which are not only luxury goods but also cause a great deal of cost to the State (alcohol, tobacco, etc.) should (IMHO) be taxed at a much higher rate. Alcohol and tobacco are not necessities of life.

If the higher taxation helps people to give up their addiction that is a desirable side-effect.

I am an ex-smoker who enjoys alcohol in many forms. I would never deny anyone the right to smoke or drink, if they do so considerately and are willing to pay the price.

Like i said i enjoy both and up to now accept the higher cost, but governments should admit it's just an income grab, your correct they dont care.

But what happens when its outlawed , what product will fags be replaced by ?

[BudRight]

Strange though.....not sure how limiting someone to 2 packs per purchase in a single store will help decrease smoking.

Because people who think this have total shit for brains - probably why they're also fascists.

Edited February 12, 2016 by BudRight

[Rocketsurgeon]

Smoking is a foul habit and a killer. I've lost every relative that has been a regular smoker above 65.

I was a smoker many years ago but realized the idiocy.

Anyone that smokes these days is from the lower classes from abroad.

Please feel free to smoke somewhere not around me. I will not mourn your demise.

Makes your lungs black, teeth yellow and your breath and clothes foul.

English teachers that smoke - need to fire the lot of them.

Weak willed people can't quit. That simple. I too as above post, just quit.

Contrary, govts do care about smokers, they are often left to cover bills. There are indirect costs. This is though in direct cost to taxation. I think govts in general save for China would prefer their citizens not smoke - but are happy for the revenue.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Rocketsurgeon

[Rocketsurgeon]

RIP auntie, died tragic death at 72 from smoking Dec 16, 2016.

Another some years back from Emphasyma at 54.

Good luck geniuses.

[jacko45k]

Not sure but for me a non smoke I think it is a great idea can save lots of life's .

Good on the thai government if it is true should do it in the west as well .

It is stupid, anyone could simply go to the the next nearest 7-11 and get some more, likely no more than 50 yards away or on the opposite corner.! More nanny state rubbish, bad enough in UK where they will only sell 2 packets of pills at a visit.

[geronimo]

In reply to your query, it was only for one day. Something to do with old stock, so you can now puff away as before without having to worry. Nice to see all the negs out so early on this thread!

[geronimo]

Smoking is a foul habit and a killer. I've lost every relative that has been a regular smoker above 65.

I was a smoker many years ago but realized the idiocy.

Anyone that smokes these days is from the lower classes from abroad.

Please feel free to smoke somewhere not around me. I will not mourn your demise.

Makes your lungs black, teeth yellow and your breath and clothes foul.

English teachers that smoke - need to fire the lot of them.

Weak willed people can't quit. That simple. I too as above post, just quit.

Contrary, govts do care about smokers, they are often left to cover bills. There are indirect costs. This is though in direct cost to taxation. I think govts in general save for China would prefer their citizens not smoke - but are happy for the revenue.

Tarring us all with the same brush does nothing to help your intelligence shine.

[novo58]

IMO ...this is simply a case of the individual store limiting sales at the old price in order to increase the profit margin after the "new" tax rate is applied to existing stock ( which were of course purchased at the old tax rate).

In Australia...............there is a Federal tax excise increase applied twice a year on alcohol and tobacco ( supposedly to reflect rises in inflation)..................

Many outlets also use this tax increase to add ................." a little bit for themselves" to help cover increases in operating costs such as transport , staff wage increases, insurances, utility charges etc. Besides which ...............the tax increase may result in an actual increase of lets say 7 cents to the product....but the outlet will add 10c to the price ( as Australia no longer has coins under the 5c coin).

It is common practice for outlets to increase their stock holdings BEFORE the increased tax rate is applied..............buying at old tax rate ...sell at new tax rate. Suppliers will place restrictions on the quantity they will supply shortly before these tax rate changes------but savvy operators will start to increase stock holdings 2-3 months before the date of the increase.

[hoffy66]

Not sure but for me a non smoke I think it is a great idea can save lots of life's .

Good on the thai government if it is true should do it in the west as well .

You probably also think that stopping people from buying beer in the 7/11 between 2pm and 5pm is going to save loads of lives as well ?

It will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop smokers from buying what they want they will just go elsewhere. Something that nevers seems to occur to people like yourself or the people who make these ridiculous laws

We are not talk about drinking we are talking about smoking.

You need to look at what smoking cost the governments in the long run with what happens to long time smoking it is a dirty habit and if I had my way I would have here like back home smokers smoke in the car park not were people eat .

And back home the new laws come in next year no more smoking in mall and were people eat out side the best thing that can happen.

Because people like you that smoke don't care about non smokers like me .

Maybe you should go home to your pristine country, have you not noticed this is Thailand?? we do what we want, drive around and see for yourself....

[fekman]

Not sure but for me a non smoke I think it is a great idea can save lots of life's .

Good on the thai government if it is true should do it in the west as well .

You probably also think that stopping people from buying beer in the 7/11 between 2pm and 5pm is going to save loads of lives as well ?

It will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop smokers from buying what they want they will just go elsewhere. Something that nevers seems to occur to people like yourself or the people who make these ridiculous laws

We are not talk about drinking we are talking about smoking.

You need to look at what smoking cost the governments in the long run with what happens to long time smoking it is a dirty habit and if I had my way I would have here like back home smokers smoke in the car park not were people eat .

And back home the new laws come in next year no more smoking in mall and were people eat out side the best thing that can happen.

Because people like you that smoke don't care about non smokers like me .

We are talking about government restriction. And limiting the number of packs purchased or raising the tax has little effect on whether people smoke or not.

If the thai government cared at all about smoking or ones health, they would allow E cigarettes. But they don't allow that because they won't get their tax cut on them. That's the reality....Cough cough....

I saw a dude buy a pack with a $10 bill, and he spent his .80 change on fuel. He had a baby seat in his car. Raising cig prices doesn't deter a smoker. They just have less money to spend on other things......like fuel, diapers, food, education etc.

[nisakiman]

Smoking is a foul habit and a killer. I've lost every relative that has been a regular smoker above 65.

I was a smoker many years ago but realized the idiocy.

Anyone that smokes these days is from the lower classes from abroad.

Please feel free to smoke somewhere not around me. I will not mourn your demise.

Makes your lungs black, teeth yellow and your breath and clothes foul.

English teachers that smoke - need to fire the lot of them.

Weak willed people can't quit. That simple. I too as above post, just quit.

Contrary, govts do care about smokers, they are often left to cover bills. There are indirect costs. This is though in direct cost to taxation. I think govts in general save for China would prefer their citizens not smoke - but are happy for the revenue.

The Tobacco Control zealots would be proud of your outburst. Another indoctrinated drone to add to their scoreboard. Another useful idiot to broadcast their lies and propaganda.

Did you know, for instance, that a pathologist cannot tell whether someone smoked or not by examining their lungs? Even microscopically? Smoking doesn't 'make lungs black'. That's just another myth propagated by the anti-smoking industry. Here's a little bit of info about 'smokers dying young' that might interest you:

Those 400,000 Smoking Victims Live Longer Than The Rest of Us! Bulletin

Preliminary report

By Rosalind B. Marimont

For years the anti-tobacco crusaders, from Drs. Koop and Kessler to President Clinton, have claimed that "cigarette smoking is the greatest cause of preventable or premature deaths, causing 400,000 deaths a year, a number greater than auto accidents, homicide, suicide, and various other causes of death combined."

They have used this statement to brand tobacco public health enemy number 1, and to justify huge amounts of money, time, and attention to the war on smoking, while all but ignoring alcohol and drug abuse.

Incredibly, analysis of the ages of the 400K supposed deaths computed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) SAMMEC (Smoking Attributable Mortality, Morbidity and Economic Costs) program shows that tobacco is not a major health threat at all - the supposed victims did not die early!

• THE SMOKING "VICTIMS" LIVED LONGER THAN THE REST OF US, BY ABOUT 2 YEARS - 71.9 vs. 70.
• OVER 70,000, or about 17%, DIED "PREMATURELY" AT AGES GREATER THAN 85.
• ONLY 1900, OR FEWER THAN O.5 % OF THE SMOKING "VICTIMS" DIED AT AGES LESS THAN 35, WHILE 143.000, OR 8% OF THE REST OF US DIED AT AGES LESS THAN 35

If so many of the smoking victims are old, and so few young, and if, on the average, they live longer than the rest of us, how are their deaths "premature"? According to the technical definition used by SAMMEC, any "smoking related" death is considered premature. There is no upper age limit to the computation.

These astonishing numbers, which totally demolish the main argument of the anti-smoking movement, are the result of my analysis of the SAMMEC age distribution computations for the years 1990-1994, provided, at my request, by the Office of Smoking and Health (OSH) of the CDC. For comparison with other deaths, I used 1992 mortality statistics of the National Center for Health Statistics.

On the other hand, the deaths slighted in the 400K statements are premature. For example, the average ages at death of motor accident victims was 39, of suicides 45, and of homicide victims 32, compared to 70 for the general population. These non-smoking deaths total about 98000, of which about 50% are under 35, and are largely alcohol and drug related.

The SAMMEC methodology has been criticized by many epidemiologists, statisticians, and all purpose general applied mathematicians like me on technical grounds, which are usually not comprehensible to non-specialists. But these age numbers are easy to understand - How is tobacco the number one killer, when its "victims" live longer than the rest of us?

Rosalind B. Marimont

http://www.forces.org/evidence/sammec/newproof.htm

I could quote pages and pages of research results that show the anti-smokers for the liars and charlatans that they are. They are past masters in the art of propaganda, and have a level of funding that the tobacco companies couldn't hope to dream of matching. And they have taken full advantage of their financial clout.

As Goebbels (Hitler's propaganda minister) once said:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Anti-smoking has never been about health. It's a puritan ideology.

[mogandave]

Not sure but for me a non smoke I think it is a great idea can save lots of life's .

Good on the thai government if it is true should do it in the west as well .

You probably also think that stopping people from buying beer in the 7/11 between 2pm and 5pm is going to save loads of lives as well ?

It will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop smokers from buying what they want they will just go elsewhere. Something that nevers seems to occur to people like yourself or the people who make these ridiculous laws

We are not talk about drinking we are talking about smoking.

You need to look at what smoking cost the governments in the long run with what happens to long time smoking it is a dirty habit and if I had my way I would have here like back home smokers smoke in the car park not were people eat .

And back home the new laws come in next year no more smoking in mall and were people eat out side the best thing that can happen.

Because people like you that smoke don't care about non smokers like me .

Why don't you quit trading with places that allow smoking?

[Don Mega]

RIP auntie, died tragic death at 72 from smoking Dec 16, 2016.

Another some years back from Emphasyma at 54.

Good luck geniuses.

Yeah I dont reckon your auntie is dead yet.

[emilymat]

It's sad, a post that started with someone asking a question about availability of fags on a specific day, caused simply by 7/11 wanting to make a killing on a tax hike, we now have the vitriolic ex-smokers banging on about how strong they are and how weak are we, those who like a puff now andagain.

I repeat, a respected friend of mine in the NHS has advised me that diabetes is the biggest problem and will be in years to come, the main cause of which is overweight and lack of any exercise. Maybe we should ban food.!

See how stupid some of these debates can be. I feel sorry for the guy who says he lost all his relatives over 70 to smoking. I'm 74, have smoked for 60 years, don't drink and exercise regularly. Clearly I'm lucky as my best mate died 4 years ago here in Thailand from lung cancer. He never smoked.

[Jay1]

Girlfriend just got back from 7/11 and apparently she was not allowed to buy more than 2 packs of cigarettes, with the staff stating it's a new government regulation?

Couldn't find anything official on google - anyone have any information on that?

Is this just another brain fart that'll go away in a week?

The government just announced a price increase for ciggies. I guess your local shop still sells existing stock at the old price. The 2 packs limit is to prevent hoarding.

Yeah I reckon that's exactly why. Went to buy my usual pack of LM green from tesco express today and for the first time since it opened about a year ago they were out of stock. Had to go for Marlbro instead which were a lot more expensive.. Nice, smooth smoke though I've gotta say

[georgemandm]

Not sure but for me a non smoke I think it is a great idea can save lots of life's .

Good on the thai government if it is true should do it in the west as well .

You probably also think that stopping people from buying beer in the 7/11 between 2pm and 5pm is going to save loads of lives as well ?

It will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop smokers from buying what they want they will just go elsewhere. Something that nevers seems to occur to people like yourself or the people who make these ridiculous laws

We are not talk about drinking we are talking about smoking.

You need to look at what smoking cost the governments in the long run with what happens to long time smoking it is a dirty habit and if I had my way I would have here like back home smokers smoke in the car park not were people eat .

And back home the new laws come in next year no more smoking in mall and were people eat out side the best thing that can happen.

Because people like you that smoke don't care about non smokers like me .

Maybe you should go home to your pristine country, have you not noticed this is Thailand?? we do what we want, drive around and see for yourself....

I do go back home to my pristine country a lot maybe you should look at how good it is , we are talking about people who can't buy packs of smokes not my pristine country and yes I do drive around and see how bad you who should drive good but starts to drive like Thais because you are not going to get caught, but the thai people don't get good training like we do back home .

So maybe you should start to drive good and show the thai people how to be a good driver.

[georgemandm]

Not sure but for me a non smoke I think it is a great idea can save lots of life's .

Good on the thai government if it is true should do it in the west as well .

You probably also think that stopping people from buying beer in the 7/11 between 2pm and 5pm is going to save loads of lives as well ?

It will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop smokers from buying what they want they will just go elsewhere. Something that nevers seems to occur to people like yourself or the people who make these ridiculous laws

We are not talk about drinking we are talking about smoking.

You need to look at what smoking cost the governments in the long run with what happens to long time smoking it is a dirty habit and if I had my way I would have here like back home smokers smoke in the car park not were people eat .

And back home the new laws come in next year no more smoking in mall and were people eat out side the best thing that can happen.

Because people like you that smoke don't care about non smokers like me .

Why don't you quit trading with places that allow smoking?

The problem is most places you go to in thailand now have smokers and hop in the future it will change so I don't have to put up with people who care only about they self and not care about people who are non smokers .

[mogandave]

Not sure but for me a non smoke I think it is a great idea can save lots of life's .

Good on the thai government if it is true should do it in the west as well .

You probably also think that stopping people from buying beer in the 7/11 between 2pm and 5pm is going to save loads of lives as well ?

It will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop smokers from buying what they want they will just go elsewhere. Something that nevers seems to occur to people like yourself or the people who make these ridiculous laws

We are not talk about drinking we are talking about smoking.

You need to look at what smoking cost the governments in the long run with what happens to long time smoking it is a dirty habit and if I had my way I would have here like back home smokers smoke in the car park not were people eat .

And back home the new laws come in next year no more smoking in mall and were people eat out side the best thing that can happen.

Because people like you that smoke don't care about non smokers like me .

Why don't you quit trading with places that allow smoking?

The problem is most places you go to in thailand now have smokers and hop in the future it will change so I don't have to put up with people who care only about they self and not care about people who are non smokers .

Non smokers don't seem to care much about the comfort of smokers.

Again, if all the non smokers quit patronizing businesses that allow smoking, more no-smoking places would open up.

[mogandave]

It's sad, a post that started with someone asking a question about availability of fags on a specific day, caused simply by 7/11 wanting to make a killing on a tax hike, we now have the vitriolic ex-smokers banging on about how strong they are and how weak are we, those who like a puff now andagain.

I repeat, a respected friend of mine in the NHS has advised me that diabetes is the biggest problem and will be in years to come, the main cause of which is overweight and lack of any exercise. Maybe we should ban food.!

See how stupid some of these debates can be. I feel sorry for the guy who says he lost all his relatives over 70 to smoking. I'm 74, have smoked for 60 years, don't drink and exercise regularly. Clearly I'm lucky as my best mate died 4 years ago here in Thailand from lung cancer. He never smoked.

Yeah, I lost my mother and father both to smoking, dad at 85 and mom at 89.

I'm sure second hand smoke is going to get all us kids, just a matter of time...

[georgemandm]

Not sure but for me a non smoke I think it is a great idea can save lots of life's .

Good on the thai government if it is true should do it in the west as well .

You probably also think that stopping people from buying beer in the 7/11 between 2pm and 5pm is going to save loads of lives as well ?

It will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop smokers from buying what they want they will just go elsewhere. Something that nevers seems to occur to people like yourself or the people who make these ridiculous laws

We are not talk about drinking we are talking about smoking.

You need to look at what smoking cost the governments in the long run with what happens to long time smoking it is a dirty habit and if I had my way I would have here like back home smokers smoke in the car park not were people eat .

And back home the new laws come in next year no more smoking in mall and were people eat out side the best thing that can happen.

Because people like you that smoke don't care about non smokers like me .

Why don't you quit trading with places that allow smoking?

The problem is most places you go to in thailand now have smokers and hop in the future it will change so I don't have to put up with people who care only about they self and not care about people who are non smokers .

Non smokers don't seem to care much about the comfort of smokers.

Again, if all the non smokers quit patronizing businesses that allow smoking, more no-smoking places would open up.

You not get do you it is not about the smokers in this world now it is about people who can't stand people with no brains who what to smoke in front of people who are non smokers.

You want to kill your self do it your home not in public.