New Smoking Ban Will Take Effect In December

[madmitch]

I think I saw an anti-smoking commercial on TV last night, though not being a Thai speaker, I'm not too sure. It showed a girl sitting next to a guy, the usual Thai commercial types, he lit up and she politley told him to put out the cigarette and he obliged.

If it was a genuine stop smoking commercial, why do they still need to pixellate the cigarette?

[kmart]

Just another attempt to copy the laws of "developed countries" to make Thailand seem advanced and sophisticated. A bit like the abortion ban ages ago to ease trade with Catholic Germany.

They passed a law a few years ago to ban smoking in bars / restaurants with air-con; and I've never seen a shred of any difference there.

They can pass any law they want in never-never land of the Thai Parliament, and it will not make one lick of frigging difference to yer average citizen; just another opportunity for the cops to get into your wallet again.

I'm busy loading up on booze; drugs; fireworks and cigarettes for Loy Kratong this year. Anyone care to join me?

[johnwills]

Funny how the governments around the world who try to curb smoking never apologize to their people for allowing them to become addicted in the first place.

[summerT]

Well said jon, If they really cared they woulod make it illigle just like all the other drugs.

[konangrit]

They passed a law a few years ago to ban smoking in bars / restaurants with air-con; and I've never seen a shred of any difference there.

They can pass any law they want in never-never land of the Thai Parliament, and it will not make one lick of frigging difference to yer average citizen; just another opportunity for the cops to get into your wallet again.

Exactly, smoking was banned in restaurants here years ago, but it's never enforced.

I find it crazy how some posters here think it's a great thing for peoples lungs that smoking will be banned at diesel fumed bus stops and bus stations. The poster I'm reffering to even suggested that smokers should be encapsulated from the outside world to pollute their lungs as much as they wish. I think their lungs would probably last a lot longer than those non-cigarette smokers exposed to the "clean" air at a bus stop in downtown Bangkok.

I'll just add that I'm a smoker, I realise that it's seriously unhealthy. I also realise that passive smoking can be a serious health hazzard to non-smokers in enclosed spaces too. I don't force people to breathe my smoke, unless they are in my house, where if they are adults they have a choice to be there or not, if they are kids or a pregnant woman, then I even oblige that courtesy not to smoke even in my own home. But in drinking establishments? No, I enjoy a smoke there just as many other customers and staff do. If you don't want to be around other peoples smoke you have a choice, don't go to those places, go to a non-smoking establishment.

I'm from the UK, in the village I used to drink there were many pubs. One of the most popular was non-smoking, that's great, if you wanted to go to the pub and not smoke, go there. I was quite happy to respect the non-smoking rule when meeting people there. If you wanted to smoke, there were many other places to go, freedom of choice. That's a great thing, I think, freedom of choice. Unfortunately the politically correct world of this day no longer respects free will or freedom of choice. It's a blame society, no-one takes responsibility for their own actions anymore, It's one of the worst exports from the US there ever was, I'm sure a lot of Americans will agree with me.

So we end up with a risk averse world where everyone leads long boring lives dictated by the state, as opposed to a life of free will with a little randomness thrown in which may be short, may be long, but a heck of a lot more fun.

Please excuse me for preffering the latter, without exposing you to potential danger. You have a choice whether or not you go into inside smoking establishments, and when you complain about breathing in other peoples smoke in outdoor ones which are engulfed by toxic traffic fumes you just make your arguments look into

lerant and ridiculous.

So, you wish they would tax cigarettes B500? Why should you care if you don't smoke? Instead of complaining, just don't go to places where people smoke. Is this too much of a simple solution?

Edited October 30, 2006 by konangrit

[Mighty Mouse]

Instead of complaining, just don't go to places where people smoke. Is this too much of a simple solution?

This is a typical smokers, selfish response.

If all drinking/eating establishments are sign posted as "smoking allowed" or "no smoking allowed" I will agree with your thoughts. Such sign posted establishments in Thailand are few and far between.

If an establishment is not sign posted at all, what gives you the right to light up at will? Do you then expect all the non-smokers to vacate the premises so that you can exhale your noxious fumes into the air?

Comparing a bar to a bus station is ludicrous. Yes, both diesel fumes and tobacco smoke can cause lung cancer, but nobody in their right mind goes to a bus station for social engagement purposes.

Governments introduce and enforce anti smoking laws because of the drain upon the public purse caused by smoking related illnesses.

If smokers are able to contain their second hand smoke in their own breathing space and not allow it to infiltrate into another persons space, then you'll get no complaint from me.

[Hublet]

Some things will never change

They are:

Canadians vs Americans

Australians vs New Zealand

Thailand vs Burma (Myanmar for the politically correct twits but locally unitiated)

Drinkers vs Non-Drinkers

Smokers vs Non-Smokers

Konagrit - I applaud you for your well written response

Mighty Mouse (or did you spell it incorrectly and should it have read Mouth) keep your pants on

There will never be a compromise between the two. Those who smoke have their reasons and those who do not also have their reasons. And I find it rather interesting that it is normally those who have given up smoking that are the most vocal in the anti-smoking campaign. Yes everyone should and are being taught that smoking could be bad for you. No-one world wide can categorically tell you that smoking will harm your health there are only possibilities. However why should someone have the right to take away freedom of rights. It is a personal choice. You dont like the smell of smoke okay its disgusting. I don't like the smell of some foods, deodorants, washing powders, alcohol great then these should be banned as well. Then I wouldn't have to leave places that I would like to be.

Mighty Mouse your comment that "Governments introduce and enforce anti smoking laws because of the drain upon the public purse caused by smoking related illnesses" is true to an extent however did you know that the biggest drain on the public purse has now been change and has been proven to be Diabetes?

But the bottom line is that thems with and thems (Dr Suess for the illiterate) without will always find something to winge about and a law is a law for what ever reason. Yes I smoke but I also abide by the laws.

[Scott]

Well if diabetes is now a bigger problem than smoking, then it goes to show that the laws are effective. The ban on smoking is making a difference.

I know that some places are starting to ban sugared drinks and sweets in schools (Not in Thailand). So maybe eventually we will all die of nothing rather than the way it is now when we ultimately die from something!

[PhilHarries]

The law forbids smoking in transportation terminals, public parks, bus stops, sports stadiums, hotel lobbies, and traditional massage parlours. Violators would face a maximum fine of 2,000 baht. Md. Mongkol stated that members of the society have an important role to ensure the effectiveness of this law. However, officers will take immediate action against violators once the law is enforced.

--thaisnews.com 2006-10-28

So we are OK to light up in body massage parlours?

[Rinrada]

Ever notice that smokers never shut the doors of the little glass boxes that they all huddle up into in some airports departure areas.....

I always endeavour to make it a point when passing to assist and make sure they are securely closed....but they never seem to appreciate the gesture....

I..... dont know...whyyyyy?

[John K]

Well to be honest motorcycles roaring through bus stops seems to be a bit more hazardous than second hand smoke, much quicker to see the results of exposure too.

Just quit smoking you dinosaurs!

Me smoke, totally wrong read the signature below. I am just making an observation. Although smoking is totally disgusting, dodging, getting hit, or run over by a motorcycle while waiting for a bus is just a shorter trip to requiring medical intervention.

[Dakhar]

I'm from the UK, in the village I used to drink there were many pubs. One of the most popular was non-smoking, that's great, if you wanted to go to the pub and not smoke, go there. I was quite happy to respect the non-smoking rule when meeting people there. If you wanted to smoke, there were many other places to go, freedom of choice. That's a great thing, I think, freedom of choice. Unfortunately the politically correct world of this day no longer respects free will or freedom of choice. It's a blame society, no-one takes responsibility for their own actions anymore, It's one of the worst exports from the US there ever was, I'm sure a lot of Americans will agree with me.

Freedom of choice?

OK smokers want your freedom, and you do not want to influence others..... blah blah blah. Ok I agree with you, with one stipulation. This should be the new law. If you want to smoke, so be it... but in doing so you should be given a "smokers" ID. Once given a smokers ID you will not be entitled to medical social benefits.

Why should us non-smokers have their medical benifits shortened in order to pay for smokers voluntary suicide. You want to kill yourself... fine so be it, I am all for it. Heck, it decreases the social security payments... great more money to go around for those that actually tried to live a healthy life and live longer. But non-smokers for darn sure should not be held liable for smokers health care costs incurred as they cling to life on oxygen tanks.

There you go, you have your freedom without influencing others. Light them up, puff your cancer stick all you want... Suck it in, poison yourself. But don't influence my financial and health care freedom.

[PhilHarries]

OK smokers want your freedom, and you do not want to influence others..... blah blah blah. Ok I agree with you, with one stipulation. This should be the new law. If you want to smoke, so be it... but in doing so you should be given a "smokers" ID. Once given a smokers ID you will not be entitled to medical social benefits.

Why should us non-smokers have their medical benifits shortened in order to pay for smokers voluntary suicide. You want to kill yourself... fine so be it, I am all for it. Heck, it decreases the social security payments... great more money to go around for those that actually tried to live a healthy life and live longer. But non-smokers for darn sure should not be held liable for smokers health care costs incurred as they cling to life on oxygen tanks.

There you go, you have your freedom without influencing others. Light them up, puff your cancer stick all you want... Suck it in, poison yourself. But don't influence my financial and health care freedom.

I am a lifelong non-smoker, couple of puffs when I was a teenager was enough to put me off for life, but I do believe in the rights of people to engage in an actiivty that is not illegal. Applying your policy of no health benefits to smokers would be welcomed by smokers provided the tax levied on cigarettes was reduced to zero. Then they could make a choice of what to do with the extra money, health insurance or more fags/booze etc and an early unpleasant death.

Another side of this is that why should those of us that have adopted a moderately healthy lifestyle indulging in gentle excersise regimes pay, through our national insurance, for those sports injuries suffered by these X-treme sports nutters?

Governments worldwide are in a cleft stick where tobacco, and alchohol, consumption is concerned. On the one hand they have to be seen to be doing something to reduce the 'problem'. On the other hand the 'problem' is their cash cow via tax revenues. If everyone, say in the UK, stopped smoking and drinking tomorrow where is all that tax money going to come from. Ignoring any savings made in the health service, they are only a small time consumer of taxes, that will leave a large hole in the budget. Therefore the rate of income tax plus the VAT on goods and services will have to increase and this will be paid by everybody non-smokers and ex-smokers alike.

One day, in the future, all these health nuts are going to be lying in hospitals dying of absolutely nothing.

[Dakhar]

Great remarks. But I say let the taxes stand. No health beni's and pay the tax. You want to play, you gota pay.

I also agree with your comments about x-s sports. Extremely stupid sports.... We should not have to pick up the tab on that either.

Folks want freedom... you got it... just be willing to pay for it, when it back fires.

[Mighty Mouse]

..... why should someone have the right to take away freedom of rights. It is a personal choice. You dont like the smell of smoke okay its disgusting. I don't like the smell of some foods, deodorants, washing powders, alcohol great then these should be banned as well. Then I wouldn't have to leave places that I would like to be.

What is your argument? I'm not advocating that smokers shouldn't smoke cigarettes, cigars, pipes or whatever...just don't assume that you have a right to light up whenever or wherever your cravings dictate.

Just because you are addicted to the filthy habit don't expect others to tolerate you spreading your noxious concoction of chemicals by way of exhaling your fumes into our clean breathing space.

If the urge to smoke gets the better of your weak will power, take your tobacco, walk outside to an area where your second hand smoke is not going to cause discomfort to others, and smoke all you want. Is that too much to expect?

You complain about the smell of some foods, deodorants, washing powders etc. being unpleasant to your sense of smell.... ....that's just as crazy as the bus station comparison made by Konagrit.

After years of smoking you would no longer have an acute sense of smell or taste, so an odor would need to be fairly bad before it would become irritating for you.

You have your right to smoke, I have my right to breath clean air.

My insistence for clean air does not cause any harm to you, but your (selfishly assumed) right to blow your smoke into my breathing space has the real potential to cause harm to me.

As I said in my previous post, if you can't contain your smoke solely to your own breathing space, take your habit elsewhere, indulge yourself and then you can return until the pangs grab you again.

That way everyone will be happy.