Higher smoking age, tobacco advertising ban approved

[snoop1130]

Higher smoking age, tobacco advertising ban approved

By Khaosod English

 

One of a number of government-mandated visual warnings which have been printed on packs of cigarettes sold in Thailand.

 

BANGKOK — The interim cabinet on Tuesday approved a measure to raise the minimum smoking age to 20 from 18.

 

The increase was approved along with a raft of related measures to effectively ban all forms of advertising for the industry.

 

Full Story: http://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/health/2016/10/25/higher-smoking-age-tobacco-advertising-ban-approved/

 

-- © Copyright Khaosod English 2016-10-25

[Thechook]

Raise the prices, in Australia a packet of cigarettes will costs you around 1,200 to 1,800 baht.  Tobacco shops have closed down and gone out of business because people can't afford to smoke.

[Scott]

Off-topic, inflammatory posts and replies removed.

 

Continue at your own peril.   It's against the forum rules.  

[hanssna]

Should be lowered to 12. Thats when I started smoking. 

The good old seventies... 

[webfact]

New law to control Baragu sale approved

 

 

BANGKOK: -- The cabinet yesterday approved a proposed amendment to laws on smoking which now will cover ‘Shisha’ or Baragu and electric cigarettes.

 

The new legislation will forbid the sale and advertising – direct or indirect; of all these products.

 

The proposed amendment is a merger of the 1992 Smoking Act and the Non-Smokers Protection Act and critically will now take into consideration other forms of smoking such as Baragu (Shisha) and electric cigarettes as well.

 

Also, no form of advertising for these products will now be allowed and importantly has increased the permissible smoking age from 18 to 20 years of age.

 

Sub-categories of the new legislation also place restrictions on the sale or advertising of smoking products on the social media as well as forbidding the portion or ‘part sale’ of cigarettes.

 

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/new-law-to-control-baragu-sale-approved/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2016-10-26

[zaphod reborn]

Another law only meant to enrich the authorities who enforce these laws.

[hEaDy]

Any new law is a law too many...

 

Control Freaks 1 - Freedom 0

 

Pretty soon everyone will be a criminal just by being alive.

Perhaps if lawmakers looked into and worked out their own lives/issues, then they'de leave people alone.

FYI - I don't smoke anything!

[ramrod711]

The new legislation will forbid the sale and advertising – direct or indirect; of all these products.

 

This law will work just as well as the law governing the sale of alcohol, which is to say not at all. I can buy either in any mom and pop store in the province in which I live. No matter that I can't buy a bottle at Tesco at 2 minutes after 2:00 pm, I just buy it in my village.

[Deli]

Why don't they ban cigarettes at all ? Aahhh, tax income... and who care about the health risk

[SaintLouisBlues]

3 minutes ago, Deli said:

Why don't they ban cigarettes at all ? Aahhh, tax income... and who care about the health risk

Think of all the savings the State makes when smokers die young. No longer years and years of social security and health payments. A relatively quick death rather than cluttering up the health and social services systems by getting old and developing dementia requiring (again) years and years of expensive care

[chrisinth]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

The proposed amendment is a merger of the 1992 Smoking Act and the Non-Smokers Protection Act and critically will now take into consideration other forms of smoking such as Baragu (Shisha) and electric cigarettes as well.

 

So not only will you get done for possessing either shisha or e-cigs but you get whacked for using them as well.

 

Pushing too many things underground IMHO................................

[Jonmarleesco]

And smoking e-cigs in air conditioned venues?

[Jonmarleesco]

 

3 hours ago, hEaDy said:

Any new law is a law too many...

 

Control Freaks 1 - Freedom 0

 

Pretty soon everyone will be a criminal just by being alive.

Perhaps if lawmakers looked into and worked out their own lives/issues, then they'd leave people alone.

FYI - I don't smoke anything!

'FYI - I don't smoke anything!' Good for you. Nor do I. I also object to being obliged to inhale someone else's surplus fumes.  

[ChrisY1]

13 hours ago, Thechook said:

Raise the prices, in Australia a packet of cigarettes will costs you around 1,200 to 1,800 baht.  Tobacco shops have closed down and gone out of business because people can't afford to smoke.

You're right....the crazy irony of course, is that just recently the government raised the price of fags.....and almost immediately, the government owned tobacco company released a new brand of smokes at reduced prices ~40 Baht/ pack...to compensate for lower sales!!

[Anthony5]

13 hours ago, Thechook said:

Raise the prices, in Australia a packet of cigarettes will costs you around 1,200 to 1,800 baht.  Tobacco shops have closed down and gone out of business because people can't afford to smoke.

 

1200 to 1800 Baht for a pack of cigarettes in Australia ?

 

The Aussie Dollar must have quadrupled in value overnight.

 

http://wholesale.pattersonroad.com.au/rrp_cigarettes.jsp

[F4UCorsair]

Regrettably,  a significant percentage of the population is incapable of making any decision, let alone a rational decision, about what is good for them, or otherwise, so the government must do it for them.  Call it 'big brother' or whatever you want, but the burden of caring for people who have made poor decisions usually falls to the government, and in turn, the taxpayer.  Yet again, intelligent people have to support unintelligent people.

 

Increasing tax on tobacco products in Australia achieves three objectives... reduces the number of people smoking, reduces medical costs, and retains the revenue.

 

In time, the revenue will taper off as less and less take up the vile habit, but other sources will take over and provide  the revenue currently generated by tobacco taxes.

 

Reducing the number of smokers can only be good for individuals and the country, whichever country  it may be.

Edited October 26, 2016 by F4UCorsair
typo

[Rorri]

Self Censored..

Edited October 26, 2016 by Rorri

[slapout]

We humans seem to have a strong tendency to over indulge in many things.  Many times some of these items are banned or strongly regulated by governments, schools, or anyone who has the authority to do so.

 

If we the consumer approached and consumed the items with a sense of moderation, they would not be deemed nearly as harmful or a bother to others.

If we look at all the tax collected on these items which is not spent in controling or eliminating these so called threats to health, but used elsewhere or stolen, it just seems to be more funds for politicians to play with.

[Lingba]

First of all any 14 year old kid who wants cigarettes will get them...but tell me, are the police supposed to arrest a 14 year old kid if seen smoking???.

Yeah right!

[adhd]

give the big beer brewers & that red bull family the green light to also sell softdrugs and the laws would be changed in a flash

[Beats56]

MY TGF sends her niece to the store to get smokes and beer when friends family visit. The mom and pop stores don't say anything. in Canada you have to show ID. if they sell to underage children it is a big fine if caught. Here they don't. care. Funny though on some holidays the won't sell alcohol. But you can always get it at other places besides a store if you know where to go.

 

[Wilsonandson]

MY TGF sends her niece to the store to get smokes and beer when friends family visit. The mom and pop stores don't say anything. in Canada you have to show ID. if they sell to underage children it is a big fine if caught. Here they don't. care. Funny though on some holidays the won't sell alcohol. But you can always get it at other places besides a store if you know where to go.
 

Shhhh!!!
The last thing anyone wants is the mom and pop shops regulated. Be quiet!

[F4UCorsair]

9 hours ago, slapout said:

We humans seem to have a strong tendency to over indulge in many things.  Many times some of these items are banned or strongly regulated by governments, schools, or anyone who has the authority to do so.

 

If we the consumer approached and consumed the items with a sense of moderation, they would not be deemed nearly as harmful or a bother to others.

If we look at all the tax collected on these items which is not spent in controling or eliminating these so called threats to health, but used elsewhere or stolen, it just seems to be more funds for politicians to play with.

 

In Australia, the tax collected on tobacco products doesn't even go close to meeting the costs of treating smoking related disease, much less be used for anti smoking campaigns.  That money, once again, comes from the taxpayers.

 

The largest users of tobacco products are the lower/est socio economic strata, also, coincidentally, the lowest contributors to the tax revenue, so once again, we have the intelligent supporting the unintelligent.

 

Whilst using the tax revenue from tobacco products for advertising campaigns to reduce the number of smokers would be a very desirable aim, there are only so many $$ to go round.

 

Unfortunately, we are a far too civilized society to allow people to just die without treatment because they led a life of stupidity and self harm.

 

People are just not capable of self regulation, so governments have to step in and tell them how to run their lives, not always, or even often, very successfully, but somewhat better than a large percentage of the population are capable of doing so for themselves.

Edited October 26, 2016 by F4UCorsair
typo

[hEaDy]

22 hours ago, Jonmarleesco said:

 

'FYI - I don't smoke anything!' Good for you. Nor do I. I also object to being obliged to inhale someone else's surplus fumes.  

 

Well, you can always avoid the smoke can you not?

[bobbin]

12 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

In Australia, the tax collected on tobacco products doesn't even go close to meeting the costs of treating smoking related disease, much less be used for anti smoking campaigns.  That money, once again, comes from the taxpayers.

 

The largest users of tobacco products are the lower/est socio economic strata, also, coincidentally, the lowest contributors to the tax revenue, so once again, we have the intelligent supporting the unintelligent.

 

Whilst using the tax revenue from tobacco products for advertising campaigns to reduce the number of smokers would be a very desirable aim, there are only so many $$ to go round.

 

Unfortunately, we are a far too civilized society to allow people to just die without treatment because they led a life of stupidity and self harm.

 

People are just not capable of self regulation, so governments have to step in and tell them how to run their lives, not always, or even often, very successfully, but somewhat better than a large percentage of the population are capable of doing so for themselves.

 

This is an offensive post on so many levels...

 

If you are even half as fat as your avatar you could talk about the heavy costs incurred by medical complications of obesity but I'm sure intelligent people don't let themselves become fat..

"Unfortunately" we will just have to keep paying the costs that all those weak-willed

"fatties" impose on our finely tuned economies.

 

People are such failures at living healthy productive lives that the only solution is for government to step in and run their life for them? Does that sound good to you? It seems that it does.

We are just waking up from the nightmare that is and was the "Drug War" but you are lining up for the latest cool-aid!

 

And your financial argument is open to debate as well. Tax intake is substantial in all of these countries that have enacted back-door prohibition by heavily taxing, past the point of reasonableness, tobacco. Are you ok with a bottle of spirits costing 5 times it's current price? Same concept.

 

I have gone with the obesity and alcohol arguments to make a simple point. Personally, I care not if people want to drink and eat to whatever amount pleases them..

[F4UCorsair]

11 hours ago, bobbin said:

 

This is an offensive post on so many levels...

 

If you are even half as fat as your avatar you could talk about the heavy costs incurred by medical complications of obesity but I'm sure intelligent people don't let themselves become fat..

"Unfortunately" we will just have to keep paying the costs that all those weak-willed

"fatties" impose on our finely tuned economies.

 

People are such failures at living healthy productive lives that the only solution is for government to step in and run their life for them? Does that sound good to you? It seems that it does.

We are just waking up from the nightmare that is and was the "Drug War" but you are lining up for the latest cool-aid!

 

And your financial argument is open to debate as well. Tax intake is substantial in all of these countries that have enacted back-door prohibition by heavily taxing, past the point of reasonableness, tobacco. Are you ok with a bottle of spirits costing 5 times it's current price? Same concept.

 

I have gone with the obesity and alcohol arguments to make a simple point. Personally, I care not if people want to drink and eat to whatever amount pleases them..

 

 

"If you are even half as fat as your avatar"???   What an infantile response.   In fact, I'm a little more like Schwarzenegger at his peak, pics available on request.

 

Of course the government stepping in and running people's lives for them sounds good to me.  A large percentage of people are incapable of doing so themselves, and if they conduct their lives as they drive, a good indicator in my opinion, I can't imagine how they get through their days.  It must be chaotic, at best!!  It won't affect me, and may even save the taxpayer some $$ if that happened.

 

Incidentally, I'm not talking about how people drive in countries like Thailand, but in developed countries, where there are rules/laws, but many are incapable of either understanding or applying them.

 

I don't care if people eat, drink, smoke, take drugs, whatever vices they choose, either, but don't expect that the taxpayer should meet your costs if you are fat, an alcoholic, drug addict, or just plain stupid about your choices.

 

I'm not sorry that you're offended, because if you are, it may indicate that you fall into one of the above categories.  I'm not here to blow sunshine up your butt and make failures feel good about themselves.

Edited October 27, 2016 by F4UCorsair
addition