Law on Smoking in Restaurants

[seajae]

I am an ex smoker and unlike many cigarette smoke doesnt usually bother me but when I am eating and someone lights up I do tend to get a bit verbal. Even when I smoked I would never light up at an indoor table while other people were eating but here some do and the god awful crap they smoke makes everyone start coughing. At one restaurant we go to the police will usually try to light up but I still get verbal and start to take pics of them, they very quickly put them out or leave. When they have said anything to me I point to the signs, the fact someone stands up to them appears to be enough as they dont argue once it is pointed out. I have nothing against smokers but there is a time and place for it and it is not in restaurants 

[smotherb]

23 hours ago, Emster23 said:

 I usually curl a lip at those "nanny state... I can drive drunk here!" types, but ya brought it out in me. "Dirty filthy habit" is why I always try to find something more dirty, more filthy to do while smoking. Use your imagination. Kidding. 50 mt away? What if someone farts? Have to be 20 mt away? Some places, I think San Francisco, outlawed smoking in parks.....

My experience regarding who will or won't allow smoking not based on nationality. More like "local interpretation" as it is with most Thai laws. I would even guess smoking less in farang owned restaurants as cops look to us as easy shakedown....

 Cheers and enjoy life back home, in the lands of the free and well regulated

You really do not comprehend, do you?  Smoking impairs others. What gives you, or anyone, the right to harm others? You scoff at 50m, I think smoking should be allowed only in enclosed rooms without ventilation; so smokers could enjoy the full effect of their passion. 

[fruitman]

4 hours ago, seajae said:

I am an ex smoker and unlike many cigarette smoke doesnt usually bother me but when I am eating and someone lights up I do tend to get a bit verbal. Even when I smoked I would never light up at an indoor table while other people were eating but here some do and the god awful crap they smoke makes everyone start coughing. At one restaurant we go to the police will usually try to light up but I still get verbal and start to take pics of them, they very quickly put them out or leave. When they have said anything to me I point to the signs, the fact someone stands up to them appears to be enough as they dont argue once it is pointed out. I have nothing against smokers but there is a time and place for it and it is not in restaurants 

 

Usually the restaurants where you can smoke are open restaurants, not with aircon. Or they allow it on the terrace outside. I don't see why another guest of the place should go verbal to smokers there. Do they also get verbal to citybuses who fume a lot or to their passengers?

Bangkok has loads of them.

 

But i like the calling the police part the most, i hope JVS really does it one day, just for laughs. I assume he speaks Thai very well.

[steven100]

I believe in respecting others non smokers space. If you're sitting in an area where there are non smokers then it would be decent to walk away or outside to have your smoke.

Having said that, at a pub in Australia a group of people came and sat in an outside table near the band, one guy at the table ordered some chicken pieces, however when they turned up he was told he couldn't eat them there and he'd have to go inside to eat.

Well, I thought .... what an absolute stupid rule, he must have been at a smokers table or you cannot eat food near the band ... If that's how customers get treated by a nanny state then good luck to those who live there. Common sense would say let the guy eat with his friends.

[stevenl]

 
Not saying that.  Just saying that non-smokers can easily avoid smokers if they wanted to.  But if you choose to go into a designated smoking area and then complain about it, well....

You may not say that, but the result is the same.

Sent from my ROBBY using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[Jonmarleesco]

Last I knew, no smoking in air conditioned restaurants - or pubs. Non-air seems acceptable.

[Jonmarleesco]

On 1/11/2017 at 10:19 AM, Nurseynutcase said:

 

Sorry to disillusion you but there was alot of research undertaken many years ago by Southampton University by a professor who wanted to prove the connection between second hand smoke and lung disease.  He could NOT prove the connection.  Unfortunately as it did not suit the health authorities it was supressed.  This research was NOT funded by the tobacco companies I hasten to add.

 

Many years later some research undertaken by the Welcome Institute found a genetic link for chronic lung disease, which means that even if you have never smoked or been exposed to second hand smoke you are likely to develop problems.  My 46 year old friend has this despite never smoking and only rarely being exposed to smoke.

 

My Auntie who died at 94, lived through the London smogs and had only a small living room that was always wreathed in cigarette smoke, - never had any breathing problems.

 

the same research also found that some people have a gene that protects them from developing smoking related lung cancer in spite of the fact that they may smoke heavily and over a long period of time.

 

There are many forms of lung cancer, only one of which is associated with tobacco consumption and that is adenocarcinoma.

 

I will keep on smoking as i enjoy it, Thailand is a free and easy place where i can have a cigarette and a drink in the warm and at the same time.  Unlike in the UK.

'The same research also found that some people have a gene that protects them from developing smoking related lung cancer ...' Also known as the ludicrous gene.

[zoza]

I was told by a MacMillan nurse who done the counselling for cancer patents that apart from the odd case your cancer catching odds were directly in line with the amount of cigs you smoked

and for how long you smoked them, she did say you hear of all these grand dads who smoke

60 a day and are 90 yrs old but the hospitals are full of people who thought it would never happen

to them either, at 49 I had part of my left lung removed due to lung cancer brought on by smoke

inhalation, ok I smoked but one of the rules that had to be complied with before any surgery was

all  patents had to quit smoking ,and for the sake of my kids and to evade any further tumours I

quit....and all over the world the cat was out of the bag smoking causes cancer...everyone knew

but their are still idiots who think they have the right to make us inhale their smoke.

it is against the Law any place open to the public covered or not that is the Law in Thailand.     

[Gweiloman]

15 hours ago, zoza said:

I was told by a MacMillan nurse who done the counselling for cancer patents that apart from the odd case your cancer catching odds were directly in line with the amount of cigs you smoked

and for how long you smoked them, she did say you hear of all these grand dads who smoke

60 a day and are 90 yrs old but the hospitals are full of people who thought it would never happen

to them either, at 49 I had part of my left lung removed due to lung cancer brought on by smoke

inhalation, ok I smoked but one of the rules that had to be complied with before any surgery was

all  patents had to quit smoking ,and for the sake of my kids and to evade any further tumours I

quit....and all over the world the cat was out of the bag smoking causes cancer...everyone knew

but their are still idiots who think they have the right to make us inhale their smoke.

it is against the Law any place open to the public covered or not that is the Law in Thailand.     

 

So for many years, you smoked and subjected others to inhaling your smoke and that was fine. You quit for the sake of your kids and to avoid future tumours, not out of consideration to others.  Now that you have quit, those who smoke are idiots for making you inhale their smoke.

 

Reminds me of born again Christians.

[Rimmer]

A post that went on for ever has been removed, please post a link only, thank you.

 

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

[ozmeldo]

Smokers are very disrespectful. It's like their addiction overrides any civility.

 

Easy to identify the working class, working poor. They are the only ones below 45 that smoke cigarettes (55). Anyone smoking LM red is a write off only bested by Thai smokes.

 

Every family member I have that was a heavy smoker has not lived past 72. Can I light that for you bro?

[zoza]

If you google proof of cigarette smoke causing cancer.

you get about twenty pages. 

Cancer research UK is a registered charity in England and Wales (1089464), Scotland (SC041666) and the Isle of Man (1103). A company limited by guarantee. Registered company in England and Wales (4325234) and the Isle of Man (5713F). Registered address: Angel Building, 407 St John Street, London EC1V 4AD.

 

<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=578572775592516&ev=PageView&noscript=1">

<iframe src="https://rs.gwallet.com/r1/pixel/x33737" width="0" height="0" style="display:none;visibility:hidden"></iframe>

I smoked as  at that time the Tabaco industry was spending fortunes covering up the harm cigarette smoke caused

they  funded loads of phoney research to divert the blame on any thing they could.

a bit like some of the people on this forum.

I have friends who smoke but here they go outside to smoke because they have respect for others and although they smoke they  do not grasp at any excuse just so they can smoke where people do not want to breathe in their smoke .

if we are at a football  game I can move away from smokers, but in a bar am I supposed to leave because someone thinks its ok to break the law. I think a am better off being any kind of Christian than someone who is that low.

would you say its ok if I moved in next door to you and started burning car tires in my garden

every day..... 

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

I don't smoke don't like it but why the indignant reactions to a puff of smoke at an outdoor restaurant? Same time trucks and buses roll by belching clouds of black exhaust.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack100]

Nisakiman hits the nail on the head , however he has forgoten that  times have changed . I also grew ii up in a pipe

smoking household and worked in other countries ( mostly Arab )  where smoking was rife , in public places , on planes , Govt offices and it never bothered me one bit  , though I never took to it myself.

 

However in the last 10 + years , especially in the West , people generally don't or aren't allowed to smoke in public so you

rarely get to inhale smoke . However I now find that when I do ,  it gets me gagging , believe you me .

So it's either down to the fact that non smokers are now a majority , or they have put something awful into the new

cigs .!

[joeyg]

Born in 1952 I smoked from 13 years old then quit at 20.  Sometimes I don't notice the smoke.  Sometimes just a whiff gets me nauseous.  Other times, rarely when out with friends I'll ask for "a drag."  Once in a while it tastes good.  90% of the time nasty.

 

I try my best to avoid smoke when I'm eating.  I don't ask or expect much compliance or courtesy from smokers in restaurants.  What should you expect from people who are forced to suck on those things where they know they really shouldn't.

 

I think all smokers should smoke more.  Way more!!!

[morrobay]

On 10/1/2560 at 3:36 PM, smotherb said:

Do you really think tobacco smoke displeasure is faked?

 

At any rate he is one of "these smokers" that think secondhand smoke just remains in some sort of imaginary self enclosed  cell around the smoker ,

and does not diffuse into surrounding areas. This is typical flawed  in state of denial thinking for these people. They are not only physically degraded but mentally also.

You see these sorry people lying around in these smokers ghettos in front of some stores too.  Smoke to you drop ! 

Edited January 20, 2017 by morrobay

[transam]

On 1/14/2017 at 6:35 PM, ozmeldo said:

Smokers are very disrespectful. It's like their addiction overrides any civility.

 

Easy to identify the working class, working poor. They are the only ones below 45 that smoke cigarettes (55). Anyone smoking LM red is a write off only bested by Thai smokes.

 

Every family member I have that was a heavy smoker has not lived past 72. Can I light that for you bro?

I smoke and am not disrespectful to others...

[champers]

2 hours ago, transam said:

I smoke and am not disrespectful to others...

Me too and I think most smokers are the same. Those who are disrespectful give others a bad name. The relaxed approach here to rules and regulations should not outweigh good manners and courtesy to others.

[jvs]

1 hour ago, champers said:

Me too and I think most smokers are the same. Those who are disrespectful give others a bad name. The relaxed approach here to rules and regulations should not outweigh good manners and courtesy to others.

Yes,some people seem to think that the presence of an ash tray means you have to smoke!

Times have changed and i can understand people not wanting(or being able to)giving up the habit but there are laws and good manners.

 

[Gweiloman]

23 minutes ago, jvs said:

Yes,some people seem to think that the presence of an ash tray means you have to smoke!

Times have changed and i can understand people not wanting(or being able to)giving up the habit but there are laws and good manners.

 

 

No, the presence of an ash tray does not mean you have to smoke. It merely means that the establishment allows you to smoke if you wish. 

 

I do not smoke inside restaurants, only at the outside tables IF the restaurant allows it. If not, I will then only smoke in the designated areas. Unless the food is excellent or there's no other choice, I tend not to frequent such places.

 

As you mentioned yourself, there are plenty of restaurants available so you can always choose those that does not allow smoking.

[01322521959]

 
  I beg to differ....it may be what someone inferred but was not the implication.  The statement I made was in reference to fake exaggerated coughing as a means to express one's displeasure, not that people cannot or do not actually dislike tobacco smoke.  

Surely you must realise that when this is done the person wishes to make it understood by the smoker that he/she doesn't want to be a passive smoker. They may not want to confront the smoker and ate letting him or her know that they are irritated.
I practise this myself.

Sent from my i-mobile_i-STYLE_219 using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[01322521959]

Sad,but  a Friends Dad is 96Years now and smoke every single Day one or two  Cigars sience he was 22. Hes healthy and mobile.

Oh please! Not that old argument again.

Sent from my i-mobile_i-STYLE_219 using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[01322521959]

I think there is too much hysteria about smokers. In the 60's everyone smoked everywhere. Then propaganda starts against smoking. However, where is an ashtray, I smoke. Smoking doesn't kill instantly. And the passive smokers should be grateful, since they smoke for free while we pay their taxes.

For me. I just don't want to breathe smoke. The human body was never designed to. You go and stand by a bonfire, nice lot of smoke for you.

Sent from my i-mobile_i-STYLE_219 using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[Johnboxer]

I work in construction in UK, due to allowed smoking breaks when they feel like, smokers work a average of 2hrs a day less than non smokers, NOT FAIR


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[transam]

19 hours ago, 01322521959 said:

For me. I just don't want to breathe smoke. The human body was never designed to. You go and stand by a bonfire, nice lot of smoke for you.

Sent from my i-mobile_i-STYLE_219 using Thaivisa Connect mobile app
 

When I was a kid breathing in smoke was a daily thing, especially in winter...House was heated with paraffin heaters (diesel) and coal...Part of life to smell both..

[fruitman]

23 hours ago, champers said:

Me too and I think most smokers are the same. Those who are disrespectful give others a bad name. The relaxed approach here to rules and regulations should not outweigh good manners and courtesy to others.

 

Me too and i always respect the non-smokers. But if a restaurant has a terrace with ashtrays at the tables i smoke there, no matter who has issues with that.

 

Also i think smokers deserve more respect. Many times we have to sit in a dirty corner to smoke, or like on Swampy airport in a filthy doghouse. Dubai or Changi airport treat smokers with respect by having good smokinglounges, indoor or outdoor.

 

Also malls like Central should at least have an ashtray somehere outside. A smokingbalcony or so would be even better.

 

What annoys me while smoking somewhere next to an ashtray/bin is the guys who come to spit in the ashtray...they are mostly thai though.

[nisakiman]

21 hours ago, 01322521959 said:

For me. I just don't want to breathe smoke. The human body was never designed to. You go and stand by a bonfire, nice lot of smoke for you.

Sent from my i-mobile_i-STYLE_219 using Thaivisa Connect mobile app
 

 

On the contrary, ever since mankind discovered how to make fire, he has been sitting over smokey fires for cooking and warmth. The human lung has evolved to cope with copious amounts of smoke in the immediate atmosphere. The period of time that we have no longer been sitting over fires is a blink of an eyelid in terms of evolutionary history. Our lungs have mechanisms to deal with quite high concentrations of smoke in the air we breathe. Of course, when those limits are exceeded, there will be damage caused, but being in a room with someone who is smoking a cigarette won't come anywhere near those limits. And as for being close to someone outside who is smoking, the idea that any danger is presented is such risible nonsense that it isn't worthy of discussion.

 

OSHA statement on toxicity of SHS

 

Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

So OSHA standards are the guidelines for what are acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''

OSHA SAFE LEVELS

All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes.

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."

 

Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. BLILEY
1993

 

“Mr. Chairman, I am testifying today in order to report to the Subcommittee the results of my extensive investigation of the EPA’s handling of the controversy surrounding environmental tobacco smoke or ‘ETS’.

AS you know. in the past the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of this Committee has conducted hearings on EPA’s abuses of government contracting requirements.

So pervasive is the level of abuse that Chairman Dincell has characterized EPA’s pattern of contract mismanagement as a ‘cesspool’. EPA’s Inspector General recently has confirmed that such abuses also have taken place in connection with a number of EPA contracts involving ETS, and the 0 and I Subcommittee’s own investigation is continuing.”

“EPA’s willingness to distort the science in order to justify it’s classification of ETS as a “Group A” or “known human” carcinogen seems to stem from the Agency’s determination early on to advocate smoking bans and restrictions as a socially desirable goal. EPA began promoting such policies in the mid-to late 1980′s, ostensibly as part of its efforts to provide information to the public on indoor air quality issues.”

“The risk assessment thus was never intended to be a neutral review and analysis of the ETS science. Rather, it was intended from the start to function as a prop for the Agency’s predetermind policy.

Not surprisingly, therefore, the process at every turn has been characterised by both scientific and procedural irregularities. In addition to the contracting violations mentioned at the outset, those irregularities include conflicts of interest by both Agency staff involved in preparation of the risk assessment and the members of the Science Advisory Board panel selected to provide a supposedly independant evaluation of the document.”

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page;jsessionid=8BBAAF910BC5023749AD2368ADE155DE.tobacco03?tid=qpe42d00

[duanebigsby]

On 1/10/2017 at 3:00 PM, Diplomatico said:

  Just for the sake of the discussion, what does it matter what the actual law is?  Did you plan to call the police to enforce that law whenever you see it misapplied?  Serious questions, not trying to troll or bait anyone.    

 

  Many places have designated the indoor section as the non-smoking area and the outdoor section as the smoking area.  Seems to work out pretty well except for the non-smokers who insist on sitting in the designated smoking section and then complaining that people are smoking.  (Or, even better, doing that fake exaggerated "cough, cough" thing to express their displeasure.)  

 

  When in Rome.....

Seems to me more instances of smokers ignoring the law and lighting up where they please, than non smokers going out of their way to sit in the smoking section.

[duanebigsby]

On 1/11/2017 at 7:43 AM, Berkshire said:

 

Not saying that.  Just saying that non-smokers can easily avoid smokers if they wanted to.  But if you choose to go into a designated smoking area and then complain about it, well....

That's not what us happening here, though. The laws are being ignored and smokers are lighting up wherever they please. 

[duanebigsby]

Smokers will never believe their habit could be an issue for anyone else.