One million Thais are sick and suffer from cigarette-related diseases

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, AhFarangJa said:

As an ex-smoker ( 22 years without one ) I can relate to smokers and their addiction. One story however, made me realise how some people are just beyond any help. A fellow traveller from the Middle East to Swampy one time told me he found a way to have a crafty drag on the plane.......He put his head in the toilet, lit the cigarette, and flushed the toilet to extract the smoke.......now that to my mind, is desperation .....

Yes, some of us are "beyond any help" - the psychological addiction is too strong .

 

Mind you, I wouldn't dream of going as far as your fellow traveller!

 

When smoking was banned on all flights it made sense to take a valium or something (on long-haul flights), and do my best to sleep throughout the flight as it was preferable to giving up the much-loved holidays.

 

Once it was also banned at airports (and being retired, had no need for holidays) - it made sense to give up 'flying' .

[jaltsc]

58 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

- the psychological addiction is too strong .

 

The "psychological addiction" is the same as that of a heroin addict. That sensation of "feeling relaxed" is nothing more than the alleviating of withdrawal symptoms. 

 

[elgordo38]

17 hours ago, jerojero said:

Only one million, when majority of +16 population are smokers?

 

 

Thats the sad part they get hooked early. They cannot afford a whole pack so they buy a couple at a time. Feeds the habit. 

[xtrnuno41]

17 hours ago, jaltsc said:

"At least one million Thais are sick and suffering from various chronic diseases associated with cigarette smoking..."

 

And  most smokers, not only Thais, are so generous. They love to light up and smoke where non smokers are present, especially in front of restaurants and cafes. So everyone gets to inhale the poisonous smoke while entering, or have the smoke drift in while trying to enjoy a meal. I've never heard one ask if anyone would mind if they lit up a cigarette.  When they need their fix, they have to get it.

 

With all the information that was available to them about the dangers related to tobacco use, they still chose to start smoking. Then they act shocked when they develop a tobacco related disease. Not sure if it's stupidity, arrogance or both. Either way, they knew what they were getting into when they started their habit. Disease leading to a painful dying process is just a natural and logical outcome.  

And in meantime you are inhaling the exhaust gasses of diesels in Thailand, no filters overthere. So a nice carbon fine dust comes to you and guess what : It also gives nasty diseases. And maybe the food isnt that trustworthy as you might think. Lots of insecticides and other chemicals on them.

I dont see you mention it, but only fixed on the smoking thing, like a frustration.

Even Thai dont trust, i know. But ofcourse it is all in the cigarette.

Eat more vitamin B17 as they say a shortage brings you more changes on cancer, a dissease due to dificiency of B17. Same as in past with scurvy being a deficiency of vitamin c with sailors. 

DO you know which additives are in benzine? Are they healthy? Once it was lead and caused many disseases.

And still it isnt sure about radio waves, so while im smoking my cigarette, you play with your smartphone and cause me a dissease, you dont ask me if you can use your phone. 

[dick dasterdly]

26 minutes ago, elgordo38 said:

Thats the sad part they get hooked early. They cannot afford a whole pack so they buy a couple at a time. Feeds the habit. 

Which brings us back to finding the right solution.

 

Edit - I'd add, that those buying a couple at a time are unlikely to be 'hooked' - as those that are truly 'hooked' are likely to spend their weekly wage on the cheaper solution of buying in advance the number they need for the week?  Its more likely to be young kids that aren't 'hooked' buying them a couple at a time.

Edited May 27, 2017 by dick dasterdly

[Moti24]

4 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

 

When you filter out those who may not smoke (children, women, older folks) one million would seem to represent a significant public health issue?

 

 

During the school holidays, I came across a group of 10 children near a local football pitch.  The youngest was about 7 years old and the eldest was about 10.  They all had motorcycles, 4 of them showing a red plate, the other 6 were probably 1/2 years old.  No doubt the parents were responsible for the motorcycles, but I bet they didn't know that their children smoked.  All 10 of them!  Watching them for a couple of minutes, I can assure you that none of them, not even the youngest, was new to the game.  

 

These 10 aren't the only children that I've seen smoking.  If there are 1,000,000 sickies now, I suspect in 10/20 years time, it might well be double that, excluding the fatalities in the meantime.

[dick dasterdly]

1 minute ago, xtrnuno41 said:

And in meantime you are inhaling the exhaust gasses of diesels in Thailand, no filters overthere. So a nice carbon fine dust comes to you and guess what : It also gives nasty diseases. And maybe the food isnt that trustworthy as you might think. Lots of insecticides and other chemicals on them.

I dont see you mention it, but only fixed on the smoking thing, like a frustration.

Even Thai dont trust, i know. But ofcourse it is all in the cigarette.

Eat more vitamin B17 as they say a shortage brings you more changes on cancer, a dissease due to dificiency of B17. Same as in past with scurvy being a deficiency of vitamin c with sailors. 

DO you know which additives are in benzine? Are they healthy? Once it was lead and caused many disseases.

And still it isnt sure about radio waves, so while im smoking my cigarette, you play with your smartphone and cause me a dissease, you dont ask me if you can use your phone. 

"And in meantime you are inhaling the exhaust gasses of diesels in Thailand, no filters overthere. So a nice carbon fine dust comes to you and guess what : It also gives nasty diseases. And maybe the food isnt that trustworthy as you might think. Lots of insecticides and other chemicals on them. I dont see you mention it, but only fixed on the smoking thing, like a frustration."

 

I agree.

 

If we're going to 'argue' about smoking, its time to accept that the 'authorities' appreciate the tax income (and likely kick-backs in poorer countries/party donations from big business tobacco companies in wealthier countries) - which is why it has never been classified as an extremely dangerous 'drug' and treated accordingly.

[dcnx]

2 hours ago, xtrnuno41 said:

And in meantime you are inhaling the exhaust gasses of diesels in Thailand, no filters overthere. So a nice carbon fine dust comes to you and guess what : It also gives nasty diseases. And maybe the food isnt that trustworthy as you might think. Lots of insecticides and other chemicals on them.

I dont see you mention it, but only fixed on the smoking thing, like a frustration.

Even Thai dont trust, i know. But ofcourse it is all in the cigarette.

Eat more vitamin B17 as they say a shortage brings you more changes on cancer, a dissease due to dificiency of B17. Same as in past with scurvy being a deficiency of vitamin c with sailors. 

DO you know which additives are in benzine? Are they healthy? Once it was lead and caused many disseases.

 

And still it isnt sure about radio waves, so while im smoking my cigarette, you play with your smartphone and cause me a dissease, you dont ask me if you can use your phone. 

Spoken like a true addict.

[Chris Lawrence]

Wow, thank God. Diabetes is still under control.

[mamypoko]

19 hours ago, SiamBeast said:

 

Can't be simpler.

 

A recdent medical BREAKTHROUGH came up with a shocking discovery! Doctors HATE him, because he came with a super and infallible solution to avoid dying from any tobacco-related cause. Ready to hear it? I swear there's no affiliate link and no e-book for sale. I'll tell you the trick right away:

 

"Do not smoke"

 

Really. I swear, it works. And if you're looking to quit, I'll help you: sometimes you might get cravings that are difficult to overcome. Let me tell you a secret that WORKS to quit smoking:

 

When you get a nicotine craving, do not smoke.

 

Haven't thought about that, did you?

Thank you Nancy Reagan. What was your Dad like? I'm not saying what you said is simple,,,because simple is good.  Naive might be more appropriate.

[mamypoko]

On 5/26/2017 at 8:26 PM, JAG said:

I used to smoke, stopped about 15 years ago. Now I know that there is nothing like the zeal of a reformed tart, but I really detest the habit of lighting up adjacent to others who do not smoke.. It is supremely arrogant..

Did you ever light up next to another person in the past?  

[just.a.thought]

Amazing so many tv experts on smoking are non smoker.......restaurants are non smoking indoor yet you still yap like vegans who have been served beef if a smoker lights up in an outdoor smoking area.....

[hawker9000]

1 minute ago, just.a.thought said:

Amazing so many tv experts on smoking are non smoker.......restaurants are non smoking indoor yet you still yap like vegans who have been served beef if a smoker lights up in an outdoor smoking area.....

Amazing that so many smokers just don't get it.  Cigarette smoke is cigarette smoke no matter where smokers are making non-smokers deal with it....   But that's the nature of true addiction; the addicted imagine "rights" to their addiction that must not be infringed.  Smokers understand the toxicity of the foul, disease-causing crap no matter where they encounter it, indoors or out while the smokers honestly believe simply being "outside" absolves them of all responsibility.

 

It's slow but inevitable:  the lack of consideration and obsession with the fiction of "smokers' rights" only ensures more restrictions and higher taxes lie ahead.

[just.a.thought]

Just now, hawker9000 said:

Amazing that so many smokers just don't get it.  Cigarette smoke is cigarette smoke no matter where smokers are making non-smokers deal with it....   But that's the nature of true addiction; the addicted imagine "rights" to their addiction that must not be infringed.  Smokers understand the toxicity of the foul, disease-causing crap no matter where they encounter it, indoors or out while the smokers honestly believe simply being "outside" absolves them of all responsibility.

 

It's slow but inevitable:  the lack of consideration and obsession with the fiction of "smokers' rights" only ensures more restrictions and higher taxes lie ahead.

I clearly wrote outdoor SMOKING AREA on purpose so stop yapping 

[hawker9000]

17 minutes ago, just.a.thought said:

I clearly wrote outdoor SMOKING AREA on purpose so stop yapping 

Cigarette smoke obviously doesn't read signs, so put a plug in yours.

[swissie]

So, less than 1 % of the population is affected. What does the rest (99%) die of?

- Non-smokers sitting in outdoor cafe's/bars on Sukhumvit in BKK or any place else in Pattaya never cease to amaze me.
Do they realize, how much toxic exhaust fumes from cars they inhale every day (all cancer causing agents).

Devastating news: Eventually we all die of something.

Stay tuned. It won't be long until a scientific study comes out, claiming the frequent consumption of cucumbers will reduce your live-expectancy by 3 months,3 days and 3 minutes.
Cheers.

[nisakiman]

Well, my goodness! So many misinformed / brainwashed posters on here tonight! The smoker-haters are really out in force! Propaganda is a powerful tool indeed!

 

I don't suppose it's ever occurred to any of you indoctrinated ones that the 'Baby-Boomer' generation, of which I am one, grew up in a constant fug of tobacco smoke. And many of us went on to smoke ourselves for years, if not all our lives. And that we are the fittest, healthiest, longest-lived generation ever. Fitter and healthier than the current generation, who seem to be plagued with allergies, asthma and obesity. And I suppose it's just one of those oddities of life that the majority of super-centenarians were for most of their lives smokers. And that the countries with the highest smoking rates are for the most part leaders in the longevity stakes. And that as smoking rates have fallen, the numbers of non-smokers getting lung cancer has inexorably risen (80% or thereabouts of lung cancer cases are now in non-smokers). It couldn't be, perhaps, that smoking wasn't the cause in the first place, could it? And it's odd, too, that before the 1940s, lung cancer was a rare disease, and then in the late 1940s, it suddenly spiked.

 

Now that could perhaps be because diesel engines were being increasingly used:

 

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html

 

Or it could have something to do with this?

 

 

But with either of those scenarios being a possible reason for the sudden rise in cases of lung cancer, the governments of the day had a very strong motivation to find a red herring to explain it away and avoid very expensive litigation. And what better than smoking? We can blame it on what people are doing to themselves! Brilliant! That absolves us of all responsibility! Plus we can tax the hell out of it and tell people we're doing it for their own good! Magnificent! Win win!

 

And the fact that the connection between smoking and lung cancer is still only a hypothesis which has never been demonstrated under scientific conditions only lends weight to that theory.

 

Personally, I would imagine that if someone is genetically inclined to contract lung cancer, or has been exposed to known carcinogens like radioactive plutonium fallout, then smoking will quite possibly exacerbate the situation and is probably not a good idea, despite all its benefits. Although when a cohort of rats bred to be susceptible to cancer, and who when exposed to tiny amounts of radioactive plutonium died 100% of the time were found to be protected from that cancer if exposed to tobacco smoke first, it makes one wonder. That finding was accidental, by the way. There was a mix up with the cohorts being used for experiments, and the rats who were smoking the equivalent of a hundred or so fags a day were accidentally sent to the plutonium experiment. Imagine the consternation when 60% of the cohort survived! Ha! I bet some heads rolled! It was hushed up, of course. Mustn't send the wrong message, must we now? Smoking is BAD! BAD! BAD! Ok?

 

Quote

These strong opinions for and against smoking were not supported by much evidence either way until 1950 when Richard Doll and Bradford Hill showed that smokers seemed more likely to develop lung cancer. A campaign was begun to limit smoking. But Sir Ronald Fisher, arguably the greatest statistician of the 20^th century, had noticed a bizarre anomaly in their results. Doll and Hill had asked their subjects if they inhaled. Fisher showed that men who inhaled were significantly less likely to develop lung cancer than non-inhalers. As Fisher said, "even equality would be a fair knock-out for the theory that smoke in the lung causes cancer."

.........

Five year’s later, in 1964, Doll and Hill responded to this damning criticism. They did not explain why they had withdrawn the question about inhaling. Instead they complained that Fisher had not examined their more recent results but they agreed their results were mystifying. Fisher had died 2 years earlier and could not reply.

This refusal to consider conflicting evidence is the negation of the scientific method. It has been the hallmark of fifty years of antismoking propaganda and what with good reason may well be described as one of the greatest scandals in 500 years of modern science.

 

http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html

 

Quote

TRUTH WAS AN EARLY VICTIM in the battle against tobacco.
The big lie, repeated ad nauseam in anti-tobacco circles, is that
smoking causes more than 400,000 premature deaths each year
in the United States.

.................................................

The war on smoking started with a kernel of truth—that cigarettes are a high risk factor for lung cancer—but has grown
into a monster of deceit and greed, eroding the credibility of
government and subverting the rule of law. Junk science has
replaced honest science and propaganda parades as fact. Our
legislators and judges, in need of dispassionate analysis, are
instead smothered by an avalanche of statistics—tendentious,
inadequately documented, and unchecked by even rudimentary
notions of objectivity. Meanwhile, Americans are indoctrinated by health “professionals” bent on imposing their lifestyle
choices on the rest of us and brainwashed by politicians eager
to tap the deep pockets of a pariah industry.
 

 

object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1998/10/lies.pdf

 

I realise that all you indoctrinated ones are going to pile in now with all your propaganda soundbites that you read in the Daily Mail or New York Times or wherever, but that's because you don't understand the nature of the beast known as Tobacco Control. Tobacco Control has grown into a huge global industry, drawing its billions of dollars budget from the massively overtaxed smoker, the vested interests of the pharmaceutical industry and the unsuspecting taxpayer via the WHO. There are so many snouts in the Tobacco Control trough that it's budget is more than most small countries. So of course, the gravy train must be kept rolling. And the propaganda machine must be kept funded. And because people get tired of being shouted at, they are constantly having to ramp up the shrill rhetoric. Whereas originally it was enough to tell people that smoking gave them lung cancer, as that palled, the stakes had to be raised. "Smoking clogs your arteries!"; "Smoking gives you gangrene!"; "Smoking causes diabetes!"; "Smoking makes you infertile!"; "Smoking makes you impotent!"; "Smoking turns you blind!"; etc etc etc. Every time they think interest is flagging, they commission some new 'research' (the results of which are preordained) and churn out yet another 'smoking-related disease'. They're running out of stuff to blame on smoking now, but it doesn't half make the figures for 'smoking-related deaths' look good! Just about everyone dies a 'smoking-related' death now! Doubtless we'll be told that smoking causes ingrown toenails and mountaineering accidents next. Because that's what Tobacco Control do. They lie. Blatantly. And if anyone calls them out on any of their lies, they immediately accuse the whistle-blower of being in the pay of 'Big Tobacco'.

 

The anti-smoking issue isn't about health.

It never has been about health.

It's about social engineering, It's about money. It's about power. And it's about control.

And the people directing the anti-smoking pogrom are completely devoid of morals, honesty or compassion.

 

 

Edited May 27, 2017 by nisakiman

[zoza]

so all the research results by the medical authorities is just a cover up? a massive conspiracy to put all the blame on cigarettes,

and all the chemicals that are inhaled by breathing in Tabaco smoke is harmless....

ok so although I have had lung cancer (yes I was a heavy smoker) and when I am put in a situation where others are smoking I have to move away or ask them to move or stop

as it has an affect on my breathing (as does ladies wearing heavy perfume)

but hang on according to the Law in Thailand it is illegal  to smoke in any place where

the public is admitted so I should not have to ask, and most of the people who I know

who smoke have manners and do not smoke in company they go outside or move away

and a lady having to much perfume on is not illegal as far as I know but most tobacco addicts

know that smoking is a very unhealthy habit and forcing others to breathe in your fumes

is very bad form....before I had a third of my lung removed I was told by the nurse who specialised in lung cancer treatment and counselling that the more cigarettes you smoked

for the number of years you have smoked basically predict your odds of getting lung cancer...but of course every one has heard of aunty soandso who smokes a hundred a day and is 99 years old.... that is fine as long as she smokes at home and does not try to share her addiction with the general public....eighteen years clean.

Google tobacco/smoking/lung cancer.         

[kannot]

Their  choice, as  long as they dont expect someone to save them ie the state by funding their medical care..................let em die i say, no one can possibly say they dont know the risks, but their choice and I wouldnt want to stop them in their choice.

[kannot]

3 hours ago, nisakiman said:

Well, my goodness! So many misinformed / brainwashed posters on here tonight! The smoker-haters are really out in force! Propaganda is a powerful tool indeed!

 

I don't suppose it's ever occurred to any of you indoctrinated ones that the 'Baby-Boomer' generation, of which I am one, grew up in a constant fug of tobacco smoke. And many of us went on to smoke ourselves for years, if not all our lives. And that we are the fittest, healthiest, longest-lived generation ever. Fitter and healthier than the current generation, who seem to be plagued with allergies, asthma and obesity. And I suppose it's just one of those oddities of life that the majority of super-centenarians were for most of their lives smokers. And that the countries with the highest smoking rates are for the most part leaders in the longevity stakes. And that as smoking rates have fallen, the numbers of non-smokers getting lung cancer has inexorably risen (80% or thereabouts of lung cancer cases are now in non-smokers). It couldn't be, perhaps, that smoking wasn't the cause in the first place, could it? And it's odd, too, that before the 1940s, lung cancer was a rare disease, and then in the late 1940s, it suddenly spiked.

 

Now that could perhaps be because diesel engines were being increasingly used:

 

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html

 

Or it could have something to do with this?

 

 

But with either of those scenarios being a possible reason for the sudden rise in cases of lung cancer, the governments of the day had a very strong motivation to find a red herring to explain it away and avoid very expensive litigation. And what better than smoking? We can blame it on what people are doing to themselves! Brilliant! That absolves us of all responsibility! Plus we can tax the hell out of it and tell people we're doing it for their own good! Magnificent! Win win!

 

And the fact that the connection between smoking and lung cancer is still only a hypothesis which has never been demonstrated under scientific conditions only lends weight to that theory.

 

Personally, I would imagine that if someone is genetically inclined to contract lung cancer, or has been exposed to known carcinogens like radioactive plutonium fallout, then smoking will quite possibly exacerbate the situation and is probably not a good idea, despite all its benefits. Although when a cohort of rats bred to be susceptible to cancer, and who when exposed to tiny amounts of radioactive plutonium died 100% of the time were found to be protected from that cancer if exposed to tobacco smoke first, it makes one wonder. That finding was accidental, by the way. There was a mix up with the cohorts being used for experiments, and the rats who were smoking the equivalent of a hundred or so fags a day were accidentally sent to the plutonium experiment. Imagine the consternation when 60% of the cohort survived! Ha! I bet some heads rolled! It was hushed up, of course. Mustn't send the wrong message, must we now? Smoking is BAD! BAD! BAD! Ok?

 

 

http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html

 

 

object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1998/10/lies.pdf

 

I realise that all you indoctrinated ones are going to pile in now with all your propaganda soundbites that you read in the Daily Mail or New York Times or wherever, but that's because you don't understand the nature of the beast known as Tobacco Control. Tobacco Control has grown into a huge global industry, drawing its billions of dollars budget from the massively overtaxed smoker, the vested interests of the pharmaceutical industry and the unsuspecting taxpayer via the WHO. There are so many snouts in the Tobacco Control trough that it's budget is more than most small countries. So of course, the gravy train must be kept rolling. And the propaganda machine must be kept funded. And because people get tired of being shouted at, they are constantly having to ramp up the shrill rhetoric. Whereas originally it was enough to tell people that smoking gave them lung cancer, as that palled, the stakes had to be raised. "Smoking clogs your arteries!"; "Smoking gives you gangrene!"; "Smoking causes diabetes!"; "Smoking makes you infertile!"; "Smoking makes you impotent!"; "Smoking turns you blind!"; etc etc etc. Every time they think interest is flagging, they commission some new 'research' (the results of which are preordained) and churn out yet another 'smoking-related disease'. They're running out of stuff to blame on smoking now, but it doesn't half make the figures for 'smoking-related deaths' look good! Just about everyone dies a 'smoking-related' death now! Doubtless we'll be told that smoking causes ingrown toenails and mountaineering accidents next. Because that's what Tobacco Control do. They lie. Blatantly. And if anyone calls them out on any of their lies, they immediately accuse the whistle-blower of being in the pay of 'Big Tobacco'.

 

The anti-smoking issue isn't about health.

It never has been about health.

It's about social engineering, It's about money. It's about power. And it's about control.

And the people directing the anti-smoking pogrom are completely devoid of morals, honesty or compassion.

 

 

The  tobacco  companies  will employ you for  sure

[faraday]

Now I've read post #47, can someone please tell me where to buy a Tinfoil Hat, that isn't Carcinogenic?

 

[spidermike007]

As a non smoker, it is difficult for me to even fathom the possibility that one could partake of this habit, on a daily basis, and continue to believe that there will not be ramifications to ones health, at some point. It is one of the dirtiest, and filthiest, and most disgusting habits on earth. How can you fill your lungs with all of these chemicals and agents, hundreds, if not thousands of times a day (one cigarette, is what, forty or fifty puffs?) and expect that there will be no toxic effects?

 

I tend to look at cigarette smoking as the ultimate self punishment, and a complete lack of self discipline, and hygiene. Also, there is a tremendous lack of respect for others involved, as you are constantly subjecting your friends, family, and all of those around you to obnoxious second hand smoke.

 

I have a bit of an ax to grind here, as I have lost many friends and family members to tobacco. I despise tobacco in all of it's forms.

 

The message seems to have gotten out in the US. Far fewer smokers there these days. But, in Europe and in Asia, and in Africa, for some odd reason, it is still somehow considered hip to smoke.

Edited May 28, 2017 by spidermike007

[dick dasterdly]

5 hours ago, kannot said:

Their  choice, as  long as they dont expect someone to save them ie the state by funding their medical care..................let em die i say, no one can possibly say they dont know the risks, but their choice and I wouldnt want to stop them in their choice.

Fair enough, so time to refund them all the tax they've paid on their addiction - which will more than cover the medical care needed - and make cigarettes tax free in future.

 

In a similar spirit, anyone injured whilst participating in sports or other activities that could result in injury would also need to fund their own health care - as must those who have ingested too much sugar resulting in diabetes.

 

Then of course, we need to address all those driving cars (releasing so many toxins into the air we breathe) and the food manufacturers that have put so many dangerous product into the food we buy.  etc. etc. 

[kannot]

4 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

As a non smoker, it is difficult for me to even fathom the possibility that one could partake of this habit, on a daily basis, and continue to believe that there will not be ramifications to ones health, at some point. It is one of the dirtiest, and filthiest, and most disgusting habits on earth. How can you fill your lungs with all of these chemicals and agents, hundreds, if not thousands of times a day (one cigarette, is what, forty or fifty puffs?) and expect that there will be no toxic effects?

 

I tend to look at cigarette smoking as the ultimate self punishment, and a complete lack of self discipline, and hygiene. Also, there is a tremendous lack of respect for others involved, as you are constantly subjecting your friends, family, and all of those around you to obnoxious second hand smoke.

 

I have a bit of an ax to grind here, as I have lost many friends and family members to tobacco. I despise tobacco in all of it's forms.

 

The message seems to have gotten out in the US. Far fewer smokers there these days. But, in Europe and in Asia, and in Africa, for some odd reason, it is still somehow considered hip to smoke.

you could  just live in BKK to get the same lovely chemicals?

[kannot]

3 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Fair enough, so time to refund them all the tax they've paid on their addiction - which will more than cover the medical care needed - and make cigarettes tax free in future.

 

In a similar spirit, anyone injured whilst participating in sports or other activities that could result in injury would also need to fund their own health care - as must those who have ingested too much sugar resulting in diabetes.

 

Then of course, we need to address all those driving cars (releasing so many toxins into the air we breathe) and the food manufacturers that have put so many dangerous product into the food we buy.  etc. etc. 

how  much tax is there on fags in Thailand then?

[dick dasterdly]

9 minutes ago, kannot said:

how  much tax is there on fags in Thailand then?

You're quite right of course, I was thinking about UK cigarette taxes.

[kannot]

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

You're quite right of course, I was thinking about UK cigarette taxes.

just read its 90% in Thailand?????????? can that be right? in which case Im taking up smoking!

[JAG]

18 hours ago, mamypoko said:

Did you ever light up next to another person in the past?  

Very probably I did.

[CGW]

On 5/26/2017 at 7:55 PM, coulson said:

....and vaping is still illegal.

As they haven't found a way to tax it yet!

[robblok]

23 minutes ago, JAG said:

Very probably I did.

So you admit trying to kill others so bad of you 

 

Bad boy bad boy