Smokers Forbidden To Light Up In Public Areas

[Toeknee]

I've read quite some on the matter, from that post with the wise *ss that was set to fart next to me if i would smoke in a closed area... huh

As this might upset some pu**ies around here, used to whine about anything they don't like but unable to fight against it otherwise than expressing beautiful philosophical quotes and deep thoughts on the matter here are my 2 cents on it:

- I am a smoker because i enjoy the feeling as much as i enjoy the gestures implied, the nicotine addiction and all the stuff.

- Every day me and my associates are spending around 45 - 50 K baht on various bars and clubs in Patong - Phuket - Kamala, etc which we're not willing to spend anymore if some frustrated punk even tries to tell us whatever we can or can not do ...

- To the wise courageous no-smokers out there - Dudes, if you don't like my smoke get the hel_l out of the place or place your precious lungs at a reasonable distance - remember this : is not me the one having a problem with it, is you ! Again, to show my care for your health, i strongly advise you not to try farting around my noble nose or you'll get surely in the closest hospital with some ribs sticked in your precious lungs... unfortunately that happened 2 times already to some 2 dudes caring too much for the air quality in the room than for them wellness.

The point is this : I am not telling you what to do, i am telling you to leave me alone. You don't like my habits , i don't like anyone tampering with them .. Whoops ! we have a problem , we shall solve it one way or another !

I bet you're caring for your habits or pleasures as i care about mine, please do not *hit on my pleasures! There is plenty of rooms and plenty of space in a room for your healthy lungs to benefit from the clean air without disturbing me and if there's not, i am sure you can find another place where you can enjoy your fresh air intake.

I bet no one is crazy enough to tell to a bunch of former rugby players what they are allowed or not to do.

Have fun guys, live and let live !

Toptuna and Aaass might enjoy being beaten by a team of rugby players, whatever turns you on. After many visits to the US and having to listen to the likes of T & A, one reason i don't go to california anymore. The minute you step off the plane people cannot stop telling you what to do, regards eating, drinking, smoking, driving etc etc. The meaning of living in a Free Country has been lost on these couch potatoeheads. Probably why westerners go to Thailand, er to avoid T&A. I know women (both in the US and LoS) regard men like that as 'like moaning old women' - yes thats what they think of effeminate men who moan too much.

[Estrada]

I've read quite some on the matter, from that post with the wise *ss that was set to fart next to me if i would smoke in a closed area... huh

As this might upset some pu**ies around here, used to whine about anything they don't like but unable to fight against it otherwise than expressing beautiful philosophical quotes and deep thoughts on the matter here are my 2 cents on it:

- I am a smoker because i enjoy the feeling as much as i enjoy the gestures implied, the nicotine addiction and all the stuff.

- Every day me and my associates are spending around 45 - 50 K baht on various bars and clubs in Patong - Phuket - Kamala, etc which we're not willing to spend anymore if some frustrated punk even tries to tell us whatever we can or can not do ...

- To the wise courageous no-smokers out there - Dudes, if you don't like my smoke get the hel_l out of the place or place your precious lungs at a reasonable distance - remember this : is not me the one having a problem with it, is you ! Again, to show my care for your health, i strongly advise you not to try farting around my noble nose or you'll get surely in the closest hospital with some ribs sticked in your precious lungs... unfortunately that happened 2 times already to some 2 dudes caring too much for the air quality in the room than for them wellness.

The point is this : I am not telling you what to do, i am telling you to leave me alone. You don't like my habits , i don't like anyone tampering with them .. Whoops ! we have a problem , we shall solve it one way or another !

I bet you're caring for your habits or pleasures as i care about mine, please do not *hit on my pleasures! There is plenty of rooms and plenty of space in a room for your healthy lungs to benefit from the clean air without disturbing me and if there's not, i am sure you can find another place where you can enjoy your fresh air intake.

I bet no one is crazy enough to tell to a bunch of former rugby players what they are allowed or not to do.

Have fun guys, live and let live !

Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official

By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent

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

THE world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.

The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.

Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week. At its International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, which coordinated the study, a spokesman would say only that the full report had been submitted to a science journal and no publication date had been set.

The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.

Regardless of how things really unfolded, the WHO did not announce to the world (as an honest entity should have done) that, according to its own study, ETS does not represent a hazard to the non-smoker, which is what this and a myriad of other studies actually demonstrated.

Completely wrong and misquoted. The WHO proved the link, and have issued this statement:

Press Release WHO/29

9 March 1998

PASSIVE SMOKING DOES CAUSE LUNG CANCER, DO NOT LET THEM FOOL YOU

The World Health Organization (WHO) has been publicly accused of suppressing information. Its opponents say that WHO has withheld from publication its own report that was aimed at but supposedly failed to scientifically prove that there is an association between passive smoking, or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), and a number of diseases, lung cancer in particular. Both statements are untrue.

The study in question is a case-control study on the effects of ETS on lung cancer risk in European populations, which has been carried out over the last seven years by 12 research centres in 7 European countries under the leadership of WHO's cancer research branch -- the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

The results of this study, which have been completely misrepresented in recent news reports, are very much in line with the results of similar studies both in Europe and elsewhere: passive smoking causes lung cancer in non-smokers.

The study found that there was an estimated 16% increased risk of lung cancer among non-smoking spouses of smokers. For workplace exposure the estimated increase in risk was 17%. However, due to small sample size, neither increased risk was statistically significant. Although, the study points towards a decreasing risk after cessation of exposure.

In February 1998, according to usual scientific practice, a paper reporting the main study results was sent to a reputable scientific journal for consideration and peer review. That is why the full report is not yet publicly available. Under the circumstances, however, the authors of the study have agreed to make an abstract of the report available to the media.

"It is extremely important to note that the results of this study are consistent with the results of major scientific reviews of this question published during 1997 by the government of Australia, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California", said Neil Collishaw, Acting Chief of WHO's Tobacco or Health Unit in Geneva. "A major meta-analysis of passive smoking and lung cancer was also published in the British Medical Journal in 1997. From these and other previous reviews of the scientific evidence emerges a clear global scientific consensus — passive smoking does cause lung cancer and other diseases", he concluded.

"IARC is proud of the careful scientific work done by the European scientific team responsible for this study", commented Dr Paul Kleihues, the Agency's director. "We are very concerned about the false and misleading statements recently published in the mass media. It is no coincidence that this misinformation originally appeared in the British press just before the No-Tobacco Day in the United Kingdom and the scheduled publication of the report of the British Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health".

Further information on the health effects of passive smoking is available in WHO's Advisory Kit for World No-Tobacco Day 1998 on the World Wide Web at www.who.ch/ntday, as well as from WHO's Tobacco or Health Unit, Programme on Substance Abuse.

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

For further information, journalists can contact Igor Rozov, Health Communications and Public Relations WHO, Geneva. Telephone (41 22) 791 2532. Fax (41 22) 791 4858. E-mail [email protected] or Dr Rodolfo Saracci, IARC, Lyon, France, e-mail [email protected]

All WHO Press Releases, Fact Sheets and Features as well as other information on this subject can be obtained on Internet on the WHO home page http://www.who.ch/

It is a good job that we are now being protected by Law from Ex-Rugby player bully boys who want to cause us misery by smoking in restuarants and bars. Your idea that we can sit in another part of the room away from the smoke is infantile. 10% of people suffer from mild to serious Asthma including myself. If someone is smoking 200m away the smoke does reach me and it is enough to cause me severe coughing and difficulty in breathing. My clothes and hair smell foul with the stench of cigarettes after sitting in a bar with smokers. 50 years ago we had special smoke rooms in Pubs and Restaurants, but the smokers later chose to smoke in the non-smokers areas too, now the tide has turned back, you want to complain.

Why smokers do not think think that the smell of cigarettes is not appalling beats me. When a smoker asks "Do you mind if I smoke?", I reply "Do you mind if I fart?". I think that illustrates the point of non-smokers.

Furthermore, had Sir Walter Raleigh discovered Cannabis and not Tobacco, and Tobacco had only recently been discovered, we would all be smoking Cannabis legally, whilst Tobacco would be banned as a Dangerous Drug!

[the_webninja]

I agree with the Smoking Ban, and I think it is good for Thailand as a Whole, but I do not agree with the efforts to Ban Alcohol, because even though there are many people who abuse alcohol or make a nusance of themselves because of alcohol or cause family problems because of alcohol, there are also many people who can enjoy one or two drinks to relax or enjoy a with a meal. I do not think they should pursue the Anti-Alcohol, as much as they did the Anti-smoking. But I do understand what they are trying to do, and why they are doing it. I just think Freedom is greater than oppression, I think it is not right to punish everyone for the faults of a few as far as the anti-alcohol rulings. I don't think they should start trying to close down Bars and take away people's happiness just because some people are out of control. I don't think all the Bars are sources of Evil, I think the bars are where many go to enjoy themselves and find happiness where they may not be able to find otherwise. I think the people of Thailand need to think about the Laws they pass before they wind up creating a Land of Oppression instead of the "Land of the Free".

[Mighty Mouse]

......And it really does not smell THAT bad...(cigarette smoke)

Are you kidding me !!!!

Your (former) acute sense of smell has diminished considerably because of your smoking habit, as has your sense of taste. You can no longer smell the roses.

YOU may think that the smoke from your cigarette doesn't smell offensive but I can assure you that it does.....at any distance

People who have retained their acute sense of smell (like myself) should not be expected to tolerate the vile stink coming from your cigarettes.....particularly those who are suffering from asthma.

[Mighty Mouse]

If we all put as much effort into preventing global warming and international pollution levels as we do trying to stop me having a ciggerette on the sea front the world would surely be a better place for OUR children. It's a question of priorities and currently they are really inappropriate.

I agree with you about global warming being in need of urgent attention but I don't expect governments to ignore other issues and only concentrate on global warming.

There are many issues that have, or will have, the potential to adversely interfere with the lives of our children.

The worlds' diminishing ability to harvest and store fresh water being one major issue requiring government action.

Finding a suitable alternative to oil being another.

By attempting to stop you from having your cigarette on the sea front may well eventually save your life and allow you to enjoy watching your children grow into a healthy adulthood.

Just knowing that one evil has been eliminated from their lives should make you feel somewhat indebted to positive government laws.

[pal78]

When I was in University, I was standing outside of the engineering building smoking, when a girl came outside on her cellphone. She walked up right next to me and told me "could you move, your smoke is bothering me." I replied "Yeah, well it's killing me, how do you think I feel?"

I don't know how it makes you feel, but selfish is a word that springs to mind. Even if we assume that passive smoke is harmless, I think there is a point you miss. You say that smoke doesn't smell "that bad", actually I think you will find that it does. Smokers seem to be unaware of how bad it smells. Probably a bit like someone who eats lots of garlic entering a room where nobody else has had any. He doesn't know he smells, but he does.

Back to your university experience:

You have the right to kill yourself any why you like. I would just ask that you do it in a way that doesn't cause any harm, or even inconvenience to others.

For example if you choose to jump of a tall building please make sure that you jump from at least the 4th floor. Any lower and you will probably only injure yourself and end up dependent on others for aid for the rest of your life. When you jump try to make sure you don't land on anyone else. Want to shoot yourself? Please have the decency to do it in a remote area. If you must do it in a built up area please use a silencer, I might be taking a nap.

If you want to jump into a river and drown yourself, please try and get washed out to sea, and get eaten by sharks because I don't want to be enjoying a beach holiday and have it ruined by your rotting carcass being washed up in front of me.

If you want to smoke yourself to death..... do it in a snooker hall, your own home, or one of the many other places you still are free to do it. Bars... sure you can have those two as far as I'm concerned. Restaurants? If it was up to me I'd let you smoke in McD's and KFC. People who eat that muck are probably likewise uninterested in living long and healthy lives, and will be less bothered by your nasty, disgusting and selfish addiction.

[scottie dog]

Smokers forbidden to light up in public areas

Children from the Action on Smoking and Health Foundation campaign with no-smoking labels at Hua Lampong Railway Station. Every public area will become smoke-free following an order from the Public Health Ministry

From now on, smokers will find it harder than ever to find a place to light up because every public area will be a smoke-free zone following the latest ministerial order from the Public Health Minister.

According to the order, which takes effect today, offenders will face a Bt2,000 fine, while owners who allow smoking on their premises or fail to place a no-smoking notice will be charged up to Bt20,000.

The ban forbids smoking on public transport, at bus stops, in elevators, public phone booths, libraries, theatres, children's playgrounds, drugstores, meeting rooms, massage parlours and spas.

Smoking in indoor stadiums is also banned - excluding snooker rooms. The ban on smoking also includes schools and educational institutes.

Air-conditioned areas in art exhibition halls, galleries, museums, shopping malls, barbershops, Internet cafes and karaoke booths are also no-smoking zones.

The ban includes the lobbies of hotels, resorts, condominiums, apartments and restaurants, excluding entertainment areas.

Smokers are still allowed to smoke in their personal offices, individual rooms or rooms provided as smoking areas.

Public Health Minister Mongkol na Songkhla yesterday held a press conference to launch the 17th ministerial order and place no-smoking labels at Hua Lampong Railway Station.

He said 52,000 Thais died a year from smoking-related diseases, especially lung cancer and heart disease. It cost the country more than Bt50 billion in healthcare services for patients with lung cancer, heart disease and emphysema.

A no-smoking law has already been enforced in covered areas of restaurants and public places that were air-conditioned.

"This ministerial order has added more no-smoking places. The ban is to protect the health of non-smoking people from 4,000 kinds of toxin in tobacco smoke," the minister said.

Mongkol encouraged anyone witnessing an offence to call 02-590-3342.

Mongkol has also tried every means to reduce alcohol consumption. Even though the Council of State's ruling invalidated his ministry's Food and Drug Administration-initiated move to comprehensively ban alcohol advertising, the ministry is exploring other legal channels.

Source: The Nation - 29 December 2006

Does anyone know where a copy of these new rules can be found. I have seen nothing in the BKK Post on this.

[sevenyrold]

I don't know how it makes you feel, but selfish is a word that springs to mind.

Want to shoot yourself? Please have the decency to do it in a remote area. If you must do it in a built up area please use a silencer, I might be taking a nap.

If you want to jump into a river and drown yourself, please try and get washed out to sea, and get eaten by sharks because I don't want to be enjoying a beach holiday and have it ruined by your rotting carcass being washed up in front of me.

Hm...it's interesting that I'm the selfish one. If you want to blow your brains out, I won't be angry that your tragic death inconvenienced me by making a loud noise- that sounds a little selfish to me.

Back to the point- I wasn't suggesting that I should be able to enter your home and lit up, merely that it should be kept legal in a few places, such as bars whose owners decide they want it there. I think smokers make a lot of effort to not inconvenience others, and they are not given credit for it. Again, if smoking was so bothersome to so many people, bar owners can open nonsmoking bars. That seems fair doesn't it?

[Phil Conners]

Great news, but ...

excluding snooker rooms [and]entertainment areas.

Why on earth not? They're the worst places!!

Because... even the health ministry knows that would be impossible.

Not that the other measures are enforceable.. except at the end of the month when the Police goes out to make some money - helmet-laws, parking laws, and now smoking laws enforced on specific days of the month, and completely and utterly ignored the rest of the time.

For example - I drive by police every day with no helmet on. Even behind police cars. Through police stops. Anything. Traffic police waves and smiles at me. Except the end of the month, when scores of Policemen are out to fine each and every helmet-less driver. It's completely beyond me how this is supposed to enforce the laws.

It will be the same with smoking. New laws are no good if basic enforcement is absent.

If you don't smoke there's no way you can be fined.

Stop whining and stop smoking, there is not a single positive thing to say about it.

[Pearler]

Great news, but ...

excluding snooker rooms [and]entertainment areas.

Why on earth not? They're the worst places!!

Because... even the health ministry knows that would be impossible.

Not that the other measures are enforceable.. except at the end of the month when the Police goes out to make some money - helmet-laws, parking laws, and now smoking laws enforced on specific days of the month, and completely and utterly ignored the rest of the time.

For example - I drive by police every day with no helmet on. Even behind police cars. Through police stops. Anything. Traffic police waves and smiles at me. Except the end of the month, when scores of Policemen are out to fine each and every helmet-less driver. It's completely beyond me how this is supposed to enforce the laws.

It will be the same with smoking. New laws are no good if basic enforcement is absent.

If you don't smoke there's no way you can be fined.

Stop whining and stop smoking, there is not a single positive thing to say about it.

[Robski]

while owners who allow smoking on their premises or fail to place a no-smoking notice will be charged up to Bt20,000.

Bad news for smokers. Grrrrrreeeeeat! news for signmakers.

[pal78]

I don't know how it makes you feel, but selfish is a word that springs to mind.

Want to shoot yourself? Please have the decency to do it in a remote area. If you must do it in a built up area please use a silencer, I might be taking a nap.

If you want to jump into a river and drown yourself, please try and get washed out to sea, and get eaten by sharks because I don't want to be enjoying a beach holiday and have it ruined by your rotting carcass being washed up in front of me.

Hm...it's interesting that I'm the selfish one. If you want to blow your brains out, I won't be angry that your tragic death inconvenienced me by making a loud noise- that sounds a little selfish to me.

Back to the point- I wasn't suggesting that I should be able to enter your home and lit up, merely that it should be kept legal in a few places, such as bars whose owners decide they want it there. I think smokers make a lot of effort to not inconvenience others, and they are not given credit for it. Again, if smoking was so bothersome to so many people, bar owners can open nonsmoking bars. That seems fair doesn't it?

I hope it was apparent that I wasn't being 100% serious in that rant. But on second thoughts, I would be willing to tolerate being woken from my nap by your gunshot since at least your death will be quick and you will no longer be fighting for your freedom to enjoy your socially unacceptable habit.

As for bars, I did say that you are welcome to them from my point of view. I don't have any reason to bring my 1 year old into a bar. I do want to bring him on the bus though. I like snooker, but I'm not about to complain that I can't play here in Thailand because of the air quality problems in snooker halls. I am not on a campaign to stop smoking, but if the powers that be decide to give me more freedom at the expense of smokers, forgive me for not feeling sorry for you. If I can go without snooker while in Thailand, I am sure you could go without a fag when you're in a smoke free zone. But snooker isn't a drug, it's harder to go without a fag for a few hours than it is to go a lifetime without enjoying a harmless pastime.

Like I have said in other posts in this thread, friends of mine used the smoking ban in Ireland to boost their efforts to give up smoking. Most people (including yourself) have accepted that smoking is harmful to their health, and most smokers I know personally want to give up and have tried, or are trying to do so.

Your argument that "if smoking was so bothersome to so many people, bar owners can open nonsmoking bars" is a little strange.

I could as easily say "if smoking was so important to so many people then smoking bars could be opened to cater for them."

In the case of Ireland and other European countries where smoking bans have been introduced the issue is not about stopping people enjoying a death stick with their alcoholism fix. Rather it's about allowing people the right to a safe workplace. Smoking in Ireland was not banned in bars and pubs, it was banned in the workplace. Since bars and pubs are workplaces, they fell under the blanket.

I'm surprised that Thai women didn't take to the streets in the millions to protest the removal of over 50 skin whitening products from the market. Sure they posed health risks, but shouldn't they be allowed the freedom to kill themselves if they want. Isn't skin cancer a small price to pay for looking beautiful like the chick on TV with the white skin? I mean, it's not like the companies were making their products addictive, and knowingly loading them up with toxins.

Yet smokers are continually afforded the freedom to legally buy and consume cancer causing products. If you insist that smoking is great please go ahead and smoke. But when the government further restricts your smoking freedoms, please accept that it is for the benefit of the majority. Your posts seem to indicate that you don't understand the objections of the non-smoker and you feel hard done by. I don't understand your objections to the law, and I don't understand your lack of respect for those who don't wish to share your habit. I don't understand why any smokers are unhappy with this law, they've still given you many entertainment areas to kill yourselves and others in.

[Vegemite]

You have to be a little careful with these things.

In New Zealand, the government did something similar but they did not go as far as Thailand is going ( they havent tryied to ban drinking yet ).

After the smoking ban came into force anything with the slightest chance of danger started to be targeted. Childrens playgrounds, swimming pools, car driveways and it never seems to stop.

Soon we wont be able to walk to the shop without being wrapped in cotton wool and wearing a helmet.

[sevenyrold]

LOL

I hope it was apparent that I wasn't being 100% serious in that rant. But on second thoughts, I would be willing to tolerate being woken from my nap by your gunshot since at least your death will be quick and you will no longer be fighting for your freedom to enjoy your socially unacceptable habit.

In other words, your argument didn't make sense, so you say you're joking, then you repeat that you think it would be nice if I committed suicide. Best wishes to you too!

I am not on a campaign to stop smoking, but if the powers that be decide to give me more freedom at the expense of smokers, forgive me for not feeling sorry for you. If I can go without snooker while in Thailand, I am sure you could go without a fag when you're in a smoke free zone.

Again, I have to repeat that I think outlawing smoking in virtually every public place is a good idea. I only think some private businesses should be permitted to allow smoking if they see fit (which many posters do not agree with.) I always respect smoke free zones, and think it is a good thing that there are plently of them. I would feel sorry for you if there were not any, so why wouldn't you feel sorry for me if there were no places where I could enjoy myself and smoke? For example, an airport is smoke free, fine! But leave us on of those awful smoke boxes, or a small outdoor area. It's a very small inconvenience to nonsmokers, but a big convience to us. Since you seem to be from Ireland, I can report that the last time I was in the airport in Dublin, there was no such area.

Like I have said in other posts in this thread, friends of mine used the smoking ban in Ireland to boost their efforts to give up smoking. Most people (including yourself) have accepted that smoking is harmful to their health, and most smokers I know personally want to give up and have tried, or are trying to do so.

It's nice to know that YOU have decided what is best for ME and that you do actually care about me, even though you would enjoy it if I committed suicide.

Your argument that "if smoking was so bothersome to so many people, bar owners can open nonsmoking bars" is a little strange.

I could as easily say "if smoking was so important to so many people then smoking bars could be opened to cater for them."

Yup, they do exist, pretty much every bar in Thailand for one...a bar certainly could forbid smoking, and most non-bar establishments do, by choice.

In the case of Ireland and other European countries where smoking bans have been introduced the issue is not about stopping people enjoying a death stick with their alcoholism fix. Rather it's about allowing people the right to a safe workplace. Smoking in Ireland was not banned in bars and pubs, it was banned in the workplace. Since bars and pubs are workplaces, they fell under the blanket.

This is the only valid point in your whole self-righteous rant. However, I really do not believe it is a worker's rights issue. If your goal is to protect the innocent, ban alcohol- it certainly causes more loss of innocent life than passive smoking (sober people who are the victims of drunk driving, alcohol induced violence, etc.) The legislation in Ireland was not passed because workers were protesting their poor working conditions. It was pushed by a whiny minority like you against the disenfranchised minority of smokers, who are constantly berated, made to feel guilty for their habit and are unwilling to stand up for themselves (or else face the just wrath of people like you.) Their rights apparently supercede those of smokers in all and every circumstance.

Your posts seem to indicate that you don't understand the objections of the non-smoker and you feel hard done by. I don't understand your objections to the law, and I don't understand your lack of respect for those who don't wish to share your habit. I don't understand why any smokers are unhappy with this law, they've still given you many entertainment areas to kill yourselves and others in.

As I've said in every post, it wasn't the law I was arguing with- it was the posters who wanted to make it illegal in EVERY establishment, as is becoming the norm in many other countries. My point is that I DO respect your wish to be in a smoke free environment in nearly every instance in which we interact. Can't non-smokers be respectful of my and a bar owner's wish to have a smoking establishment?

Not 100% on topic, but in New York, where I am for the holidays, there is no smoking in bars, no transfats and $350 fines for honking your horn anywhere in the city (yes, you read that right.) The amount people worry about the smallest risk has led to a sterile society run on fear, where safety always takes precedence over liberty. This is a part of the reason I originally moved to Thailand, and I hate to see it change.

[meemiathai]

We cannot live forever, and I for one certainly don't want to. Enjoying the ride is as important, at least, as staying healthy.

I agree, the journey is as important as the destination, and one should enjoy it. But, watching someone die of smoking for over a decade is a pretty hellish journey for the traveler and observers alike. Think about it.

One can enjoy one's ride as much as one likes as long as one is not forcing another to be on the same ride.

I for one would not mind people putting shit into their mouths but don't make the room smell.

Yes, let us have a ban on perfume and cheese as well.

Oh! How did you know?

If there are enough people to spray perfume everywhere every now and then and people eating stinky cheese everywhere, then ban it!

I suppose you don't think laws should even exist? Oh yes! FREEDOM!!!!

I should be allowed to shoot my gun anytime anywhere. You should be the one to avoid standing in the path of my bullet!!!

Some people are just shameless!

I hope I have the ability to fart like a skunk and whenever I see people smoking irresponsibly, I go fart in front of them and see how they feel!

I often wonder bringing mosquito coils with me and burn them in front of people smoking!

Oh, btw, I smoke.

[meemiathai]

I sometimes feel like throwing a punch at the guy and let him sleep for a while when I am waiting for a bus at the bus stop in the morning and is greeted by a cloud of smoke.

Luckily there is a "LAW" that is protecting him! That makes me unaccoutable of his harm if he stands in the path of my punch!

Lucky bastard!

Edited December 30, 2006 by meemiathai

[marshbags]

Smokers forbidden to light up in public areas

Children from the Action on Smoking and Health Foundation campaign with no-smoking labels at Hua Lampong Railway Station. Every public area will become smoke-free following an order from the Public Health Ministry

From now on, smokers will find it harder than ever to find a place to light up because every public area will be a smoke-free zone following the latest ministerial order from the Public Health Minister.

According to the order, which takes effect today, offenders will face a Bt2,000 fine, while owners who allow smoking on their premises or fail to place a no-smoking notice will be charged up to Bt20,000.

The ban forbids smoking on public transport, at bus stops, in elevators, public phone booths, libraries, theatres, children's playgrounds, drugstores, meeting rooms, massage parlours and spas.

Smoking in indoor stadiums is also banned - excluding snooker rooms. The ban on smoking also includes schools and educational institutes.

Air-conditioned areas in art exhibition halls, galleries, museums, shopping malls, barbershops, Internet cafes and karaoke booths are also no-smoking zones.

The ban includes the lobbies of hotels, resorts, condominiums, apartments and restaurants, excluding entertainment areas.

Smokers are still allowed to smoke in their personal offices, individual rooms or rooms provided as smoking areas.

Public Health Minister Mongkol na Songkhla yesterday held a press conference to launch the 17th ministerial order and place no-smoking labels at Hua Lampong Railway Station.

He said 52,000 Thais died a year from smoking-related diseases, especially lung cancer and heart disease. It cost the country more than Bt50 billion in healthcare services for patients with lung cancer, heart disease and emphysema.

A no-smoking law has already been enforced in covered areas of restaurants and public places that were air-conditioned.

"This ministerial order has added more no-smoking places. The ban is to protect the health of non-smoking people from 4,000 kinds of toxin in tobacco smoke," the minister said.

Mongkol encouraged anyone witnessing an offence to call 02-590-3342.

Mongkol has also tried every means to reduce alcohol consumption. Even though the Council of State's ruling invalidated his ministry's Food and Drug Administration-initiated move to comprehensively ban alcohol advertising, the ministry is exploring other legal channels.

Source: The Nation - 29 December 2006

Does anyone know where a copy of these new rules can be found. I have seen nothing in the BKK Post on this.

10:57 Dec 29, 2006

Courtesy of the B.Post breaking news:-

Quote:-

Anti-smoking bans extended today

(TNA) - Carefree days for tobacco puffers in Thailand are going up in smoke. Starting today, the law banning smoking in virtually all public places comes into force.

Public Health Minister Mongkol Na Songkhla called on law enforcement agencies and entertainment venues to strictly enforce the law. Owners of entertainment venues failing to comply with the law may be subject to between 10,000-20,000 baht fine and those who puff a cigarette despite the law may have to pay a fine of 2,000 baht.

Thailand has one of the toughest anti-smoking laws in the world. It is at the forefront of the region's anti-smoking campaign and has enacted a host of restrictions on the tobacco industry including bans on cigarette advertisements, bans on smoking in most public places and requirements that all cigarette packs include graphic photos depicting the ill effects of tobacco on health.

Last year the government banned cigarette displays at points of sale, making Thailand was the third country worldwide to do so.

During a press conference on Wednesday, Dr Mongkol said that smoking claimed 52,000 lives yearly as a result of cancer and heart disease. The government has to foot the bills of over 50 billion baht to treat those with lung cancer, heart disease and emphysema.

“To make sure that the law is carried out to the letter, we need cooperation from all involved. If there is not a clear sign-posting, or no proper smoking zone and non-smoking zone in public places, owners of such venues would be liable to fines,” said Dr Mongkol.

Virtually all public places would be declared non-smoking zones under the new restriction which becomes effective today, except personal offices, private rooms and designated smoking rooms.

10:57 Dec 29, 2006

Unquote.

Not as detailed as the Nations article posted by J.D. in his O.P.and quoted by yourself,

All Public Places apart from those listed as of the 29th.

Me i,d like smokers to have seperate TOTALLY ENCLOSED facilites ( not like the farcicle ones that used to be at D.Muang ) and the doors fittied with automatic closures and stop them leaving them ajar.

Having seperate areas is a must as using the same air space is a joke and a waste of time.

Then....................................................................

Put another zero on the penalties and delete the up to proviso, that should stop a lot of the arrogant and selfish actions many smokers are well know for.

marshbags

Edited December 30, 2006 by marshbags

[pal78]

The legislation in Ireland was not passed because workers were protesting their poor working conditions. It was pushed by a whiny minority like you against the disenfranchised minority of smokers, who are constantly berated, made to feel guilty for their habit and are unwilling to stand up for themselves (or else face the just wrath of people like you.) Their rights apparently supercede those of smokers in all and every circumstance.

.......

Not 100% on topic, but in New York, where I am for the holidays, there is no smoking in bars, no transfats and $350 fines for honking your horn anywhere in the city (yes, you read that right.) The amount people worry about the smallest risk has led to a sterile society run on fear, where safety always takes precedence over liberty. This is a part of the reason I originally moved to Thailand, and I hate to see it change.

I think I already said that you can have the bars. It was no whiny people like me. Most workplaces (with the exception of bars and prisons) already self-regulated to protect people like me. Since I never aspired to pour drinks at my local, or hold the keys at the local pen, I never really had an issue with smoking at work.

As for the things you came here to escape from New York, Thailand is attempting to copy the west as much as possible. Thailand looks up to the US, and of course they are going to try and emulate the American dream. The parts you like, and the parts you don't.

[Mighty Mouse]

........I really do not believe it is a worker's rights issue. (banning smoking in bars and pubs.)

The legislation in Ireland was not passed because workers were protesting their poor working conditions. It was pushed by a whiny minority like you against the disenfranchised minority of smokers, who are constantly berated, made to feel guilty for their habit and are unwilling to stand up for themselves (or else face the just wrath of people like you.) Their rights apparently supercede those of smokers in all and every circumstance.

You really need to think about what you have just written.

The No Smoking in Clubs legislation was introduced to protect, not only the employees, but the employer as well.

The employer has an obligation to provide a safe working environment for employees.

The following is an extract from this site.

It deals with smoking in the Australian workplace.

Sixty-two-year-old bar worker Marlene Sharp has just won an historic legal battle in the New South Wales Supreme Court. It's believed she's the first person in the world to successfully sue after contracting cancer as a result of passive smoking.

It's not about bashing smokers, it's about protecting those, who up until now, didn't have a say.

Workers, or any person for that matter, should not have their health compromised by inconsiderate, nicotine addicted smokers.

Smokers need to face reality. The areas where you can indulge in your unhealthy tobacco habits are disappearing very quickly.

Perhaps it's time to go cold turkey once and for all.....and for the good of all.

[robert2]

Being an non-smoker I like these laws, but hey the real problem with smog in Bkk won't change, eh?

Now, imagine the BIB fining you near these signs for smoking... NIce...

[John K]

For the people who have taken the time to read all of the posts in this thread, I wish to point out a very simple fact. The smokers that say they have a choice actually do not. They truly want to quit however because of the nicotine they argue from a pro smoking pro choice position. I have seen time and time again the ongoing battle within themselves. Only about 30% to 40% of the people who I accept into my smoking cessation program actually show up. That simply means that at the time of their first appointment the nicotine was in charge and it made them turn away. So in actuality smokers are under the influence of nicotine and the nicotine controls smokers choices 60% to 70% of the time. People seeing me for other things show up about 98% of the time.

The comment about smokers being modern day lepers is not a metaphor but a fact. The new laws reflect that fact but the nicotine blinds the smokers to that and they will simply once again grasp on some very substandard excuse to smoke and brush off how people look at them with disgust.

Has anyone bother to notice that when someone lights up a cigar in a bar the place empties in a few minutes. So to satisfy one smoker the bars lose out on significant revenue. I doubt the profit in that one cigar covers what they lost. This law is a good thing.

Edited December 30, 2006 by John K

[ZZZ]

It's not about bashing smokers, it's about protecting those, who up until now, didn't have a say.

Workers, or any person for that matter, should not have their health compromised by inconsiderate, nicotine addicted smokers.

It's all about bashing smokers otherwise they should allow bars and restaurants to have separate smoking rooms.

It's all about getting smokers, like me, to stop the dangerous, filthy habit to save themselfs, and to save on health care costs, all very good reasons that I agree to.

It will be interesting to see what meassures they will come upp with next to stop the biggest killer and health care burden, obesity.

[stingray]

There is something missing: The Defination, where is public area or non public area? So the police can fine everyone everywhere. For example on the Bus Stop or on the Beach, in the side walk of the road, in the front of some Shopping Center, etc. It's all public area. I my self don't smoke, but i think everyone should have to freedom to choice if he want smoke or not. What about the "Glue Sniffer"?

[gburns57au]

Who's going to pay for your health bills while you spend years dying, possibly having your lungs partially cut out or pumped out? Who will pay for the medical services who will have to bring those large oxygen bottles to your house for years on end? Who's going to take care of you, wiping you up because you lack the energy and breath to get off your bed due to your diseased lungs?

I have already paid for that with exorbitant taxes that have been applied to my ciggies......

A newspaper once run an article stating that smoking related illnesses cost x amounts of dollars per year...

I then looked at the cost of duty free ciggies compared to the retail cost on average around Australia then multiplied that by 1/3 of the population which was the quoted smokers figure given at an average of a pack of 20 per day.....It turned out that the taxes collected on ciggies was more than the cost of smoking related illnesses.

My question now to you is once the world is totally non smoking.....and they need to collect more taxes....would you complain when they increase the tax on the things that you enjoy doing....I bet you would.

Smoking and alcohol are both addictive and attract far higher taxes than many other things...Petrol which is also something that most people need to have is also taxed at a high rate in most countries. So the governments are making big bikkies from the things that people need either by addiction or whatever.

Smoking used to be a rich mans pleasure....it fast becoming so again.

Edited December 30, 2006 by gburns57au

[eyebee]

Someone once said: "Having a no-smoking area in a bar is like having a no-pissing area in a swimming pool." I kinda like that - and I'm a smoker too...

Edited December 30, 2006 by eyebee

[mitrapaap]

[

He said 52,000 Thais died a year from smoking-related diseases, e

So presumably motor vehicles will be outlawed soon.

Not actually, smoking is something that can be done without. It has no true benefit. Motorcycles get people from point A to B without causing enormous traffic and are also affordable for almost all Thais.

Its interesting but Thailand along with many SE Asian countries still manufactures and distribute Asbestos lines brake pads! So in the traffic clogging jams you see in BKK be aware the Asbestos levels are sky high! This can cause cancer. Smoking is blamed on many cancers of the lungs but other things primarily Asbestos dust inhalation is 10 times worse than nicotine and can be the cause of cancers that smoking is blamed for.

That's why you should always use genuine spare parts.

[kurtgruen]

I wonder how this new law affects open air restaurants? Do we need to put no smoking signs up? Declare one corner a smoking area? I know we had a strong anti smoking law in Canada as well. Just wondering what the exact wording of the Thai legistlation is. Any link to it?

I thought I'd gotten away from money grabbing gold diggers and anti-smoking nazis when I left Canada, but I guess there is no escape from either.

It's getting harder and harder to find a little place on Earth where one has the freedom to kill oneself in the way that one chooses. Big brother always seems to know best....

First helmet laws, then seat belt laws, then anti-smoking laws, next anti alcohol laws. I am just waiting for the no sex laws, so none of these "people" that make all these laws can be recreated anymore.

Not that any of this really affects me...I don't drink, don't smoke, don't have a car, so I don't have to worry about seat belts and I have my 200 Baht in my pocket to pay for my helmet ticket. I just don't like it when everyones personal freedoms keep getting taken away in the name of "what is good for society" "or worse yet, what is good for us", because everyone knows that we would never be able to figure out what is good for us

Good thing not too many laws actually get enforced in this country, so at least a little bit of freedom remains. Make the tobacco companies pay, not the poor suckers who got hooked and addicted to nicotin, because for years the government allowed these legal drug dealers to exist, advertise and get rich.

[astral]

smokers should realise they are the new lepers in society.

Ring that bell, and hide in dark corners............... Too right.

[Rinrada]

I have it on Authority that all "smoking"tourists arriving at SuwannaP International Airport from Jan 1 st will be issued with and required to wear one of these at ALL times.

You can remove them only in the comfort and safety of your hotel bedroom...and toilet... but otherwise you must keep them on and No exceptions....

Tel Numbers of your nearest hospitals will be provided............Happy Hols...welcome to........

[OxfordWill]

At least, unlike the UK from July 2007, smokers can still smoke in designated areas and in member clubs etc.