Smokers Forbidden To Light Up In Public Areas

[Kaak]

So much of this is about freedom of choice. I agree that smoking is not sensible for a persons health but there are so many other things that are even more so. Personally I choose to smoke and I hope I do so in such a way as not to offend others. I do however have my doubts, despite numerous studies to the contrary, that second hand smoke in such minuscule quantities as to be negligible have a negative effect on others. If for example I was to try and light up a cigarette in a crowded elevator (which I would not) I would know I was wrong. But if I sit on the sea front in a mild breeze, yards from anyone else I would feel relaxed about smoking a cigarette. Yet under legislation in many countries I would be an offender in both situations and that I believe is wrong. The problem for me here is that individual freedom of choice is being eroded by overly zealous legislation when what is really needed instead is to reinforce individual responsibility. There's already a long list of things we cannot and must not do and many of those things are sensible. But what comes next I wonder and how far will the list extend.

Check. Reason 426 to go live in Cambodia.

Reminder: Cambodians get cancer and lung disease too. If you smoke, don't contribute to their demise either. Quit, instead. It's good for the world, not just Thailand.

I'm not going to Cambodia to give Cambodians cancer. I'm going to get away from all the self-righteous farangs in Thailand, who seem to have followed me from the states.

[toptuan]

I'm not going to Cambodia to give Cambodians cancer. I'm going to get away from all the self-righteous farangs in Thailand, who seem to have followed me from the states.

It's called "enlightenment" dude. You can't run away from it forever. Civilization will catch up with you there, eventually, too. You might consider Antarctica for longer-term isolation--away from the coastal scientific stations--closer to the South Pole. Word has it that penguins have cordoned off a smoking area for you and your kindred free spirits. But DO be careful.

Edited December 29, 2006 by toptuan

[nyles]

To me zealous people are the one that's pathetic in the way they look down upon the rest of the world. Not unlike the way fanatic muslims look down upon other religions.

Anti-smoking sentiments = Fanatic Islam

Now I know the argument is getting desperate.

Since smoking was definitively linked to cancer and lung disease (mid-1960's) it has claimed more lives than the equivalent of 2,857 World Trade Center disasters. (That's 10 million divided by 3,500 for those doing the math.) Putting an anti-smoker crusader into the same camp as a turbaned terrorist is just another sad attempt to poison the well.

Stick to the argument and the facts, my friend. That way you won't look so foolish.

I can bear that you find me foolish, no problem toptuan. People for sure die, you are right there! How many that are killed of over-eating, traffic, stingrays or just boredom, - I dont know, but apparently you have been counting all people dying from smoking since mid 1960's. No wonder that you are a bit one-eyed.

[Kaak]

To me zealous people are the one that's pathetic in the way they look down upon the rest of the world. Not unlike the way fanatic muslims look down upon other religions.

Anti-smoking sentiments = Fanatic Islam

Now I know the argument is getting desperate.

Since smoking was definitively linked to cancer and lung disease (mid-1960's) it has claimed more lives than the equivalent of 2,857 World Trade Center disasters. (That's 10 million divided by 3,500 for those doing the math.) Putting an anti-smoker crusader into the same camp as a turbaned terrorist is just another sad attempt to poison the well.

Stick to the argument and the facts, my friend. That way you won't look so foolish.

I"ve not seen proof of sexually transmitted AIDS yet, nor smoking being a proven carcinogen. Hear about it all the time though, cited by those like you who seem to have a selfish agenda to believe it. However, i've tons of evidence my freedoms are being eroded. I'm going to keep running away. You'll have to declare Jihad and chase me to take away my rights.

[bungalowbill]

socially-concious smokers

There's an oxymoron, if I ever saw one.

Billions in health care costs, lives of caregivers turned upside down.

No smoker is socially-conscious. Sorry.

I agree with that 100%. If you are a socially-concious smoker you'll, stay at home and smoke if you want to ruin your health. The rest of us don't want to breathe in your smoke, it's nasty both outdoors and indoors... it bothers us! By the way I was a smoker for 12 years and have not smoked for more than 16 years. Quitting was very hard but it can be done if you put your mind to it. good luck

And if you are a socially-conscious driver you only turn on your car in your garage, so I dont have to inhale your ######ing smoke in public places and run for my life when you come driving like a mad man.

The only reason for people to hate smokers is that they ENJOY smoking, and ENJOYING something useless is sinfull in this society based upon neo-con american standards of hypocrasy.

Wow! sounds like you have issues big time. Neo-con American? Are you mad at the USA? Is it their fault you can't quit? It's nothing political mate...it's just that your smoke and breath stinks and it's offensive. Why is everyone trying to rationalize this?...it's a no brainer.. the majority rules and the majority don't want your second hand smoke.

Edited December 29, 2006 by bungalowbill

[toptuan]

...apparently you have been counting all people dying from smoking since mid 1960's. No wonder that you are a bit one-eyed.

Common knowledge. Just Google it. Another head-in-the-sand comment.

[Kaak]

I'm not going to Cambodia to give Cambodians cancer. I'm going to get away from all the self-righteous farangs in Thailand, who seem to have followed me from the states.

It's called "enlightenment" dude. You can't run away from it forever. Civilization will catch up with you there, eventually, too. You might consider Antarctica for longer-term isolation--away from the coastal scientific stations--closer to the South Pole. Word has it that penguins have cordoned off a smoking area for you and your kindred free spirits. But DO be careful.

You care about my safety but not my personal freedoms...hmm....i'm suspicious.

[aaaaaa]

To me zealous people are the one that's pathetic in the way they look down upon the rest of the world. Not unlike the way fanatic muslims look down upon other religions.

Anti-smoking sentiments = Fanatic Islam

yeah! as if fanatic Christians, Jews or any other fanatics are less snobish than muslims... fanatics are fanatics - no matter what is their faith.

and again - what it has to do with smoking?

[Casanundra]

I'll say it again "If you lock a smoker and a non-smoker in a small room and then listen to the ensuing discussion of the 'right to smoke' versus the 'right to breathe clean air' then you will always have an interesting debate about what people perceive to be their rights."

I am sure if we did the same for someone who cycles to work versus someone who drives a car in you would get something similar and probably the same for someone who wants to argue about the right to use guns versus someone who has been a victim of a gun.

At the end of the day, ignorant people who are insensitive to others will always find a reason to 'bully' their way through life and trod on anyone and anything around them.

Using smokers as an example because this is the OPS subject, a smoker feels justified in the narrow world he lives in that he is 'right' to smoke even if by doing so in the open air causes a non smoker to either get wafted in his residue or has to inhale his smoke or get his clothes all stinky. It's nothing personal, it's just that like any addict he is only thinking about how to get the next hit. A smoker is no different to an alcoholic or a druggie or to someone hooked on prosac or to an anorexic or binge eater. They need help, they are blinded by their own addiction to see the peripheral affects or the damage that they doing.

Like all addicts, many smokers will try to hide behind a 'smoke screen' (pun intended) of freedom of personal choice or to diverting the problem to other things such as blaming exhaust fumes from cars instead of tackling the root cause. It's human nature to not accept the blame for our own faults. Ask a fat person why he or she is so fat and many will tell you he or she has a slow metabolism or the wrong kind of fat or in the case of many women, a thyroid problem. In 'some' cases this maybe true but let's all find a hook to hang our faults on while we are there why don't we.

Smoking is an addiction, pure and simple and like all addicts, the minute you realise this, the closer you will come to getting cured.

Edited December 29, 2006 by Casanundra

[nyles]

...apparently you have been counting all people dying from smoking since mid 1960's. No wonder that you are a bit one-eyed.

Common knowledge. Just Google it. Another head-in-the-sand comment.

The funny part is, that I dont smoke. I just don't like crusaders of any kind. You are the cause of all evils in this world because of your lack of tolerance and your craving for changing other people either by law or by violence. The likes of you actually give me the desire to start smoking just to annoy you though I know that it would be a little childish.

[sjaak327]

I am very careful to respect the wishes of my non smoking friends and my non smoking fiance.....I try to make sure that my second hand smoke does not annoy them.....I avoid smoking around them and when a non smoker alerts me to the fact that my smoking is annoying them I move to rectify that...

I guess that makes me socially concious of my smoking habit.

While that's all commendable, you're still not socially conscious. Sorry.

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?

Put that onto your poor non-smoking wife and children? Why punish them?

You're thinking too short-term, my friend.

Hmm, what about all the tax he has paid over the cigarettes he smoked, I would think that would cover a lot of it allready. Not to mention the money spared by him dying earlier then non smokers, as you should know the older you get the more dependant one becomes from healthcare.

Also the same could apply to people who eat way too much, or taking other health risk, yet there is no tax on a Big mac or other unhealthy food, actually it is strange since the medical cost related to smoking are less then those related to obese behaviour.

[aaaaaa]

I'll say it again "If you lock a smoker and a non-smoker in a small room and then listen to the ensuing discussion of the 'right to smoke' versus the 'right to breathe clean air' then you will always have an interesting debate about what people perceive to be their rights."

I am sure if we did the same for someone who cycles to work versus someone who drives a car in you would get something similar and probably the same for someone who wants to argue about the right to use guns versus someone who has been a victim of a gun.

At the end of the day, ignorant people who are insensitive to others will always find a reason to 'bully' their way through life and trod on anyone and anything around them.

A smoker feels justified in the narrow world he lives in that he is 'right' to smoke even if by doing so in the open air causes a non smoker to either get wafted in his residue or has to inhale his smoke or get his clothes all stinky. It's nothing personal, it's just that like any addict he is only thinking about how to get the next hit. A smoke is no different to an alcoholic or a druggie or to someone hooked on prosac or to an anorexic or binge eater. They need help, they are blinded by their own addiction to see the peripheral affects or the damage that they doing.

Like all addicts, many smokers will ty to hid behind a smoke screen of freedom of personal choice or to diverting the problem to other things such as blaming exhaust fumes instead of the root cause. It's human nature to not accept the blame for our own faults. Ask a fat person why he is so fat and many will tell you he has a slow metabolism or the wrong kind of fat or in the case of many women, a thyroid problem. In 'some' cases this maybe true but let's all find a hook to hang our faults on while we are there why don't we.

Smoking is an addiction. Simple, pure and fact and like all addicts, the minute you realise this, the closer you become to getting cured.

yes, such discussion might be endless. however the one demanding the right to breath clean air has more solid ground I think: as you've mentioned it yourself, his such right doesn't harm the smoker's health or makes his cloth stinky etc. smoke from smoker's cigarette - does that.

so, it is not about the right to smoke or breathe clean air but about do that without disturbing and even harming others.

the only solution, apart from the one imposed by this new Thai law, would be only to invent some sort of mask or something, which would allow smoker to enjoy his smoke while at the same time restrict that residue ONLY to smoker, or sort of capture and lock it up. I don't know - may be chemically bide those smoke particles to some substance making them solid form (not fumes form as it is now) which would be chemically inert and therefore harmfull and later could be easily thrown away? but that is a likely as making same system for cars' exaust I guess. even if technologically possible - how much practicall it is or feasible for all the traders concerned?

however the fumes from cars are harming not only individuals but whole planet. Kyoto protocol was trying to enforce some rules. but planet is getting warmer and warmer still....

[chicagogato]

It is my choice to risk lung cancer and any other form of disease by smoking cigarettes. In doing so I accept this may not be everyones choice hence I commit to carry out my habit in such a way as not to inconvenience or put at risk the health or lifestyle of those around me. My responsibility is to keep others around me free from the risks and any unpleasantness from second hand smoke. The responsibility of others is to me is to allow me to conduct my life in a way of my choosing.

Seems that this is all the gov. is asking from everyone concerned.

[Toeknee]

I'm not going to Cambodia to give Cambodians cancer. I'm going to get away from all the self-righteous farangs in Thailand, who seem to have followed me from the states.

It's called "enlightenment" dude. You can't run away from it forever. Civilization will catch up with you there, eventually, too. You might consider Antarctica for longer-term isolation--away from the coastal scientific stations--closer to the South Pole. Word has it that penguins have cordoned off a smoking area for you and your kindred free spirits. But DO be careful.

You care about my safety but not my personal freedoms...hmm....i'm suspicious.

How ironic, for a citizen of a country that refuses to sign the Kyoto treaty, to ask someone to go to the South Pole. Might as well as it won't be there much longer. Still, at least he gets a boner about smoking, i suppose.

[LifeConvo]

To me zealous people are the one that's pathetic in the way they look down upon the rest of the world. Not unlike the way fanatic muslims look down upon other religions.

Anti-smoking sentiments = Fanatic Islam

Now I know the argument is getting desperate.

Since smoking was definitively linked to cancer and lung disease (mid-1960's) it has claimed more lives than the equivalent of 2,857 World Trade Center disasters. (That's 10 million divided by 3,500 for those doing the math.) Putting an anti-smoker crusader into the same camp as a turbaned terrorist is just another sad attempt to poison the well.

Stick to the argument and the facts, my friend. That way you won't look so foolish.

Interesting... here's a simple question for you... How many non-smokers died anyway since say, the mid 1960's?

[thehawk]

It is my choice to risk lung cancer and any other form of disease by smoking cigarettes. In doing so I accept this may not be everyones choice hence I commit to carry out my habit in such a way as not to inconvenience or put at risk the health or lifestyle of those around me. My responsibility is to keep others around me free from the risks and any unpleasantness from second hand smoke. The responsibility of others is to me is to allow me to conduct my life in a way of my choosing.

Seems that this is all the gov. is asking from everyone concerned.

Agreed... no need for a human rights debate. If you smoke, just think about the guy next to you who might not. It's like urinating in public - nobody really thinks its the best thing to do, but if you have to do it, then do it behind a bush.

[thehawk]

One other comment (or maybe a couple)...

I'm a nonsmoker. Couldn't care less if people smoke, as long as it's not inside - for 2 reasons. One - If I go to a restaurant for 2 hours to eat, I have to go home and wash my formerly clean clothes because they smell like smoke. Two - my eyes have a low tolerance to the build-up of formaldehyde in the air caused by the accumulation of smoke; makes my eyes sting (I'm an environmental engineer and the formaldehyde=eye sting link was on the final exam of my Indoor Air Quality course, so you'll have to trust me that it's the cause). The point being, the human brain doesn't factor in the long term effects of every unpleasant thing it encounters on a daily basis. Isn't it enough for smokers that by smoking outside instead of in the bar, you'll be saving people time on laudry and $$ on eye drops?

Comment #2: if I smoked, I would feel comfortable smoking anywhere open to the atmosphere (i.e. bus stops, balconies, etc.). TIP TO NONSMOKERS - learn how to stand upwind.

[gordonkris]

Great news. I hate second-hand smoke. Let's do something about the burning season next. I used to live in a small town near Chiang Mai and every spring was hel_l. People thought nothing of burning any and all refuse publicly. At the school where I taught, leaves were burned in huge piles. The smoke would waft into the classrooms and nothing was ever done. Living there was like smoking two packs a day!

[pal78]

Quick story: I was working for a company in Thailand that occupied a complete floor of a office building. It was a non-smoking office, but in truth it might as well have been a smoking one. Smokers used a fire exit onto a stair well as a smoking room and the smoke would waft into the office each time someone came in or out. I complained many times about this, but eventually it was complaints from the office on the floor above that made the difference. Apparently the smoke was entering their office too, and was unpleasant enough that the Thais up there complained to the building management.

One of the smokers from our office said something along the lines of "<deleted> them, f*****g whining little P**ks" and since he was one of the upper management in the company the practice of using that fire exit continued. One of the heaviest users of the smoking "room" fell ill, and the doctor told him to stop smoking. He got a fright and stopped smoking. He commented that he was not aware of how strong the smell of smoke coming in that door was until now that he'd stopped, and he started to complain also. Eventually one morning a sign appeared on the door from the building management banning smoking and a fine was listed (could have been 2000 baht, I don't remember). Our manager friend suggested that all the smokers pool a fund for the amount so that each time they are caught they can simply pay the fine and replenish the fund. I am not making any of this up!

Finally, the CEO of the company stepped in and made a ruling on it, and after that smokers were forced to take the lift down about 18 floors to a parking level where they could smoke. Although they still brought a strong smell of smoke back up with them, it was a big improvement to the other arrangement. But since it now took around 20 minutes for a fag break, rather than 3 or 4 minutes most smokers cut down considerably. Even still the average smoker was spending over an hour a day on fag breaks! I asked my supervisor (a smoker) if I could take a break when he took a fag break, and he told me that smoking makes him more efficient and when he comes back he gets more than enough work done to make up for the break. I was stunned! I should probably have said "a 20 minute nap would have the same effect on me, wake me up you get back", but at the time all I could think of was "<deleted>?" So I said nothing.

Some of my mates back in Ireland found it simply too socially problematic to smoke following the ban, and took advantage of the situation to make a concerted effort to quit, some successfully, with all of them at least cutting back on their smoking. None of them are complaining about it!

I fully respect your right to smoke, wank, drink yourself silly, pray, sing, piss, crap, eat, sleep or whatever you want to do. Some of these things I would be happy to share with you, others I would feel it is more appropriate for you to keep to yourself, and others you can share with anyone who is willing to go along with you. The point is that smoking is not one of your rights that I would like to share with you. If you can't understand this, just look at the list, and think of one that you might not enjoy sharing with me.

Smoking is not the worst evil in the world, and God knows that there are many things that Thailand could do to improve the lives and health of it's citizens before smoking bans would start to come into focus. But like any harmful and otherwise useless activity I think smoking should be restricted, and this is at least a decent start.

[pal78]

Comment #2: if I smoked, I would feel comfortable smoking anywhere open to the atmosphere (i.e. bus stops, balconies, etc.). TIP TO NONSMOKERS - learn how to stand upwind.

Ah, this is an interesting one. Sometimes this is entirely possible, but usually smoke doesn't travel in a straight line and instead wafts around to effect a radial area. Sometimes there is no wind!

Sometimes it's raining, and the bus stop shelter is crowded. Is the non-smoker expected to stand in the rain because a guy wants to have smoke?

Wouldn't it be easier if the smoker learned how to stand downwind? Wouldn't it be better if the one or two smokers stood in the rain, while everyone else puts up with the smoke to avoid the rain but desire neither?

TIP TO SMOKERS: Learn how to close the doors on the smoking rooms at airports. I'm tired of doing it for you (some of you can now identify me as the p**k who closed the door on you to spare my children from the smoke)! The rooms are usually well ventilated, and if they're not, then you just get the bonus of some extra smoke, right?

[Rinrada]

It is my choice to risk lung cancer and any other form of disease by smoking cigarettes. In doing so I accept this may not be everyones choice hence I commit to carry out my habit in such a way as not to inconvenience or put at risk the health or lifestyle of those around me. My responsibility is to keep others around me free from the risks and any unpleasantness from second hand smoke. The responsibility of others is to me is to allow me to conduct my life in a way of my choosing.

Seems that this is all the gov. is asking from everyone concerned.

Agreed... no need for a human rights debate. If you smoke, just think about the guy next to you who might not. It's like urinating in public - nobody really thinks its the best thing to do, but if you have to do it, then do it behind a bush.

or even better go home and do it..errr.kill yer self..well... suicide at least and...all in the comfort of your own happy (final) abode....and nobody will give a tos.....

anyway...

[Kaak]

Quick story: I was working for a company in Thailand that occupied a complete floor of a office building. It was a non-smoking office, but in truth it might as well have been a smoking one. Smokers used a fire exit onto a stair well as a smoking room and the smoke would waft into the office each time someone came in or out. I complained many times about this, but eventually it was complaints from the office on the floor above that made the difference. Apparently the smoke was entering their office too, and was unpleasant enough that the Thais up there complained to the building management.

One of the smokers from our office said something along the lines of "<deleted> them, f*****g whining little P**ks" and since he was one of the upper management in the company the practice of using that fire exit continued. One of the heaviest users of the smoking "room" fell ill, and the doctor told him to stop smoking. He got a fright and stopped smoking. He commented that he was not aware of how strong the smell of smoke coming in that door was until now that he'd stopped, and he started to complain also. Eventually one morning a sign appeared on the door from the building management banning smoking and a fine was listed (could have been 2000 baht, I don't remember). Our manager friend suggested that all the smokers pool a fund for the amount so that each time they are caught they can simply pay the fine and replenish the fund. I am not making any of this up!

Finally, the CEO of the company stepped in and made a ruling on it, and after that smokers were forced to take the lift down about 18 floors to a parking level where they could smoke. Although they still brought a strong smell of smoke back up with them, it was a big improvement to the other arrangement. But since it now took around 20 minutes for a fag break, rather than 3 or 4 minutes most smokers cut down considerably. Even still the average smoker was spending over an hour a day on fag breaks! I asked my supervisor (a smoker) if I could take a break when he took a fag break, and he told me that smoking makes him more efficient and when he comes back he gets more than enough work done to make up for the break. I was stunned! I should probably have said "a 20 minute nap would have the same effect on me, wake me up you get back", but at the time all I could think of was "<deleted>?" So I said nothing.

Some of my mates back in Ireland found it simply too socially problematic to smoke following the ban, and took advantage of the situation to make a concerted effort to quit, some successfully, with all of them at least cutting back on their smoking. None of them are complaining about it!

I fully respect your right to smoke, wank, drink yourself silly, pray, sing, piss, crap, eat, sleep or whatever you want to do. Some of these things I would be happy to share with you, others I would feel it is more appropriate for you to keep to yourself, and others you can share with anyone who is willing to go along with you. The point is that smoking is not one of your rights that I would like to share with you. If you can't understand this, just look at the list, and think of one that you might not enjoy sharing with me.

Smoking is not the worst evil in the world, and God knows that there are many things that Thailand could do to improve the lives and health of it's citizens before smoking bans would start to come into focus. But like any harmful and otherwise useless activity I think smoking should be restricted, and this is at least a decent start.

Agreed. I'll sit in the back of the airplane to smoke. That's only fair.

[Jet Gorgon]

I can see the police out in full force to collect smoking fines, just like they did when they initiated the "no littering" law.

I smoke, but I live in a mostly outdoor environment and never smoke in air-con, buses, etc. I live next to restaurant workers who have started to burn up a mountain of rancid oil every morning to prepare their food. It is gross.

I do hate smokers who throw their butts everywhere, especially on the beach. Take a bag to collect the butts and drop it in a bin!

Lorry and vehicle exhaust fumes seem worse to me, as does the smoke that wafts up from Indonesia every year when they burn off all their fields. That is all-pervasive.

[Rdrokit]

First California and now here, I'm in heaven!!!

California does not permit smoking in bar & clubs.

Am I correct that dance clubs (like those on RCA) are not included in this ban in Thailand?

dancing is a form of aerobic exercise and what will really make my day is the day I can dance free of 2nd hand smoke!

this is a promising step forward nonetheless and happy to see such progress!

In California the non smoking ban started in resturants and other public areas then a year or 2 later it was expanded to include bars. I think Thailand will do the same as soon as their first step is enforced.

Edited December 29, 2006 by Rdrokit

[doftorul]

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 !

[operator]

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.

Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.

The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood."

A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases." Roy Castle, the jazz musician and television presenter who died from lung cancer in 1994, claimed that he contracted the disease from years of inhaling smoke while performing in pubs and clubs.

A report published in the British Medical Journal last October was hailed by the anti-tobacco lobby as definitive proof when it claimed that non-smokers living with smokers had a 25 per cent risk of developing lung cancer. But yesterday, Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all.

"It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk." The WHO study results come at a time when the British Government has made clear its intention to crack down on smoking in thousands of public places, including bars and restaurants.

The Government's own Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health is also expected to report shortly - possibly in time for this Wednesday's National No Smoking day - on the hazards of passive smoking.

SYNOPSIS AND COMMENTS ON THE WHO-IARC STUDY ON ETS

By Martha Perske and Wanda Hamilton

The WHO study -- one of the largest ever conducted on ETS and lung cancer risk in non-smokers -- was commissioned by WHO and coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The results of the study show no statistically significant association between lung cancer and exposure to ETS in the home, the workplace, vehicles, or public places such as restaurants. The study emphasized that 'Vehicles and public indoor settings did not represent an important source of ETS exposure.' Moreover, the study found a statistically significant DECREASED risk of lung cancer in adulthood for those non-smokers exposed to ETS as children. In simple words, that means there was a PROTECTIVE effect from exposure to ETS during childhood.

Click here to get Adobe Acrobat

The study was eventually published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (l998;90:1440-50), but only after the London Telegraph (and the London Times) broke a story on the findings of the study and accused WHO of suppressing the information ("Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer--official," by Victoria Macdonald, London Telegraph, 3/8/98). U.K. ASH filed a complaint with the U.K. Press Complaints Commission against the Telegraph, alleging it had misrepresented the results of the WHO study. The Telegraph stuck by its story and by October l998 the Commission found for the Telegraph and rejected ASH's complaint. By then the WHO study had been published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (in early October, l998) and the Telegraph was obviously vindicated.

It appeared to many that WHO did consider suppressing the research altogether, but the London press forced them to publish, and that they even tried to discredit their own study at first, saying it wasn't large enough (though it was only 3 cases short of being the largest ever done).

According to an article by Terence Corcoran at the Globe and Mail ("Ban anti-tobacco activists," March 17, 1998) following the London Telegraph's exposure of the findings, some WHO anti-tobacco workers even tried to deny the very existence of the study: "Neil Collishaw, a former Health Canada statistician who now works the anti-tobacco desk at WHO in Geneva, suggested that the research didn't exist. 'This was certainly nothing done in my office.' Then he added: 'But if my organization...commissioned it, it's strange I haven't heard of it.' Strange indeed, since the WHO study is a well-known project and one of the largest original investigations into second-hand smoke ever undertaken."

However, The Economist is of different opinion (March 14-20, 1998). It says WHO tried to get its findings published in the British Medical Journal in 1997, to no avail.

"...Richard Peto, an epidemiologist at Oxford Univeristy who advises the WHO, says that accusations of a cover-up are nonsense. The WHO tried to get its findings published by the British Medical Journal late last year, but they were rejected on the grounds that the BMJ had just published a much bigger 'meta-analysis' study on passive smoking, collating almost 40 research papers on more than 4,000 cancer patients."

"This larger study came to the conclusion that there was indeed an increased risk of lung cancer from passive smoking (25% higher than for those living in a smoke-free environment), but that it was tiny compared with the 2,000% increased risk for active smokers. The BMJ therefore decided that the WHO's results were not noteworthy enough to print. The WHO says it is still trying to have the study published. It submitted the research to the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in February and is waiting for it to be peer-reviewed."

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.

[Mighty Mouse]

It amazes me that some posters are blaming governments for introducing strict NO SMOKING laws.

People elect governments to rule on their behalf..."Give 'em what the majority wants." The majority rules.

The ever increasing majority of non-smokers wants a tobacco free, safe environment in which to live and to raise their children.

Responsible governments are doing their best to deter children from experimenting with smoking and becoming addicted to nicotine. It's called "protecting our future generation."

Children see, children do.

Remove addicted smokers from public view in open areas (bus stations, sporting fields, parks etc. etc.) and children can't see.

Children then have a chance of growing up free from at least one cancer causing habit.

I'm sure that 99% of smokers, being honest with themselves, would have chosen never to have experimented with cigarettes if they could turn back the hands of time to when they were children.

[chiang mai]

It is my choice to risk lung cancer and any other form of disease by smoking cigarettes. In doing so I accept this may not be everyones choice hence I commit to carry out my habit in such a way as not to inconvenience or put at risk the health or lifestyle of those around me. My responsibility is to keep others around me free from the risks and any unpleasantness from second hand smoke. The responsibility of others is to me is to allow me to conduct my life in a way of my choosing.

Seems that this is all the gov. is asking from everyone concerned.

Agreed... no need for a human rights debate. If you smoke, just think about the guy next to you who might not. It's like urinating in public - nobody really thinks its the best thing to do, but if you have to do it, then do it behind a bush.

I'm comfortable with my role as a considerate smoker but for the equation to work it requires considerate non-smokers also not anti smoking zealots who have joined a fashionable trend. I'll smoke behind a bush when you go behind a separate a bush to enjoy all the things that I deem to be unhealthy or distasteful. How about we have a law requiring all Asians who spit out their disease borne sputum to get behind a very large bush. Unfortunately this is in part a human rights debate and there is so much hypocracy associated with it. I do not feel like being mandated to do these things especially when the pollution/global warming issue puts me at substantially greater risk and (US) government refuses to do much about it.

[chiang mai]

It amazes me that some posters are blaming governments for introducing strict NO SMOKING laws.

People elect governments to rule on their behalf..."Give 'em what the majority wants." The majority rules.

The ever increasing majority of non-smokers wants a tobacco free, safe environment in which to live and to raise their children.

Responsible governments are doing their best to deter children from experimenting with smoking and becoming addicted to nicotine. It's called "protecting our future generation."

Children see, children do.

Remove addicted smokers from public view in open areas (bus stations, sporting fields, parks etc. etc.) and children can't see.

Children then have a chance of growing up free from at least one cancer causing habit.

I'm sure that 99% of smokers, being honest with themselves, would have chosen never to have experimented with cigarettes if they could turn back the hands of time to when they were children.

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.

[sevenyrold]

I can understand why a law would be passed to prohibt smoking from places where people MUST go or from any government owned place (which I think is the intent of this law,) but I do not have any sympathy for those who think that the rights of nonsmokers should supercede those of smokers in every and all circumstances. As a smoker, I respect you by not smoking in virtually every instance we are in the same enclosed area. You, nonsmokers, already have the malls, banks, workplaces, taxis, homes (I won't even dare ask,) and movie theatres all free of my smoke. Is it really too much to allow smokers one or two places (like bars and restaurants) in society to practice our "disgusting" habit (as many of the posters are suggesting)? Do I have to spend my entire life fearing that a poor nonsmoker might possibly be slightly inconvenced by catching a waft of my cigarette smell? There is evidence that massive daily exposure to secondhand smoke can cause increase health risks, but absolutely NONE that occasional exposure to secondhand smoke has any effect on people. And it really does not smell THAT bad- remember capitalism works even more efficiently than democracy: if it was so awful, capitalists would open bars that don't allow smoking, and you could go to those. Actually, restaurants already have done this, so what really is wrong with the status quo? Are you afraid that smokers will get all the best bars and restaurants? Ok, some people work in these places, but seeing as Thailand's economy is running at full employment and 99% of workplaces are smokefree (or at least would by with a workplace ban, which I support,) it seems to be a choice to work in a place which has smoke. Furthermore, I don't think this really is a worker's rights issue, more of a way of kicking the new disenfranchised minority, smokers.

The other issue brought up is that smokers are not socially conscious because they leave large medical costs (a dubious claim since cigarettes are highly taxed and smokers die earlier, thus according to most impartial estimates saving the "system" money.) Proponents of this argument need to gather all their liberalnazi friends and go jump in a lake. By these standards, how many people would be not socially conscious? You're not generating enough wealth by performing at your highest potential, socially unconscious. You're retiring too early, you're too fat, all socially unconscious. Let others live as they see fit. Don't worry, I have paid a lot more money into the system than they will spend on me when I die.

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?"