Smoking

[frankenburner2]

....i know it helps me to relax...

As it turns out, smokers are generally less "relaxed" than non smokers. Increased physiological stress aside, the relaxation you feel has to do with the sudden release of the built up psychological stress smokers feel in the between-smoke periods.

It is not the job of the government to tell businesses where their customers are allowed to smoke...Please quit demonizing smokers. We're making a decision. It's none of your business. If you hate it so much, vote with your feet and vote with your dollar.

In fact, it is our business. And it's also the business of government to protect it's citizens. Should a business be allowed to sell underage kids cigs and alcohol, just because it's a private business? Most people would say no.

Likewise with smoking. While it's easy for a nicotine addict (which is what a "smoker" really is) to say "the choice is yours -- if you don't like smoke, then don't go out" -- there's no choice if every place around you is smoker-friendly. In Japan, for example, only a handful of restaurants have non smoking areas. So I'm never supposed to go out?

This argument is a no-brainer: Smokers endanger the people around them, in the same way that drinkng drivers and suicide bombers do If you punch me in a bar, that's assault and you go to jail. Blow smoke in my face and it's OK? Of course not. Same rules apply. It IS the government's job to make and enforce rules to protect the rights and welfare of its citizens.

pffft! Obviously just another non-smoker blowing smoke out of his nice clean pink lungs! come on man! haven't you seen those old print ads?...light up! you'll look much cooler and the chicks dig it!

[dannyboy]

i smoked for 13 years and gave up in january , its one of the hardest things i have done to be honest and i understand how lame that sounds.i honestly think the best way to quit if you want to is just stop ,by having niccoteine patches and gum only prolomgs the agony.

even now i feel like a smoke but i wont. :cry:

[anenglishman]

I couldn't decide who to go after so I decided no one. So...

1) Does smoking kill? Yes, absolutely

2) Does second hand smoke kill? Allegedly but tough to prove.

3) Has the EPA and IARC declared 2nd hand smoke a class A carcinogen? Yes, but on the dodgiest of grounds including, in the EPA's case, altering the required cofidence level from 95 to 90% in order to achieve a statistically acceptable risk assessment.

4) Is smoking addictive? No said the US Surgeon General in 1963. Yes said the US Surgeon General in 1978.

5) Are smoking bans the best way forward or is it better to provide smoking areas, well ventilated and away from non-smoking areas? Most would say some form of accomodation.

6) Has air quality on planes improved since smoking was banned? No, it's got worse because the airlines now pump less oxygen.

7) Do non-smokers have the right to be annoyed by smokers lighting up in front of them? Yes.

9) Do I have the right to be annoyed by a drunk threatening to hit me because I supported Portugal versus England at the world cup (the owner of titanium in this case...threatened me and hit 3 or 4 others including 2 women). Yes.

Yellow Submarine quoted a lot of authoritative studies. She also quoted the Canadian Cancer Society, one of the least reputabe cancer societies around. LondonMarty once again failed to quote any facts, rather as with his diatribe on cervical cancer.

There is a phrase known to many called "junk science". The amount of misinformation on smoking is staggering to the point of being criminal. If governments genuinely wish to stop smoking then 1) ban it or 2) tax it as there is legitimate evidence to support the view that price increases do lead to reductions in demand.

If u hate smoking and smokers that's ur right. But let's distinguish annoyance and dislike from disease. If a smoker wants to kill himself that's up to him (and by the way, londonmarty also got his "facts" wrong on social cost....cynical though it may sound, the fact that smokers die younger puts a lesser burden on government healthcare costs). Are smokers killing non-smokers. Well IARC and the EPA say so.........so of course they must be right. Anyone who believes that is naive. IARC tried to "hide" a landmark 10 year study into the effects of 2nd hand smoke because the results were inconclusive.

[icebear45]

What really annoys me about all this are the non smokers who decide to take this to almost religious proportion.

Yes I smoke and fully understand that non smokers do not like this and have a right to have smoke free air (not counting cars, factories, powerstations, deforestation, cooking, open fires, barbeques, etc. etc.) I fully agree with non smoking in public areas and restaurants. All I am asking for is some nice well ventilated areas set aside for us 'addicts'

A nice local restaurant here where I live is non smoking, no problem... but it also has a cigar bar upstairs for serving after dinner cigars, brandy, coffee, etc. You have to physically walk upstairs (= choice) to this room and yet the non smoking zealots are demanding this be closed down too......

Also, if you are one of the statistics zealots - why, if smoking is on the decline, are cancers on the incline?

[zeusbheld]

I wish to quit smoking too, for my better health and than I shall save about DKK 12000/ year. That means 2 hugo boss dresses and a pair of shoes.

Now can someone tell me how to quit without gaining any weight???.. I?m serious.

consistent exercise and sensible nutrition.

of course, i do neither of these, but i'm naturally beauteous (and a non-smoker).

[frankenburner2]

I couldn't decide who to go after so I decided no one. So...

1) Does smoking kill? Yes, absolutely

2) Does second hand smoke kill? Allegedly but tough to prove.

3) Has the EPA and IARC declared 2nd hand smoke a class A carcinogen? Yes, but on the dodgiest of grounds including, in the EPA's case, altering the required cofidence level from 95 to 90% in order to achieve a statistically acceptable risk assessment.

4) Is smoking addictive? No said the US Surgeon General in 1963. Yes said the US Surgeon General in 1978.

5) Are smoking bans the best way forward or is it better to provide smoking areas, well ventilated and away from non-smoking areas? Most would say some form of accomodation.

6) Has air quality on planes improved since smoking was banned? No, it's got worse because the airlines now pump less oxygen.

7) Do non-smokers have the right to be annoyed by smokers lighting up in front of them? Yes.

9) Do I have the right to be annoyed by a drunk threatening to hit me because I supported Portugal versus England at the world cup (the owner of titanium in this case...threatened me and hit 3 or 4 others including 2 women). Yes.

Yellow Submarine quoted a lot of authoritative studies. She also quoted the Canadian Cancer Society, one of the least reputabe cancer societies around. LondonMarty once again failed to quote any facts, rather as with his diatribe on cervical cancer.

There is a phrase known to many called "junk science". The amount of misinformation on smoking is staggering to the point of being criminal. If governments genuinely wish to stop smoking then 1) ban it or 2) tax it as there is legitimate evidence to support the view that price increases do lead to reductions in demand.

If u hate smoking and smokers that's ur right. But let's distinguish annoyance and dislike from disease. If a smoker wants to kill himself that's up to him (and by the way, londonmarty also got his "facts" wrong on social cost....cynical though it may sound, the fact that smokers die younger puts a lesser burden on government healthcare costs). Are smokers killing non-smokers. Well IARC and the EPA say so.........so of course they must be right. Anyone who believes that is naive. IARC tried to "hide" a landmark 10 year study into the effects of 2nd hand smoke because the results were inconclusive.

see...now that's interesting....

[laragirl]

well, whatever it is i do not plan to quit smoking anytime soon.

=)

[thaibel]

Well, I started this thread and I'm following it and try to put all arguments pro and contra against each other. Still nobody could convince me to stop smoking. I can understand that smokers have to be polite and not blow the smoke into the face of a non-smoker or anyone else. Except maybe for the arrogant non-smoker who's whining all the time and consider smokers as wild that need to be hunted. That's my bad character :roll: .

I think the attitude of some politicians towards smokers is really over the edge. Yes, I'm a smoker and by this polluating the environment (how much??? No scientifical study can prove yet). But if I go out walking I have to inhale all bad air from cars (in abundant numbers this day in the west and also the east) and companies, like chemical industry. In fact you, who maybe doesn't smoke but drives a car, maybe causes also cancer by me.

They already could build a car who's driving on water and completely harmles to ur health. Why does the government put that much money in studies about smoking and not in the development of a clean car? The oil lobby? The taxes on oil?

[anenglishman]

an englisman - how wrong you are. so the uk dept of health and its specialists don't know what they're talking about? always suspect searching the net for 10 mins then claiming 'expert status'. instead of preaching omnipotent directives, why not tell us your sources and the root of your anger. btw, your economics are rubbish too, as is your interpretation of 'diatribe' and your understanding of 'social costs'; you did, in fact, quote an incoherent economic argument instead.

Yellow Submarine quoted a lot of authoritative studies. She also quoted the Canadian Cancer Society, one of the least reputabe cancer societies around. LondonMarty once again failed to quote any facts, rather as with his diatribe on cervical cancer.

There is a phrase known to many called "junk science". The amount of misinformation on smoking is staggering to the point of being criminal. If governments genuinely wish to stop smoking then 1) ban it or 2) tax it as there is legitimate evidence to support the view that price increases do lead to reductions in demand.

If u hate smoking and smokers that's ur right. But let's distinguish annoyance and dislike from disease. If a smoker wants to kill himself that's up to him (and by the way, londonmarty also got his "facts" wrong on social cost....cynical though it may sound, the fact that smokers die younger puts a lesser burden on government healthcare costs). Are smokers killing non-smokers. Well IARC and the EPA say so.........so of course they must be right. Anyone who believes that is naive. IARC tried to "hide" a landmark 10 year study into the effects of 2nd hand smoke because the results were inconclusive.

londonmarty........i probably know at least as much as u on this subject. and on epidemiology i know a lot more than u....over 20 years experience. my incoherent economics are very controversial but not incoherent. It is a fact that low income families are more prone to smoking for which the solution is clear...increase tax.i don't perosnally oppose smoking bans...just think they are unnecessary. but on the facts of 2nd hand smoke u need to check out the Library of US Congress' report on the EPA....just as one very prestigious and totally objective source. It's damning. I don't mind science being used to drive policy but i do believe that people should know what "facts" mean. If u know epi (and I suspect u do), then u know as well as me that a risk factor less than 2 is considered to be basically random. Only thing going against that is that some (and only some) meta-analyses of ETS do suggest a consistent risk factor of about 1.2. Which means that for every 100 deaths from lung cancer, ETS might (MIGHT) cause an extra 2. You have quoted no data...either for ets or cervical cancer so why should anyone accepy what u say as the gospel? As another example of misleading science...check out the latest news on DDT and the WHO.

[frankenburner2]

"the Library of US Congress' report on the EPA."....that was what penn and teller refered to in that episode of bullshit when they questioned second hand smoke...it concluded something like "inconclusive"....

[funfarang]

simple , cigarette is one of the most lethal drug , yet it is legal because its a huge mane of money for goverments . if governments were not hypocrits , they would simply ban cigarettes.

i'm a smoker and i consider myself as a victim of tobacco companies who did all they could to sell cigarettes and get me hooked at the age of 14 . and it worked . i now been a smoker for 20 years .

i'm not pro smokers , i sincerly would like to stop smoking , but its not the ban in public places nor the higher taxes ( wich by the way change nothing but just create a black market) that will make me stop , it is just tampering with my PERSONAL LIBERTY. only 2 things will stop me : 1) a complete ban of the sale of cigarettes worldwide 2) a deadly desease caused by my smoking .

now to the non smokers and the former smokers who are often way more intolerent and getting real fascists towards the smokers i would say this : second hand smoke is a farce !!! segregation of the smokers is tasteless and reminds me of the pretoria regime . you want to fight tabagism? fight the governments , not the smokers . smokers are the victims too.

[funfarang]

come on , wake up , you breathe more dangerous fumes in an hour in a central bangkok street than if you live 24/7 with a smoker .

[inamorato25]

My vote for most illogical post goes to fun farang. He starts with:

simple , cigarette is one of the most lethal drug

And then states (after a few lines about loss of civil liberties)

second hand smoke is a farce !!! segregation of the smokers is tasteless and reminds me of the pretoria regime.

So which is it? Is cigarette smoke lethal? Or is it a farce, like your post?

As Londonmarty has gone a long way to show, the evidence on second hand smoke is clear: It IS dangerous. And so segregating smokers makes perfect sense. Or rather, think of it as the creation of personal space, and enforcement of the civil liberties of non-smokers.

As for being a rabid non-smoker, in fact, I have no problems with people smoking. As long as I don't have to put up with it when I'm paying for a service such as food or drink or transport, or at work. If you want to smoke 3 packs a day at home or outside, knock yourself out! The one true personal liberty we have is what we choose to do with our own bodies. If people are into smoking, not working out, riding motorcycles without helmets, or base-jumping -- more power to them. Just don't drag me along for the ride.

[frankenburner2]

just came from the shop downstairs.....local LM brand going up 12 baht...Marlboro going 15 baht in the next days or so!....I bought every pack she had!....btw...if memory serves..that's about an 65% increase over the last year or so....seem to recall paying 36baht per pack...now it will be 59baht

[dannyboy]

last time i was in koh samed , about a year ago silver sands bar tried to charge me 100b for marlboro lights .still cheap compared to the uk though .400b

thank god i stopped in january

[literature]

I don't like a smoke. It's smell makes me unbreath and make my hair smelly :!:

I will choose to not be near to any smokers ( when they are smoking ) if I can do.

[anenglishman]

It is 100% ur right not to be near a smoker just as it is my right not to be near a drunken fool who keeps threatening people.

But the earlier statement that LondonMarty has effectively proved that ETS is harmeful is just plain wrong. He hasn't come even a little bit close. It may be harmful, possibly, just a little. The precautionary principle may apply, though I personally believe that the PP is a bullshit way of saying "we can't prove it" but let's ban it anyway (remember the ddt fiasco....banned and now unbanned). But it is not "proven". Why do I say this? Because

1) the science of ets is based on epidemiology, a statistical science

2) epidemiology can be an incredibly powerful predictive tool (it was first used to identify likely causes of cholera in London in either 18th or 19th century London) but it does not determine causation and cannot

3) epidemiology is subject to a lot of confounders and random influences, such as diet, xercise, pollution, bla bla, to the extent that any EPI risk factor of less than 2.0 is generally ignored

4) The average epi risk factor on ETS is about 1.2-1.5, with most studies being at the lower end of the scale

5) various meta-analyses (basically this =analysis of different studies together) get to an EPI of about 1.25. This might be grounds for ignoring the 2 hurdle in 3 above except that a number of the meta-analyses were flawed, including one by the US EPA which decided to change generally accepted principles for confidence intervals in order to get a statistically significant result. Original research commissioned by the WHO was initially suppressed because the numbers were not "good" enough.

6) Even if there really is a risk factor of 1.2 for ETS that means maybe 2 deaths per 100 cases of lung cancer, not forgetting that lung cancer is a relatively rare disease. Compare this to smoking where the EPI numbers range from 7 to over 20, more than sufficient to establish smoking as a cause of various diseases.

If the precuationary principle does apply go ahead and ban smoking in all hospitality units, cars (proposed in Australia and France), homes (to protect children), gardens (to protect neighbors and proposed in Texas), and even streetwalks (from California that one). I will the happily open some smoking clubs for smokers only (the staff would need to be smokers too) and make a nice ton of money!

[drummer_love]

I'm quite an heavy smoker. Here in Belgium and most of the western world they look like u r a criminal when u smoke.

I sympathize wholeheartedly with your statement, I have not been in Thailand long but I must say that I am quite shocked by the reaction and looks of disgust every-time I light up in public. I feel like a criminal here when I smoke more than I did in the west. I have even been considering switching to cigarettes.

[Princess]

Like I said why not divide the room into 2 as non-smoker and smoker like some places as your ignorance seemed to bypass it.

I was hoping you'd do some independent study on the issue, that's why I didn't comment but since you don't seem to be willing to do that, I'll shed some light on it.

If you'd bother to read more about the issue, you'd know that the solution is not that simple. Customers enter and exit that "room", staff needs to enter and exit too. Smoke is carried out of that room when doors are opened, in people breathing out and in their clothing etc. You can't install an airlock now can you.

Staff cannot be forced to be exposed to secondhand smoke. You cannot discriminate in recruiting between smokers and non-smokers. Equal opportunity, I'm sure you've heard about that.

Before you shout discrimination again, I do not claim you don't have the right to smoke in your own premises or anywhere where it does not expose anyone to it. Hence you can't discriminate in recruitment either between smokers and non-smokers BUT banning smoking in public places frequented by people not wishing to be exposed to smoke is not discrimination. It is not your God given right to cause harm to their health through your personal choices.

It has been irrefutably proven that secondhand smoke causes serious health problems.

When you say things like "I don't bother to read" and "I don't understand", it does sound a bit paradoxal to me. It tends to dampen the will to explain anything to people who "don't bother"

I don't want to draw any blood here or cause ill feelings . My point is simply - study the issue properly before passing judgement.

I actually agree with this. While the debate goes on as to whether second hand smoke really is harmful or not, the fact remains that just as no one can force a smoker to stop smoking, smokers have no right to demand that others put up with their smoke. A lot of people are allergic to smoke or are bothered by it. Like JC_HKT pointed out, making a 'smoking section' doesn't really help because other people are still exposed to the smoke.

It really isn't discrimination to segregate smokers. Smoking isn't natural - it's not a bodily function. It is a harmful choice that everyone is free to make for themselves but that does not mean that others have to be subject to its ill-effects. I've tried cigarettes before and don't see why they're so addictive but I can understand the concept of not being able to go more than a few hours without a cigarette ( Actually, I can't. I'm just being nice )

Personally, smokers don't bother me. I figure that the amount of muck I inhale with every breath in Bangkok is much more than the poisons I might happen to inhale from second hand smoke. Also as well, most smokers I know are courteous enough to blow their smoke away from me so I don't inhale much smoke anyway.

[DocDre]

OK, then everybody that drives a car in BKK now has to car pool because the emmitions are bad for EVERYBODY, I don't drive and take the water taxi as much as possible, the MRT is really good too. Do I have the right to dictate transport? The pollution in BKK is far worse from cars than cigarettes. Yes, ok, transport is a nessesity, just making a point about "selective" pollution.

If I own a bar it's my choice to have smoking or non-smoking. I think it is then your choice to decide as a non smoker if you want to frequent this venue, if not, all the power to you to find a non smoking watering hole.

I think it is a fair argument from the non smokers from the stand point of the health issues of non smoking employees of smoke friendly venues. Maybe then find a job where it is a non smoking environment. Is this discrimination? Either way somebody is experiencing "discrimination"

If I am the bar owner and somebody is a non smoker and comes in once a week do I ban smoking in my bar and drive away customers that smoke and are daily patron? OK drive them away, less tips for staff, and all of a sudden my non-smoking staff are going to work in smoke friendly venues for better pay.

Complicated issue, I think it should be the choice of the proprietor (private sector) and let the free market decide.

[Princess]

You "non-smokers" kick us out to smoke outside, so how about those people outside? Do you bother about them? You all hypocrates!

A very careful observer will note that I did not speak for or against banning smoking - rather I said that I don't think 'discrimination' is the right word to describe it and that not smoking/being exposed to smoke is a choice...just like smoking.

Also as well, note the following:

I've tried cigarettes before and don't see why they're so addictive but I can understand the concept of not being able to go more than a few hours without a cigarette ( Actually, I can't. I'm just being nice icon_biggrin.gif )

Personally, smokers don't bother me. I figure that the amount of muck I inhale with every breath in Bangkok is much more than the poisons I might happen to inhale from second hand smoke. Also as well, most smokers I know are courteous enough to blow their smoke away from me so I don't inhale much smoke anyway.

[Guest]

SMOKING AND CIGARETTES ARE/ IS EVIL!

[ahpuiahsan]

nothing against smokers, i am a smoker myself.

Smokers should have the enthics of not smoking in front of anyone. If you are in the pubs with friends and if you are sober eonugh to walk out of the pubs, just go out of the pubs to have a smoke, though it might sound troublesome, it will give the non-smokers no excuses to say smokers bring harm to them.

The best way is for the Government to Ban sale of Cigarette, it will solve everything, but then where will the Government generate any revenue???

Note : Even a non smoker will get cancer.

[ahpuiahsan]

Another thing is, i think all pub owners have the Rights to Ban smoking in their premises. Drinking usually comes with smoking, and if smoking is Banned in pubs or discos, the likelihood of losing some smokers customers is inevitable. On the other hand, the pubs owners who banned smoking might increase their revenue as more health conscience customers will patronise.

Anyway a coin always 2 sides. It might benefit some, and brings inconvenience to others. The world is not prefect nor anyone.

[anenglishman]

i'm not engaging with anenglishman's mad arguments. he is so far off the point and so lacking in contemporary evidence that there isn't any point responding. i have produced one source, and can produce many others that swell the evidence base. where's yours? epa 1984? doh! What is more convincing ? scientific evidence, anecdotes or has been studies? i rest my case

current evidence from usa, ireland scotland, italy, norway proves that bar revenues are not negatively affected post smoking ban-implementation. there is an initial loss of revenues during the transition period, but smokers who stay away from pubs post-ban are replaced by non-smokers eventually. infact, in all locations, revenues go up, even factoring in economic variants. what is interesting, is that post smoke-free legislation implementation, quits attempts increase 2-3 fold, and many smokers prefer smoke free environments

fair point (docdre/halomi) about exposure to pollution. but because smoking is bad, doesn't mean that other exposures (car pollutants) should be tolerated. maybe start another thread? interesting to discuss this elsewhere.

interesting point about smoking/non smoking venues. we're doing research on this presently. complicated when factoring in socio-cultural/choice inputs.

Hey give me the evidence. Do u agree that average EPI for ETS is around 1.2 to 1.5? If u do, then u have a problem, as any epidemiologist would tell u. Is there ANY evidence other than EPI to show that ETS is proven to be harmful. My only point to u has been that u have offered no numbers merely assertions. My arguments are not remotely mad.......and a lot of epidemiologists agree with me. U are right that EPA is a little aged, but infamous nonetheless, and the date u gave of 1984 is wrong. If I remember correctly it was around 1992 or 3. There may have been an earlier one in 84. And the IARC study is more recent......I think it was completed around 1998, maybe a little later. The report was around 2001 I think.

On smoking bans and economic consequences i actually agree with u. My point all along has been that the real validity for smoking bans is social not medical.

Also, unlike you, I am not employed by either pro or anti tobacco so I can legitimately claim to be objective.