Jump to content
BANGKOK

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

webfact

"Foreigners against smoking ban" video hits the internet as authorities scurry to explain

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, badischer Barde said:

When I walk behind someone smoking I do run past him, because I hate to walk in his stench. And I usually go to restaurants that ban smoking, if I have the choice. Burning tobacco leftovers just don't mix with nice food and a good wine.

 

But I do understand that smokers are addicts, and as such tend to be irrational, rude and whiney, i.e. find it over-sensitive when people try to avoid their stench, but feel supressed as soon as laws against smoking are actually enforced.

 

So.. to all the smokers that are whining here... grow a f***ing backbone and quit.

We all know what a cigarette replaces anyway... :passifier:

Odd you should say that. Because what I see, and even from just reading these posts now, most of the whiners are coming from the non-smokers. 

 

Let me tell you what bugs me. People always trying to tell me how I should live my life and what I have to do and how I should quit smoking, when in reality it is none of there damned business what I do.

 

If I choose to die this way and at a younger age, then that is my business. If quit and choose to live to be 90 Years Old, with no mind left and a nurse changing your dirty underwear 3 times a day, then that is your business.  

 

I don't steel my cigarettes, and I pay a very high tax on cigarettes, which helps pay for the Hospitals you attend. There is a lot of things other people do that I don't like either and it bothers me at times to. But I have learnt a long time ago that to get along in this world you have to give a little to.

 

I remember a story about a towns people complaining about a local farmer in thier area to the News Team. When they came to visit him on his farm he simply pointed to the sign outside his gate, and said this sign say it is a Pig Farm, and not a Rose Garden. . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 pages of moaning will change nothing. Do you respect Thai law or not?

Smoke on Pattaya beaches 1 year jail or 100,000 Bahts fine. If you have a problem with this go back to your country,  or go to Cambodia or Vietnam. Good riddance you are not wanted here on beaches with a ciggy dangling from your stinking gob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

Haven't smelt the smoke from a pipe since when my dad was alive, didn't mind it back then, but couldn't tell you today, although I don't believe the smell of tobacco from a pipe would trigger coughing attacks or irritate one ?

Ever heard of cancer of the mouth?

"However, even when not inhaling, cigarand pipe smokers are at increased riskfor cancer of the oral cavity and lungs. ... More than 28 cancer-causing chemicals have been found in smokeless tobaccoChewing tobacco and snuff can cause cancer in the cheek, gums, and lips."

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/healthlibrary/conditions/oral_health/oral_cancer_and_tobacco_85,P00900

 

An exerpt from cancer.org

Harmful Chemicals in Tobacco Products

Tobacco smoke

Cigarettes, cigars, and pipe tobacco are made from dried tobacco leaves. Other substances are added for flavor and to make smoking more pleasant. The smoke from these products is a complex mixture of chemicals produced by burning tobacco and its additives.

Tobacco smoke is made up of thousands of chemicals, including at least 70 known to cause cancer. These cancer-causing chemicals are referred to as carcinogens. Some of the chemicals found in tobacco smoke include:· 

  • Nicotine (the addictive drug that produces the effect people are looking for and one of the harshest chemicals in tobacco smoke)
  • Hydrogen cyanide
  • Formaldehyde
  • Lead
  • Arsenic
  • Ammonia
  • Radioactive elements, such as uranium (see below)
  • Benzene
  • Carbon monoxide
  • Nitrosamines
  • Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Many of these substances cause cancer. Some can cause heart disease, lung disease, or other serious health problems, too. Most of the substances come from the burning tobacco leaves themselves, not from additives included in cigarettes (or other tobacco products). 

Radioactive materials in tobacco smoke

Radioactive materials are in the tobacco leaves used to make cigarettes and cigars. These materials come from the fertilizer and soil used to grow the tobacco leaves, so the amount in tobacco depends on the soil the plants were grown in and the type of fertilizers used. These radioactive materials are given off in the smoke when tobacco is burned, which smokers take into their lungs as they inhale. This may be another key factor in smokers getting lung cancer.

Is cigar smoke different?

Cigar smoke pretty much has the same toxic and carcinogenic compounds as cigarette smoke, but some of them are present at different levels.

Because of the aging process used to make cigars, cigar tobacco has high concentrations of some nitrogen compounds (nitrates and nitrites). When the fermented cigar tobacco is smoked, these compounds give off several tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), some of the most potent cancer-causing substances known.

Also, because the cigar wrapper is less porous than a cigarette wrapper, the tobacco doesn’t burn as completely. This results in higher concentrations of nitrogen oxides, ammonia, carbon monoxide, and tar – all very harmful substances.

Smokeless tobacco products

Smokeless tobacco products include snuff and chewing tobacco that is put into the mouth or nose but is not burned like cigarettes or cigars. Still, smokeless products in the United States contain a variety of potentially harmful chemicals, including high levels of TSNAs. 

There are also other cancer-causing agents in smokeless tobacco, such as benzo[a]pyrene and other polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). These carcinogens are absorbed through the mouth and may be why several types of cancer are linked to the use of smokeless tobacco. Like other forms of tobacco, smokeless tobacco also contains radioactive substances. 

Snus (pronounced ‘snoose’) is a type of moist snuff that does not require spitting. It was first used in Sweden and Norway, but it is now available in the United States as well. Snus generally has lower levels of nicotine and TSNAs than traditional moist snuff brands, but can still be addictive and has been linked to some types of cancer. 

Which is riskier? Smokeless tobacco or cigarette smoking?

Smokeless tobacco products are less deadly than cigarettes. On average, they kill fewer people than cigarettes. Smokeless products are often promoted as a less harmful alternative to smoking, but they are still linked with cancer and can still be deadly. And they have not been proven to help smokers quit.

E-cigarettes and similar devices

E-cigarettes and other electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are often used as substitutes for cigarettes or other tobacco products.

Marketers of e-cigarettes and other ENDS often claim the ingredients are safe. But the aerosols these products produce can contain addictive nicotine, flavorings, and a variety of other chemicals, some known to be toxic or to cause cancer. The levels of many of these substances appear to be lower than in traditional cigarettes, but the amounts of nicotine and other substances in these products can vary widely because they are not standardized. The long-term health effects of these devices are not known, but they are being studied. 

 

If second hand smoke from one source is bad and needs to be banned the same should go for all sources. However, the argument in the case of the Pattaya law is littering, so the second hand smoke in a wide open environment is a poor argument. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Russians still live in the 70's by the way they look and dress here, all of them seem to smoke as well. Good luck in translating for them and tell them about the 100k fine . Njet njet . 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, badischer Barde said:

 

No, torrzent asked wether you have any credentials to make such inane statements. That's actually a valid question as you are trying to contradict the vast majority of studies. So unless you are the pope (or better) we're all better off believing what's state of science. After all, it's you that ignores the findings or tries to misinterpret them to rationalize your adiction.

 

Oh, and a word about the "agenda" of people speaking *against* smoking. It is common knowledge that tobacco companies get the best scientists money can buy to lobby on their behalf. They have billions to spend, and hundreds of billions to loose. Now - your turn. Who pays those speaking against smoking?

There's nothing inane about the two largest, most comprehensive and far reaching studies ever done on the subject of secondary smoke. The vast majority of other studies are very small by comparison, and anyway, most of them came to the same conclusion - that there is no statistically significant risk. What the SG's dept did was a 'meta-analysis', whereby they cherry picked the studies for inclusion, played with the figures some and..........Hey Presto! Second-Hand smoke is a killer! TaDa! Boom-tish! Mission accomplished. All the other studies that didn't come up with the 'right' result are brushed aside. Well, might send the 'wrong message', eh?

 

Like I said earlier, if you want facts, you have to go to the raw data from the studies themselves, rather than relying on a biased interpretation.

 

Ha! You are well wide of the mark when you get to finances. The tobacco companies couldn't even hope to dream of having a budget anywhere near that of Tobacco Control! The global Tobacco Control budget exceeds the GDP of most small countries.

 

Oh, they like to portray themselves as the plucky David battling the evil Goliath of 'Big Tobacco', but in reality nothing could be further from the truth. They are awash with money; from the MSA, from usurious taxes levied on tobacco and from massive funding from the pharmaceutical companies, who have a vested interest in keeping the anti-smoking bandwagon rolling. The WHOs FCTC (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control) is funded by three of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, who have built a multi-billion global business in selling overpriced and useless  (98% failure rate) NRT (gums and patches) products on the back of the smoking bans imposed at the behest of the FCTC.

 

Who pays those speaking against smoking? Don't make me laugh. Tobacco Control is a global gravy train, and they will do and say anything to make sure the wheels don't come off.

 

Like they say, if you want to get to the truth, just follow the money...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grumpy Duck said:

Ever heard of cancer of the mouth?

"However, even when not inhaling, cigarand pipe smokers are at increased riskfor cancer of the oral cavity and lungs. ... More than 28 cancer-causing chemicals have been found in smokeless tobaccoChewing tobacco and snuff can cause cancer in the cheek, gums, and lips."

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/healthlibrary/conditions/oral_health/oral_cancer_and_tobacco_85,P00900

 

An exerpt from cancer.org

Harmful Chemicals in Tobacco Products

Tobacco smoke

Cigarettes, cigars, and pipe tobacco are made from dried tobacco leaves. Other substances are added for flavor and to make smoking more pleasant. The smoke from these products is a complex mixture of chemicals produced by burning tobacco and its additives.

Tobacco smoke is made up of thousands of chemicals, including at least 70 known to cause cancer. These cancer-causing chemicals are referred to as carcinogens. Some of the chemicals found in tobacco smoke include:· 

  • Nicotine (the addictive drug that produces the effect people are looking for and one of the harshest chemicals in tobacco smoke)
  • Hydrogen cyanide
  • Formaldehyde
  • Lead
  • Arsenic
  • Ammonia
  • Radioactive elements, such as uranium (see below)
  • Benzene
  • Carbon monoxide
  • Nitrosamines
  • Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Many of these substances cause cancer. Some can cause heart disease, lung disease, or other serious health problems, too. Most of the substances come from the burning tobacco leaves themselves, not from additives included in cigarettes (or other tobacco products). 

Radioactive materials in tobacco smoke

Radioactive materials are in the tobacco leaves used to make cigarettes and cigars. These materials come from the fertilizer and soil used to grow the tobacco leaves, so the amount in tobacco depends on the soil the plants were grown in and the type of fertilizers used. These radioactive materials are given off in the smoke when tobacco is burned, which smokers take into their lungs as they inhale. This may be another key factor in smokers getting lung cancer.

Is cigar smoke different?

Cigar smoke pretty much has the same toxic and carcinogenic compounds as cigarette smoke, but some of them are present at different levels.

Because of the aging process used to make cigars, cigar tobacco has high concentrations of some nitrogen compounds (nitrates and nitrites). When the fermented cigar tobacco is smoked, these compounds give off several tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), some of the most potent cancer-causing substances known.

Also, because the cigar wrapper is less porous than a cigarette wrapper, the tobacco doesn’t burn as completely. This results in higher concentrations of nitrogen oxides, ammonia, carbon monoxide, and tar – all very harmful substances.

Smokeless tobacco products

Smokeless tobacco products include snuff and chewing tobacco that is put into the mouth or nose but is not burned like cigarettes or cigars. Still, smokeless products in the United States contain a variety of potentially harmful chemicals, including high levels of TSNAs. 

There are also other cancer-causing agents in smokeless tobacco, such as benzo[a]pyrene and other polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). These carcinogens are absorbed through the mouth and may be why several types of cancer are linked to the use of smokeless tobacco. Like other forms of tobacco, smokeless tobacco also contains radioactive substances. 

Snus (pronounced ‘snoose’) is a type of moist snuff that does not require spitting. It was first used in Sweden and Norway, but it is now available in the United States as well. Snus generally has lower levels of nicotine and TSNAs than traditional moist snuff brands, but can still be addictive and has been linked to some types of cancer. 

Which is riskier? Smokeless tobacco or cigarette smoking?

Smokeless tobacco products are less deadly than cigarettes. On average, they kill fewer people than cigarettes. Smokeless products are often promoted as a less harmful alternative to smoking, but they are still linked with cancer and can still be deadly. And they have not been proven to help smokers quit.

E-cigarettes and similar devices

E-cigarettes and other electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are often used as substitutes for cigarettes or other tobacco products.

Marketers of e-cigarettes and other ENDS often claim the ingredients are safe. But the aerosols these products produce can contain addictive nicotine, flavorings, and a variety of other chemicals, some known to be toxic or to cause cancer. The levels of many of these substances appear to be lower than in traditional cigarettes, but the amounts of nicotine and other substances in these products can vary widely because they are not standardized. The long-term health effects of these devices are not known, but they are being studied. 

 

If second hand smoke from one source is bad and needs to be banned the same should go for all sources. However, the argument in the case of the Pattaya law is littering, so the second hand smoke in a wide open environment is a poor argument. 

 

You do realise, don't you, that all those chemicals are measures in nanograms, picograms and femtograms? That is, in barely detectable amounts - in fact many of those chemicals are in such minute quantities that they can't actually be measured, only theorised (which is a fancy way of saying 'made up').

 

And you do also realise, don't you, that nearly all those chemicals in tobacco smoke are also present in the normal exhaled breath of a non-smoker? In fact we're surrounded by them, and breathe them in all the time.

 

What the fanatical zealots will never tell you is that the first rule of toxicology is "The Dose Makes The Poison". They will tell you about how much arsenic there is in tobacco smoke, while omitting to mention that a glass of ordinary tap water contains eight times more arsenic than a 200 carton of cigarettes. It's just scaremongering propaganda.

 

It's all lies by omission. Making stuff sound really, really scary by not telling you the whole story. They've been at it for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just a two min search on the internet equals page after page of the results of research
into passive smoking causing cancer, no ifs or buts.
I also had cause to talk to McMillan nurse's who treated and advised cancer patents.
they explained that as a general rule the more Tabaco smoke you inhaled the more likely you
were to get lung cancer. they also said every body has heard the story of granddad who
smoked 100 cigarette's a day who was as fit as a fiddle at ninety years of age..
a long time ago I was a heavy smoker...I got lung cancer...they would not operate until I
quit smoking..i researched smoking and lung cancer, there was not as much research into
this as there is today but there was enough for me.
I had my operation and have never smoked since, many of my friends were not as lucky.
in the UK and America you are not allowed to smoke in public by law.
it is exactly the same in Thailand. and has been for ten years. (2008)
but some people think they are above the law, and think they can sit in a bar/restaurant and
make people who have stopped smoking breath in their smoke (which makes me choke as does heavy perfume but unlike ladies we can get four or five smokers chain smoking together) and what are we supposed to do....as none smokers are the majority....but the nicotine addicts think they can do as they please. (I know lots of smokers and they have their smoke in an area that does not affect none smokers and they are well liked by all for their manners)           
I do not agree with a total ban on smoking, although I am certain it causes lung cancer
but I think if people want to smoke that is fine, but let them have the choice between smoking
and not smoking let them have a covered space in the open, and then only people who want
to inhale smoke will be inhaling it. give us none smokers a choice.
 
 
There is clear evidence that breathing in other people’s smoke causes cancer in non-smokers [1–4]. Second-hand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke or passive smoking, exposes people to cancer-causing chemicals [3].
 
People who have never smoked have their risk of lung cancer increased by around a quarter if they have a spouse who smokes [1,5]. The risk increases the more second-hand smoke they’re exposed to, people exposed to the highest levels can have their risk of lung cancer doubled [5,6].
 
Second-hand smoke can reach high levels in enclosed spaces such as within the home or inside a car [7–11]. Studies have shown that even with open windows, levels can be dangerously high [7,9,11,12].
 
Second-hand smoke also causes other health problems in non-smokers including heart disease and respiratory diseases including asthma in children [1,4,13]. And it may increase the risk of pharyngeal and laryngeal cancers [3,14].
 
References
 
1. Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH). Secondhand Smoke: Review of evidence since 1998. 2004.
 
2. IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans VOLUME 83 Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking. 2004;83.
 
3. IARC. Personal Habits and Indoor Combustions, Volume 100 E, A Review of Human Carcinogens. 2012;100.
 
4. U.S. Surgeon General. How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease : The Biology and Behavioral Basis for Smoking-Attributable Disease.; 2010.
 
5. Taylor R, Najafi F, Dobson A. Meta-analysis of studies of passive smoking and lung cancer: effects of study type and continent. Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36(5):1048-1059. doi:10.1093/ije/dym158.
 
6. Stayner L, Bena J, Sasco AJ, et al. Lung cancer risk and workplace exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(3):545-551. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.061275.
 
7. Blackburn C, Spencer N, Bonas S, Coe C, Dolan A, Moy R. Effect of strategies to reduce exposure of infants to environmental tobacco smoke in the home: cross sectional survey. BMJ. 2003;327(7409):257. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7409.257.
 
8. Lofroth G. Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Multicomponent Analysis and Room-to-room Distribution in Homes. Tob Control. 1993;2:222-225.
 
9. Wakefield M, Banham D, Martin J, Ruffin R, McCaul K, Badcock N. Restrictions on smoking at home and urinary cotinine levels among children with asthma. Am J Prev Med. 2000;19(3):188-192. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11020596(link is external).
 
10. ASH Scotland. Smoking in vehicles : An evidence review. 2013;(April).
 
11. Semple S, Apsley A, Galea KS, MacCalman L, Friel B, Snelgrove V. Secondhand smoke in cars: assessing children’s potential exposure during typical journey conditions. Tob Control. 2012;21(6):578-583. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050197.
 
12. Sendzik T, Fong GT, Travers MJ, Hyland A. An experimental investigation of tobacco smoke pollution in cars. Nicotine Tob Res. 2009;11(6):627-634. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntp019.
 
13. Tobacco Advisory Group of The Royal College of Physicians. Passive Smoking and Children.; 2010.
 
14. Cogliano VJ, Baan R, Straif K, et al. Preventable exposures associated with human cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(24):1827-1839. doi:10.1093/jnci/djr483.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, zoza said:

America you are not allowed to smoke in public by law.

Misleading as a general remark.

It's enclosed public places and certain inside workplaces such as bars.

https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/assets/factsheets/0332.pdf

Such is not the same as Thailand where smoking is being banned outdoors. Nor is it being done for health reasons. In fact by forcing smokers into small enclosures at the beaches, smokers face greater dangers to their health.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Nor is it being done for health reasons. In fact by forcing smokers into small enclosures at the beaches, smokers face greater dangers to their health.

 

Maybe something has been lost in translation but smoking bans are for non-smokers health. If smokers were concerned about their own health then they would not be smoking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good for you, lots of people don’t like cigarette smoke. And lots of people don’t like spending a year in jail and losing ฿100,000 for making a mistake due to force of habit. I am a guest in this country, it’s true  - an invited guest. And although I don’t like the smell of cigarette smoke, if I invite someone into my house, I permit them, as an invited guest, to do as they would in their own home. As soon as the homeowners of the beach, the Thais, start spending a year in jail and paying ฿100,000 for lighting up, I will no longer complain about this new regulation.

Mistake, due to force of habit? REALLY? Knowingly flaunting the law because you happen to disagree with it is not a mistake. And habits are not excuse for mis behaviour.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, balo said:

The Russians still live in the 70's by the way they look and dress here, all of them seem to smoke as well. Good luck in translating for them and tell them about the 100k fine . Njet njet . 

 

 

 

 

So true and the Chinese at my hotel are outside in the smoking area by 0600 en masse. 

 

Most of the Western Europeans seem to smoke more in the evening with a drink after dinner.

 

There do seem to be various cultural practices. 

 

Funny thing but virgin tobacco associated with "roll-your-own" cigarettes has never bothered me but the commercial brands really cause irritation. Probably the various chemicals added to the tobacco and even the paper. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ClutchClark said:

but smoking bans are for non-smokers health.

Maybe something was lost in translation but the smoking ban on Thailand beaches was not done for health reason. It has nothing to do with nonsmoker health.

The ban was to prevent littering of beaches from nonbiogradable cigarette filters viewed as pollution by unelected officials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nisakiman said:

 

You do realise, don't you, that all those chemicals are measures in nanograms, picograms and femtograms? That is, in barely detectable amounts - in fact many of those chemicals are in such minute quantities that they can't actually be measured, only theorised (which is a fancy way of saying 'made up').

 

And you do also realise, don't you, that nearly all those chemicals in tobacco smoke are also present in the normal exhaled breath of a non-smoker? In fact we're surrounded by them, and breathe them in all the time.

 

What the fanatical zealots will never tell you is that the first rule of toxicology is "The Dose Makes The Poison". They will tell you about how much arsenic there is in tobacco smoke, while omitting to mention that a glass of ordinary tap water contains eight times more arsenic than a 200 carton of cigarettes. It's just scaremongering propaganda.

 

It's all lies by omission. Making stuff sound really, really scary by not telling you the whole story. They've been at it for years.

Still don't like the smell of it, sends me into a coughing fit and leaves my throat with this dryness if that makes sense, i.e. like some layer around it that makes it feel as if something is coated on it, who knows, I could be allergic to cigarette smoke ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah reading all these attempted rationalizations for smoking has been interesting. And yes addiction is a difficult thing to overcome. Although I find cigarette smoke highly irritating and offensive, I do have some mercy for the 70+yo's who grew up with commercials on television having doctors say how smoking soothes the throat and is good for your health!

 

But I have no mercy for the 30-somethings who have been handed a world in which the full dangers of smoking, second-hand smoke, even third-hand smoke are known. Why they would pick up such a stupid, expensive and stinking habit continues to allude me.

 

I hope that when I return to Dongtan Beach next time I will find a smoke-free area so that I won't have to spend time identifying the smokers and which way the wind is blowing in order to avoid their gasses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...