New laws target people in Thailand who smoke at home

[Skallywag]

21 minutes ago, Wilsonandson said:

Why were you appalled? Wasn't your kids. Or was it that you had no number to call to complain about someone elses business.

I'm appalled that there are so many non smokers who want to interfere in other people lives.

Maybe in the future I can grass up a family for eating at KFC. A new anti junk food law with number to call.

The world would be a better place if people stop interfering in other peoples lives.

Appalled. Shesh!

Well excuuuuuse me. I'll use the word shocked instead.   Yes I am also shocked at parents buying their kids KFC and McDonalds, those establishments should definitely be banned.  That will be next

 

The argument in countries who have universal healthcare is why should the people who live healthy lifestyles pay for those who need more healthcare for themselves and their children because they are unhealthy?

 

So you are interfering with other peoples lives by having them subsidize you poor choices and unhealthy lifestyle (not in the USA unless you are a vet or have scammed the SS system).

 

If you are interfering with my life by costing me more in taxes to keep you alive, then why cant I interfere with your life by setting some guidelines?  

 

Do you have health insurance here in Thailand?  If you do you know you will pay more if you are a smoker or have atherosclerosis from eating high cholesterol foods.etc

 

Glad I got your ire up there Wilson - haha

[dcnx]

ZERO enforcement on existing laws for people outside. No way there will be enforcement on people in their own homes.

 

But hey, Thailand can say, “look at us world, we have tough smoking laws!” Face saved, awards given. 

[LongTang]

They are simply training the population to snitch and rat against each other. A talent that will be very useful against any dissidence in the near future..

[billd766]

1 hour ago, Wilsonandson said:

I know how she feels. It's so hard to give up. How did you do it? Any tips. Most of my friends back home did it vaping. I wish Thailand would legalise vaping. Maybe I should try hypno therapy.

I did it the hard way and simply stopped. Having said that I quit 5 times in all and the last time was in 1970.

 

I was in the RAF in Singapore and we used to get a card to buy duty free cigarettes and I decided that I didn't really like smoking so I gave my mate about 500 cigarettes but still claimed the coupons and gave them to anybody who wanted them.

 

I have never smoked since though I am not a rabid anti smoker.

 

I hear my wife coughing up in the morning and 2 of her 3 brothers smoke as well and they sound the same in the mornings.

 

Our 14 year old son doesn't smoke, if he did I would smell it on him.

 

When I was his age in the UK I used to pick up dog ends, break them open and reroll them using a Rizla roller.

 

I have a mate in the UK who smoked Capstan full strength and he quit overnight when the doctor gave him the choice of another 3 years of life if he kept smoking or longer if he quit. He quit about 30 years ago and is still going strong at 77 years old.

 

It isn't that easy to do, but you have to make the choice of a shorter hacking cough of life or a longer one. Only you can make this choice and your friends and family will support you either way.

[MBFC1960]

Well its obvious that those laws arent made because they want people live healthier, is means like Hey we cant get from taxes more than 60bn per year but treatments cost 220bn well its a fact if you stay in BKK is same as you *smoke 4 cigarettes per day* because of pollutionso they dont put this in count but they show real attitude how much they care for people. 

[tabarin]

Did I really just read this? Are you sure this is not a pre scheduled post for 01-04-2020? Thailand, Thailand... what are you doing!
When you thought the max of stupidity was reached, and nothing more could be ruined, they come up with these mini laws invading privacy and private property at the same time too? How does that work for basic rights? Oh sorry, TIT.

I feel sad for those who will soon have a ex wife to sue them, or neighbours attempting it etc.
I bet it will be easy to get a medical certificate stating you suffered from smoke, even that came from PM2.5 pollution in reality.

[hansnl]

4 hours ago, Eligius said:

Excellent point (above), Hayduke, which I had not thought of.

You are surely right. It is another weapon in the junta's armoury - to be used against anyone who dissents.

Any idea how many of the laws in your own country are constantly used selectively to harass political opponents?

Used to repress little people by big companies that are helped by bought politicians, authorities etc?

Obviously you think that won't be possible in your country, just like any other ill you blame the current government of Thailand with, as if the "democratic" governments before weren't worse.

I have news for you, I dare to bet it is even worse in your own country, you know it, but choose to Not wanting to see it.

 

[malibukid]

6 hours ago, Misterwhisper said:

I never married or founded a family.... because I saw it all coming. Thank goodness that I had so much foresight! Decades of foresight, actually.

and who would want to bring a child into this #$%^^ world?

[baboon]

2 hours ago, meand said:

Is your argument so weak you feel the need to deflect. It id like when Trump does something indefensible, and all his supporters can do is mention Hillary. It sounds like you made a really stupid decision on moving in between two charcoal producers anyway, which is not the case with cigarette smokers. 

 

Why should a carcinogen from a neighbor's home be able to enter my home? That is the issue here. So that is what you should elucidate. 

Why should the music you play inflict my ears? Why do I have to breathe in the crap your car belch belches out? Why do I have to listen when you are arguing with your spouse? Why do I have to wait for bloody ages at the checkout while you stand there and act as though you have never been in a shop before. (So I PAY for this stuff? What with...?) Why should I...?

 

But you see my point. Inconvenience and irritations are part of life. It is better to tolerate the minor annoyances caused by others than legislate for literally every facet of life. The planet is too crowded and diverse for that to work.

[55Jay]

Recall hearing a similar thing in the USA several years ago, don't know if it ever came to pass. 

 

If a 3rd world government is going to pretend to 'care' this deeply about the health of its citizens like a 1st world country, there are plenty of obvious 3rd world health hazards to address with equal priority and invasive zeal.

 

- Burning of trash (plastics, et al) and charcoal making in residential areas, and other fire/smoke issues as mentioned. 

- Vehicle emission standards, and enforcement. 

- Code compliance on electrical standards, and electrician training standards - the lack of which can lead to instant death for virtually anyone here. 

- Household gray and black water sewage and trash disposal wef on ground water, linking to residential water supply and farm/food supply - fish, vegtables, food products, etc.

- Stray animals - soi dogs, cats, etc. 

 

I'm sure there are a few others. 

 

I appreciate the sentiment behind this anti-smoking legislation, and realize anything "anti-smoking" is not to be challenged, only applauded.  But it does seem to be a clumsy, random effort aimed at a relative minority whilst ignoring glaringly obvious, significant public health hazards impacting virtually all of the 66 million (+/-) people in this country.  Not to mention it targets the users of an otherwise "legal" product whilst ignoring the manufacterers, who continue to churn out the offending product by the millions.  The most logical, simple solution to this public and private health hazard is the elephant in the room, which none of the brave Generals, with all their medals and ribbons, has the courage to take on.   And so pummeling individual citizens is, once again, the easy path for a cowardly, obtuse government. 

[amexpat]

5 minutes ago, baboon said:

It is better to tolerate the minor annoyances caused by others than legislate for literally every facet of life.

Literally every facet of life?  

So if you can't achieve everything, don't attempt anything? 

But whatabout car exhausts? 

But whatabout noise?

But whatabout checkout lines?

Poor smokers. 

[LongTang]

2 hours ago, hansnl said:

Any idea how many of the laws in your own country are constantly used selectively to harass political opponents?

Used to repress little people by big companies that are helped by bought politicians, authorities etc?

Obviously you think that won't be possible in your country, just like any other ill you blame the current government of Thailand with, as if the "democratic" governments before weren't worse.

I have news for you, I dare to bet it is even worse in your own country, you know it, but choose to Not wanting to see it.

 

 

Keep in mind that there is an Inherent Limit in a democratic regimen to the amount of abuse a government or any other institution can inflict upon the population.

In an authoritarian state on the other hand, The population is in the mercy of its leadership's good will, And if the dice rolls to its wrong side, the abuse and misery are limitless..

[ocddave]

By the amount of people I see daily not wearing a helmet when a law exists to enforce it, there isn't a chance in hell that this will ever be enforced, nothing more than PR for the grandstanders.

[baboon]

3 minutes ago, amexpat said:

Literally every facet of life?  

So if you can't achieve everything, don't attempt anything? 

But whatabout car exhausts? 

But whatabout noise?

But whatabout checkout lines?

Poor smokers. 

No, I am arguing that legislating for literally every facet of life does us no good. 1984 is where it logically ends if people demand the right to never be inconvenienced in any way. 

Rape, murder, theft... Obviously there should be laws and yes, drawing the line when issues become increasingly grey can be difficult too. But would you rather live in relative freedom or in an Orwillian dystopia where your every action is overseen? 

[tifino]

but, will it curb the children from smoking?

 

 

Coffee will be next?

[Calach]

The obsession for health and hygiene is totalitarian in essence. Anti-tobacco activists, as well as all others who work so hard to transform society into a clinic, are the enemies of mankind and of everything that makes living worthwhile.

 

They'll have us all die old and healthy, of boredom. 

[ThomasThBKK]

reminds me of duterte in the PHs, he stopped smoking and then said, no one should smoke - lets ban it everywere....

[ThomasThBKK]

Anyway, i've just read the law myself. There's not a single word about smoking.

 

It's all about domestic abuse (violence) in families.

 

Journalists, hello??

[Traubert]

2 hours ago, baboon said:

No, I am arguing that legislating for literally every facet of life does us no good. 1984 is where it logically ends if people demand the right to never be inconvenienced in any way. 

Rape, murder, theft... Obviously there should be laws and yes, drawing the line when issues become increasingly grey can be difficult too. But would you rather live in relative freedom or in an Orwillian dystopia where your every action is overseen? 

You do understand that Orwell wrote fiction, not a lifestyle manual?

 

You do know what the date was and he was 35 years inaccurate thus far?

 

Have you heard of anybody having their head enclosed in a rat cage and having their face nibbled by a starving rat because some anonymous voice said so? Are you compelled to watch Netflix and has your TV ever objected to being covered?

 

Orwellian dystopia my Irish ar*e, stop spouting this crap.

 

Clue. You can pull the plug out. It very much depends what you, as an individual, want.

[meand]

3 hours ago, baboon said:

Why should the music you play inflict my ears? Why do I have to breathe in the crap your car belch belches out? Why do I have to listen when you are arguing with your spouse? Why do I have to wait for bloody ages at the checkout while you stand there and act as though you have never been in a shop before. (So I PAY for this stuff? What with...?) Why should I...?

 

But you see my point. Inconvenience and irritations are part of life. It is better to tolerate the minor annoyances caused by others than legislate for literally every facet of life. The planet is too crowded and diverse for that to work.

Carcinogens are not "irritations". 

 

You can't play music too loud, most countries have zoning for this. 

 

You have to breathe the "crap" from cars and other vehicles because if there were no cars you could not even get a bottle of water tomorrow. You need vehicles too. Nobody needs cigarettes. 

 

You are comparing two people arguing with a proven carcinogen? 

 

Anyway, I do not think you read my post. Deflecting is not a valid argument. If a company is pouring toxic chemicals into the ocean, it is not a valid argument to say "uhh, those other guys pour the same chemicals into the ocean and they don't get in trouble". 

 

They have to argue based on the how toxic or safe their disposal techniques are. 

 

Just like when Trump says something stupid like "there are good people on both sides" when referring to a group of white supremacists, it is not an argument to say, "uhhh, Hilary said some bad stuff too".

 

You need to make an actual argument. Why should the person next door be allowed to spread a carcinogen into another's property? 

 

And I will tell you right now, the answer to that question is NOT "because the guy next door argues with his wife"? Right. My god I hope we can at least agree on that. 

 

 

 

 

[KC 71]

I'm not a smoker.  I don't like cigarette smoke.  Seems to me, that Thailand is becoming more like America.  They are giving new meaning to the Nanny State.

Wise words
I am a smoker but i thought cigarettes are my best legal option
Seen as though i live in The Golden Triangle !


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[faraday]

Doesn't anyone think that limiting or banning smoking with children or the elderly present is a good idea?

 

Smoke with other smokers only, yes. Inflict on others no.

 

 

It really is not about bossing people in their own homes.

 

[connda]

15 hours ago, webfact said:

People commenting on a news report posted on YouTube by Spring News said it would be better to just ban smoking in Thailand altogether than attempt to enforce the new law.

Personally, I'm all for a complete ban on cigarettes and nicotine based products.  Highly addictive substance without any redeeming values.  Don't even make you feel good.  If they did, they already would be banned.

[connda]

14 hours ago, Captain_Bob said:

Meanwhile the thick smokey PM2.5 toxic air that covers the entire north for at least three months every year, which the government promises to stop - then fails EVERY YEAR is like smoking a pack of cigs per day. ????????☠️

Agreed.  The government should arrest itself next year and toss itself into jail for national 'domestic abuse' of Northern Thailand. 

[CharlieH]

Much ado about nothing. Laws only work where there is enforcement. Enforcement only works when there are real consequences. None of which are present most of the time. Being seen to be doing, but that's about all.

 

[lamyai3]

11 hours ago, Wilsonandson said:

Why were you appalled? Wasn't your kids. Or was it that you had no number to call to complain about someone elses business.

I'm appalled that there are so many non smokers who want to interfere in other people lives.

Maybe in the future I can grass up a family for eating at KFC. A new anti junk food law with number to call.

The world would be a better place if people stop interfering in other peoples lives.

Appalled. Shesh!

Quite agree. I grew up around the smells of my granddad's pipe, my dad's cigars, my schoolfriends' ciggies and my college mates' weed. Never really took up smoking myself as I found it too rough on my throat, but I can honestly say I wasn't bothered by passive smoke and I'd go as far as to say it makes me quite nostalgic. If it did get a bit too smoky in the car or on the bus, you'd wind down the window a bit.

It brings to mind the comment of Wayne 'Purple' Hays in True Detective, that the whole younger generation is "a bunch of pussies". 

 

The absurdity of this law is that if any member of any household had been tested for respiratory problems during the crazy peak pollution months earlier this year, virtually every person tested would have shown a positive. 

[lamyai3]

10 hours ago, LongTang said:

They are simply training the population to snitch and rat against each other. A talent that will be very useful against any dissidence in the near future..

Yes, straight out of Mao's "dob in your own parents" playbook from the height of the cultural revolution. 

[Bert got kinky]

29 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

Quite agree. I grew up around the smells of my granddad's pipe, my dad's cigars, my schoolfriends' ciggies and my college mates' weed. Never really took up smoking myself as I found it too rough on my throat, but I can honestly say I wasn't bothered by passive smoke and I'd go as far as to say it makes me quite nostalgic. If it did get a bit too smoky in the car or on the bus, you'd wind down the window a bit.

It brings to mind the comment of Wayne 'Purple' Hays in True Detective, that the whole younger generation is "a bunch of pussies". 

 

The absurdity of this law is that if any member of any household had been tested for respiratory problems during the crazy peak pollution months earlier this year, virtually every person tested would have shown a positive. 

 

I'm sorry that I can only use the like button once for your post, the start of it took me back to my own childhood and back to a time when smoking wasn't demonized.

 

 

[Prairieboy]

16 hours ago, webfact said:

Smokers in Thailand may soon be prosecuted for lighting up at home under new laws which will come into force on 20th August 2019.

Just another one to add to the already long list of unenforced and unenforceable laws.  Perhaps they can coerce family members to 'rat out' family members.  George Orwell, in his books written 75 or more years ago referencing 'big brother', 'nanny states' etc. predicted government interference in all aspects of ones personal life.  Sadly this is becoming more evident every year.  How long before they dictate when, or how often, you can go to the toilet.  The country is going crazy! 

[Prairieboy]

1 hour ago, connda said:

Personally, I'm all for a complete ban on cigarettes and nicotine based products.  Highly addictive substance without any redeeming values.  Don't even make you feel good.  If they did, they already would be banned.

Yes it is much better to use heroin, ya ba, cocaine, speed, LSD, etc - the non-nicotine drugs of choice!

 

A quote from The US National Library of Medicine National Institute of Health: " There's a cheap, common, and mostly safe drug, in daily use for centuries by hundreds of millions of people, that only lately has been investigated for its therapeutic potential for a long list of common ills. The list includes Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, depression and anxiety, schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and even pain and obesity. Why has interest in this potential cure-all been slow to develop? One reason: in its current forms the drug offers pharmaceutical companies no possibility of substantial profit. Another, perhaps more important: the drug is reviled as the world's most addictive. The drug, of course, is nicotine. "