Jump to content

Smoking ban at home comes into effect today - call 1300 for violations


webfact

Recommended Posts

I dont get why everyone kicks up a fuss, it's just another law that will be forgotten about and ignored... you can still smoke in restaurants and bars and no one says a word, staff will happily give you an ashtray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 374
  • Created
  • Last Reply
4 minutes ago, richiejom said:

What's this really about then?  coz if it was about reducing smoking related deaths they wouldn't have a ban on vaping products

 

A good idea though coz I always felt nauseous when my father used to smoke in the drivers seat and it used to waft back on to me in the car giving me asthma 

It's to take the heat off of TM30, richiejom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

I am well aware of the evidence. Perhaps  your  homework could  be a differential comparative of real evidence of urban  and general atmospheric environmental pollutants that remain ignored in  general informed risk . That plus the incidence of lung cancer in Asia where smoking is a lesser contributing factor.

The topic is passive smoking. I invite you to learn something about it, not evident so far in your postings and rebuttals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, wgdanson said:

 

Here we go, maths again. These figures mean that 16% of the worldwide deaths are in Thailand. I think not.

Obviously the two numbers are not related. The first one is world wide death from "second hand smoke".

And the second one is Thai smokers dying to smoking ... sigh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Enki said:

Obviously the two numbers are not related. The first one is world wide death from "second hand smoke".

And the second one is Thai smokers dying to smoking ... sigh.

Please read the many other replies who have pointed my misunderstanding of the OP which was, in my understanding, a bit like comparing apples with oranges, or lemons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chang1 said:

Maybe you should pay more attention to the news, before making such an uninformed comment. Just google VWs diesel gate scandal or stubble burning. Pollution of all kinds is being tackled in most countries. The difference here is it directly affects smokers rather than businesses. As many smokers are arrogant and ignorant, they will not understand why non smokers are so <deleted> off with them. This unfortunately also affects the many caring and considerate smokers. 

I could be  affronted  by your expressed opinion that I am uninformed. Rest assured I am not.

Despite the fact that I am a smoker and am aware of the  increased health risks of that I am also  grateful that  my now adult children never ascribed to the  addiction. I am  not an advocate  of smoking but I am a life  long addict who recognizes the growing objections  of  the majority. Especially  when the  official "death"  count  for  respiratory  disease is presented as singularly caused  by tobacco while  alcohol is socially acceptable yet  causes 2.83  deaths  per thousand per  year in Thailand which does  not include the  number of  permanently  maimed or the indirect result of  violence or the  health factors such as  chirrhosis of the liver culminating in death.

Yet I  must defend  my previous brief comment in this topic as  valid. The  validity  I lay claim to is  based on a  very long  personal historical interest in environmental pollution not limited to atmospheric  content.

You suggest I pay attention  to the "news". I could  refer you to  copious verifiable scientific  research  data detailing the  truth  about substances that  are incrementally poisoning the global population. Sulphur  dioxides  from  cheap  diesal fuel and  inefficient fossil fuel engines is a small factor that only has  temporary  public attention as part of  commercial market leverage. Stubble  burning  has  occurred  for  centuries  as  have naturally  occurring  forest fires. I am  not suggesting  that  has never had an impact  on health  but that the significance  of it  has been  disproportionately been focused on without relevance to  the climatic and agricultural reasons  for  increased localized  social impact.

The "news" is  not habitually detailing  the  massive  impact  of   many toxins  inherent  in  our  wonderful acclaim  to a civilized existence.

If I am  an uninformed individual I would  not  be  aware of  the  ever increasing  background  radiation  levels, the  soil content  of   non organic arsenic, the organo phosphates  that are absorbed into the food  we assume is  wonderful, the atmospheric gases that eminate from the  components  of  our  lovely  houses, the  global ash disemminated from  industries to be washed  down into  the  water and soil and sea  we naively expect is perpetual to supply us. Nor  are we  as a matter of course advised  or  warned  about  the  toxins that  eminate from the  synthetic  components of  our  dwellings despite the  carcinogenic  potential  many  have .In the  interests  of profit little is  actually  done  to  enforce the elimination of the overall impact of so many components  of   "modern" life.

Tobacco is  the  new  enemy ! <deleted> !

I could  go  on  but instead I would prefer to  say I am  not as uninformed as you would  like to assume.

I just hope you are  not a  fan of   "Fox" news. As  legend  has it  there is  nothing  more  cunning than a  fox.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, wgdanson said:

 

Here we go, maths again. These figures mean that 16% of the worldwide deaths are in Thailand. I think not.

Please, no more posts telling me that I misunderstood, or misinterpreted the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, wgdanson said:

 

Here we go, maths again. These figures mean that 16% of the worldwide deaths are in Thailand. I think not.

430,000 second hand deaths.  72,000 smoking deaths, non second hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, AAArdvark said:

Yes, as long as they live alone.

???? What if your wife smokes too, does the universe implode? ???? 

Let adults be adults and alone with this rubbish. They are old enough and can discuss it it out themselves. If one partner doesn't give af about the other this law will change nothing about that. 

 

The only thing it allows is one party to blackmail the other, especially handy if one party is a farrang i guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, FolkGuitar said:

Cigarette smokers should be allowed to smoke.  No question about that.

But I don't want to smoke, not even second hand. I shouldn't be forced to do so. Thankfully, laws have now passed in almost all First World countries making smoking in public buildings, and often in many public spaces illegal. That's a start. I no longer have to deal with smoke while I'm eating. No longer have to put up with it while I'm drinking. In many cities, smoking on public streets is not against the law. A smoker is still allowed to smoke in designated areas away from the general population. Cigarette smokers should be allowed to smoke.  But they should not be allowed to force others to do so, even second hand.

 

Some people actually have to put up with it in their own homes because their significant other refuses to smoke outside. He/she says "It's my house too, and I'll do what I want, so screw you!" He/she doesn't care that it puts others a health risk. He/she doesn't care that it smells so badly to others. He/she can't smell it. And He/she is addicted to it. So screw everyone else.

Thankfully, there is now a legal alternative to being force to endure the health risk and the smell, an alternative for those who need this protection. If cigarette smokers weren't so selfish about their habit, there wouldn't have been a need for this law, a law to protect others from their smoking.

I am a  smoker  and  I  agree. Strangely  this  new  edict  does  not  include  smoking  in a  vehicle. Is  there  some previous   law? I  have   long  acknowledged  it  is  not  my right to  smoke in a  confined  space if  others  are present. In fact I  have an objection  to  others  smoking  in  my  personal  space but that is  mostly due to  the  <deleted>  tobacco they  use.

There  is  a  curious aspect to this  demonization  of  tobacco with  reference to  the incrremental  relaxation of attitude to   "ganga".

In a  comical sense I  can envisage  a  "skit"  where the  defense  of accusations  about  smoking  tobacco will  be " No No, I am smoking  my  approved   medicinal high  grade  indica ! "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

There  is  a  curious aspect to this  demonization  of  tobacco with  reference to  the incrremental  relaxation of attitude to   "ganga".

In a  comical sense I  can envisage  a  "skit"  where the  defense  of accusations  about  smoking  tobacco will  be " No No, I am smoking  my  approved   medicinal high  grade  indica ! "

Smoking two packs of doobies is quite a sporting event, not so with cigarettes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, JonnyF said:

The main difference is that in our home countries the police enforce the laws, not just prance around on TV trying to sound authoritative

Ridiculous laws are very much enforced here, and not just for show.  Tourists are required to report their address within 24hrs, or face fine,  this is enforced in Thailand. Name one Western nation with similar law, and Third Reich does not count. Name a single Western nation where a person is forbidden to smoke in his own home! 

At this point calling Western nations a 'nanny state' is just silly, Western democracies  have much more individual freedoms than Thailand.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, whitemouse said:

Ridiculous laws are very much enforced here, and not just for show.  Tourists are required to report their address within 24hrs, or face fine,  this is enforced in Thailand. Name one Western nation where this is enforced, Third Reich does not count. Name a single Western nation where a person is forbidden to smoke in his own home! 

At this point calling Western nations a 'nanny state' is just silly, Western democracies  have much more freedom than Thailand.

 

Name a single Western nation where a person is forbidden to smoke in his own home!  Australia. Ooopsy I confused some folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Inepto Cracy said:

Australia.

You are not allowed to smoke in your house in Australia? 

 

Or did you mean every tourist has to go to immigration office within 24hrs after entering Australia, in order to register with authorities? How is this even legal in Australia, how is this constitutional?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Inepto Cracy said:

Name a single Western nation where a person is forbidden to smoke in his own home!  Australia. Ooopsy I confused some folks.

You are only forbidden to smoke if it harms another person. If you are alone you can smoke as much as you want

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, I came here to get away from this <deleted>. Is there any freedom or personal choice left in this world? 

I guess the one good thing about being a smoker is I won't have to live long enough to see what a miserable hell this world becomes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...