Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

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

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Go on. Prove it then.

Sorry I read it incorrectly, and have apologised a couple of times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Why should smoking at a house where children are living be allowed?

 

Isn't that the responsibility (an alien word in Thailand, I know) of any parent? And can you imagine the friction and possible violence it would cause if a member of the household reported the person for smoking? And can you imagine the boys in brown showing up, listening to the complaint, nodding, smiling, and doing what they always do best, which is nothing. It's just another unenforceable law which makes the law look like an ass. The answer is responsible parenting, not a law that everyone will ignore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sunnyboy2018 said:

90% of people do not smoke. Why should smokers be allowed to damage the health of Non smokers?

Or diesel cars and pickup drivers...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear smokers are having CCTV cameras installed by the Guv to keep an eye on them....😋

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

So does that mean I can't even light up on my balcony or in the garden? I have to walk 5m away from my entry door?  What if I'm walking down the street - must stay 5m away from other people's entrances?

 

Is this law published in English anywhere?

 

I live alone and I don't smoke in the house in any case - I will not be complying with this ridiculous law. How can I impose passive smoking on anyone if there's no-one there?

 

George Orwell was right................Big Brother is indeed watching you.

 

This law is only about domestic violence which MAY be a form of heavy smoking next to your kids.

It does not forbid you to smoke in your own house, journalism here is sooo bad....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would never smoke near kids and I don't smoke in the house but I don't need some jumped up zealot telling me how to behave in my own home.

 

Once they ban smoking 100% they'll move on to alcohol - just as they have in the UK. Some people have nothing better to do with their lives than take away people's liberties.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The authorities cannot enforce the mandatory helmet law for scooters, let alone something of this bizarre nature. It is am in impotent ability, coupled with ineffective reasoning. I expect a back pedalling recall soon to come.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ThomasThBKK said:

 

This law is only about domestic violence which MAY be a form of heavy smoking next to your kids.

It does not forbid you to smoke in your own house, journalism here is sooo bad....

Really?  That's why I asked if the law was available in English. I don't see it as 'workable' as described so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

Really?  That's why I asked if the law was available in English. I don't see it as 'workable' as described so far.

 

I don't have a 1:1 english translation but its explained by a lawyer here: https://athertonlegal.com/does-thailands-new-family-development-and-protection-act-prohibit-smoking-at-home/

 

Quote

“Domestic Violence” means any action that a family member commits against another family member with the intention to cause or which is likely to result in harm to life, body, mind, health, freedom or reputation of a family member, or to compel, or unduly influence a family member to unlawfully commit, refrain, or accept any action.

The revised definition includes not only injury caused to life, body and mind as before, but further incorporates any actions which affect the “health” or “freedom” of other family members.  Moreover, the exception for “any acts committed through negligence” contained in the previous version has been omitted, and replaced with language that incorporates not only “intentional” actions but also any action which is “likely to result” in injury.  This would remove “intent” as an element of the crime.

 

Quote

Director-General Lertpanya is technically correct–the FDPA’s broad definition of domestic violence can be interpreted to prosecute those who smoke at home.  Successful prosecution would require evidence that the second-hand or third-hand smoking causes or is likely to cause significant injury to the health of others.  However, it is possible for the Courts to accept this element of the crime as true without any need for case-by-case factual evidence.  Taking judicial notice of recognized studies, including official reports issued by government agencies such as the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security, the Courts can potentially penalize defendants based solely on evidence of their having smoked in the home.

 

 

As you may see the law itself has nothing to do with smoking, just a bunch of thais interpreting what they want and bad journalism as usual.

 

 

Thailand has a rampant domestic abuse issue, let's face it... beating your kid is normal here and such laws are needed

Edited by ThomasThBKK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

The longevity of old people today come from the times where smoking in buses, cinemas, shops and even hospitals was normal. I'm not saying smoking is healthy, far from it, but things get taken to far, the instruments today are so so accurate at measuring the slightest pollution that there is now the issue of third hand smoke, be in the room with someone smoking and the residue on your clothes can now be harmful to others, just think of all the diesel fumes on your clothes if you live in Bangkok, you would have to change your clothes every hour. Lead in petrol was banned because now it can be measured in the dust, asbestos was banned from brake linings because it could be measured, lead in paint was also the devils work (in many places in the USA it is in the water supply but nothing is done about it) These things in general have been banned, do you see any reduction in cancers ?

A real mixture of false conclusions from vaguely connected facts. 

Long lives are more to do with better diet, improved health care and more attention to safety, not from passive smoking.

Toxic substances are banned because they are toxic. They didn't need to be measured, as the sources are easy to find.

Even though many of these toxic substances are banned there are still things like asbestos and paint with lead in around or occurring naturally. Also many cancers do not evolve until many years have passed since the original exposure. No doubt there are many other carcinogens around us that are yet to be banned. Cocktails of non toxic chemicals can also be dangerous.

Toxins such as lead accumulate over time depending on the quantity ingested so the water may have such a small amount of lead that it may take a hundred years to have any effect, whereas a baby chewing a toy with lead paint may be affected in a short time. 

"These things in general have been banned, do you see any reduction in cancers ?" Do you really think banning carcinogens and other toxic substances has made no difference?

Each of these bans and restrictions affects us all in one way or another but most will end up saving lives. This ban will also change the culture around smoking. So instead of the "I will smoke wherever I want" it will become "is it OK to smoke here". Passive smokers will be empowered by this law to stand up to the smoking bully who before said "this is my house and I will do what I want (and I don't give a toss about you)". There was a huge change in attitude when the UK brought in our smoking ban.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, meand said:

I think I would tend to agree with your first statement, but there are a bunch of ifs.

 

If there are home people in the home.

If the home is something like a condo and in close proximity to other units. 

 

I do not know why this is such a surprise to people, or why lessening the effects of a known carcinogen is met with scorn. What is next, getting mad over saving the environment? 

 

The basic tenet in almost all societies is things are generally ok, IF they are not negatively affecting others.

 

Secondhand smoke KILLS others! So, we are not even talking about others being affected in superficial ways here like noise pollution. People are actually dying and being made less healthy, to no fault of their own. 

 

Enforcement is the difficulty and what discussion should center around in my opinion. 

Getting mad about saving the environment? Sure, because the way to do so is to tax the #uc@ out of everything, then fly around the world having conferences on not flying or travelling.

 

Then the EU sends it's parliament to Strasbourg and back twice a month in a nice environmental way!

Greenland was called that because when found it was damn green, that was before burning fossil fuels cooled it down! Or was it warmed up again. 

Get mad, never! 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am no fan of tobacco. I hate the smell of second hand smoke. Yet, this new law is beyond silly. Telling a man or woman they cannot light up whatever they want, in their own home? Talk about over reach, stupidity, a completely false sense of puritanism, hypocrisy, and arrogance, on the part of the hapless, heinous, completely useless Thai army. They are a scourge on the people of this nation, and a blight on the land. They are a plague. 

Share this post


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

How many family and friends would still be alive today worldwide if this law was international? just one death is one to many.

Only got to page 6. Fast moving thread here

More family and friends would be alive today if there was a ban on motorcycles and cars worldwide.  One death too many, hahaha.  More passenger deaths in those infernal combustion driven death traps than secondhand smoke will ever kill. 

 

Think Thailand needs an island community like Hydra in Greece or Mackinac island in the USA. 

No vehicles allowed, you walk or ride bicycles or ride in a rickshaw.  Electric wheelchairs allowed for the disabled.   

Food and water would be shipped or literally "drop" shipped from drones and dirigibles.  Ganja, wine and home brew grown and made locally for those who partake.   

 

Any millionaires willing to fund me to start an eco-island community here in LOS?  Just send a PM 🙂

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Your homework for tonight is to check the real scientific evidence of secondhand tobacco smoke, nothing to do with atmospheric or other toxic pollutants.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...