Gaybutton Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 In my opinion, a law is meaningless unless it is enforced. I don't see hypocrisy when it comes to a comparison of prostitution and smoking issues. Prostitution is between two consenting adults. Smoking in an enclosed area is a little different because the smoke is being forced upon people who don't want anything to do with smoke. I really don't understand the problem. Am I the only smoker who doesn't have a problem about stepping outside when I wish to smoke? What's so terrible about stepping outside? Quote
Guest Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 I really don't understand the problem. Am I the only smoker who doesn't have a problem about stepping outside when I wish to smoke? What's so terrible about stepping outside? I think so. I sometimes wonder if I am the only Farang who does not have a problem stepping outside when I want to smoke a boy. I keep walking into bars where JO, Oral, etc is all going on right beside me and I simply just get up and leave. What is so terrible about stepping outside if you want to have foreplay? Quote
Gaybutton Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 What is so terrible about stepping outside if you want to have foreplay? Don't laugh. I've witnessed that too. Probably the most blatant example is this grotesque farang who shows up in Pattaya every once in a while, looking like something right out of Charles Dickens, and also looking like 80 years old is a memory. This "gentleman" thinks nothing of pulling down boys' underwear and masturbating and sucking them right in front of anyone who happens to be in the bar. He throws his head back and roars with delight. The boys look mortified, but they stand for it in hopes of a tip. Whenever I see this guy, I'm quickly out the door! Quote
Guest slackersam Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 Rock on Joseph and Atri. Rock the fuck on! Quote
Guest slackersam Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 Also, GayThailand's comment is awesome. Quote
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 I really don't understand the problem. Am I the only smoker who doesn't have a problem about stepping outside when I wish to smoke? What's so terrible about stepping outside? The anti-smoker crusaders will not stop there. They do not like to see all the smokers huddled outside the door and so will pass a law banning that. Seems these people are never happy? Quote
PattayaMale Posted January 13, 2009 Author Posted January 13, 2009 The anti-smoker crusaders will not stop there. They do not like to see all the smokers huddled outside the door and so will pass a law banning that. Seems these people are never happy? Maybe I am considered a crusader but I have several friends that smoke and all of them are very courteous. They understand. People that smoke outside instead of inside an air con room are considerate. My smoking friends just step outside for a minute or 2 and are back in. No problem. Almost all of them have said that they would like to stop or have tried to stop but for whatever reason they can't or just enjoy it. Why you think "these people" are never happy would probably not stand. My objection is when people do not step outside. I don't care if someone smokes as long as it is not in a confined space. I am unhappy that I have lost so many friends to health problems caused from smoking. They were really great, fun, loving people. It would have been nice to have had them around instead of their lives being cut short because of smoking Quote
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 Why you think "these people" are never happy would probably not stand. Here a just a few examples of what "these people" would like to do. Starting in the fall the entire campus off Second and Penn Streets will be smoke free. That means no puffing away outside the Yocum Library and no sneaking a few quick drags between classes. At Alvernia College, Albright College, Kutztown University and Penn State Berks, smoking is banned in all buildings but permitted outdoors with some restrictions. Students are not allowed to light up within 25 feet of residence halls at KU and within 20 feet of buildings on the Albright campus. Penn State Berks has a similar policy banning smoking near doorways. The full story at: http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/525...g_in/index.html And another example: Smoking in the open is to be banned where it affects bystanders, ministers said yesterday. The forthcoming ban on lighting up in public places has been extended to areas where there is an 'inevitable close grouping of people'. It would include bus shelters, football grounds, the entrances to office buildings, train platforms and concert venues. The full story at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-39...s-shelters.html There are many other examples, but "these people" will not be happy until there is no smoking period. Quote
Guest slackersam Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 Monkey, That's exactly my point. I used to think that the smoking laws were fine - and a way for accommodation to be created between smokers and non-smokers. But over the years many of the non-smokers have proven themselves to be crusading puritanical assholes who don't know when they've won. Currently they are trying to ban "third hand smoke" - which is the idea that if you smoke in a room alone with nobody there that somehow leftover smoke residue could hurt someone who comes into the room hours or days later. They want to use this to make it illegal for people to smoke in their own homes, on the idea that it could hurt people who buy the house or visit the house years later. And yes, in New York City as soon as they banned smoking in bars and people left the bars to smoke on the street, they started preparing laws to make it illegal to smoke outside of bars as well. Their argument being that they had to walk through second hand smoke every time they walked by the bar. This, given that many scientists debate the actual risk of second hand smoke. They point out that yes, it can be a minor hazard, but that there are actually higher concentrations of carcinogins in truck exhaust, anti-wrinkle cream, some times of perfume and cologne and any number of beauty products that people regularly use. (In fact barbecued meat contains many of the same cancer causing agents as first hand smoke and generate the same types of second hand smoke in higher concentrations, but someone who will complain about having to deal with second hand cigarette smoke would freak out if you asked him not to barbeque in his lawn because his second hand smoke might reach your lungs next door.) If the anti-smokers ever become sane and less crusader like I'd be happy to reach an accommodation with them, but I have no use for fanatics and if anything their words and actions make me and many smokers want to smoke more. As to Pattaya's comment that many of his non-smoking friends wish they didn't smoke, he should know that that is something many smokers say to non-smokers just to shut them up. Because we've realized that if we say we like smoking and don't intend to quit we'll get boring lectures from them. Quote
Guest gay_grampa Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 but that there are actually higher concentrations of carcinogins in truck exhaust, anti-wrinkle cream, some times of perfume and cologne and any number of beauty products that people regularly use Over the years I have had to endure the throat gagging smell of some perfumes that people splash on themselves too liberally. Now I know why these smells make me cough! How about starting a campaign against perfumes? Quote
Guest slackersam Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 I've often said I don't drive a car and I almost never ride in cars so why should I have to put up with second hand combustion engine smoke that spews carcinogens into my body and makes my clothes smell like crap. I swear, people who own cars have no consideration for the health of the people around them. Quote
Gaybutton Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 I'm beginning to agree with Lvdkeyes. This thread started off as a thread about smoking in bars and scofflaw bars ignoring the rules. Now the thread is degenerating into arguments that are getting more and more absurd. I think everyone has made his point. At this time I'm stepping in as moderator and asking that this thread remain on the subject of smoking in Pattaya bars. If we're really going to get off the subject and onto these tangents, that's when I'm going to lock the thread and ask that you continue the discussion on the "Beer Bar" forum. On the "Beer Bar" forum you can discuss whatever you like ad nauseum. On this forum, the subject is supposed to have something to do with Thailand, at least remotely. A discussion of perfumes, barbecue grilling, and exhaust fumes has nothing to do with the subject of this thread or with Thailand. So please . . . let's get back to the subject at hand. If you wish to start chatting about perfumes, barbecue grilling, and exhaust fumes, then please open a thread on the "Beer Bar" forum, where that sort of discussion belongs. Quote
Guest slackersam Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 Gaybutton, Fair enough. This started out with a discussion of how to call the cops about smoking in Thailand bars. Let me throw this out there. If we assume that people are going to call the cops about smoking in the bars, I'd be curious to know what other things in Thailand people have called the cops about and what kind of response they've gotten. I've seen lots of drugs in Thailand bars. Has anyone ever called the cops about them? What about the obviously underage ladyboys and rent boys that are around. Or the obvious counterfeit booze? I'm honestly curious - what crimes and infractions have people seen in Thailand that they have contacted the police about, other than smoking, and what have the results been? Quote
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 I'm honestly curious - what crimes and infractions have people seen in Thailand that they have contacted the police about, other than smoking, and what have the results been? Sounds like gaybutton would like you to start a different thread on that question. As far as calling the cops on smokers, underage issues, drug users, counterfeit booze, counterfeit consumer goods, etc., I have seen it all, but never called the cops. I wonder if the anti-smoker crusaders are as upset about police corruption? Quote
Gaybutton Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 I have seen it all, but never called the cops. Of course not. Most people only call the police is there has been an accident, someone has been injured, a violent crime is taking place, or because of something that directly affects themselves. Quote
Guest slackersam Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 GayButton, That's my experience in Thailand as well. Quote
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 15, 2009 Posted January 15, 2009 GayButton, That's my experience in Thailand as well. My experience, as well, that is, not unless you are quite passionate about a particular subject. Quote
Gaybutton Posted January 15, 2009 Posted January 15, 2009 My experience, as well, that is, not unless you are quite passionate about a particular subject. I did say most people . . . Quote
PattayaMale Posted January 15, 2009 Author Posted January 15, 2009 The people to tell in Pattaya is the Health Office on Soi Buakao. They will report it to whoever is suppose to report it too. Thailand has a legal system that is very different than what many western countries have I believe. Here in Thailand almost all complaints some how seem to go to the police. An example: 2 Thais were splitting up. They could not agree who would get what property, so they both went to the police for help in solving the problem which the police did. In the US you would never think of calling the police to settle that. We have a court system that would take up this problem. Here the police seem to have more power in many matters Quote
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 I did say most people . . . Yes, you did. Would you classify "most" as 1 in 10, 1 in 100, 1 in 1,000? Quote
KhorTose Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 I'm beginning to agree with Lvdkeyes. This thread started off as a thread about smoking in bars and scofflaw bars ignoring the rules. Now the thread is degenerating into arguments that are getting more and more absurd. Sorry GB, I completely disagree. What is absurd to one person may not be to another. Let me expand if I may. I truly think calling the cops if someone is smoking in a bar is absurd, especially in Thailand where the last thing I want to see get involved is one of Thailand's finest BIB. Pointing out that there are other things going on just as dangerous as smoking in a bar, that we would never consider calling the cops for, is completely fair game to me. By the way, I am not a smoker. However, you are the moderator, but I say your call is unfair at the best. Quote
Guest slackersam Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 Rock on, Khor. Rock the fuck on. Quote
Gaybutton Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 Yes, you did. Would you classify "most" as 1 in 10, 1 in 100, 1 in 1,000? I wouldn't classify "most," at least not in those terms. Sorry GB, I completely disagree. However, you are the moderator, but I say your call is unfair at the best. Of course you disagree with me. Most people disagree with me (1 in 10 perhaps? Probably more). Don't worry, I'm not going to stop people from posting their examples, even the absurd ones. All I ask is those opinions be posted on the appropriate forum. Quote
Guest slackersam Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 Most means more than 50 percent in my dictionary. Quote
Guest laurence Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 There are many other examples, but "these people" will not be happy until there is no smoking period. You are right MonkeySee, "these people" will not be happy until there is no smoking. Why, because smoking is such a health hazard it is best dealt with by keeping people from killing themselves. This is especially true by discouraging young people from even starting to smoke. We all have to keep in mind that the objection of non-smokers is the smoke and it's effects, and not the smoker himself.. I respect anyone's right to smoke, drink,snort, shoot-up, huff , puff and toke as long as their activities do not adversely affect me . Quote
