No Smoking

[billy2bs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sabd1Sby ... r_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sabd1SbyLgQ&feature=player_embedded)

Hopefully this will work here. Obviously a good piece of Thai work. :party

[gaymandenmark]

I am a smoker, who would infact like to stop, myself, but I like it. Great work.

[Neal]

I thought that was great! Thanks Billy.

Excellent Billy, I've just sent that to my mate in work who has 3 kids and wants to stop but just "doesn't", maybe that'll spark him into action - or to be more hopeful actually "inaction" perhaps when it comes to lighting up his next cigarette !

[DCbob]

Thanks, I forwarded it to about 35 of my compatriots.

[Neal]

While I am all for it and do not smoke, I wonder how watching the U Tube version experience might differ rfom the up front in your face experience?
Certainly people can sluff off a warning on a packet of cigarettes, a sign or tv commercial but it's certainly a bit harder when a kid pulls it on you face to face.

EXCELLENT, this is in my opinion the best ever non-smoking attempt worldwide add.

I've just a horrible niggling feeling that if they tried to run that same Ad here in Ireland there's a 50 / 50 probable chance the kids would actually get their "light" :-((

[joe552]

I know the kids round my way can be counted on if I run out when the shops are closed :sign5:

yeah and I know our local newsagents shop where they sold ciggarettes always done a roaring trade during our school lunch hour selling "singles" ( i.e. single cigarettes to all us 12 year olds!) - which is unbelieveable now when you think back !! but I've no doubt the practice still continues in places somewhere in our green and unpleasant land ! :-(

[francois]

This ad has now been removed from Youtube.

Why ? Any ideas ?

[Jetsam]

Why ? Any ideas ?

because smoking is cool, i've not seen te ad btw

Smoking ......Cool ?....... yes OF COURSE ! God how stupid of me not to have picked up on that one on my own, yeah that MUST be the reason for sure ! lol

Here it is, same youtube user, but for some reason they deleted and reuploaded it.

[youtube:2354c3ks]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHH2LsAHeHc[/youtube:2354c3ks]

and for the non tabacco smokers, here is an alternative.

I know the kids round my way can be counted on if I run out when the shops are closed :sign5:

Are you talking about ciggies - or condoms?

[fountainhall]

As a non-smoker living in a country where it is in fact against the law to smoke indoors in public venues, it annoys me that so many gay establishments happily permit smokers to light up. About a year ago, I was in Solid in Bangkok suffering from one farang sitting at a table with four of the boys, all of them smoking. I went over politely and asked him to stop, pointing out two signs on the walls which clearly said no smoking. To be fair, he did and then the boys disappeared upstairs, obviously to continue their drinking and smoking. Later he came over to our table. I though he might wish to start an argument, but he was very polite. He told me he was a co-owner, that the bar was consistently losing money, and if he prevented customers from smoking, the bar would have to close. He added that of course I was correct. But if I wanted to continue to visit Solid, he would not be stopping smokers - and he believed that was the view of nearly all bar owners.

That was clearly a pretty accurate summation of Solid's position, because the bar finally closed a few months back. But I don't believe that had much to do with smokers v. non-smokers. That bar was always hit or miss, its main attraction being low drink prices and sometimes some fun guys.The format never changed, apart from bar prices rising by 50% in two steps in only a few months. Nothing was ever done to liven up proceedings. Indeed, by closing the mezzanine level a couple of years earlier, the bar had become less attractive. But when an owner monopolises 4 of the cutest boys leaving just 3 to strut their stuff (meaning, an occasional shuffle ) on the tiny dance floor when there are other customers in there having drinks, that surely contributes as much to a bar's demise.

I have to ask, Fountainhall, why you didn't just LEAVE if you found the smoking so offensive?
Why did you have to make a big issue out of it and go up and confront people?

And don't give me any holier-than-thou crap about what Thai law says about smoking in bars - - you're obviously happy to be on premises where illegal prostitution is taking place, so I'm afraid any fake moral outrage won't wash with me.

For the record, I'm a non-smoker but it doesn't bother me in the slightest whether people smoke or not - live and let live I say - and if I don't like it, I can go elsewhere - I don't feel I have any more right to impose my non-smoking on smokers than vice versa.

As far as the owner of Solid saying that he needed to allow it to stay open - all I can say is that the anti-smoking lobby have succeeded in decimating the number of bars in the UK, so I can well believe it's a major factor with many bars in many parts of the world.

And more annoyingly what cracks me up is that logic of "if I stop the smokers I'll lose business" whereas in truth the exact opposite may be true in that it may exactly BE that by allowing the odd smoker you are actually killing your business now as those who might prefer not to smell like a stale ash tray all night after going in somewhere for ONE drink may have actually decided not to bother going to his bar that night as "it's full of smoke / smokers", over the years I've found it's usually bar owners who smoke themselves who have this "I wouldn't dare banning smoking as it would hurt my business mentality".

We here in Ireland ( North and South) were one of the first Countries in Europe to enforce a compete smoking ban in pubs etc and at the time the death of irish bars was forecast by just about everyone, smokers and non smokers alike, however in reality ( and i don't have figures for this and and simply going on the number of people in pubs these days) rather than business dropping it has actually increased, the smokers have all now been given a smoking area outside should they wish to use it, the staff aren't getting choked to death ( and literally killed) from passive smoking every day in their legal work environment and customers ( both smokers and non) can sit and have a pint without leaving smelling like an ashtray.

So, whilst of course Thailand may be different I guess as the culture may be slightly different ( maybe but I'm not so sure about that) but if they can get Ireland off cigarettes in bars I'm fairly sure they can do it anywhere. I should also add that if there was a pole here I don't think anyone (smokers or non) would go back to things how they used to be now if given the chance - and this is in a Country where if you go outside for a ciggy the chances are you're going to get rained upon !

I would also add before any smokers jump on me I'm not "anti smoking" - my view is "up to you" but when it's directly impinging on the person sitting next to you or at the next table etc then I think that's where if simple manners don't work ( and they don't cause here's a tip - all that blowing smoking up and over your left shoulder doesn't "actually" make it any better for the non smoker or the person sitting to your left perhaps) so "if" good manners don't work then that's were legislation is a benefit to stop the non smoker always having to be the bad guy and asking you "would you mind not covering me in YOUR smoke thanks."

Ok, smokers, go head, you can rip me a new one just about anytime now :-)

...that's were legislation is a benefit to stop the non smoker always having to be the bad guy...

But, NIrish (and as I said to Fountainhall), you're prefectly happy to see the law broken when it comes to illegal prostitution aren't you.

Would you not agree that's a little hypocritical?

no - different thing altogether, I mean the "legislation" helps in that it clarifies the matter for once and for all and removes the awkwardness of a non smoker having to perhaps go up and ask the smoker not to blow smoke all over them with the possible ensuing argument that that may cause ( especially in Ireland when people had "drink taken") - the law simply clarifies the situation, I'm not actually in favour of the smoke police rushing into a bar and dragging smokers out by the heels and carting them off to the police station for 5 months in jail :-) But the "law" simply gives the bar owner the opportunity to blame it on "the state" in asking someone to stop and takes away any awkwardness that may unfold.

I would be all for a voluntary "position" where everyone just agrees not to smoke in bars but of course that's just not going to happen but I agree with you that "law" seems like a big hammer to break a small nut but I guess when you're dealing with an entire population and trying to implement one single thing then a "law" is the logical way to do that - and it should be noted that that "law" is ireland has I think resulted in a ridiculously small prosecution right across the entire population of Ireland which shows it was the right way to go as the ban has worked and people didn't need to get all legal on other peoples ass - so it clarified the position and everyone "got it" without the need to crack the nut at all - so, job done.

I'm sorry - in my view it's not a different thing altogether:

What you are doing is insisting that a bar enforces a particular law (smoking) when the main reason you are there is that they allowing another law (prostitution) to be broken - and the only reason they are able to break the other law is because they break a further law in bribing the BIB!

You can't honestly see the contradictions?

Well of course I can see what you're referring to as a contradiction and in that context you're right, but I don't agree that it's the same thing, by that logic you wouldn't do ANYTHING, you wouldn't drink in a bar at 2.30am if it was meant to close at 2am as you know they are paying the BIB for the pleasure, you wouldn't ( as you state) take off a guy as it's "illegal" ( although as Neal would I'm sure by quick to point out there is nothing illegal in taking off a boy from a bar as all you're paying for is his company nothing else ( in theory I accept) so no when the "law" is to fix one problem and only has a net good result ( the health of the staff and customers and generally is widely accepted) then I think in this case it's ok - and as I said you're right of course that there could well be contradictions there but life is full of contradictions and if we never used or enforced anything in case it conflicted with something else we'd be in a right pickle.

But to clarify you're right and I totally agree with you that having to have a LAW about something as small as this seems crazy to me and generally speaking I HATE the state telling us all what to do for the reasons you've already stated, but as it seems there was no compromise to be reached on this particular topic over many years and when you consider that something like 40% of SMOKERS also now support the ban I guess this is one of the better "laws" to have and by having it appears that's it's one "law" that basically has never needed to be widely enforced as the it's mere presence is enough and people generally speaking widely accept it so that to me is a law that's got general support and is working IMHO.

You'll notice that in both my posts I was very careful not to say the bar was breaking the law on prostitution.

What I said was that they allow the law to be broken (by the boy) - and I rather think that any defence of "the customer was only paying for company and the sex was free" would be thrown out on its ear.

Either way my point is the same - you (and I, and most of SGT I bet) would only go there because we know there is illegal prostitution being allowed. So it seems a little niggardly to then get on one's moral high horse about other matters.

Anyway I've made my point so I'm done :hello2:

Firstly I'm not on a moral high horse, I'm talking about smoking in bars and how the experience of stopping it in bars in Ireland has been a good thing ( in lots of peoples opinion not just mine), you'll have your own views on that I guess but I don't see it as "moral high horsiness" to simply ask and expect someone NOT to blow smoke over me all night as they sit and blow it away from themselves and their own company, better I think to have a clear position / law if we must about that to stop arguments and fights in bars about that subject as I know speaking personally I have come very close to both where one smoker upholds his "right" to blow smoke at me and my friends all night and we have to be the ones to leave, whereas with the law in place it gives the bar man ( or me) an excuse to "please" ask him to stop as if nothing else it sheer bloody bad manners and a total disregard for your fellow bar patrons!

And as to putting up with something because what we're doing is illegal anyway in your opinion ( even though it's not) then in the one situation you're right I guess I would tolerate someone smoking "if I must" for the reason you've already stated ( although again I don't accept I'm doing anything illegal by being in a go go bar but I'll take your point for the sake of it) but THIS thread relates and related to smoking in bars "in general" and all the time and bars where a family would go at 2pm on a Sunday for sunday lunch just as much as back street "brothel" so I think that's the difference here.

Oh and the "I was only acting as an introduction agent and what happened next is nothing to do with me" defense is an absolutely firm one and one that has been used for many years by many many escort agencies throughout the world, plus every boy / girly Bar in Thailand for that matter.

..the "I was only acting as an introduction agent and what happened next is nothing to do with me" defense is an absolutely firm one...

That'll be why the BIB have to be bribed thousands of Baht to turn a blind eye then.

:sign5:

I think that's more to do with the culture of bribery in Thailand and the reading and implementation of the law rather than "the actual law" ( neal perhaps you can advise ?) but speaking generally introduction agencies WORLDWIDE operate every day in the public arena without the police coming to break down their doors as they are doing nothing illegal and any that do get into diffs are the ones that allow that fine line to be crossed / blurred to much - and I think THAT'S how the BIB make their money in being paid to view or move that line in a particular way perhaps.

Well I guess that as long as you don't use the shagging loom on the premises and the prostitute doesn't smoke after sex, and the BIB get their cut then everybody's happy.

But I would point out that there are regular cases throughout the world of people who are in the business of facilitating prostitution being convicted of "living off immoral earnings" or whatever the specific offence in any particular country might be.

I would be extremely surprised if there is not an equivalent offence in Thailand and I would be equally surprised if a blind eye being turned to the possibility of infringing it does not account for at least part of the tea money.
Not that I consider these facilitators of horizontal refreshment to be anything other than good samaritans - as I say I just get a little puzzled when they are then berated for allowing something as minor as smoking - bearing mind that a majority of pooves I have come across are alcoholics, heavy smokers, sex maniacs, and drug fiends (perm any 3 from 4 for a winning line - all 4 scoops the jackpot)

:evil4:

[fountainhall]

I had no idea this discussion would get so heated! First тАУ


I have to ask, Fountainhall, why you didn't just LEAVE if you found the smoking so offensive?
Why did you have to make a big issue out of it and go up and confront people?
тАЬConfrontтАЭ tends to denote a degree of hostility. At no time was I anything other than unfailingly polite. I merely pointed out that there were two 'no smoking' signs and that Thai law had banned smoking in such premises. Simple point and very far from any тАЬbig issueтАЭ. I had no idea he was the owner. Indeed we all assumed he was a visitor.

Why speak politely to the man? For the simple reason I was with friends and happened to like the place. Only once before had we come across one person smoking, and he left within minutes of our entering. You have been somewhat hasty, Scottish Guy, in jumping to conclusions here.


And don't give me any holier-than-thou crap about what Thai law says about smoking in bars - - you're obviously happy to be on premises where illegal prostitution is taking place, so I'm afraid any fake moral outrage won't wash with me.
Goodness! You are extremely touchy!

Who gave you the idea that a go-go bar is a house of illegal prostitution? ThatтАЩs sheer rubbish! In Thailand, they are not so classed. If you take a boy (or a girl) from a bar, there is no fee set by the bar or the boy/girl. That is entirely a matter between two people. I grant you that if there were a set fee, then that indeed is prostitution under the law here. Yet, you again too hastily jump to conclusions by failing even to consider that some people go to bars just to have a drink, perhaps to chat to some guys, but without any thought of taking anyone off. Since that bar opened, none of my friends nor I have ever taken anyone off from Solid!

Besides, as NIrish has already pointed out, if you were to take your holier-than-thou attitude to its logical conclusion, youтАЩd have most massage parlours around the country closed at a stroke. Why confine your outrage to bars?


For the record, I'm a non-smoker but it doesn't bother me in the slightest whether people smoke or not - live and let live I say - and if I don't like it, I can go elsewhere - I don't feel I have any more right to impose my non-smoking on smokers than vice versa
Not everyone is as tolerant as you, obviously. Why should any non-smoker put up with someone breaking the law? It does bother me, and if someone stops smoking after they have become aware of the law, then I for one am grateful. But if you are prepared to live-and-let-live when it comes to breaking the law and permitting people to smoke, what other laws are you prepared to break, I wonder?

Oh, methinks Lady Fountainhall doth protest too much!

You go into gogo bars solely for a drink do you?

Yes, of course you do, dear.

And the boys are there solely so you can look at them and admire their dancing prowess as they shuffle from one foot to the other?

Yes, of course they are dear.

That'll be why theres a OFF fee - it's not for customers taking them OFF for purposes of paid nookie and thus depriving the bar of an employee at all, it's to pay the laundry bill for the gogo knickers isn't it. Not that it concerns you anyway because you don't take boys off :sign5:

Look the bottom line is you were in a whorehouse (and in Solid the action often took place on the premises so i feel justified in calling it that) and you're pointing to notices saying "No Smoking" and moaning about people puffing on a ciggy?
Oh for fuck sake - if you can't see the hypocrisy in that....

And as far as the innuendo contained in your parting shot is concerned - I don't berate people who jaywalk on the road either or who drop litter. I put those in the same category of offence as lighting up a fag in a whorehouse.

:sign5:

:sign5:

[fountainhall]

I see from a brief glimpse of your long history of posting that you like nothing better that impugning motives, putting posters down and wrapping all who live in Thailand under one sick umbrella. Fine. If thatтАЩs how you get your jollies, go right ahead as far as I am concerned. And I thought the owner of this Board was going in a different direction. Enjoy your posting тАУ as I am sure you will.

[bkkguy]

you're prefectly happy to see the law broken when it comes to illegal prostitution aren't you.

Would you not agree that's a little hypocritical?

there are laws that benefit society as a whole and those that don't and individuals and societies can consider the illegal status of some activites as wrong while considering the illegal status of other activities to be correct with no trying to take a higher moral ground involved at all - this is why legal systems change over time

I generally support respect for law and order but I grew up in a country where gay sex was illegal and I considered those laws wrong and regularly broke them while also advocating change, but I supported the police whole-heartedly in their enforcement of the murder and theft laws - and I don't understand how you could see this as being hypocritical. illegal yes, anti-social perhaps but not hypocritical. eventually there was broad social agreement on this and gay sex was decriminalised but murder and theft where not!

in my considered opinion many aspects of Thailand's (and most other countries) venue licensing, prostitution and drug posession laws are fundament flawed and need to be changed and while I am happy to see these laws flouted I am not really happy with the level of corruption that makes this possible

in my considered opinion Thailand's anti-smoking laws are a step in the right direction and they should be enforced more strictly

these laws will change over time depending on majority social opinion (if I have my rose-coloured glasses on) or on the wim of corrupt law makers and enforcers - and while there may be a lot of hipocracy involved in government and law enforcement here I don't agree with your charges of hipocracy here

bkkguy

Of course my basic instinct is to stay the fuck outta this conversation but the stupid part of me has won. Let me just put out a few of my thoughts and see where they land.

To me, smoking is not anywhere near making the similarity to breaking the law with prostitution. A person can enter a bar, sit and listen to the music, watch the boys or girls dance and not partake any further in what may or may not be available to them. It does not affect the other customers in any way shape or form.

A smoker on the other hand can brazenly walk into any restaurant, bar or other place such as a movie house, light up and annoy endless amounts of people sitting around him or her. He/she does affect all those around them.

In my opinion, the fact of the law being violated comes down to this. For years and years I sat in bars, restaurants & airplanes, where the the smoke was specifically told where it may float and where it was not supposed to go :sign5: It was legal and I put up with it. If I thought there was too much smoke, I went outside to get some air. My hair, body, clothes reeked of someone elses smoke.

Nowadays it is illegal to smoke in such public places and therefore a person should not have to be forced to walk around smelling like a used ashtray just because you wish to smoke. I think more people except here maybe in Asia do not smoke rather than smoke and it is not that big of a deal to ask someone to step outside and commit suicide out there rather than taking you with them.

Now that being said, maybe there is an idea in that some places, according to the owner of the establishment can decide for themselves if they wish to allow smoking or not. Those that don't wish to put up with smoke can not patronize the place and those who do or don't care can go there. UP 2 U.

From my view sitting out front all the time, I see that many customers approaching the entrance to the bar and who are stopped because of their cigarette, are perfectly willing to sit at the table outside for a minute and finish their cancer stick and then go in. I do see about 15% who screw up their face, stamp their foot, and try to argue that it is allowed almost everywhere and that they will just take their business somewhere else. I certainly do not find them in the majority and I certainly don't feel that they should be able to force displeasure upon others.

If the management choses to allow it,vote with your feet, the same way those who smoke and are not allowed to can vote.

I see from a brief glimpse of your long history of posting that you like nothing better that impugning motives...

I rather think that, judging by the last sentence you posted in your response to me, it is in fact YOU who was impugning motives:


... if you are prepared to live-and-let-live when it comes to breaking the law and permitting people to smoke, what other laws are you prepared to break, I wonder?

Soooooooo, the charge of hypocrisy not only stands but is now perfectly illustrated - thank you.

:occasion9:

...To me, smoking is not anywhere near making the similarity to breaking the law with prostitution....


I agree with the words but not the conclusion - any right-minded person would consider breaking the law on prostitution (i.e. human exploitation) ought to be a far more serious offence than smoking in a bar- and indeed it would be so were it not for the bribes paid to the BIB.

I find it bizarre that anybody could seriously argue to the contrary.



..... a person should not have to be forced to walk around smelling like a used ashtray just because you wish to smoke...

Again I agree - except rather than cause a scene I would just leave the premises.
How hard is that? :dontknow:
And again, can I stress I'm a non-smoker


Those that don't wish to put up with smoke can not patronize the place and those who do or don't care can go there. UP 2 U.
..If the management choses to allow it,vote with your feet, the same way those who smoke and are not allowed to can vote.
Yes, exactly!
Why blow it out of all proportion?
Sitting in a whorehouse complaining that somebody has lit a cigarette is (to me) a little like sitting in an opium den complaining that they guy next to you is doing poppers!


:occasion9:

[christianpfc]

For the record, I'm a non-smoker but it doesn't bother me in the slightest whether people smoke or not - live and let live I say - and if I don't like it, I can go elsewhere - I don't feel I have any more right to impose my non-smoking on smokers than vice versa.
You are lucky that it doesn't bother you. I find it highly annoying, only the sight of boys dancing in their underwear can compensate for it.

It's not the non-smokers imposing their views on smokers, it's the smokers imposing their smoke on non-smokers!

But I can see your point about indulging in one illegal vice (prostitution) and at the same time complaining about another illegal vice (smoking in a bar).

But it's not about breaking laws, it's about causing discomfort to others! If I take a boy from a bar, I don't cause any discomfort to others (except the rare case someone else in the audience wanted the same boy). Smokers cause discomfort to others and harm their own and other's health. (You could say harming their own health is their problem, but as everyone pays the same health insurance, the whole society pays for their smoking related ailments.)

Smoking in public places was banned in Germany only recently. There were long discussions about the possible demise of the entire restaurant and bar industry, it sounded like nobody would go out any more if they were not allowed to smoke and all restaurants and bars would have to close. The opposite proved to be true! [Citation needed]

[francois]

For me, the upper lounge at Happy Boy (not Happy Place) is the only acceptable bar for "smoking" in Pattaya.

That's what I thought I said above just a wee bit differently.
The same thing happened State after State in the USA and county after county. All the smokers kept saying the same, nobody will go out and everything is going to close. It has worked, can work. When we opened the bar I asked M who is a smoker, are we having a smoking bar or no smokimng bar and are we enforcing it. To this day I have it enforced with an occassional boy sneaking a cigarette upstairs or even M. We whip them, tie them up to the shakles on the wall strip them naked and have our way with them but for some reason punishment doesn't always work. :8(

[vnman]

First of all tnx for the link. That was a great video and so confronting for me as a (ex smoker) spectator, I can only imagine what it must have been like for those smokers.


I don't cause any discomfort to others (except the rare case someone else in the audience wanted the same boy).

:sign5: Solid response!

I'm with Scottish that it's "live and let live" but smokers could/should have some consideration for their surroundings. Usually the biggest anti smokers are ex smokers. I guess it is because they/we finally realized what a filthy stinking affair it is.

About breaking the law. This topic is always a slippery slope. I think that ones morals should also be taken into account. As a s@x tourist in Thailand, I guess you're always going to break the law. Would it be better to go to japan and have S@x with a 12 year old?

This is such a grey area but I'm not one to complain about people who are smoking. Like B.A. used to say: "I pity the fools" But if you're really offended/irritated by it, maybe asking the mamasan if smoking is allowed before ordering any drinks would be a good idea. A positive answer - met with you and your party leaving - will make a clear statement. If you see people smoking when you enter and still stay, then you should really STFU.

Can one of you Americans please write to your congressmen and ask them to do something about those evil hookahs? And I'm not talking about moneyboys here.

With my recent history I'm aware of the risk I'm taking responding to this topic :-)

If you see people smoking when you enter and still stay, then you should really STFU.....

Happy days!
Somebody is talking sense at last.

:occasion9:

[lukylok]

That's what I thought I said above just a wee bit differently.
We whip them, tie them up to the shakles on the wall strip them naked and have our way with them but for some reason punishment doesn't always work. :8(

They might do it on purpose, to get the treatment ! :laughing3:
Is it available to customers ?

[francois]

I'm with Scottish that it's "live and let live"..........


Exactly vnman! Let the smokers stop killing the non-smokers with their smoke and "let us live and let live" in a smoke free environment to enjoy life. I do agree they have every right to smoke and cause harm to themselves but do it without affecting others.

Hmmm, I think that I shall modify my avatar.