Jump to content
Thailand Visa Forum by Thai Visa | The Nation

nisakiman

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    1,225
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,200 Excellent

About nisakiman

  • Rank
    Super Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://nisakiman.com/
  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

8,543 profile views
  1. I've asked this question before on previous threads on this subject, but haven't yet received a sensible answer. The law has been tagged on to the environmental protection laws, the 'crime' being littering, or polluting the beach rather than smoking per se. That's what all the publicity has been about - the 'terrible pollution' caused by cigarette butts. So what if I'm a pipe smoker? No butts. No litter. Am I to be prosecuted under the environmental protection laws for polluting the beach with cigarette butts even though I'm doing nothing of the sort? Or what if I always carry a portable ashtray with me, and always take my used cigarette butts away with me. Am I to be prosecuted for polluting the beach, even though I leave no trace of smoking behind me? Or what if I smoke filterless roll-ups, the butt end of which biodegrades in a couple of days (just a bit of rice paper and a few strands of dried leaf)? No polluting cellulose butts involved there. I really don't think they've thought this one through properly. If the authorities really do start fining people, and they catch someone who falls into one of the above categories who has enough time and money that he or she decides to fight the case, I can't see the authorities being able to win. If they'd banned smoking on the beach on the spurious grounds of 'health', they would have a stronger case, but banning it on the grounds of polluting the environment should, in theory, exempt any smoker who is demonstrably NOT polluting.
  2. Profile Picture/Avatar

    Yes, mine disappeared, too. I just re-uploaded it on my profile page. I'm glad I'm not the only one!
  3. wood smoke

    Always take health advice from government and/or health organisations with a large pinch of salt. Although what they say may well be correct in terms of constituents and their potential for harm, they will always err well on the side of safety, and exaggerate the risks. They will always look at the worst case scenario. They do this because 1) They don't want to be sued for understating the risks, and 2) If they overstate the risks, there will usually be further funding forthcoming for further research, thus ensuring that the mortgage continues to get paid. The reality of the situation is that since man discovered fire, he has been crouching over open wood fires for both cooking and warmth, and over the millennia has evolved lungs that can easily deal with quite high levels of smoke without damage. So wood smoke from next door, although it may be annoying, is very unlikely to have any detrimental health effects. Fumes from plastics will have a much higher level of toxicity, but unless you are being constantly subjected to them are also unlikely to be damaging, not at the levels you are likely to get in the open air where the smoke becomes very diluted. The first rule of toxicology is that the dose makes the poison, which is something that many of these studies deliberately don't make clear.
  4. New legislation Smoke-Free along the beach

    Ashtrays, perhaps? Or is that too simple a solution? It seems to work in other countries. In fact I remember years ago a beach in Phuket I used to go to had clay pots with sand in under every umbrella to use as an ashtray, and there were no cigarette butts on the beach at all. When smokers are given an ashtray, they tend to use it. The problem these days is that the anti-smoking zealots think it's clever to remove all ashtrays from everywhere ("that'll show 'em, those nasty smokers"), and then they whine and complain because there are cigarette butts on the ground. Doh...
  5. Medication in customs 17 days

    That's wrong. Champix is designed to suppress the pleasure centres in the brain, thus removing the pleasure of smoking (and other things as well), which is why in many people it leads to depression, and that in turn drives quite a few people to suicide. It's the drug itself that does it. It has nothing to do with 'nicotine withdrawal'. Withdrawal from nicotine is a minor and easily dealt with situation. It's not the reason people smoke (although it is a part of it) and it's not any more addictive than caffeine. The reasons smoking is habit forming are many and complex, and nicotine is only a small part of it. I've read quite extensively about Champix, and I wouldn't recommend it to my worst enemy. If you want to give up smoking, get an e-cig. It's by far the best and most effective method. Yes, I know that Thailand, in its deep wisdom, has made them illegal, but they are still available, illegality notwithstanding, and personally if I was giving up smoking I'd rather take my chances with the law than with a potentially lethal drug like Champix.
  6. That's all well and good when a visa has to be applied for before travel and the insurance can be checked as part of the visa application, but where you have a visa exemption as does Thailand, that means that all those insurance forms with all their attendant small print have to be checked at immigration, which would lead to massive queues, as if it wasn't bad enough already. The only solution is either to make everyone get a visa, which would decimate the tourist industry, or have kiosks or machines where you have to buy a voucher for 500 Baht or whatever which would go into a central fund to cover hospital treatment for those unlucky enough to need it. That should be to cover basic care in government hospitals, which would mean that most people would still opt to buy travel insurance which would guarantee better service in private hospitals, thus relieving pressure on the fund. The other factor that has been pointed out several times in this thread is that for someone in their late sixties or early seventies (and that age group make up a significant proportion of visitors to Thailand), health insurance would be very difficult (if not impossible) to find at a reasonable price, so insisting on insurance would deter that high spending group from choosing Thailand as a destination. No, if they're going to do anything at all, they should insist on everyone paying a fixed sum on arrival. It doesn't have to be so difficult to implement - we used to have to pay 500 Baht departure tax, and that didn't cause any major problems. In fact they could just re-instate that system, and collect the money on departure rather than arrival, thus ensuring that everyone had Thai Baht to pay with. It doesn't make any difference if it's collected on arrival or departure - it still gets paid.
  7. That reminds me of the tea they brew (or at least, used to brew when I was there in the late '60s) in India. Tea leaves, sugar (lots), buffalo milk and water all went in a pan and were boiled up together. It sounds awful, but in fact it was a great brew. It was the normal way to drink tea on the street. It was only in 'HiSo' homes that you would get what they called 'separate tea', which was the English way of making the tea in a teapot and combining the tea, milk and sugar in the cup afterwards. Here in Greece, it's only fairly recently (past ten years) that anything apart from Yellow Label (yuk) has been available. Now the supermarkets stock a good range from Twinings, Dilmah (?) etc, as well as a range of local herbal teas. My first drink of the day is coffee brewed in one of those little espresso pots you cook on the stove, but the rest of the day I tend to drink tea, usually English Breakfast. Too much coffee gives me the jitters these days.
  8. He, like many others these days has been thoroughly indoctrinated by the relentless propaganda pumped out by the Tobacco Control propaganda machine. There is no respite from it, so it's unsurprising that so many people have succumbed to the constant barrage. I read so many comments under articles castigating and denigrating people who enjoy smoking, and in nearly every case, they will include one of the Tobacco Control propaganda soundbites, like 'smokers stink', and 'smokers are addicts', and ' you don't have the right to poison my air' etc etc etc. And they're all soundbites that have been used in advertising campaigns demonising smokers. And the indoctrinated trot them out parrot fashion, because that's what you have to think and say nowadays if you want to be accepted into mainstream, PC, non-smoking society. Years ago, it would never have occurred to anyone to say something like 'smokers stink', because the thought would never have occurred to them. Nor would they have 'avoided tobacco smoke in the street'. What on earth for? That's just plain silly! Nobody took any notice of whether someone smoked or not. It was a non-issue. But propaganda is a powerful tool, and when you have countless billions of dollars available to spend on propaganda campaigns, it's not that difficult to inculcate a feeling of intense dislike, even hatred, in one section of society for another section of society. Do you think the ordinary German people hated the Jews before the propaganda campaigns started in the 1930s? Of course they didn't. They lived next door to them, they bought their groceries from them, they chatted to them on the street corner. The Jewish Germans were just other people, unremarkable and unremarked on. As Goebbels said: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
  9. On the subject of the great Mark Twain: “The Moral Statistician.” Originally published in Sketches, Old and New, 1893 “I don’t want any of your statistics; I took your whole batch and lit my pipe with it. I hate your kind of people. You are always ciphering out how much a man’s health is injured, and how much his intellect is impaired, and how many pitiful dollars and cents he wastes in the course of ninety-two years’ indulgence in the fatal practice of smoking; and in the equally fatal practice of drinking coffee; and in playing billiards occasionally; and in taking a glass of wine at dinner, etc. etc. And you are always figuring out how many women have been burned to death because of the dangerous fashion of wearing expansive hoops, etc. etc. You never see more than one side of the question. You are blind to the fact that most old men in America smoke and drink coffee, although, according to your theory, they ought to have died young; and that hearty old Englishmen drink wine and survive it, and portly old Dutchmen both drink and smoke freely, and yet grow older and fatter all the time. And you never try to find out how much solid comfort, relaxation, and enjoyment a man derives from smoking in the course of a lifetime (which is worth ten times the money he would save by letting it alone), nor the appalling aggregate of happiness lost in a lifetime by your kind of people from not smoking. Of course you can save money by denying yourself all those little vicious enjoyments for fifty years; but then what can you do with it? What use can you put it to? Money can’t save your infinitesimal soul. All the use that money can be put to is to purchase comfort and enjoyment in this life; therefore, as you are an enemy to comfort and enjoyment where is the use of accumulating cash? It won’t do for you to say that you can use it to better purpose in furnishing a good table, and in charities, and in supporting tract societies, because you know yourself that you people who have no petty vices are never known to give away a cent, and that you stint yourselves so in the matter of food that you are always feeble and hungry. And you never dare to laugh in the daytime for fear some poor wretch, seeing you in a good humor, will try to borrow a dollar of you; and in church you are always down on your knees, with your ears buried in the cushion, when the contribution-box comes around; and you never give the revenue officers a full statement of your income. Now you know all these things yourself, don’t you? Very well, then, what is the use of your stringing out your miserable lives to a lean and withered old age? What is the use of your saving money that is so utterly worthless to you? In a word, why don’t you go off somewhere and die, and not be always trying to seduce people into becoming as ornery and unlovable as you are yourselves, by your villainous “moral statistics”?” ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Twain did not suffer fools gladly...
  10. No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/105/24/1844/2517805/No-Clear-Link-Between-Passive-Smoking-and-Lung --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe. RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96). The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93-1.44). No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. No increase in risk was detected in subjects whose exposure to spousal or workplace ETS ended more than 15 years earlier. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. Risks from combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9776409 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Environmental tobacco smoke in the nonsmoking section of a restaurant: a case study. Jenkins RA1, Finn D, Tomkins BA, Maskarinec MP. Author information Abstract This study tested the concentrations of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) components in a small restaurant/pub with smoking and nonsmoking areas-a facility outfitted with a heat-recovery ventilation system and directional airflow. The ETS levels in the nonsmoking area were compared with those in other similar restaurants/pubs where indoor smoking is altogether prohibited. The results indicate that ETS component concentrations in the nonsmoking section of the facility in question were not statistically different (P < 0.05) from those measured in similar facilities where smoking is prohibited. The regulatory implications of these findings are that ventilation techniques for restaurants/pubs with separate smoking and nonsmoking areas are capable of achieving nonsmoking area ETS concentrations that are comparable to those of similar facilities that prohibit smoking outright. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11754526 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results For participants followed from 1960 until 1998 the age adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) for never smokers married to ever smokers compared with never smokers married to never smokers was 0.94 (0.85 to 1.05) for coronary heart disease, 0.75 (0.42 to 1.35) for lung cancer, and 1.27 (0.78 to 2.08) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among 9619 men, and 1.01 (0.94 to 1.08), 0.99 (0.72 to 1.37), and 1.13 (0.80 to 1.58), respectively, among 25 942 women. No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98. Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed. http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7398/1057.full ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The second and fourth link above refer to the two biggest studies ever carried out on ETS. The second link is to the study carried out by Boffetta et al, and was commissioned by the WHO, a fanatically anti-smoking organisation. When the results came in, and they realised that these weren't the results they wanted, they buried the report and just lied instead, telling everyone that second-hand smoke was lethal, even though the report they had commissioned found that not to be the case at all. The fourth link is to the study carried out by Enstrom and Kabat, and was commissioned by the American Cancer Society. The study was very comprehensive, and was done over a period of 39 years. When the results started to come in, the ACS who had commissioned and paid for the study were horrified, because (as in the case of the WHO study) the results weren't what they wanted to hear. So before the results of this 39 year study could be published, they pulled the plug on the funding, hoping that it would never see the light of day. Do you see a trend emerging here? When you have researched this subject as much as I have, you realise that Tobacco Control and all their assorted hangers-on lie through their teeth as a matter of course. They will tell you that black is white if it suits their agenda.
  11. Why on earth would I do that? Whatever makes you think doubling or tripling ones consumption of cigarettes would be 'the best thing you can do'? Or was that an attempt at sarcasm? Whatever, everything I've written above is fact. I can find the links to all that info if you like, although I suspect you're uncomfortable with having your belief system challenged. I could fill pages of this forum with examples of the chicanery employed by Tobacco Control. They are completely amoral. They care not one iota for the huge amount of economic and social damage they cause. It stopped being about health decades ago. It's all about money and ideology now, and has been for years, even more so since the big pharmaceutical companies realised they could make fortunes out of punitive smoking legislation. That's why they fund the WHO's FCTC. The more countries that introduce smoking bans, the more massively overpriced (and useless - 98% failure rate) nicotine patches and gum they can sell. It's a multi-billion dollar global business now, and the few millions a year they throw to the avidly anti-smoking WHO is small change compared to the profits they make from the persecution of smokers. It's a good investment.
  12. I'm sorry to disillusion you, but all anti-tobacco organisations lie. Either directly or by omission. They take the attitude that the ends (that is, their ideological ends) justify the means, and if they have to bend the truth to make a point, then they will. From your link: Secondhand smoke is the combination of smoke from the burning end of a cigarette and the smoke breathed out by smokers. Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer.1,2,3,4 Since the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report, 2.5 million adults who were nonsmokers died because they breathed secondhand smoke.1 There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Ok, we'll take this point by point. Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals Here they are more or less telling the truth. However, what they aren't saying is that the vast majority of those 7000 chemicals are present in such minute amounts that they can't even be measured, only theorised. They also don't mention that most of the remainder that can be measured are present in normal exhaled breath of a non-smoker. They then fail to mention that the toxic / carcinogenic elements unique to tobacco smoke are measured in femtograms (0.000 000 000 000 001 grams), nanograms (a millionth of a femtogram) and picograms (one thousandth of a nanogram). You see what they did there? "7000 chemicals!" Scary, eh? But that's a normal day in the office for Tobacco Control. It's standard MO. They do a lot of that sort of stuff, like telling you how much arsenic is in tobacco smoke; and of course everyone knows how poisonous arsenic is. However, they fail to mention that an average glass of drinking water contains eight times more arsenic than a packet of Marlboro. Tricky, eh? Hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer Again, not exactly a lie. Hundreds are indeed toxic and / or carcinogenic. However, see my point about arsenic above. They will NEVER tell you that the first rule of toxicology is "The dose makes the poison". Sure those chemicals can be toxic - if you take enough of them. Even water is toxic if you drink too much. Since the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report, 2.5 million adults who were nonsmokers died because they breathed secondhand smoke Now here they are really stretching things. There aren't actually 2.5 million body bags. In fact, there aren't any body bags at all, because nobody has actually died from being exposed to second-hand smoke. They get those figures by feeding theoretical data into a computer model known as SAMMEC (Smoking Attributable Mortality, Morbidity, and Economic Costs), same as they get their figures for 'smoking related deaths'. They are all 'virtual' deaths. Nobody has ever actually checked any death certificates to come up with the figures. It's all theoretical, based on estimated figures and calculated by a computer program written by people who have a visceral hatred of smoking and fed theoretical data by people who also have a visceral hatred of smoking, so I think we can safely assume that there will be a massive bias involved in both the programming and the estimates fed to it. And as they say in computing: "Garbage In, Garbage Out". There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. This is a favourite soundbite of Tobacco Control, because it conveys the impression that SHS is dangerous. The sentence is in fact meaningless. It only means they haven't tested for a 'safe level', and even if they could, it would still be meaningless. You can say with equal certainty that there is no safe level of coffee, or no safe level of bacon, or no safe level of shower gel. All those statements are as meaningful as 'no safe level of SHS'. Someone wrote a truly inspired web page to illustrate how the Tobacco Control propaganda machine works. I urge you to read it, as it will open your eyes as to how easy it is to fool people into thinking that something completely harmless is really, really dangerous: http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
  13. Ha! That's rich! Making accusations of propaganda and then quoting Bloomberg! :) Bloomberg the fanatical anti-smoker who just recently jumped on the anti-sugar bandwagon and spent millions of dollars pushing for sugar taxes all over the USA. ... but let's take a moment here to savour the defeat of that evil old fossil Michael Bloomberg who has been bankrolling soda tax campaigns all around America (and beyond). He's not short of money but even a billionaire must smart from pouring millions of dollars down the drain, as he has in Chicago. In 2016, Bloomberg handed over $1 million for ads to build support for the tax, and then donated another $2 million in August 2017. In September, Bloomberg funnelled in another $3 million to the pro-tax cause. And two weeks ago, in an extraordinary act of hubris, he handed out a $2.5 million grant to some 'public health' researchers at the University of Illinois to study the effects of the tax. Cook County, it should be noted, just threw the hated soda tax out after just two months. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-met-cook-county-soda-tax-kass-1011-story.html
  14. No, I don't think everyone will agree at all, not by a long shot. I certainly don't. This is a fairly recent phenomenon, driven by relentless propaganda from people with a financial and ideological vested interest in persecuting smokers. Back when I was a lad, nobody took any notice if someone was smoking - they hadn't been indoctrinated with all sorts of rubbish about 'passive smoking' and similar junk science. Neither of my parents smoked, but they always had a box of various brand cigarettes (and ashtrays) to offer guests. My mother said on several occasions how much she liked the smell of tobacco smoke, particularly pipe tobacco. But she, of course, had never been subjected to anti-smoking propaganda, so her opinions were her own.
  15. Standard smoker-hater rant, completely devoid of fact, just lots of Tobacco Control propaganda soundbites. The author knows nothing at all about the subject apart from what he's read in the tabloids. It just illustrates how easily some people can be indoctrinated with the current Politically Correct meme. The same type of propaganda (almost exactly) was used in Germany in the 1930s to turn people against the Jews. "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it..." Winston Churchill.
×