The latest debate comes from John and David about smoking regulations. John gives a pretty good description of what the feelings are in the newly appointed under-class, the smoker. David answers with cogent reasoning with a tad of the thinking which former smokers seem to take on after quitting: virulent anti-smoking rhetoric. No common ground to be found.            

Smoking is of course both a choice and an addiction. Like drinking, gambling, dope taking and, dare I say it, bar-hopping. Of the above only smokers pay their own way for the results of their behaviour. The tax on cigarettes is the greatest cash-cow governments have after fuel for the much-maligned internal combustion engine.      

The smoker is shunted outside while the drunk pukes in the pub's urinal and sidles up to the bar for more. The lady signs over her Benz in the parking lot of the well-known illegal casino, whether the game was rigged or not. The doper snorting, popping, smoking or shooting drugs goes to rehab at our expense. He has to be way over the line to go to jail, and if he uses only recreational drugs most just giggle and pass by. After all, even if he is lying on the steps of a business with empty green cans of thinner around him, it isn't like he is smoking and bothering people. The bar-hopper usually has his favourite place and if that bar owner decides to allow smoking, that should be his choice. The non-smoker bar-hopper can deal with it or go to another bar; his choice. Staff? Same deal; their choice. Businesses are not run for the personal whims and foibles of individual customers or staff. They are run to make money. The market can dictate very well whether a place does or does not allow smoking.           

Most smokers do not mind accommodating others; it is the outright lies that are told to get the anti-smoking campaigns off the ground that bother them. And yes, Dave, our home state of California is a prime example. All they wanted was a little place in the back to be designated non-smoking. This started in restaurants and aeroplanes. Then they wanted smokers moved to the back. Then out the door and later way away from the door. It started with a lie by those with an agenda.         

Your mother told you smoking was bad for you and the Surgeon General followed up with various reports. What governments should be doing is making sure there is a place for all legal activity, and while they are at it they can pick that thinner-freak up off the footpath and put him in rehab because he bothers my dog. I wonder how much tax they pay on that thinner? But, that's all right, he is a "victim" and, unlike the smoker, we should not shunt him out of sight. Make sure that guy with Aids and that 400-pound woman get a seat. After all, it is not like they are smoking a non-narcotic cigarette. Now that is a WMD all you "inclusive" people can agree on.  

Major Mark A Smith (US Army, Ret.)

Bangkok

--------------------------------------

Sisters are ruining it for themselves

Re: "Women need to cast off symbols of repression", Letters, June 17.

I don't know why, but I get the distinct impression that Christy K Sweet just might be Constance Beasley's Mr Hyde.

John Arnone

Yasothon

-------------------------------------

Some feminists need to lighten up a little

Re: "Women need to cast off symbols of repression", Letters, June 17.

Your correspondent Christy K Sweet seems to have issues with men, caused perhaps by the fact that men show little or no interest in her, which is clearly reflected in her letter, but in order to save time and space she could have summarised her views as follows:

Hi everybody, I am a feminist and my motto is "up the women, down the men", and I don't give a damn what people think about this ... as to sex, don't forget girls, it's us who hold the power over men, and rightly so, and as to a women's dress code, don't worry, there is no dress code, just let it all hang out ... signed ... Sweetie.

C Croft

Bangkok

---------------------------------

Amnesties depend on a sound judicial system

I agree with National Legislative Assembly member and Thammasat rector Surapol Nittikrai's intentions in proposing an amnesty for those Thai Rak Thai executives who were, in his words, "clearly innocent".

But, an amnesty is "an excuse or pardon for a mistake or offence" (WordWeb): if the TRT executives were really innocent, convicting them was a miscarriage of justice in the first place, and there's no need for a pardon.

Dr Surapol's analogy that if an amnesty can be granted to military leaders who illegally seized power through a coup, the principle can be extended to the parties dissolved for electoral fraud.

I object to amnesty for staging a coup, but that notwithstanding, there's a fundamental difference between the two groups: he specifies that the soldiers he's helping are those who are really guilty but the party execs whom he would amnesty are "clearly innocent".

Instead of seeking to get forgiveness for those whom we must presume to be innocent, Dr Surapol should work to have their convictions nullified, and to remedy our legal processes so that no more presumably innocent people are found guilty.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

-----------------------------------

End of the road for Thailand's forests

From time to time, you have articles about the terrible loss of trees in Thailand's diminishing forests. You also reported about three months ago on the cancellation of HM Queen's programme for reforestation; your reporter wrote that a new programme was being studied at one of the universities, which would make new proposals in September or perhaps earlier.

A Thai friend of mine told me that she doubts we will ever hear or read about significant reforestation in Thailand. "We like to say that we love the King and Queen, but we don't do what they say."

You have many articles, of course, about the political conflicts here. Yet, you can and should also give coverage to the huge environmental problems. If these are not solved soon, the damage will be seen here long after all the current actors on the political stage have gone.

Thailand has a special opportunity now to get support from the World Bank for reducing the loss of forests. You should report on this soon and follow up often.

Dan Swift

Chiang Mai

--------------------------------

Politician proves the adage: like father like son

By making important enemies across the board in one fell swoop, Jakrapob Penkair seems to have duplicated Thaksin Shinawatra's style of politicking down to a T: making everyone else look bad so that you will be put automatically in a different light. It's as simple as that.

By describing himself as "well-educated", Jakapop exuded the air of self-importance just like his former boss did during his heyday ("I'm a PhD, remember"). One wonders if, by uttering such words, one would still look wise even if one behaves in quite the opposite fashion.

By calling important people names and treating people who contributed to the country since before he was born as bad, stupid and inexperienced and shower praise only on his former boss, Jakrapob tells us so much about his philosophy and politics.

In answer to the question of what impressed him most about the ousted premier, Jakrapob said very succinctly: "He gave birth to my political career". Now we all know what made him tick. The driving force behind this man's political struggle is as grand as his own words suggested.

Chavalit Van

Chiang Mai