At the bustling Suvarnabhumi Airport, air passengers eagerly await the call to board their flights, and a burning issue is at hand—smoking rooms, or rather, the absence of them. Airports of Thailand Plc (AoT) finds itself in the middle of a fiery debate as it seeks to reintroduce smoking rooms across its six major airports. The saga began as AoT raised concerns over passengers lighting up in unauthorized zones, posing significant health and safety hazards, stirring a fit of controversy. (Photo: Airports of Thailand)
Yet, the road to reinstating smoking rooms seems clouded with uncertainty. Public Health Minister Somsak Thepsutin has made it clear that there’s no mad dash to implement these changes—at least not before thorough scrutiny. On a recent Thursday, Somsak mentioned that a dedicated working group is currently evaluating the implications of such facilities inside international airport terminals.
In a move that stirred anticipation and speculation, he took to Facebook a week prior, stating that there’s no specific timeline for the committee’s comprehensive evaluation to reach its verdict. “This issue demands a precise approach to resolution,” he asserted. The working group has to first deliver its findings to the National Tobacco Control Committee, which will decide without any haste, ensuring every aspect is covered.
The minister even hinted at stiffer penalties as a deterrent for offenders—particularly those flouting rules in public spaces, including airports. Smokers may have to shell out up to 5,000 baht should they surrender to the temptation indoors.
As the public health minister and the chair of the formidable National Tobacco Control Committee, Somsak Thepsutin’s stance is pivotal. His committees’ decision will ultimately decide whether the AoT gets the official nod to amend existing public smoking regulations. This puts AoT at loggerheads with determined anti-smoking advocates who are vociferously against reopening smoking rooms in its network of airports, which includes Suvarnabhumi, Don Mueang, Hat Yai, Phuket, Chiang Mai, and Mae Fah Luang Chiang Rai.
Back in 2019, a sweeping decree saw the eradication of all indoor smoking rooms at Thai airports under rigid legislation crafted to curb smoking habits. Since then, smokers have had to step briskly outside if they seek solace in a quick nicotine hit. Undeterred by the strict laws, AoT has recently motioned to resurrect these sections, attributing it to mounting nagging from passengers stuck on long layovers, desperate for a smoke.
AoT backed its plea by revealing that restroom clandestine puffs and unauthorized smoking were rampant. It was also highlighted that some addicted passengers gladly cough up the penalty fee just to feed their habit.
Underlining potential dangers, AoT president Kirati Kijmanawat warned of the increased risk of fires due to illicit smoking within airport premises. He also pointed out that several regional competitors like Changi Airport in Singapore, Indcheon, South Korea, and Japan’s Narita and Haneda airports, offer designated smoking areas indoors, hoping to strengthen AoT’s position.
However, Action on Smoking and Health Foundation (Thailand) has countered these claims, championing a list of entirely smoke-free airports such as Chicago O’Hare and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta in the United States, among the busiest in the world, and adamantly putting forth public health over smoking convenience.
The anti-smoking emissaries stress the necessity of prioritizing the well-being of passengers and staff over accommodating a habit viewed as toxic, citing a statement from the United Nations Human Rights Council. As a member nation, Thailand’s recognition of access to a “clean, healthy and sustainable environment” as a human right serves as a firm standpoint.
Furthermore, last Saturday saw the UN agency reinforcing the ethos, “Smoking rooms at airports have been closed for six years. There is no reason to go back to rebuild them.” Such sentiments form the backbone for the campaigners firming up their resistance.
Minister Somsak reiterated the need for an exhaustive analysis, which should evaluate every aspect, weighing gains for tourism against potential detriment to public health. The balance remains precarious as AoT and anti-smoking advocates continue to stand on opposite sides, locked in this heated debate.
Editorial Note: Perhaps it’s best to simply kick the habit altogether—smoky sentiments notwithstanding.
This is a ridiculous issue. Smoking room or not, people are going to smoke anywhere they want. It’s about time AoT reinstates these rooms for the comfort of passengers who do smoke.
But what about the health of non-smokers and staff? Reintroducing smoking rooms is a step back. We should focus on discouraging smoking altogether.
I get your point, Sophia, but we’re talking about airports handling thousands of people daily who are from different cultural backgrounds. Let’s not force smokers to go outside all the time.
Totally agree with you, John. Creating designated areas prevents rule-breaking and fires. It’s about management, not promoting smoking.
Think about the secondhand smoke! It’s not just an inconvenience, it’s a hazard to everyone around. We should maintain a health-first approach.
Secondhand smoke is indeed dangerous. Smoking should remain an outdoor activity. Clean air is a human right!
True, Lisa, but how about travelers on long layovers? They have rights too. Perhaps improved ventilation systems for smoking rooms could be a compromise.
I’m appalled at the double standards. Other major airports have smoking facilities, why should Thailand be any different?
Restoring these rooms sets a precedent for catering to unhealthy habits. We need policies that foster better public health!
Honestly, let adults make their own choices. If they prefer smoking, let them. Everyone should be responsible for their own actions.
Agreed! Personal freedom should be respected, but not at the cost of others’ health. Maybe a separate terminal?
A separate terminal could work, but that’s costly and impractical. It’s a tough balance to maintain really.
Why are we even considering this? Let’s not open the floodgates to more smoking-related illnesses. It’s a no-brainer.
Smoking might be harmful, but air travelers need options. This isn’t solely about health, that’s kind of naive.
Naive or not, JetSetter, I agree with HealthGuru, revisiting old habits doesn’t suit sustainable growth. Let’s think green.
Science can offer solutions! Maybe with proper filtration systems, these rooms could reduce the risk. Innovations exist, folks!
I just see this as AoT caving to a minority complaint. Public health must be a priority, not unsustainable habits.
Emily, isn’t ignoring smokers’ comfort counterproductive? We want travelers to choose Thai airports after all.
Possibly, but if we consider long-term societal health, short-term discomfort isn’t that great a sacrifice, is it?
What about vapes? They could be a solution, if deemed safer. Less smell, less smoke, more acceptable?
Back in my day, smoking was allowed everywhere. If people knew how to manage it then, they should know how to now. Just saying!
Joe, times have changed. We know much more about health now. The old days weren’t necessarily better.
Let’s be real, accommodation is key in hospitality. Airports should think about smokers too—like it or not.
The bottom line is about convenience against community. Which do we value more? Maybe the UN agency is right.
Just a thought: what about designated outdoor smoke-friendly benches far from the building but within safe distance?
It’s about national pride, folks. Do we want to be among the best in public health or last in smokers’ rights?