The Airports of Thailand (AoT) has reignited debate over whether smoking rooms should be reinstated inside the country's six major international airports. Citing passenger complaints, health hazards from illicit smoking in restrooms and potential damage to Thailand's tourism image, the AoT has asked the Public Health Ministry to amend regulations and permit designated indoor smoking areas.
While AoT's concerns warrant discussion, Thailand has made internationally recognised progress in establishing smoke-free zones.
In 2018, Thailand eliminated smoking rooms within both domestic and international airports. This action was in line with the 2017 Tobacco Products Control Act and a 2018 Public Health Ministry announcement, which required government agencies and state enterprises, including airports, to declare no-smoking areas to protect non-smokers.
Reintroducing indoor smoking areas would be a step backwards in public health efforts and contradict global best practices adopted by leading airports worldwide. Our airports should remain smoke-free.
Thailand has made big strides in tobacco control, and maintaining a smoke-free airport environment is aligned with national efforts to promote public health. Secondhand smoke remains a severe health hazard, even when confined to designated rooms. Studies have shown that smoke can leak into non-smoking areas, exposing non-smokers to harmful toxins.
Furthermore, airports are high-traffic enclosed spaces where ventilation systems cannot entirely prevent the spread of smoke particles. Forcing non-smokers to share air with smoking areas undermines their right to a clean and healthy environment. The claim that bringing back smoking rooms would improve air quality is paradoxical -- eliminating indoor smoking altogether is the most effective way to protect air quality.
Many of the world's busiest and most reputable airports have implemented 100% smoke-free policies, demonstrating that such a move does not harm passenger experiences.
Singapore's Changi Airport, London Heathrow and all but a few major United States airports do not permit indoor smoking. Despite AoT's claim that "many leading airports worldwide already offer smoking rooms", the trend is actually moving in the opposite direction.
AoT argues that transit passengers with long layovers face inconvenience as they are unable to leave the terminal to smoke. While this concern is valid, the solution does not need to come at the cost of public health.
If the AoT is really concerned on the issue, instead of reinstating indoor smoking rooms, the focus should be on enhancing outdoor smoking areas near transit zones. Airports should designate well-ventilated, covered and easily accessible outdoor smoking areas without forcing passengers to clear immigration.
Thailand has long been at the forefront of tobacco control in the region. Allowing indoor smoking again would tarnish this progress and send the wrong message to both locals and international visitors. Instead of restoring smoking rooms, AoT should focus on enforcing existing regulations, improving communication about outdoor smoking zones and implementing modern, health-conscious solutions that balance passenger comfort with public well-being.
Airports are gateways to a country and should reflect its commitment to a healthy and forward-thinking society. Thailand's international airports should continue to be clean, modern and 100% smoke-free.