OPINION

Review vape ban

Re: "Actress' vaping case sparks debate" (BP, Feb 3).

Prakit Vathesatogkit, executive secretary of the Action on Smoking and Health Foundation is doubtless sincere in his convictions. He is also wrong in his conclusion that Thailand is "on the right track by banning e-cigarettes". Digital Economy and Society (DES) Minister Chaiwut Thanakamanusorn is right that vaping should be legalised for adults.

That there are likely or most certainly health risks to vaping is not a sufficient reason to ban it for adults. It should be fully legal for adults and regulated the same way alcohol, cigarettes and a host of other unhealthy lifestyle choices are regulated.

Such legalisation would be a serious hit to the income streams of members of the Royal Thai Police, which we have read so much in recent weeks, as usual. It is not, however, obvious that such a reduction in incitement to extortion and other corruption is so terribly undesirable a collateral outcome of just law.

Re: "In the age of AI, we must major in being human," (Opinion, Feb 5).

Although ChatGPT and other AI products are being refined to become more powerful and productive, it is rather farfetched to suggest they will erode human intellect or create severe ethical or social issues.

Although human intelligence has created many ethical issues, conflicts, and corruption in every society on this planet, we still struggle to understand how animal intelligence is developed.

Before ChatGPT was created, we had Grammarly, Turnitin and other plagiarism-checking tools. These tools are now extensively used to teach how to use grammar and write correctly. We must keep in mind that AI capabilities are conditional. They are based on robust algorithms, are cumulative, and require processing power. If devices using them are switched off, they cease to function. There is nothing to fear as long we are breathing.

Re: "Sign of ignorance" (PostBag, Feb 4).

Perhaps Kuldeep Nagi can better explain his assertion that immigrants in any country are there for only two reasons: either to make money or save money.

While the world is awash with economic immigrants, I can think of scores of other legitimate reasons beyond those Mr Nagi claims, including: seeking personal safety, fleeing war or gang violence, escaping political or religious persecution, pursuing freedom of thought and speech.

Others are fleeing genocide, giving up untenable positions hit by severe negative impacts of climate change or frequent natural disasters, a desire to reunite with family members or friends who immigrated previously, appreciation for another country's culture, seeking better governance and less corruption, preference for warmer (or colder) climates, a desire to live in a cleaner environment, a love of nice beaches or mountains.

Need I go on?

Re: "Unsafe dust levels in 43 provinces, including Bangkok," (BP, Feb 3).

The Post should consider avoiding the use of the word "dust" to categorise the high levels of dangerous PM2.5 particles blanketing 43 provinces.

While dust may be a part of it, the vast majority of the regional PM2.5 pollution is soot and smoke from illegal burning. And in urban areas, road traffic contributes a quarter of PM2.5 particulates, not all of it from vehicle exhausts.

You cannot address a specific problem if you fail to identify it.