Online Debate Ignites After Smoker Incident: Police Inaction and Public Nuisance

An online discussion has sparked considerable conversation after a user shared their frustrating experience reporting an individual for illegal smoking in a covered walkway, only to be told by a police investigating officer that no action would be taken. The incident, which reportedly escalated to the user being harassed by the smoker, has opened up a wider debate about public nuisance, law enforcement, and citizen reporting.

The original poster, who documented the encounter, expressed disappointment after the police informed them of their decision not to act. This immediately drew reactions, with many users lamenting what they perceive as a disconnect between strict laws and their enforcement. A user commented:

We have tough laws. But we have police that refuse to fine or punish people who smoke in covered walkway. This is one of the greatest example.

Another user simply observed:

Lao Hero, many around. Smoke everywhere, on footpath, on bicycle, on PMA/D, cig butts on staircases

However, the original poster's method of reporting also came under scrutiny. Some users questioned the wisdom of confronting the smoker directly with a camera. One commenter remarked:

You harness him first what. I’m not saying it is wrong to report him. You can just take the video and photo from a distance and report him. No need to get so close.

Another user echoed this, stating:

You record infront of their face ofc who won't get mad.

The original poster clarified their stance, asserting that they were standing still and the smoker approached them. They later explained their broader intention for sharing the experience:

Yes, I agree—that’s exactly why I’m gathering all the comments in this post. My intention is to suggest to the relevant ministries that the OneService app (and similar government platforms) should include a clear and serious legal warning when users are reporting potentially illegal activities. This would help set proper expectations, inform users of possible follow-ups or inaction, and ensure such features are used responsibly.

The discussion also veered into broader philosophical questions about community dynamics and the role of "snitching." One user bluntly put it:

Snitches get stitches

A user who expressed strong disdain for secondhand smoke pondered the future, suggesting:

Maybe one day, patients with lung cancer caused by excessive smoking will pay a stupid amount because it's their own bloody fault. but patients that get lung cancer but have no records of ever smoking, pay a standard price. And patients that get lung cancer or issues through secondhand smoke, get a discount! because it's really not their fault, they just have to deal with it all the smokers.

The conversation highlighted a tension between citizens’ desire for a smoke-free environment and the practicalities of enforcement, particularly for "non-seizable offences." Many online commenters agreed that while smoking in prohibited areas is wrong, direct confrontation might lead to more problems. The exchange ultimately underscores the complexities of maintaining public order and managing citizen expectations when it comes to reporting minor infractions, prompting a call for clearer guidelines for both reporting citizens and the authorities.