Spock

It says above that tourists booking through the Tunia group typically spend 14,000 baht a day in Thailand! If that's per person, either that's a lot of money or I am the cheapest of tourist Charlies. I'd spend 2000 on a normal day, maybe less. I can't even begin to think how I would spend 14000B a day. Maybe if I hit the Viagra, the bars and the drugs I could make a dent in that amount, but that's not how your average Chinese would spend his money.

19 hours ago, lordgrinz said:

I still go with the training part, its the owner responsibility for what they became. I had a rottweiler that came to me at 1 yr old with issues, by the time I was done with him he wouldn't hurt a fly and was docile, goofy, and lovable to the day he died (best dog I ever owned - miss him every day). Wouldn't fight over food in a bowl, played with children, and even had pet cockatiels that would stand on his back while he smiled. Have had many dogs, I will never accept any aggression of any kind from my dogs, I am the one-and-only Alpha Male, period. 

It's unfortunate you weren't present at the time to prevent the mauling to death of the hapless man.

1 hour ago, MalcolmB said:

So what was the reason?

Leaning on a car?

I doubt it.

The reason is relatively unimportant. What is important is security guards exceeding the action expected of them in the role they should be playing, particularly in the wake of the highly publicised beating and kicking of a Brit. Why do you people all jump to the conclusion that glorified thugs in security outfits have good reason or any reason to put people in hospital via their actions? These guards are meant to exercise restraint and try to calm situations rather than making than escalating them. There is no excuse for this type of behaviour and the first reaction from posters shouldn't be to question reasons behind the thuggery but to condemn violence by people paid to prevent it.

17 minutes ago, Tropicalevo said:

 Oh, that esteemed political tool that sends Burmese back to a war zone.

That sends political refugees back the China and Vietnam etc.

There are very few Human Rights in Thailand.

Medical treatment is a fundamental Human Right. What business is it of the NHRC to decide how that treatment is given?

This is nothing to do with Human Rights. It is everything to do with political removal of the opposition.

Except that it's Thaksin we are talking about here and it's unquestionable he was given favourable treatment that was really nothing to do with human rights. 

3 minutes ago, Matrosen said:

Well, before you ever invest that amount of money into a dodgy business event there should have been made a thorough risk estimation, that a drug can be classified as a drug.ä, after someone declassifying it from being a drug.

It's hardly a 'dodgy business event' when 8000 shops open along with numerous growers and a million people register the 20 plants allowed by law to grow at home. In any normal country, the government would not be flip flopping on such an important matter. Thailand unfortunately elects governments that measure up all too readily with the general apathy directed at politics and matters related to such. Always one step forward then two steps back in Thai politics. It doesn't help credibility when the prime minister isn't even popularly elected or some maggot like Thaksin can pull political strings even while supposedly confined to prison.

4 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

Anutin said recreational use is not permitted.  Growing/selling for recreational use was not a clever move and should not be compensated.

 

Shops are now describing themselves as medicinal dispensary's so clearly they agree and are happy to service that market, or are they being disingenuous?

Happy to service a market with stalks, roots and leaves, after throwing away all the THC containing heads?! That'll make them millionaires overnight!!😁 What about the granting of the right to all citizens to grow 20 plants at home and register this so its legal? Do you think any of them were going to use the crop for medicinal purposes? The message from the government to the people was pretty clear at the time. Die in hell, Thaksin Shinawatra and cronies.

5 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

I don't agree.

 

Anutin said recreational use was not allowed.  If you start a business where your entire business plan is selling recreational then paying any compensation would be madness.

 

We can probably assume that those cannabis entrepreneurs looked at the law and saw there was nothing in place and took the risk.

 

The program with the law is it is a moving target.  Find a loophole and it's likely to be closed.

 

Good businessmen don't bet their livelihood on a loophole.  You don't reward people making those decisions.

8000 dispensaries, many growers and the millions who registered to legally grow 20 plants at home were hardly responding to a loophole, and if it is to be seen as such, it's one that has allowed recreational use to flourish without interference from police or government. To suggest people were not showing good business practice in the circumstances is nonsense. They did what they were permitted to do under the legislation and no doubt believed that the situation would remain the same in the future. 

Then along came arch weed enemy Thaksin Shinawatra and the whole situation changes. He and Duterte made a great pair with their thousands of extra judicial killings of small time users and individuals who had enemies within the ranks of the constabulary.

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

As horrific as it is...  this is what some people are left resorting to taking matters into their own hands as authorities often do nothing in response to complaints about aggressive animals. 

 

 

In the past, I've been on too many beaches in Thailand with aggressive dogs and have concern for my son's safety and end up leaving.

 

 

I've also been at restaurants where dog were around and we had to get the staff to shoo the dogs away - they often start to get aggressive when competing for the possibility of food scraps... 

 

At one restaurant we had a group of young kids playing and the owners dog was nearby - I asked the owner to take the dog away, but she didn't want to until I told her the whole table (of about 16 people) would leave if they didn't... 

The dog may have been friendly, but as the kids were playing and running around in the sand, the dog was attracted to the commotion - I could easily perceive a situation where one of the kids is bitten.

 

You sound like a particularly unreasonable person. You have no right to ask the owners of a friendly dog in a restaurant to take their dog away. I wish the owner had told all 189 of you to bugger off.

1 minute ago, kuzmabruk said:

Those affected are only business people.  Anybody requiring medical cannabis can still get it under the proposed new regulations. 

It would be medical cannabis without THC according to the guidelines, which is not the medical marijuana available in the west, and certainly not what I would need or accept. Tourists are also not going to obtain it as medical weed.