richard_smith237

5 hours ago, impulse said:

Nothing is free in the lounges.  It's included in the price you've paid to get into the lounges.

Not quite correct - there are credit cards which give free lounge access.

Where are you taking the dog ? (from where to where)

19 hours ago, Pattaya420 said:

 

In Europe cops got special gear to measure how much light goes through.

 

They don't in Thailand. 

 

I'm not so sure about that... I recall stories a few years ago (around the year 2000) where people were checked and charged for having tint that was too strong. 

What surprised me most about such reports, is that such testing was not more frequent, the Police could make an absolute killing fining people with dark tint. 

Then there is this article from The Tiger (year 2000)... that discussing the 'tint law' - which was stated that tint blocking more than 40% light is illegal. 

https://thethaiger.com/news/phuket/Crackdown-tinted-glass-cars

T'was yet another announcment of a crackdown after which nothing happened !!! 

30 minutes ago, terryq said:

Before deciding on treatment OP needs to get a second opinion.

 

Suggest he go to a different gym and ask the owner there for a definitive answer.

 

He's perhaps better off getting medical advice from a Doctor than a gym owner... 

You first need an MRI to find out whats wrong...

i.e. Meniscus damage... 

Unless your knee is 'jamming' and extremely painful all the time then surgery is most likely unnecessary.

Healing time takes anywhere from a month upwards with a lot of dependant factors. 

For me, sport was painful 6 months later following a meniscus repair (trimmed back a complex tear) and the knee still isn't 100% (I don't think it ever will be), and now the other knee starts to hurt... (its the legacy of way too much sport throughout my life).

On 10/20/2006 at 6:08 PM, zink said:

Yes, get off at the wrong place. For example ticket for: X - Bangkok - Singapore may be cheaper than equivalent ticket for: X - Bangkok. Thus airlines may want to check that people who bought ticket to Singapore aren't leaving in Bangkok...

Its called 'skiplagging' and not illegal from an immigration point of view, but airlines do what they can to stop people from doing this, even banning a passenger from the airline if they are caught doing this repeatedly.

I believe its more common in the states.

I don't think this is the reason for the boarding pass checks at Immigration though - Immigration do not care to do the bidding of airlines, especially if it involves any 'extra' processes or work etc.

4 minutes ago, Captain Monday said:

Oh? 🤣 I see. Nothing has changed. It is a requirement without a punishment.

 

It appears  "17 years later" the Royal Thai Immigration Border management system is so poxy they do not know even what flight a farnags come from by scanning the passport.

 

In US all I do is approach a Global Entry kiosk that scans me face. I do not even have to pull out my passport usually.

Give me Thai Immigration and Suvarnabumi airport over any US Airport and US Immigration and security staff any day of the week !!!! 

In a similar story to the Ops, arriving last month, the immigration officer asked for my boarding pass, I didn't have it...  

My Wife was a couple of rows across and had the boarding passes in her handbag, I was able to ask her.

Then the Immigration office said it doesn't matter and that was that.

So... I'm not sure what the reason is exactly - but they definately want to 'see a boarding pass' or at least be sure that you have one.

I think it may be to stop people doing 'airside visa runs' (i.e. getting a cheap flight, passing through Immigration as if to exit, then turning round and coming straight back in again) but surely that would get picked up on the Immigration Database. 

15 minutes ago, kwak250 said:

No i asked about large sofa's and was told that Ikea have them but after looking there were not any on show that were on the website but they said you can order without actually seeing so that was no good

Which IKEA - the one at Mega Bang Na seems to have plenty of large Sofa's on show...  (at least the L - shaped ones with 3x large seating cushions)

On 9/11/2024 at 11:40 AM, OneMoreFarang said:

What are your thoughts and ideas? Did you buy a high-quality sofa in Bangkok? 

Top floors of MBK....  (a number of furniture shops up there).

IKEA - (Mega Bang Na) contrary to what many state, there is decent quality furniture there

Crystal Design Centre - (Map link) - loads of higher end furniture shops there

Chic Republic - (near CDC or on Bang Na Trat, before Central Bang Na)

SB Furniture Design (plenty around)

Index (plenty around)

1 hour ago, Pattaya420 said:

Dude I race sport bikes 1000cc on track.

I can handle speeds 300km/h+ 

Not down Sukhumvit road Pattaya in a Black Toyota Vios with a 90% tint you can't !!!! 

But I think your point is you have plenty of riding / driving experience - which of course helps... 

...But back to the tint point - it doesn't matter how well we can drive if we can't see a motorcycle in front of us because the tint is too much.

13 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Not at all. Cannabis is being cited by the anti-cannabis crowd when the reality is that alcohol and methamphetine are to blame. Cannabis induces calm, not violent or other abnormal behaviour.

I don't actually know why there may be a 'anti-cannabis crowd'...   

I think the stuff is brilliant - it helps with sleep, pain and relaxation - whats not to like.

I don't like the smell and can find that quite pungent when someone is smoking nearby, but thats no worse than a cigarette - thats more down to a selfish, slobbish and inconsiderate nature of the individual than the 'cannabis' itself. 

I also agree that Alcohol and Methamphetamine cause issues in far greater numbers than cannabis.

BUT... this is not a binary issue....    as in, just because Alcohol and Meth are known for causing problems, it does not mean that by contrast cannabis / weed / Marijuana (or whatever we want to call it) does not cause issues.

Its very clear that the habitual consumption of cannabis and consumption in high concentrations can cause some serious issues.

As with everything, balance and healthy moderation is necessary.

Then there is the point about the widely perpetuated myth that Cannabis induces calm, and not violent or other abnormal behaviour....  

... This is again untrue... in moderate amounts sure, but the same can be said of many things, alcohol included - when considering 'moderate amounts'...  

However, comparing a moderate cannabis user with a violent alcoholic is an unfair comparison. 

Compare someone who has used cannabis in higher doses and we can start to see issues... 

(as I pointed out earlier) Higher dosages of Marijuana do have an impact:

- auditory or visual illusions, pseudo-hallucinations, and ataxia from selective impairment of polysynaptic reflexes (i.e. poor and delayed muscle movement).

In some cases, marijuana use can lead to acute psychosis and dissociative states such as depersonalisation and derealisation.

In much the same manner, alcohol has strong negative effects when taken in greater quantities. 

As such - this dichotomy between Alcohol vs Marijuana seems non-sensical... and the fact that alcohol is famed for causing issues does not negate the fact that marijuana also causes issues, especially when consumed in high amounts - i.e. amounts high enough to induce  psychosis and dissociative states such that one decides to drive a taxi !!!!!! 

37 minutes ago, Seeall said:

Until they can workout how to get funds from weed like they do alcohol in every country suddenly it's healthy and legit to consume as much as possible as long as their pockets keep filling up for their needy coffers

They have already 'worked out how to get funds from weed'...     I thought it was fairly open knowledge that those in positions of decision making authority such as Anutin have very close ties (and partnerships) with many Marijuana projects (plantations) across the borders in Laos and Myanmar....    

...  I have very little doubt that the personal gain / profitability of Marijuana for those in decision making power was the primary factor in Thailands sudden onset of such a loose and deregulated approach by a government normally known for its authoritarian and strictly unwavering governance. 

I think the standard travelling rules still apply then:

1: Only <100ml in your hand-carry luggage.

2: *Take out liquids (if asked to do so)

3: *Take Electronics LapTops / iPads etc (if asked to do so)

*Many aiports no longer ask for the 'show electronics & Liquids' though other may still ask..

The last airport I travelled from (Turkey and also the UK) after check-in and going through security neither security checkpoints (before immigration) required us to remove anything from our carry on (liquids, iPads, LapTops etc) remained our bag... 

(but we still had to remove watches, belts etc)

8 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

11 minutes ago, LukKrueng said:

Have you ever heard or read about such an incident?

 

Yes. Swiss air over Alaska...but it was all hushed up.

Hushed up indeed...     There is no internet source for such an incident anywhere. 

Chat GPT cannot find such an incident.

This indicates that there is no online information at all, anywhere about such an event occurring.

I think it would be extremely difficult to keep such an incident 'hushed up'....    

That said: I'm not claiming you to be lying [Will B]... as I'm already well aware of other circumstances where serious events have occurred and the incident was hushed up (those in power managed to hush the incident - not airline related - and get some online internet reports removed and MSM did not run with the information ether although I am aware of first hand accounts)

4 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

A litre of brandy set alight at 40,000 ft might cause some excitement I imagine....I'd rather no one could do that.

Yet theoretically, everyone can...    and there is nothing to stop them as everyone can buy 1litre of Brandy at duty free... 

... Its not going to bring down a plane... and lets face it...  no one has tried this.

In contrast, even in lower volumes there are liquid substances that when mixed can bring down a plane...    and thats what the 100ml liquid limits were about. 

Now airport scanning machines can scan for dangerous liquids....  and the more update scanners can scan for much more.

There was a discussion about UK airports potentially abolishing the 100ml limit on liquids by 2025. However, this change has not yet been implemented.

That said, security screening procedures in the UK have evolved. You no longer need to remove items from your bag as the new scanning machines can detect everything. This has streamlined the process, making airport security much faster and more efficient.

In contrast, there has been no change in security measures in Thailand. Passengers are still required to remove laptops and liquids, and the 100ml liquid limit remains in place.

1 minute ago, fredwiggy said:

It's definitely safer to drive stoned than drunk, if that's where you're getting at. Impaired driving isn't good no matter what you're on, but alcohol is definitely worse than anything else. Some people should not drive after anything. In fact, some shouldn't drive anyway, but that's another story.

With regards to levels of imparment... 

I'd place 1x 15mg Gummy on a par with about 5 pints - thats just how it impacts me. 

Others may be different. 

I took a hit on Bong last week and was completely smashed...  no way could drive, I couldn't get up off the couch. 

Some who have a better tolerance to weed are perhaps safer after joint than say 4 beers - but its all a fairly moot point IMO...  as both result in impairment and driving really should be a no-go.... 

12 minutes ago, Toby1947 said:

Of course the taxi won't be insured. 😅🤣😂

I've been involved with two incidents (accidents) with taxi's...  Both of them while I was stationary (taxi hit me)... Neither taxi was insured... 

So you are very likely correct - In this case, I suspect the damages will be charged to the foreigner - this is going to cost him a pretty penny.

2 minutes ago, Irish star said:

Should we address you as DR. Or Police Inspector General Richard or Dick I don’t know what you go by lol

Don't address me as anything...  as you lack the intelligence to handle the discussion, simply scroll on past - thats not difficult, even for an idiot... 

And...  I don't argue with idiots so don't take that as an argument, only advice. 

But, I'll be ignoring any of your comments from here on in as not only are getting personal and attempting to turn this into a flame-fest, but you simply do not have anything of intelligence to bring to the discussion. 

3 minutes ago, Irish star said:

Show us your credentials Dr.Smith , I smoke 2x a week because I feel overwhelmed lol

Then scroll on past it if you struggle to read more than 2 lines.

1 minute ago, Irish star said:

All your babbling is annoying to scroll thru , Dr. Ganja lol

Again, scroll on past instead of through.

1 minute ago, Irish star said:

You weren’t addressed as God , Narcissistic or what , fond of yourself huh 

I know.. but your evident absence of sociophonetic grace and lack of punctuation reads otherwise !!!...     

9 minutes ago, Irish star said:

Please go take some puffs and drool away somewhere my god

And remember - I don't argue with idiots and have given you too much time already... 

Stick with the discussion or keep scrolling.

1 minute ago, Furioso said:

If the guy was high on weed he probably would've sat in the taxi and waited for the owner/operator to return from the convenience store and ask "where's the munchies dude?!). 

I'm not sure if he (the foreigner who stole and crashed the taxi) was in the vehicle already (as a passenger)...  OR, was passing by and saw the running taxi and decided to go for a joy ride....   

Could have been either, though I assumed the latter as the the quote below states 'saw the foreigner quickly get into the car and drive off'....

5 hours ago, webfact said:

The taxi driver, Sarayut Panprasong, 37, explained that he had left the vehicle running while he entered the store. He saw the foreigner quickly get into the car and drive off before crashing into a nearby lamp post.

3 minutes ago, Irish star said:

Please go take some puffs and drool away somewhere my god , we have Adults on this forum  , your the Stoner as you admit it 

Firstly, I'm not your god...

Secondly, I don't argue with idiots - if you can't handle the discussion - you are free to ignore it. 

51 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Driving while high on weed is nowhere near as dangerous as driving drunk. I do agree , again, that driving on any substance that can change your reaction time isn't good, but alcohol kills daily, all over the world, and I'm thinking very few have actually died while "just" smoking weed.

Stats are available that highlight since legalisation (or de-legislation) traffic fatalities as result of Maijuana are on the rise in the USA  (according to Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)).

51 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

You have said yourself that you partake. Maybe you don't drive while high, which is good because people know themselves better than anyone else. but you surely know you aren't feeling the same way smoking a doobie than having enough drinks to get drunk.

It is personal experience that highlight driving while high (for me) would be as dangerous as driving while drunk. 

A do agree, the 'impact' or 'effects' of Alcohol vs Marijuana consumption differ, regardless of this different effect - impairment occurs from both.

With marijuana use, higher dosages have serious impact such as auditory or visual illusions, pseudo-hallucinations, and ataxia from selective impairment of polysynaptic reflexes (i.e. poor and delayed muscle movement).

In some cases, marijuana use can lead to acute psychosis and dissociative states such as depersonalisation and derealisation.

The idea that - smoking marijuana 'only' leads to 'chilled out smiley people' is flawed.

51 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

There of course are all levels again, of being high. Two drinks and most can operate a car, along with smoking a little weed. When you get to 4 or more drinks, then attempt is where trouble starts. If you just smoked a whole doobie by yourself, you would surely be able to drive better, but again, everyone's different.

People have the impression they can drive on 4 beers... probably in the same manner they have the impression they can drive on one joint...   Impairment exists in both cases. 

Additionally - similarities exist (though it depends on the cosumption method - injestion or inhalation).

Both a jount and 4 beers will wear off within a few hours to such a level that driving is no longer impaired (ingestion lasts much longer).

But...  both getting smashed on beer or weed, is going to hammer someone sufficiently that driving is dangerous in both circumstances - I don't think there is a valid argument to suggest its safer to drive under the influence of one than the other when heavily under the influence of either.