Bday Prang

Nice reply , If I'm honest I didn't expect such unbiased common sense from an ex magistrate, fair play to you sir Regarding the Leah Betts case , if I remember correctly her father was a police officer ( he may have been retired) and after her death he was lauded for starting some sort of anti ecstasy campaign. which I guess was unsurprising considering what had happened. What I did find remarkable was that whilst there was a "predictable" drive to prosecute both dealers and users backed by the usual media hype I don't think that the issue regarding the un availability of drinking water in nightclubs and the fact that bouncers would routinely confiscate water from those who attempted to bring their own, was addressed at the time. In reality the reason for his daughters death, was the incorrect, but no doubt well intentioned advice from her friends to drink a great deal of pure water. Just the addition of some essential minerals and isotonic electrolytes as found in sports drinks would probably have saved her Sadly a clear indication that , as you mentioned, education is very important in such matters. I'm sure you also remember at that time "illegal raves" were all the rage , young people would converge on disused warehouses or remote fields basically just to dance and have fun. The "establishment" were, as expected, absolutely apoplectic about this, it was seen as a very real threat to the very fabric of society, the tabloid media fanned the flames and a great deal of time and money was invested in stopping the "outrage" ostensibly to protect the lives of the young. Those in authority, as usual, completely out of touch, could not see that their actions only made it more popular and attractive to the young. Then there was the doomed to failure, "Just say no" campaign, having learned nothing from America's historical failed attempt at prohibition and still unable to understand that one sure fire way of making something attractive to naturally rebellious teenagers is to ban it. It would probably, actually be more effective to make drug use compulsory, and just watch them rebel against it It's no surprise really that the obvious way forward, like you say, of providing a safe supply of drugs coupled with comprehensive education is of no interest to most governments, who's only real concern is to get re elected , and whose main worry would be the inevitable hysterical media outrage which would accompany any progressive drugs policies In effect the real problem is again main stream media and as a result nothing will change anytime soon Disgraceful in my opinion

Heroin has pain killing benefits whether prescribed by a doctor or taken "recreationally" That is why addicts feel the need to take it. Nothing deals with the pain of withdrawal as effectively, and other than the issue of "quality" it makes absolutely no difference to the user whether it is supplied by a doctor or a dealer The word "recreationally" is actually somewhat inaccurate when used to describe heroin usage, the "recreational " phase is relatively short lived for most people, and the reason for taking it soon changes to one of necessity as physical addiction starts to take hold. There is no recreational value in taking heroin just to feel "normal" as once that stage has been reached the "fun" aspect has gone forever , and its even worse when one needs to take it to avoid feeling like death warmed up. Alcohol for some people works in exactly the same way, there is a huge difference in the user experience for those who enjoy a few glasses of wine with a meal or a fine brandy with a cigar afterwards when compared to an alcoholic satisfying their craving. However nobody here has suggested that alcohol should be supplied by a doctor, despite its dangers, I wonder why that is.

Not much fun owning a BMW if you are going to adhere to the speed limits, a nissan micra would suffice. Plenty of people have also died as a result of BMW's over the years and alcohol or other drugs were not always a contributing factor. I don't want to hear any further justification for these killing machines which are often also used illegally

If you knew the true meaning of "Junkie" you would not have made that ridiculous comment

The reason no alcohol or very little was sold is because , a common side effect for most people who have taken "ecstasy" is that beer tastes highly unpleasant The other more pleasant side effect is the enhanced enjoyment of music which often accompanied by the feeling an urge to dance. Many of the night clubs, in an attempt to mitigate loss of profits due to low beer sales often sealed up taps in the toilets and attempted to sell water at vastly increased prices. It was this that lead to a few cases of serious dehydration, it was not a pharmacological effect of the drug itself More interesting to you may be the case of a girl called Leah Betts who was alleged to have been the first "ecstasy death" in the UK. However it was subsequently discovered that the cause of her death was not the ecstacy itself or indeed dehydration. Quite the opposite in fact, as , following advice from her friends and indeed the government she went to great lengths to avoid dehydration, she was found to have drunk an excessive amount of water , 6 liters in one hour I think was the estimate. This was officially recorded as the cause of her death if I remember correctly. I don't think that small detail ever made it to the front pages

Another very sweeping statement with its origins firmly founded in ignorance, What, would you have us believe, is the magical ingredient that can be added to increase the pleasurable experience of consuming cannabis ? and more to the point where can I buy it? Answers on a post card please

you would be looking for a very long time on Google or anywhere else for that matter to find any mention of the millions of people who have enjoyed an ecstasy fuelled night out without any problems. I'm no lover of statistics but incidents like this are probably less common than golfers getting struck by lightning

Said the warrior from behind his keyboard

"A weed overdose or two" enough said

Some of the news articles used as OP's here seem to be hand picked in order to provoke a similar response, The British , or more specifically white British straight males are an easy target as they are not afforded any protection by any of the anti discriminatory legislation that others enjoy. Some of the anti brit comments on this forum would lead to a suspension if they were aimed at other nationalities or ethnicities

So perhaps a new op should be started , something along the lines of "Methed up madman blames cannabis for psychotic behaviour . Anti cannabis brigade believe what he said without question" As cannabis can be detected in the system up to many days after use, the chances are he never consumed it at all

Pattaya has never been a "family resort" that is just a piece of advertising b/s on behalf of the TAT. Pattaya is a wonderfully wild and wicked hedonistic adult playground and long may it remain so! Events like this will have absolutely no impact on its popularity There are plenty of other places that are more suitable for "family holidays" any body who actually chooses to bring their wife and family here expecting it to be akin to some sort of disneyland is deluded. Their is a good argument for those sort of people to be discouraged from going there at all, the same as taking their screaming kids into pubs / bars

People in court will blame anything in an attempt to mitigate / excuse their behaviour, Lawyers are very inventive. Certain music, films, books, alcohol, drugs, dysfunctional families , racial remarks (very popular these days) psychological issues ( also a current favorite) even just being looked at ! The list is extensive and limited only by the imagination. The intention . without exception, is to portray the perpetrator as a victim himself and gain some unwarranted sympathy , Nobody takes responsibility for themselves anymore, its never actually anybody's fault ! Pathetic

It is all actually very confusing . I just checked the uk Thai embassy website (visa and consular services section) and it is quite specific that only single entry non o visas are available However when applying for a Non O on the e visa website ( just made a partial application and cancelled it) the option for a multiple entry non O is clearly offered I have attached a couple of screen shots which may help below, the first is from the UK Thai embassy's website and the second is from the e visa application website People from other countries should make their own enquiries with their own embassies you may be pleasantly surprised, as I was

Sorry but not correct, read my earlier post , I was specifically told by the embassy to disregard the insurance requirement if applying for a multiple entry non O , The M.E non O visa does not actually give permission to stay for 12 months , (that is a non o type A) It allows multiple entries, each of which allows a 90 day maximum stay The visa itself is valid for a year and with careful use it can enable one to stay here for 15 months This is a perfect example of the inconsistencies that exist between various embassies / countries

Thanks for the advice , no surprise at all regarding the inconsistencies between the various offices, I will certainly ask next time I am at immigration, they are normally pretty easy going at Kap Choeng (Surin) at least they were last time I had reason to visit them , Was the non O multiple entry not included in the covid extensions that were rolled out back then? I could only get a single entry tourist visa at that time but I was here for nearly a year with covid extensions. That might be worth taking note of in the unlikely event that covid resurfaces to any significant degree. A friend at that time changed to a non O Business visa and was most disappointed when he was unable to get a covid extension

I thought the insurance requirement was maybe in connection with applications for the "Non O type A visa" I remember it asking for 40,000 in patient and 400,000 out patient cover which I think is the minimum required if applying for a "Non O type A" I don't recall any mention of covid cover, However you may be right,and the system unsurprisingly is far from perfect

To be honest I have no idea , I'm a UK resident and I questioned the embassy in the UK , I have heard from several sources that the "multi entry tourist visa" is only available from the "home country" of the applicant but I would never assert that this is also the case with the "multiple entry non o" as I am all too aware that nothing can be taken for granted in any of these matters However I cannot believe that this is only available in the UK , I'm thinking it is most likely also available to most "1st world" countries but is possibly also difficult to spot on their evisa websites. I may be wrong but my advice would be for would be applicants to contact their embassies and ask,

Posted 5 hours ago So you quote a small part of the OP where it clearly states he was "drinking at the bar" and then decide to add your own fictional spin on it for reasons known only to yourself. Congratulations just by typing one word you have irrefutably proved that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about

"hard drugs" I love that phrase are you talking about viagra ?

Indeed, I think you have nailed it, Absolutely spot on

Definitely available from london , Once you select the non O option, a drop down menu gives the choice of single or multiple entry, I emailed the embassy back in March to clarify the insurance requirements, as I found that a little confusing, and they confirmed that no insurance is required for the ME non O and instructed me to disregard that section, but their reply was obviously based on marriage as they confirmed that a marriage certificate was required, so I emailed them again, stressing that I would be applying on the basis of "retirement" It states on the website that being over 50 and receiving a state pension is required, with evidence ie a pension statement, or 1 months bank statement ( i think) showing pension payments but it does also kind of indicate that a lump sum would be acceptable ( but no amount actually stated) with 3 months statements required as proof. I am 62 so not yet officially retired, neither do I qualify for a state pension, yet. So I also questioned this, telling them I had in excess of £20,000 in my current account and they confirmed that would be acceptable, (Sorry I didn't ask what the minimum amount was) Unfortunately I left things a bit late, it was getting very close to my date of departure, and although their reply was received in approximately 5 days or so my impatience got the better of me and I settled for a ME tourist visa before they replied to my email. Another point I did not clarify was if any entry on a ME non O, specifically the last one, is eligible as the basis for a 12 month extension, based on retirement or does it specifically need to be a single entry Non O for that purpose? Although that's probably a question that is better directed at the local immigration office here. Has anybody ever gone down that route

It was probably a significant part of her life. and no doubt of some importance to her father and a matter of relief for her mother that she was white

Thank god for that I'll sleep easier tonight, as long as you're sure

then I'll take the fact that you bothered with such a comprehensive reply as a compliment