Bday Prang

What a load of rubbish, Have you actually read what you copied and pasted ? "one study estimated approximately" what sort of "evidence" is that ??? "Another study estimated,,,,," "around a 10%" likelihood " absolutely meaningless. And then there's "Marijuana use disorder" when was that invented ? What is the difference between the "orderly" and "disorderly" use of "Marijuana" and what is the difference between "use disorder" and the imaginary addiction The risks of "harm" from doing absolutely anything at all increases with frequency and when adolescents are involved so the final sentence is also totally meaningless That entire article is completely made up , just the usual rubbish quoted by those who for whatever reason have an anti cannabis agenda, when they wish to give the impression that their aversions are science based, Totally fictional statistics that can neither be proved or disproved. Are you aware of the origin of the use of the word "marijuana" Why do you think they used that word in the article instead of cannabis? And you were a magistrate ..... oh dear

"addicted" !!! what on earth are you talking about?? You really should refrain from commenting on matters about which you know nothing

Could adopt one "in theory"

but not all of them are excessive consumers of alcohol or vociferous opponents of cannabis, As far as I am concerned no drinker of alcohol has the right to claim the moral high ground over the consumer of any drug. If one had to give an example of hypocrisy its pretty much perfect

Its not just a feeling, its a fact. I guarantee that 99% of the most vocal opponents of cannabis are vociferous consumers of alcohol. Once they have accepted their dependance, as they all inevitably must, their self esteem hits rock bottom, they consider themselves the lowest of the low, until they get themselves nicely misinformed about cannabis via the usual official channels. Then, believing all the rubbish they have been told , about "drugs" they start to imagine that they have stumbled upon a group of people a step or two below themselves in society. Their constant attacks on cannabis users and the vilification of cannabis its self are only an attempt to deflect attention from and sanitise their own issues. Not unlike some of the the very, very unsavory prisoners who picki on paedophiles in prison

So basically, just to clarify, you are up for casual homosexual encounters with effeminate looking men who dress up as women.? Does that make you a member of the LGBGT etc etc community?

What on earth are you talking about,it had nothing to do with him

Pretty much nailed it, apparently according to "experts" their vocal disdain for cannabis and its users is their way of dealing with their own actual addiction to alcohol, A kind of coping mechanism, its a way of them convincing themselves that they are in someway superior because its just beer and not "drugs" they are in denial and its very complicated. Its also hilarious watching them panic on here before a "dry" day with often some smugly posting that they have stocked up, often with ridiculous amounts.

Well said, a successful, wealthy businessman, who moved into politics and has earned himself a seat near the head of the top table again, no mean achievement, esp considering the outcome of the election. it's quite obvious he's neither a clown or a fool, I would also bet that those who, irrationally, get their panties wedged up their a$$ over Anutin are the same people who start wetting the bed at the mention of cannabis

the bottom line would be that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

And he can't even find a stupid one

What do you expect, he appears to have regressed to the age of looking up naughty words in the dictionary

Oh I think most people, who are genuinely concerned about respecting Thai law and indeed Thai women manage perfectly well without any specialist legal knowledge of the laws relating to underage prostitution. or indeed the penalties for breaking them.

Most people, including regular users of bargirls, have never even heard of "the 1996 suppression of prostitution act" . The few amongst us with any knowledge of this legislation, will have their own, probably private, reasons for being so well informed, and in my opinion are to be treated with deep suspicion and kept at arms length. The only people who would feel the need to educate themselves regarding these laws are those who have already broken or are considering breaking them, and are wondering what penalties they might be subject to, if caught and convicted.

what is one of those?

surprised he was considered fit to fly

along with the prosecution of people helping out in the emergency, for visa offences

You sound scared, pull yourself together man for gods sake, were you like this before covid?? no of course you weren't. There are always seasonal viruses floating around, people catch them, a small percentage will die, that is normal. Stop worrying and stop trying to scare others

And you wish it to become Land of Stupid ideas?

And do you think that advice has served you well during your 15 years.?

most peoples 1st class insurance does exactly that

In both cases If , as one would expect, the "rich" person has first class insurance then he pays nothing other than his "excess" his insurance will cover all costs for him, as stated in his policy, that is what he pays them for. It is then up to his insurance company to recoup their losses, Their first hope is to deal with the other persons insurance company but if the amount involved exceeds that companies limit for a single incident,then they would have the option of pursuing their remaining losses directly from the person responsible, through the courts Often not a financially viable option in the first of your examples, and probably practically impossible and prohibitively expensive in the second example you mentioned so, normally the cost will be covered by the insurance company, An incident like the that in the OP won't raise an eyebrow in insurance circles 1.3 million baht is nothing in the great scheme of things. Writing off a brand-new pickup and hospitalising all passengers would cost significantly more and is a daily occurrence, I wouldn't feel too sorry for the insurance companies, any losses they suffer are ultimately just passed on to their customers and I dread to think what the insurance premium costs per year for a rolls royce

I could not care less what happens to him or his bank account or indeed his immigration status, its none of my business.. and he needs to understand that other peoples visa / immigration status and the way they choose to obtain it is nothing to do with him whatsoever. These sanctimonious, self righteous, self appointed, immigration commentators make me want to puke, who do they think they are, ? I bet they were not very popular in school, or anywhere else for that matter

I would say its the retirees who have no wish to learn Thai and are quite happy to be confined to the "ghetto" only leaving it when accompanied by their wives

most of what you have posted is just plain wrong and you should stop confusing and misleading people. The non o visas are not, as you insist "discriminatory" they simply have different requirements, you keep asking why, but you are asking the wrong people. Ask an immigration officer, and his answer will be something along the lines of " because it is" or "because we say so " which is a standard answer any adult gives a pestering child. If you want "preferential treatment" change you visa, but try and get the right one this time eh? maybe you should consider using an agent this time. lol At least stop moaning and insulting people who are better informed than yourself