MangoKorat

Good to see the standard of reporting remains the same - consistently cr@p. Totally confused by the above stories: In the first story the body of an Indian man is found and later identified as 'a 53 year old Indian national, Poulose Varghese.' Then in Update 1 note Update: he's identified as a 53 year old Indian but his name is undisclosed. In the first story the body was found on the roadside in Songkhla on May 15, whereas in the 'Original Story' 'A resident today stumbled upon the lifeless body of an unidentified foreign man on a roadside in the Takua Thung district in the southern province of Phang Nga. Songhla and Phang Nga are distinct and separate provinces. Quite how 'the body of an unidentified woman was found on Freedom Beach in Phuket on May 1' is 'Related Report' is puzzling. Even more puzzling is what this has to do with the murder of the Indian man and the similarity of the report below, somehow escapes me. Still, at least there's consistency. AI perhaps?

Let's not forget here, that no matter who's to blame - and so far that it unknown, the Thai's were carrying a knife! I doubt it was intended for eating Somtam.

The man may have reasons for wanting to bring in his worldly possessions. I would also like to bring quite a few things in this year. Anyone have any recent experience of bringing in a container/half a container? Hassles with customs etc. Anyone know a shipping agent that can 'ease' such imports? OP, if your mate just wants to bring in a few things - pay the extra to the airline in advance, usually much cheaper if you pay on booking. I've brought in all sorts of things - some in suitcases, some in cardboard boxes. I was always within my luggage allowance though (I get extra) so can't comment on the exact cost. I can say however, that nothing I've ever brought in was checked on entry and my things have included a vintage hifi separates system and a 5 ring gas burner!! Extra suitcases just come around the carousel, cardboard boxes usually come as 'oversize baggage' and are picked up from the office near the carousels at Suvarnabhumi, although they sometimes also come around the carousel. Both come with you rather than through customs separately. If he uses cardboard boxes, he needs to pack things very securely as they will be thrown around just the same as everything else is. I'd suggest cling film wrapping them beforehand - usually keeps out the baggage handling thieves.

Don't take it personally - there's a method to my madness - on several occasions I have been admonished for posting correct material that 'someone' considered to be wrongful information - I'm just making a point - not to you - apologies.

I believe they are moving to Thailand but I don't believe for the reasons they state - unless they are as gormless as the bloke I met in Abu Dhabi and I guarantee that despite what he said, he'd met a Thai woman and was about to lose everything he had - p*ssy whipped.

You referred to there being a lot of pensioners on the forum and that prescriptions are not free. I was simply pointing out that firstly people over 60 DO get free prescriptions but they are no longer eligible for state pension at 60. 'OK but the people in question aren't 60 though are they.....I know there's a lot of pensioners on the forum but most people living in the UK aren't.....'

I didn't say they did, I was simply refering to the reply to my post - in factual terms. Just as the statement that 'prescriptions are not free in the UK' was incorrect.

Agreed - and also the right to anonymity until found guilty. It does sound as if they are guilty but as has been witnessed elsewhere, that's not always the case. On the off chance that any of them are not guilty, their lives are already ruined.

Correct, they're not but your information is still wrong. Nobody get's their state pension at 60 either - not now.

Prescriptions are free for all over 60.

Really? You can do that? Great news for me, I've told all my Thai friends not to burn me - just in case there's been a mistake and I'm sleeping heavy.

Yes, I want Thailand to be safer but not just for me, for my Thai friends and family too. Especially when some of those safety issues are simply a matter of the police doing what they are paid to do! You might be surprised to learn that my Thai friends don't find Thailand's safety issues to be 'unique' - they find them downright dangerous and also want change.

Unless one of them is an IT professional, they'll be back home within a year. I kid you not, I once sat talking to a guy in his 40's in the bar at the old Abu Dhabi (flying saucer) airport. He'd been to Thailand for the first time for a holiday a couple of months before - gone back to the UK, sold up and was 'moving' to Thailand. He 'said' there was no woman involved 😁. I asked him if he had a work permit and visa sorted and what sort of work he aimed to do. "Whatever's available" he said, "I know I won't get paid the same but its much cheaper to live there isn't it". He worked in a car factory near Sunderland UK (Nissan I presume) and told me he was aware that Thailand had a lot of car factories so he expected to find work pretty soon. He didn't of course, have a work permit but was sure it wouldn't be difficult to get one. The man was preparing to enter Thailand on a 30 day exempt. Someone had told him he could get a visa in country - he said. He clearly knew next to nothing about what was involved and I didn't have the heart to tell him. I often wonder how long he lasted.

I've heard all this talk about becoming a 'Hub' several times. Isn't Thailand in the wrong place geographically to be much of a hub at all? Besides, the Arab states and airlines seem to have that slot pretty much tied up and shared out between themselves. On the subject of reducing the Minimum Connecting Time can I ask others how they feel about that? Do you want a fast changeover or do you appreciate a break? Personally, I choose indirect flights over direct for various reasons. I get very uncomfortable if I travel for very long periods and get pain in my lower spine. As a regular flyer, like many I'm a holder of 'frequent flyer' status and enjoy lounge access. I enjoy being able to take a break from flying and having a coffee or meal 'on the house'. I also like to visit the duty free shops. If I wanted a direct flight I'd choose Thai or Eva. More often than not recently, my connecting flights have been 2 hours or less apart and with the time taken to disembark, go through security (again!!!) and walk to the next gate, which can take ages at some of the newer, massive, Middle Eastern airports, it can be a hell of a rush. Doha and Dubai airports have trains to take you to the next gate - Abu Dhabi doesn't. Two hours might seem a long time on paper but the reality is very different. I treat my flight and the break between flights as part of my holiday but these short connecting times can make it a nightmare. On several recent flights there wasn't enough time to go to the lounge as the aircraft arrived late. Qatar for example, often have several flights per day from Doha to Bangkok - sometimes within a couple of hours of each other. If I have a choice of a 2 hour connection or a 4 hour, I'll take the 4 hour every time. In addition, I am a smoker and although I can go 12 hours without a fag, I don't want to and that's also part of the reason I choose indirect flights. On one occasion the Qatar ground staff told me there wasn't time for me to go to a smoking room + duty free and tried to rush me through. I told them they could take a running jump and went. When I arrived at the gate I still had to wait 40 minutes before boarding started!!! I knew I wouldn't be holding anyone up.

Mr Stillkicking. I am a complete novice regarding computers etc. and happy to be so. However, I doubt I use even 5% of the programmes available on modern machines. I therefore spend as little as possible on them. A few years ago my old Acer was slowing down drastically and had a few other faults. I replaced it with a secondhand Windows 10 Dell laptop which is now almost 7 years old for less than £150 (7000 baht). It came with a fresh install of W10 and has the following spec. Device name DESKTOP-5CI67CB Processor Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-6300U CPU @ 2.40GHz 2.50 GHz Installed RAM 16.0 GB (15.9 GB usable) System type 64-bit operating system, x64-based processor Pen and touch No pen or touch input is available for this display I send emails, read websites, store and edit a few photos and videos, create a few Word and PDF documents on it - and that's about it. This is one of the best Laptop's I've ever had and if it totally broke down tomorrow, I've had my money's worth out of it. If you don't use it professionally and like me, don't use most of the available programmes, you don't need to spend mega bucks.

It seems that the adverse effects of higher THC cannabis were being reported on well before the current debate began. This report is at least 9 years old and its reference to 'Skunk' as a newer, more potent form of the drug suggests that the report's origins may be even older than that. For those (in the UK) that don't know, most of the cannabis we smoked many years ago was Hash - cannabis resin mixed with other substances and usually contains around 6-8% THC. Remember Moroccan Black?. Some wrongly think that Hash is pure cannabis resin - it most certainly is not (that stuff can be obtained by scraping it off the scissors used for trimming weed and would blow your socks off). Only the most serious users smoked weed or bud - the actual ground up flowers of the plant. It became known in general as Skunk as refered to in the report. A lot of it actually wasn't 'Skunk' which was in fact a particular strain but 'Skunk' in general, usually had a much higher THC content than Hash - from memory around 15 - 17%. Just to throw in a more up to date comparison - Stardawg, one of the 'Cali' strains and the one that was the most popular in the UK a couple of years ago, regularly has THC levels of 20 - 25% and I've seen it as high as 27%. Today, although not regularly available (yet), there are strains containing over 30% THC. The cannabis we all knew and often used, bears no comparison to what's available today - we should bear that in mind when commenting on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_DP4FHzAN0 Just a little addendum to the above, before the more knowledgeable get on my case - I'm fully aware that 'Hash' can be very strong. The 'Hash' I'm referring to above is that which was commonly available in the UK.

I think some of the problem here is that older generations just don't realise that weed today has changed. In many cases it a totally different product to what most of us smoked when we were younger. This perhaps explains it better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnqVDHywW1U

I was not and never have, referred to addiction. I've never subscribed to that one. The current problem is mental damage to those with brains that have not yet fully developed. Having been a supporter all my life and never believing any of the rubbish put out by many of the world's governments, I began to have doubts a few years ago following reports of psychiatric problems. The reports were not regarding cannabis in general but specifically the newer, high THC 'Cali' strains and their effects on people who started smoking those strains regularly whilst they were young. I then saw the documentary that I have mentioned - which again was specifically reporting on the same, very high THC strains. The unbiased way that the reporting was carried out and the scientific explanations convinced me that those strains could indeed be harmful to young people. My 13 year old grandson has smoked weed and tells me his mates at school are regular users. I put that down to the lower prices that have become the norm in the UK after the Albanians took over much of the trade. No way could I, at 13 years old, have afforded to smoke weed at the prices it was back then. Also, and I know this for a fact, young customers are not interested in just getting high, having a laugh or just a good time on weed - they are not happy if they don't get 'off their heads' on it. I don't smoke weed myself these days - simply because after quite a few years of no adverse effects, it started making me paranoid - every time. No idea why, it just did so I stopped. However, when I did smoke it I wasn't looking for what these kids are looking for and neither was anyone I knew. I don't see the point of whatever they get from it if they can't remember it the next day. The product has changed and the reasons for using it have too. Its also a fact that you build up a tolerance to it after many years of smoking - you might not notice the increased strength of the more popular strains so much because no doubt you will have built up such a tolerance. You suggest yourself that the problems could be down to the user and you are probably right - I seem to remember the documentary stating that it didn't affect all youngsters in the same way but so what? If the product is now available to and being used by very young kids and does cause the harmful effects that are being reported - even to just some of them, should we not try to prevent such youngsters from having access to it? Or should we say, "oh, it only harms 10% of them so leave it, its fine"? Young, developing brains are at risk in many ways and from the reports I've seen, I'm happy that measures should be taken to try and prevent it being available to youngsters. What might achieve that is to dish out far higher sentences for the production/supply of high THC strains. Sorting out who has and who does not have access to such strains would be impossible and I simply don't see the need for such high THC levels. In my opinion, there is a case for regarding these higher THC strains as deserving of a higher classification. Faced with much higher sentences for producing/supplying weed with over, say 20% THC, growers might think again before producing it. I know of quite a few dealers that only sell weed and not on any moral grounds, they are simply out to make money but aren't prepared to take the risk of the much higher sentences they would get if caught selling Class A for example. That would also have te effect of pushing up the prices of the higher THC varieties which would make them out of reach for most of the youngsters currently buying weed Its like a race out there at the moment with seed banks and growers competing to see just how far over 30% THC they can go. It just not necessary. Someone on here a few weeks ago was suggesting that its OK to drive when you've smoked weed. I'd suggest that that person has never tried any of the high THC strains. The very thought of anyone driving in the states I've seen some people in after smoking these days worries the hell out of me.

https://www.warwickshire.police.uk/news/warwickshire/news/2023/july/cannabis-farmer-sentenced-to-28-months-in-prison/ https://www.essex.police.uk/news/essex/news/news/2024/march/southend-man-jailed-following-investigation-into-cannabis-farm/ Just a couple, there are hundreds. The sentencing guidelines for all cannabis related offfences changed in 2012 with much lesser sentences for simple possesion for example, being handed out. However in recent years the sentences for 'Production of a Class B Drug' have been increased in some cases - in particular, through 'case law' arising from an appeal court decision in 2011. That decision sort of 'threw the cat among the pigeons' for a while until the new guidelines came out. Basically they now target commercial growers. https://www.release.org.uk/blog/how-do-new-sentencing-guidelines-impact-cannabis-offences The approach these days is to be lenient with users and small 'home growers' but harsher with commercial growers. Again though, as its a non violent offence, the state of the prison population plays heavily on the sentencing rates.

I am or was 'connected' with the industry both in the UK and Thailand - I'm not about to elaborate on how but I still know people who are in the business. A mate in Thailand has run a very big grow for many years and he can't wait for it to be made illegal again. His prices have dropped over 50% since 'legalisation' - not my words, his.

I was telling you to do the search yourself but it was clear from your first reply that you would simply say any evidence is just BS. Tell me, what's the point in arguing with a closed mind? You most likely wouldn't believe it if it happened to a relative. I have stated that I am a cannabis suporter but my mind, regarding the effects on young people, was changed by the EVIDENCE I saw on a totally unbiased documentary. I have my views but what makes us different is that I don't have a closed mind. People used to think the world was flat - clearly some still do. I repeat, if you want to read the evidence, do a google search on the subject. There are literally hundreds of studies and their results available. I'm not going to waste my time posting evidence for someone who wouldn't believe it, no matter how strong it is.

That I very much doubt. Quite often sent on your way without charge but handing it back? The police officer himself would be facing a charge for that.

Then they were very lucky, although I'm almost certain you've missed a little bit off that, it would be extremely rare for them to have only got community service - almost certainly accompanied by a suspended sentence. Loss of crop is not part of the criminal sentence - it comes later in the proceeds of crime hearing. If your mates had any money a Proceeds of Crime investigation would follow the criminal case at which time they would be ordered to pay sums equal to what the police 'think' they'd earned based on the evidence available. If the defendants don't appear to have any money, they don't usually bother with that. Two of my mates got jail - one got 4 years, first offence, mind you he did have 1200 plants (various stages). Another got 2 years for 36 flowering plants, 36 vegging plants and 200 live cuttings. Jail in the UK very much depends on the area and how much space there is in the prisons. Judges are regularly told to only send the most serious cases to jail as they are full.

The price of cannabis also determines who is able to buy it. Weed in the UK was, for many years, grown mostly be locals with relatively small grows. Good quality weed was, until around 5 years ago, bringing £170 - £200 per ounce (to the grower). Then the Albanians, having taken over the UK's cocaine market, moved in to cannabis and dropped grower prices to around £100 per ounce - with an obvious knock-on to street prices. Local growers, not prepared to risk jail for that price, got out of the business. Hence, the product is now within the grasp of much younger buyers which is probably why we are seeing an increase in psychiatric problems amongst the young. Cannabis prices in Thailand have fallen through the floor since 'decriminalisation' - which could be why there are so many reports of youngsters there smoking it - and the associated reports of social problems.

It has never been OK - its just something that is rarely enforced and when enforcement does take place, it is more for the benefit of those doing the enforcing and too little to be preventative. There is nothing to say that if/when cannabis is recriminalised in Thailand, that the law on that will be enforced either.