MangoKorat

Another stupid post by a member feeling entitled to make inaccurate racist comments. Ban needed.

A few years ago there was a programme on UK TV regarding the harm or otherwise, that cannabis may cause. Perhaps the most striking statement on that programme came from an A & E doctor who said that 90% of his 'customers' on Friday and Saturday nights had injuries caused in some way from drinking alcohol. Those injuries came in many guises, from cuts and bruises incurred in alcohol induced fights to serious injuries following car crashes involving drunk drivers and women who'd been slapped around by a partner who couldn't take his drink. The doctor stated that only a very small percentage of patients were attending A & E for a reason that could be attributed to using cannabis. However, later in the programme there were discussions with various mental health practitioners who brought up the subject of the rising number of young people under their care who were suffering from mental problems, sometimes serious that they attributed directly to the fairly recent availability of very high THC strains of cannabis. 'When I was a lad' 😁, the usual stuff we'd smoke on a weekend was some fairly mild 'hash' (black morrocan) or for the more adventurous amongst us, 'skunk'. In those days, certainly where I lived, 'skunk' was a term used to cover all types of cannbis bud (although I am aware that there are several strains that use the name). The THC content of the hash I don't know but it varied (probably because its pretty easy to cut) but I'd guess it was around 15% at best. The 'skunk' was around 20%. I was a late starter but I'd guess that my mates probably started smoking weed around 18 years old. Today (and I know this for a fact), it is not uncommon for kids to start using weed as young as 12 or 13. It is not at all uncommon for well grown bud to contain over 30% THC these days. The physcs on the programme were not at all simply anti-cannabis types, they were professional people who were dealing with rising numbers of young people, mostly in their early 20's that were suffering serious mental problems and had been smoking weed since their early teens. They produced convincing evidence that showed that these 'new' high strength strains were the cause and illustrated how cannabis was harmful to developing brains. The link between smoking weed and the above problems was clear and even proponents of cannabis on the programme couldn't argue with it. Some in fact, agreed and stated that measures needed to be explored as to how the use of cannabis by these young kids could be stopped. All in all the programme gave a balanced view of the effects of smoking weed and showed both sides of the story.

Well, firstly I think you mean 'experience' - were you smoking when you wrote that? Secondly you are so, so wrong. I broadly support people being allowed to use cannabis but not if they are driving. Its precisely because I have considerable experience of weed that I know that I, and everyone else I know are in no way fit to drive when they have consumed enough. You seem to forget that a lot of people get so $hitfaced that they can't even walk let alone drive. Been there myself and no way would I get behind the wheel of a car. People may think they are OK to drive when they've had a smoke - most drinkers think the same. I don't know where you're coming from here but if you are saying that its fine to drive after using cannabis, that it just a ridiculous way of thinking.

I am not supporting Srettha in any way but I hope you're not suggesting that someone who's high on weed can negotiate a curve safely?

So, if this is brought in, will it also include those Thai's returning from trips abroad? Or are they immune from 'unwittingly compromising' the well-being of Thai citizens?

I really do not want to continue this any longer as I seem to be just repeating myself constantly. However I find I must as you are making statements that are factually wrong and trying to make me out as a liar. If you had read my posts correctly you would note that in one, I said that marriage is not the only purpose for requiring the visa. I'm not about to share my personal details on here, other than to state that I have held a Multi Entry Non Immigrant O Visa for most of the last 20 years. My visas have been issued by The Royal Thai Consulates at Hull, Savannakhet and Ho Chi Minh and the RTE in London. None of them have ever required their stated financial evidence - even though on some occasions it was sent with the application. So yes, I am not married any more however, I am legally entitled to hold a Multi Entry Non Immigrant O Visa and have indeed held one for most years since 2004. Hopefully you will read my posts fully in future and won't be posting any further factually wrong statements. Unlike those who abuse the visa, I am not and have never been, a liar!

Too late to edit, the above should of course say: Living with Spouse OR family.

I am using the full term for the visa here - simply to be able to reply to you. I will no longer be posting after this. I have made it quite clear what my compaints are about from the start - maybe you haven't read through enough? In addition some of my posts have been removed which may lead to some confusion so I apologise if much of what is below is a repeat of what I have previously posted: The fairly new requirement for having to have 400,000 baht in a Thai bank account has come about because of people using a Multi Entry Non-Immigrant O Visa to avoid having to have the same amount for a 12 month extension and 'seasoning' it for 2 months. In other words they have been using a Multi Entry Non-Immigrant O Visa to live in Thailand when they should have been using a 12 month extension of stay. Its clear to me that the 400,000 requirement is Savannakhet's response to that abuse. The correct methods are: Visting a Thai spouse or Family - Multi Entry Non-Immigrant O Visa Living with spouse of family in Thailand - Extension of stay. Official Thai Immigration policy - told to me by a Captain at Suvarnabhumi is that those entering Thailand for the purpose of visiting a Thai spouse should not be using other visa types or 30 day exempts. The correct method of entry for that purpose is a Non Immigrant O Visa. There is no official requirement to have 400,000 in a Thai bank account for a Multi Entry Non-Immigrant O Visa . I can't remember that exact amount that is required but its not 400,000 and there certainly is no official requirement for the money to be in a Thai account - this visa type is for people who do not live in Thailand. Many embassies or consulates that used to offer Multi Entry Non-Immigrant O Visas often waived the financial requirements - London did. There are people, I'm one of them, who have been using a Multi Entry Non-Immigrant O Visa correctly for many years and have now been put at a disadvantage because of this new requirement. I know of quite a few guys who are married to a Thai woman, some have families with them, who work abroad or offshore and intend joining their wives when they retire. I also know of people who use a Multi Entry Non-Immigrant O Visa to visit their kids in Thailand. It can be difficult for someone not living in Thailand to obtain a Thai bank account and some may not either have the 400,000 required or wish to deposit it in a country where they don't live - why should they? The Thai banking regulations also state that a normal bank account can only be held by someone resident in Thailand. To those who say obtaining an extension is an alternative - for someone using a Multi Entry Non-Immigrant O Visa for its intended purpose, obtaining a 12 month extension may be impossible. The initial application involves firstly obtaining a 90 day Non O and not being able to make the application until 45 days have passed. There is then a potential 30 day wait for the extension to be issued. I don't know of anyone who uses a Multi Entry Non-Immigrant O Visa correctly and is able to take a minimum of 75 days off work and it is very much a minimum - you can't rely on that and I wouldn't risk a flight ticket on it. Even 90 days is risky. As I say, this matter has been brought about by abuse and I think I have every right to complain about it. Why should people who have been complying with the rules for years be put at a disadvantage by those who abuse the system? At the moment, those who report from Savannakhet have posted that they only have to show the money in a Thai account - no seasoning. I have a Thai bank account and can put 400,000 in it simply to obtain the visa but I'd be returning it to the UK with me when I leave. How long before the authorities realise that can be done and add the seasoning requirement of an extension? What about the people who've been using the visa correctly but don't have an account? On this forum we often seem to be discussing how to get around Thai visa requirements. I'd suggest that the vast majority of Multi Entry Non-Immigrant O Visa users never visit this forum. The first they know of this new requirement is when they arrive at Savannakhet to obtain a new visa. In other words, the vast majority of Multi Entry Non-Immigrant O Visa users use their visa for the purpose it is intended. Many simply use Savannakhet because they work abroad or a Multi Entry Non-Immigrant O Visa is no longer available in their home countries.

Yes, I'm aware of that but that's not really the point is it?

Maybe you haven't seen the 'discussion' I've been having on this thread?

Apparently not, its been this way for a few months now.

Showing your age there Charles. What's spot the ball......................555

The RTP's detection/investigation skills know no bounds.

Surprised the police didn't blame him - damned foreigners!!!

He's not wrong. When I opened my Kasikorn account the bank clerk asked me if I was married - I wasn't. He next sentence was "I am 30 and have no boyfriend". I knew right then I was in the right country.

The reporter seems to be obsessed with the perp's state of dress. Mentioned 3 times.

Thanks Mike but I understood that much. Its the 12.5% House and Land Tax I'm concerned about. I presume (hope) that actually only applies to those who own rental properties in Thailand. I don't see how Thailand could have the jurisdiction to be able to levy a tax on foreign property.

Absolutely sure. I wouldn't work for the pathetic salary many English teachers in Thailand get.

Is anyone able to clarify that please? Whereas I understand that rental income is liable to income tax, would I be correct in saying that the 12.5% House and Land Tax does not apply to property outside Thailand owned by a foreigner living in Thailand?

I think that's a little out of date. The majority of Thai workers are on very low incomes but talking to those I know, I'd put the average salary at around 15,000 per month these days. Don't forget that it is quite normal for them to recieve an annual bonus = to 1 month's salary - I think in January. A lot simply won't work for 300 baht per day nowadays and leave those jobs to the illegals. My mate has a real problem getting Thai staff for his business and has had to increae salaries to keep them. I agree with your other comments on the whole though but many things are different in Thailand and don't always meet Western expectations. Insurance in general, not only vehicle insurance, can be woefully inadequate in terms of payout level and contain surprising exclusions. My house insurance didn't cover flood or lightning for example. In the example George provided above, the maximum payout for injury is 1 million per person with a maximum per accident of 10 million. 1 million wouldn't go far if someone was seriously injured. These days I think its better to remember that whatever you do in Thailand you are often very much 'at your own risk'. In the case of vehicle insurance, people should check their cover and consider 'upping' sections that are low. I believe that some insurers offer increased cover at a cost but it may also be available separately. The facts are that if you are held responsible for an accident in Thailand and your cover isn't enough to pay the hospital bills of those you hit, you can be taken to court for the remainder.

If you're friend wants to rent a bike next time - tell him to check out the travel insurance companies in his home country. Many don't cover biking but some do. All Clear's Gold policy (UK Company) covers biking and doesn't specify an engine size limit. It also gives you £15,000,000 (GBP) worth of emergency medical cover - much more than the amounts shown in the OP's example. The policy holder must hold the correct licence to ride the bike though and must be riding fully legally in all other respects (helmet etc.)

The only bike rental companies that I know of who claim to have proper rental insurance are the actual Bike Touring companies. A mate of mine has a resort and is often asked about scooter rental - he looked into insurance for scooters and small bikes once and told me he couldn't find an insurer that covers them for rental. Worried about being held liable, he decided to forget renting bikes.

I suspect he would be having more than 1 month off with broken bones.

That is almost certainly from a police roadside camera. Fines from the overhead/fixed cameras normally come from the Land Transport Office through the post and with all the details printed on them. I got one of those photos once but I was stopped near Korat at a regular place for checkpoints (ker ching!) - apparently the camera was 5km back. As per yours, no details whatsoever. I confirmed that I accepted the photo was of my car but that I was not speeding. I was told that I'd have to go and speak to the camera guys 5km back - I suspect as a ploy - them thinking I wouldn't bother. I said OK but I didn't go back and never heard from them. You're not going to be so lucky and it'll cost you more than the fine to go back

Maybe he thought he was at home?