Jump to content

bobbin

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    2,379
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by bobbin

  1. 19 hours ago, khunPer said:

    From the OP-article...:whistling:

     

    One change that may make a difference to how recreational users are behaving is that the gazette order now restricts the consumption of cannabis products on the premises unless it is for medical purposes.

     

    This means that cafes connected to shops selling weed will have to stop allowing people to smoke or vape it on the premises

    Huge difference from your original statement..

     

    "If you read the news, you cannot smoke it..."

     

    Only change being that you can not  smoke on the premises of the shop selling..

     

     

     

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  2. Just now, Lacessit said:

    Perhaps your software does not enable an ability to cancel the pop-up, mine does.

    Summary for you: Change of Immigration law there means if a retiree does not cough up USD 200,000 on deposit in an Indonesian bank, they are required to leave after 180 days.

     

    I quote:

     

    "The real catch causing uproar among existing and prospective expat retirees is that the new visa is supposed to replace the current retirement visa – the KITAS (KITAP for longer term).

    The retirement visas have been in place for years, allowing people over 55 to use their home nation’s pension or savings to settle in Bali, get a long-term home lease and hire staff to service it. The only caveat is that you have to show proof of having the money to sustain yourself, have health insurance and a guarantor, usually organised by a local visa agent. KITAS/KITAP holders also cannot work or earn income in Indonesia.

    Although it allows holders to work, the new Second Home Visa has other restrictions. To qualify, a deposit of approx. $200,000 is required to be made into an Indonesian bank, and to remain there for the duration of the visa (five or ten years). Alternatively, a “luxury home” may replace the bank deposit as surety. The definition of “luxury home” is unclear, and it only applies to certain types of leases. There are also many restrictions on foreigners owning property in Indonesia."

    Thanks for the summary but I went back to the site and the pop-up was not longer there.

     

    Bad Public Relations, but these are the people who shoot Australian citizens, so I was never going to give them my money anyway..

     

    Lots of beaches in Asia.

  3. 3 minutes ago, marin said:

    You highlighted it not me. Its a fact for many hotels and also my opinion. Just a common courtesy I believe should be observed. A stinky room does not present a good impression to the next guest. I like weed and smoke it daily, but would never smoke it in a room where it would create a stink. Different strokes I guess. You have pool areas, gardens and roof tops where you can partake. 

    So not illegal.

  4. 6 minutes ago, marin said:

    No you cant. Its not legal to smoke in hotel rooms in Thailand. Cigarettes or weed. Use the balcony or simply go outside somewhere. Its legal but simply use common sense where to have a puff. 

    Is the high-lighted text a fact or your opinion?

     

    Many hotel rooms do not have a balcony. There may be no-smoking floors, but a hotel which has a blanket no-smoking policy is discriminating against customers.

     

    To the OP's question, I have smoked cannabis in hotel rooms for more than a half-century, up to and including 5 star hotels. During this time cannabis was completely illegal, yet I have never been questioned. Hoteliers are sophisticated business people and do not inconvenience their customers.

  5. It's simply astounding the amount of ignorance shown by the posters high-fiving each other at the thought of pushing that evil devil's lettuce back into the shadows..

     

    That they all seem to completely lack the basic facts, i.e. cannabis is completely legal, is no deterrent to them.

     

    Read the law and weep..

     

    Those of us who do understand can't be bothered to keep trying to educate these people.

     

    Reality will do that for us..

    • Like 1
  6. 18 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

    Probably not...

    "The house owners said that insurance had agreed to compensate them for the damage". 

    I saw the highlighted text but wondered if there was some subterfuge going on..

     

     The idea that an insurance company agreed to pay out with an unlicensed driver is very hard to comprehend..

     

    Maybe the fact that it was property damage on private land, not a public highway? Not a traffic accident per se.

×
×
  • Create New...