JonnyF

14 minutes ago, cocoonclub said:

Correct. I am not aware of age restrictions regarding cannabis sale or consumption. What law exactly is that?

 

Think? What does the law say?

 

What “basic laws”? You didn’t mention any such laws. And your Wikipedia article (which I don’t necessarily consider a proper source for legal questions anyway) also doesn’t mention any such laws. 

Well you are aware now. 20. 

The age is 20.

It's in the Wiki article here seeing as you missed it.

And if you don't beleive Wiki it's also clear in these 2 articles.

https://www.tatnews.org/2022/07/rules-and-regulations-concerning-cannabis-and-hemp-use-in-thailand/#:~:text=Thailand's Ministry of Public Health,have permission from a doctor).

https://www.nationthailand.com/in-focus/40016730

So Cannabis is not "for the most part" legally the same as stones or fresh air. It's complete different in fact.

54 minutes ago, cocoonclub said:

I meant what I wrote. It’s not my fault that you didn’t read what I wrote. 

 

I didn’t write that’s is like a stone or fresh air. I wrote that “For the most part, Cannabis has the legal status of stone or fresh air”.

 

According to what law exactly? I am not aware of any such age restrictions. 
 

Not sure why I would spend time at the police. But thanks, and indeed there are great Thai lawyers, some of which I work with on a daily basis. Provides a different perspective about the legal system in Thailand than the barstool nonsense that’s being parroted by some farangs. 
 

 

You're not aware of age restrictions? You think 7 year olds can legally buy and use Cannabis in Thailand? ???? I think you're confusing it with stones and fresh air again.

I'm not surprised you need lawyers on a daily basis if such basic laws escape your attention (even when the answer was in the link I provided). 

A very poorly written UK hit piece by some random publication.

Not sure how this qualifies as World News. 

4 minutes ago, cocoonclub said:

I would let my lawyer do that if I think there’s reason for it. 
 

I wrote “for the most part”.

 

No, that’s not correct. The law doesn’t say anything about THC levels that can or cannot be smoked and it doesn’t say where it can be smoked. 
 

This would imply that you’re smoking in public, thereby violating laws against causing public nuisance. So I don’t understand why in such situation you would want to explain the legal status of weed to them, or why you would think that there’s reason to do so. The police would have arrested you for causing public nuisance, not because you have THC in your system. 

So what you really meant, is that it's nothing like a stone or fresh air ????.

The plant is fine, but yes there are laws regarding THC content for extracts. I don't believe such laws are in place for stone extract or fresh air extract? There are also age restrictions for Cannabis but not stones or fresh air as far as I am aware. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_Thailand

Enjoy that time at the police station with your lawyer. Thai lawyers are great, and really cheap too!! ????

29 minutes ago, cocoonclub said:

I don’t think so (and anyway it’s not up to the police to interpret laws because that’s what courts do).
 

For the most part, cannabis has the legal status of a stone or fresh air. It’s simply a substance that exists and it’s not in any way regulated or even criminalized by laws. Minor exceptions are certain extracts as well as laws against causing public nuisance (which I don’t think even mention cannabis specifically but can be used against many different things including drinking in public). Put differently, there doesn’t seem to be anything in the law according to which you cannot sell, buy or consume cannabis. 

It shouldn't be up to police to interpret laws, but this is Thailand we are talking about so that is the reality. Feel free to argue with them about the exact text of the law while sitting at the police station but a bit of common sense and a knowledge of how Thailand works can avoid all that.

No it doesn't have the legal status of a stone. There are different rules surrounding the sale of flower vs extract for example. The levels of THC permitted, where it can be smoked etc. Try sparking up outside the police station on beach road, and when the Police come for you, reassure them it's the same legal status as a stone. Don't forget to report back how that went for you...

32 minutes ago, Henryford said:

It would help if the Government (including Anutin) gave a CLEAR decision on if cannabis can be sold. Half the shops in town seem to be advertising joints for sale.

I think the law is reasonably clear but leaves enough wiggle room for the police to interpret it in a way to benefit themselves.

Common sense would be the best policy. A couple of joints in your own home while not bothering anyone will be fine. Spark up while walking down Pattaya's beach road with a ghetto blaster on your shoulder and your Bob Marley vest on and expect a few hours at the police station and a fine. 

I purchased some (for medicinal purposes) on Tuesday night from a shop on Sukhumvit 23. They offered me a branded bag to carry it in but I declined and put it in my bag before heading to the bar for a beer. Yes it is legal, but if you flaunt it then expect problems.

8 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

No, it’s not. 

 

Answered all these yesterday, twice- though the second time you posted this list it was removed by a moderator…

 

I am defending no one, just asking you to provide evidence for your claims. I made my views on racism very clear yesterday, so convincingly you changed your stance on exposing racist behaviour. 
 

Where have I said I look up to MM or this individual who is not part of this topic as far as I can see. Deary me, and you accuse others of gaslighting.
 

‘Tis to laugh. 

I've provided evidence. 2 provable lies. One exposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and one admitted by the couple themselves. Hard to get more evidence than that. Just because you pretend to ignore it makes no difference to it's existence.

I changed my stance on nothing, you're making things up again ????.

Anyway, your gaslighing is getting boring. I abhore racism, which is one reason I dislike Harry. I dislike liars, which is one reason I dislike Markle. I have no time for gaslighting either.

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Yes, it's been a big plus for the UK economy. You've made some ridiculous comments in your time, but this one has got to be up there in the top 10.

I said UK taxpayers money is no longer diverted to the EU. Don't misquote me.

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

You should alert the Belgium police. I'm sure that they are keen to gather as much evidence as possible. 

 

Can you share any of your evidence on a public forum?

I've posted about 10 links in this thread already. Would you consider suitcases of cash as evidence? How about confessions?

https://www.ft.com/content/e3bfd079-5cc7-4f64-9db6-941ca9d5c3d0

https://www.dw.com/en/reports-eu-corruption-scandal-politician-partly-confesses/a-64168454

Just now, Bluespunk said:

Piers Morgan claims are opinion from a person with a very public grudge against MM. They are not evidence her intent is lieing in order to trash her family/the British public as you claimed. 
From the article 

 

“In an explosive chat on US TV, Piers defended the royals – and said a total of 17 of the claims made in the interview are either untrue, inflated or impossible to prove.”

Again I asked you to prove she lied and her intent was to trash her family and the British public as you claimed. That article does not do this. 
 

Opinion panels are not evidence. I asked for evidence…still waiting. 
 

 

 

 

You have evidence. The wedding story. Ignore the others all you like. One is enough anyway. It's like saying you didn't kill someone because you only fired one shot ???? .

They admit their own lies, even if you don't. Here is another provable lie.

https://meaww.com/it-wasnt-a-blind-date-prince-harry-meghan-markle-slammed-lying-how-they-first-met

Here are 3 provable facts for you.

1. Meghan is a liar - proven

2. Harry embarked on racist behaviour - proven

3. No racism has ever been proved in the Royal Family (except Harry).

Why are you so intent on defending liars and racists? Very odd. Strange people to look up to. Do you idolize the proven liar Jussie Smollett as well?

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

Yes. It appears that the European authorities are keen to get to the bottom of this asap.

They better have a diving bell. This runs DEEP.

2 minutes ago, bendejo said:

Has Meghan run off with Kanye yet?

Maybe next season.

 

 

I think Jussie Smollet would be more suitable for Markle.

They are equally believable.

6 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

No you haven’t. You showed she lied about her wedding vows but nothing else. Even then you failed to show how that was related to your claims on trashing her family/British public. 
 

Good, you admit your claim about a pack of lies cannot be proved. 
 

I asked you to back up your claims on intent with evidence, not opinion from a youtube channel. Something you have conspicuously failed to do so far. 

Is gaslighting all you have? Here are the 17 provable lies, including the one about getting married before the real wedding. That's just 1 of 17.

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/the-17-lies-piers-morgan-claims-meghan-markle-told-in-oprah-interview/news-story/9882f8f96cad47ad5b9587081245a6b4

Another example, her passport was taken from her (yeah right) yet she went on multiple overseas trips. 

How about this one, where they even admit their own lie. ???? They tell so many they can't even remember what they said previously.

https://meaww.com/it-wasnt-a-blind-date-prince-harry-meghan-markle-slammed-lying-how-they-first-met
 

They certainly learnt from the Oprah interview for the Netflix series. I'll give them that. It's a shame you can't learn something by watching the video of the panel of experts, but it seems you know it all already ????. 

59 minutes ago, Credo said:

I find the vitriol against Meghan to be interesting, especially when you compare it to things like frolicking topless at a pool and having your toes sucked on by a man you aren't married to, or trying to sell access to him.  

Not particularly interesting. A rather boring diversion actually. Those off topic things happened decades ago whereas The Netflix series dropped last week.

Presumably you also find it interesting that the war in Ukraine is in the news all the time, whereas the war in Vietnam never seems to be in the news. How weird is THAT!!!??? ???? I mean, it must be racism/ageism/misandry against Putin, that's the only logical explanation I can come up with ????.

Good to see things moving swiftly with the extradition process in this "major" corruption scandal.

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/12/20/italian-court-approves-extradition-in-european-parliaments-qatargate-case

50 minutes ago, The Fugitive said:

It was, one of the very best productions I have ever seen. Superb acting too.

And Jenna Coleman. Oooooooweeeeeee. ????

16 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

1: no not really. 1 lie a pack does not make. Nor does it back up your assertion on intent of trashing family/British public. 
 

2: I never commented on this, so not sure why you continue to raise this issue. I mean thank you for supporting my view  that racism should be exposed despite it countering your claim that

Still good to know you have come over to my point of view.

 

3: I didn’t say there was. I merely stated racism should always be exposed in response to your view there was too much talk about racism.
 

A view you now appear to disavow since excepting my premise. . 

Well, seeing as you don't accept my view on Meghan's behaviour and seem to have a somewhat unusual way of interpreting human behaviour (I mean that in the most polite sense), maybe you could watch the opinions and analysis of 4 independent experts with decades of experience in the field of human behaviour (3 Americans, 1 Brit). 

Spoiler alert ; They think she is lying/acting/manipulating the same as I do.

At least she's learnt to be so consistently vague that her lies are becoming more difficult to prove, unlike the porkies in the Oprah interview. 

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

You said.

 

You could acknowledge you were completely wrong or continue deflecting, a Vice president is not small fry and there will be more MEP's to follow and possibly other Vice Presidents

Well, shooting someone in the head is a mechanism for removing someone.

I was referring to direct Democratic processes that involve the citizens of a country/union having a direct say in the election of the most senior politicians.

The EU is several steps away from direct Democracy, by design. Hence, the corruption and "selected " officials being removed by other selected officials.

A massive stitch up which is starting to unfold. These things take time. The direction of travel is clear. It's a slow burn, but compelling viewing. 

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

One EU Vice President has already been removed, other MEP's will follow

Small fry. Try removing the big fish. 

But yes, I meant removed by direct democratic process. Not removed like Prayut might remove a problematic underlying.

51 minutes ago, RayC said:

What solutions are they? I read the article and glanced through Orban's speech but can't spot any proposals. Perhaps you could spell them out for me?

 

Again, perhaps you could give some examples? 

 

It would take more than one member state to launch a mutiny but, what's your point? One member state appears to be unhappy? That's unfortunate. However, if Hungary feels so strongly about things they could always leave. After all, they need only look at the example of Brexit to see what opportunities present themselves outside of the EU.

Why would they leave? Hungary has a great deal. They get a shedload of cash but do nothing but complain.

They're the Harry and Markle of the EU. I actually hope Hungary stays ????.

1 hour ago, RayC said:

Maybe don't post a link about an EU-Thailand deal in the first place then.

 

Anything new to add or can we expect  links to China Today, North Korea news, etc restating exactly the same article?

Let's see. I'll keep my ear to the ground for you. 

Glad you appreciate my efforts.

38 minutes ago, candide said:

I imagine! What a lame reaction from a government which is going to get EU funding cut over corruption. I wonder who could it take it seriously?

Seems all is not well at the EU. Corruption, dissent, recession, energy crisis.

It's a good job there's no mechanism in place to remove the bigwigs or they'd be toast.

3 minutes ago, candide said:

From the Orban government! ????

Indeed. Imagine that, lectures on morality and integrity from the Orban government. Makes you realize how the EU's reputation has tanked.

Fortunately, UK taxpayers money is no longer being diverted to assisting these type of EU member states.