Gaccha

How can you be this illiterate? My point is to express exasperation at the commentators who obsess over just the merest possibility of the West performing mass deportations. My point and only point was they are completely oblivious to Thailand's everyday use of the function. Of course I grasp the difference between stateless and immigrants. I feel Thailand has an overwhelming duty to provide citizenship to the stateless born on Thai soil.

Quiet reminder: Thailand had by August this year mass deported 145,000 Burmese migrants. You didn't know about this because only Western States are not allowed to do it. (Here's a source.)

Who? If it does happen it will be an error of the Immigration Office. The 90 days requirement is for you to notify them of your address after you have been in Thailand for 90 days continuously.

You have to be joking. You think they would add something, in order to deter people from taking too much of another substance in the tablet? But this deterrent effect would only work if the person reads the ingredients label... and is fairly literate on drug types... and also knows this particular fairly common drug can be very dangerous... And then and only then if all those conditions apply might it deter a potential addict...

From the scientific method which overcame personal prejudice and relied on investigation under controlled conditions. These marvellous organisations, for our benefit, do this for us, and the links I provided, that you are so reluctant to read, are from their thousands of hours of toil. This is especially important in this area where addicts are prone to lying. And where people can have considerably different experiences. And the reason I know these latter two points is again because of the scientific method.

One reason is that the ingredients are often covered by a protective layer (enteric layer) which ensures the ingredients are not destroyed in the stomach before it can be absorbed into the body.

It's one of the four standard methods as outlined in the link that I provided. Had you actually read it you would have known this before your dismissive response. "According to the Australian “National Guidelines for Medication-Assisted Treatment of Opioid Dependence” by Linda Gowing et al., published in April 2014, there are 4 primary interventions for managing opioid withdrawal... a third method entails gradually reducing doses of methadone." And you are wrong that people cannot die from going cold turkey with opioids. I understand you will not read the link but the title of the link is perfectly adequate: "Yes, people can die from opiate withdrawal"

Are the pills coated or slow release pills? You might be able to cut the pills up so you could taper more gradually. One entire pill cut is a big leap. Do you have a pill cutter device? You can buy at a big pharmacist or at Lazada for little more than 30 baht. You then could make 1/4 pill cuts over a period of 2 or 3 months. You'd probably not even notice a withdrawal.

Firstly, are you sure you are aware of all his assets? He could have stocks, crypto or money, other funds in foreign banks and so on. Did you obtain access to any notes or books or items on his computer which reveal this? Have you gained full access to all his furniture and objects etc? Did you access his room which he lived? Did the hospital pass you all the property he had on his death? Did his "friend" assist with this? With regard to the 50,000 baht. Do you know where it went? Do you know who got it? Have you asked for its return yet? Have you reported it to the police?

Bearing in mind your username and this comment I wonder if I can ask you if there have been any changes to the licencing regulations for satellite communication phones or rescue devices in the last two or three years.

I think it's unlikey you'll manage just to stop. You are facing an opioid addiction. You might need methadone, therapy and considerable support. And this is putting aside the physical danger from suddenly stopping. This link gives the info you need. Good luck King. You've got this.

Siam Legal writes "The details are yet to be finalized by Thailand’s tourism authority, but it is likely that anyone arriving with a new Thai Tourist Visa, or entering under the visa-exemption or visa on arrival scheme will be required to pay the fee. Residents and those with long-term Thai visas will not be required to pay." As soon as it is announced in the Royal Gazette I'll take this seriously and I'll read the announcement.

Amazon will ask you to contact the delivery company directly. The delivery company will inform you of the delivery number and then you can go to customs to pay the import tax. If the delivery company fails to respond to you, then Amazon will produce a voucher for you as compensation. (Source: personal experience)

It looks like we'll be ok. The way they are linking it to the arrival procedure for tourists probably is good news.

Words have meanings. In order for it to be a "robbery" there must be either force during or before the theft. There was no force, only deceit.

No, it is not taxed as it is not treated as income. But keep records of source in case you need to prove it. See this website for details.

I can see there is a lot of confusion among the comments here. I've actually read the Gambling Act and all its schedules attached to it. I've also now read this Royal Gazette announcement. Under the Gambling Act the relevant minister may permit licences to individuals for certain activities etc. Other activities are strictly prohibited. All this announcement does is change the timings for the activities that are already allowed to be licenced by the relevant Minister. There has been no liberalisation at all as to banned gambling such as poker, or the possession of a large number of playing cards and so on. The reason for this is that although poker was never mentioned in the Gambling Act because poker only really gained popularity after the Act was passed, the legislation specifically bans games of luck that are by custom played for money. This is why you can play a game of Monopoly without any problem. And this is the reason why a defence to a prosecution is to show that the game you're playing is not by custom a gambling game (some of you may recall the bridge club in Pattaya having to go through this nonsense).

Yet they won't be allowed to evolve because any alternate interpretations can easily be characterized as hate. The new pieties are always the old heresies. By having this debate, you are-- very slowly-- grasping that there is no way to come up with this imposition of religious sentiments without deeply damaging my right (and their right, and your right) to constant rigorous debate and discussion ("dialogue"). I'm tempted to ask for a law of Rationalophobia. Demanding that a religion's sentiments from another time should trump my rationalist, humanist values is grotesque. The sheer struggle, the incredible sacrifices that were made to get the church off our backs through many centuries should not be sheepishly given away by the naive sentiments of the hippy flower-power generation. I will not allow the old to steal my future. You must not succeed.

The sheer irony of you using this as a mic-drop winning argument is mind-blowing. That expression originated as a Zionist expression. As Wikipedia states: "An early Zionist slogan envisaged statehood extending over the two banks of the Jordan river," But you have such a glancing knowledge of the conflict that you haven't heard it being used in any other way than the mainstream media have told you. The expression since 1969 has meant, by the PLO, a call for a two-state democratic solution, as Wikipedia points out. You are so confident in your ignorance that you'd make this a crime to say, despite its complex usages over the years. And you made this determination on an obviously unbearably ignorant grasp of the conflict. Your position is exactly why there must be no hate crime laws. Precisely so you can, through open free speech, discover your ignorance.

Let us consider Mr Neeranam's appeal to use criminal sanctions. Who could possibly oppose the banning of immoral speech? "I listen to both sides, I do NOT wish to ban debate, I enjoy it. All I said was Islamophobia should be banned." He enjoys debate, Ladies and Gentleman! Just not what is phobic. It must be very bad this relatively new phobia of which he speaks. "take passages from the Quran out of context to support their arguments, particularly those that mention violence or punishment. For instance, verses that discuss conflict or warfare are sometimes highlighted without considering the historical and textual context in which they were revealed." Yikes. Out of context. But there's always a bigger context. You can always appeal to something more. Mr Neeranam wants to appeal to historicity, that the violence mentioned in the Koran was normal for its time and we should ignore it now. But why? Why should we ignore the passages as they are understood now? Is not the context today the effect of the passage on those who believe in them. What of the believers who believe it is the literal word of God. They certainly don't put the passages into the context of their time. They believe as they are written. Why shouldn't we? Why is it bigoted to take a more nuanced grasp of the context than Mr Neeranam, who has a rather cute naive utopian view.

Well, then let's have that discussion. Allow them to state their arguments and then allow people to respond. Your position is, in my view, a rather dodgy position to take, and certainly not one that should be imposed by the Crown. Evil always arrives in the form of an angel. I understand you believe firmly in your view on Islam, and I don't even doubt you've read scholarly works on this topic from SOAS professors, but what if you are wrong? How will you ever know if you've prevented people from telling you. In effect, we are doing that debate which you wish to ban, even if at a meta-level. Awkwardly for your position, stereotyping is how science works. It seeks patterns. Stereotypes are accurate-- that is the simple academic consensus-- and stereotypes of other humans are the most accurate of all. You are, then, opposed to truth. This means what you are demanding is to impose Polite Lies for the Greater Good, against the Cruel Truth. I will fight any effort of you to do this.

This book knows.

Correct. And that balance is to allow all speech, and for people who are offended to withdraw from the conversation and go and do something else. If however they say something which in any event would be a crime under normal criminal law (such as a threat to kill which has long been a crime in England), then they must suffer the normal sanctions.

It really is awful how quickly received wisdom on the subject has changed. I despair at one or two comments on here. Just two decades ago and the Anti-Defamation League (a Jewish lobby organisation) would have been defending the actions of the Nazi (most famously they defended a literal Nazi group in 1978 in Chicago). The view back then-- correctly-- was that the key to democracy was freedom of expression no matter what. I despair at these increasing infringements on freedom. Now we have people thinking it is okay to pass laws criminalising criticising passages of the Koran. This is outrageous. There is a giant leap between hatred towards a group as such and criticism of a religious text. Do you think anybody should be prosecuted for criticising Talmudic verses? I am a huge fan of the pro-free speech FIRE organisation. And I strongly support attempts in the UK to roll back speech legislation to the 1960s. This increasing obsession with safetyism and toxic empathy will slowly corrode the very heart of democracy.

I remain quite concerned about the possibility of dissipation of funds. You need to make an important strategic decision: you can warn the possible bad actor to immediately desist from his behaviour, or in the background you can smoothly remove control from him. Both these options have advantages and disadvantages. If you follow the first route, he hopefully will back off understanding the serious legal implications of his behaviour. With the second route, you avoid arousing his suspicion and get the matter done quickly without his obstructions. If you do decide the first route, you need to explain very clearly to him that he has no grounds to control any of these matters including his fantasy of setting up a fund for the daughter, or sending money to the Hong Kong nephew.