2 hours ago, InMyShadow said:

Yes, try taking your own ashtray

Let us know How it works out.

We never actually go to the beach when we're in Thailand - the beaches here in Greece are far superior. Thai beaches are pretty awful, generally. Piles of garbage and more often than not with murky water, with the added bonus of unseen things below the surface that sting. No, I'll do my swimming here, thanks, from pristine beaches with crystal clear waters. And where there are no stupid restrictions on eating, drinking or smoking.

However, the point I was making is that the way the law has been framed would indicate that it is all about polluting the beaches, rather than about smoking per se, which means that any fine or prosecution has to be for the crime of polluting the beach. It really is a pig's ear of a law, because in theory, you can't be prosecuted for the act of smoking, only for the act of polluting. So if I provide my own means of avoiding any cigarette butt pollution, or if I am a pipe smoker, there can be no proof of guilt as the law stands. I would be interested to hear what a lawyer would have to say about this scenario, because I'm merely theorising about the situation as I see it; but I think it would be very difficult to make a charge of polluting stick if there was no pollution.

3 hours ago, smedly said:

I have no issue with smoking in the open and that includes bars parks beaches streets or whatever, it is total nonsense that smoking in the open is harmful to anyone but the smoker, if you really want to get into what actually contaminates the air we breath - it comes primarily from internal combustion engines and is so harmful in comparison to passive outdoor smoking that there is no way to measure and scale them both together, in fact passive outdoor smoking is probably not even something that can be detected and measured.

 

Like I keep saying, this topic is all about littering and should be about all garbage everywhere 

The whole issue of 'passive smoking' is a myth invented by the anti-smoking lobby. All the major studies on the subject have come up with the same conclusion - that there is no significant risk to bystanders from ambient tobacco smoke. One of the biggest studies commissioned by the WHO (Boffetta et al) not only found that there was no statistically significant risk from SHS, they also found that the only statistically significant result that came out of their studies was that children raised in a smoking household had a 23% lower risk of developing lung cancer in later life compared to kids raised in a non-smoking household. Obviously this wasn't the result the WHO, a virulently anti-smoking organisation, wanted, so the report was buried as deep as they could manage and they issued press releases saying how harmful passive smoking is! You couldn't make it up! Talk about lying through your teeth! And that study remains difficult to find, so deeply did they bury it, despite it having been one of the biggest and most comprehensive studies ever commissioned.

However, I have a link to it:

Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9776409

But on the subject of smoking in designated areas (smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants):

Quote

Environmental tobacco smoke in the nonsmoking section of a restaurant: a case study.

Jenkins RA¹, Finn D, Tomkins BA, Maskarinec MP.

Author information

 

Abstract

This study tested the concentrations of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) components in a small restaurant/pub with smoking and nonsmoking areas-a facility outfitted with a heat-recovery ventilation system and directional airflow. The ETS levels in the nonsmoking area were compared with those in other similar restaurants/pubs where indoor smoking is altogether prohibited. The results indicate that ETS component concentrations in the nonsmoking section of the facility in question were not statistically different (P < 0.05) from those measured in similar facilities where smoking is prohibited. The regulatory implications of these findings are that ventilation techniques for restaurants/pubs with separate smoking and nonsmoking areas are capable of achieving nonsmoking area ETS concentrations that are comparable to those of similar facilities that prohibit smoking outright.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11754526

But as you say, the issue is supposedly about litter, and the law about it is tagged on to the environmental protection legislation. Which then begs the question: If I go to one of those beaches where this new law is applicable, and I take with me a portable ashtray, which I can show I am using, how can I be prosecuted for environmental damage while smoking on that beach? Any court that follows the law would have to throw the case out, because I can prove that I'm not causing any environmental problems.

I don't think they've thought this one through properly...

And of course, as already stated by a couple of people, the obvious and simplest solution to the problem of cigarette butts on the beach is to provide plenty of ashtrays / disposal bins and then fine people under the current littering laws if they discard their cigarette ends anywhere but in the bins provided.

The anti-smoking charade has gone beyond parody...

9 hours ago, bendejo said:

 

I recall a movie where Mel Gibson played a drug smuggler, and he heard on the radio that the shipment he was waiting for was discovered "with a street value of (some astronomical figure)" to which he remarked "and on which street is that?"

 

 

Heh! Yes, there is that!

I just did a rough calculation based on the fact that in London in the 1980s a gram of cocaine was around the £60 mark, assumed a similar value for heroin, and came up with 16,000 grams x £60 = £960,000. Add inflation and convert to dollars, and you have over a million. I have no idea if I'm anywhere near the correct value, but I suspect I'm not too far off the mark. Whatever, it's a lot to entrust to a fifteen year old driving a car for which he doesn't have a licence.

He was fifteen years old and found in a Toyota sedan, which presumably he was the driver of, since no other persons are mentioned. With 16 kg of heroin, which is a huge amount. I've no idea what the street value of that much heroin is, but it will be big bucks, well over a million dollars I'd imagine. Less of course to the supplier, but still a lot of money. And they entrusted it to someone who is an underage driver, and so likely to attract the attention of the law anyway.

I know that we're talking about Thailand here, but even for the Land of Smiles that looks odd. Fifteen? Driving to Central Thailand? A million dollars worth of drugs? Either the people who sent the boy are exceedingly stupid, or there's more to this than is immediately obvious. It just doesn't make sense.

16 hours ago, jvs said:

Yes smokers had their days,now the shoe is on the other foot.

How does that feel?

It actually makes no difference to me, as where I live smoking bans are treated with the contempt they deserve, and if I choose I can smoke in just about any bar or restaurant, both inside and out.

Fear not, as people become more aware of the lies and exaggerations of Tobacco Control, and the economic and social damage their propaganda driven policies have wrought on society, the worm will turn, and common sense will again prevail. We tend to go through these periods of puritanical intolerance every so often - it's cyclical - but they don't usually last very long. When they reach a peak, which the anti-smoking crusade has just about arrived at, and people's liberty has been compromised as far as they are willing to allow, there tends to be a backlash, and the puritan's carefully constructed edifice is discovered to be built on foundations of sand, and collapses as the tide of public opinion washes up against it.

6 hours ago, jackdd said:

But it's your right to expect that when you visit a restaurant nobody will smoke there. And actually at restaurants with only Thai people i have never seen anybody smoke, this happens only at places with foreigners.

 

I've been to loads of restaurants with outside seating and seen Thais smoking. In fact it's quite normal. And since I hardly ever visit places where there are lots of farang, the vast majority of those restaurants are frequented 99.9% by Thai clientele, so they aren't taking their cue from the farang diners.

........................................

When I was last in Phuket, about 17 years ago, the beach I went to had those palm leaf beach umbrellas, and under every umbrella there was a couple of recliners, a table, and a clay pot with sand in it for use as an ashtray, which was emptied daily. There were no cigarette butts littering the beach, because the smokers used the ashtrays provided. Or is that solution to the problem of cigarette butt littering too obvious?

We see the same all over the world now. Smokers are thrown out of all bars and restaurants, and having bulldozed that law through under false pretences, the anti-smokers then start complaining about having to walk through people smoking outside near the door (a situation forced upon them by the anti-tobacco campaigners in the first place), and about the butts littering the street, although no ashtrays are provided. You would be hard put to find a bunch of more intolerant whiners than the anti-smoking mob.

Still, wait until the anti-alcohol temperance lobby start to get their way (and they will - you can see the beginnings of it already). There will be howls of protest from the anti-tobacco crowd when they go to a restaurant and are told that they have to take their glass of wine out back next to the dumpster to drink it.

On 10/11/2017 at 5:32 AM, eliotness said:

Is the ban on actual smoking or is it for discarding butts. If a smoker discards his responsibily then the quoted environmental problem hasn't been createdl, surely !!!

This is actually a valid point, given that anyone caught will be charged under the environmental protection act. If you are smoking a pipe, or have a portable ashtray with you which you can show you are using, then in theory you can't be charged with polluting the environment, since you quite emphatically are NOT polluting the environment. So what do the law-enforcers do then? They can hardly accuse you of smoke pollution, not in the open air, and with Somchai grilling squid and heaven knows what else just up the beach behind you.

It would be interesting to see someone test that aspect of this new decree.

43 minutes ago, superal said:

 One alternative is a new concept under the trade name of  IQOS ( apparently stands for I quit ordinary smoking ) . It is allowed in Thailand and does not used any liquids .  Google to get the full info . Risks are similar to vaping  and a user tells me tastes better than vaping , more like real cigs .

'Heat-not-burn' technology like IQOS are supposed to be very good (I've not tried them myself as I don't think they're available here in Greece as yet), and the governments like them because they actually contain tobacco (albeit in smaller quantities than normal cigarettes), which gets round the pesky problem of being able to tax the sh*t out of them, something which they haven't yet worked out how to do with e-liquids. They don't come cheap though. An article I read from the UK had them priced slightly higher than conventional cigarettes, which isn't much incentive for people to switch. Particularly if those people are in the habit (as many are) of buying their smokes on the black market for half the retail price.

The Thai approach to e-cigs is stupid, but they are taking their cues from the WHO and its totalitarian FCTC treaty. And the FCTC is funded largely by the big pharmaceutical companies, for whom e-cigs are a direct threat to their sales of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT - patches and gums), which they've built up to a multi-billion dollar global business on the back of the smoking bans they've lobbied (and paid for) the WHO to mandate via the FCTC. It's all very incestuous.

Why the sudden mania by the military rulers to clear the streets of vendors? Street vendors are an integral part of Thailand, and the country would be poorer without them. They add colour, choice, economy and convenience to the lives of the people who live nearby, not to mention a means of making a living for the vendors themselves. Many Thai cities are concrete jungles, and without the vendors they have little appeal. I really don't understand why the authorities want to clear them out. Ok, some of them may create obstructions, but that can be easily dealt with on a case by case basis. I've never found it to be a major inconvenience to thread my way past them. If you're in that much of a hurry, perhaps Thailand isn't the place to be.

When I'm in Bangkok, I usually stay in Saphan Kwai, not far from the BTS. There used to be some great food stalls up and down the main drag - it was quite vibrant, but now they've been thrown out, the place is just a rather grim, dirty semi-subterranean piece of road with very little to offer apart from the Big C supermarket.

Why can't petty officials just stop meddling in other people's lives? What they are doing is of no benefit to anyone and a substantial loss to many.

As I understand it, US citizens are given visa exemption. That means she can exit airside with no problems, and re-enter via immigration when she likes. The only pain is that she'll have to do immigration, and the queues that involves. If her luggage is checked through to her connecting flight, she won't have to worry about that, just carry her hand baggage with her.

I can't see any problem at all. On one occasion when I was travelling with my daughter from BKK to LHR, we had a ten hour stopover in Dubai. We went out into the city to do some sightseeing, and then returned to the airport to catch our connection. We didn't need a visa, so it was easy and straightforward. It should be the same for your cousin.

8 hours ago, becbec123 said:

I have now received another email from 'Chris Williams'. They have created a html page with my photo pretending to be me defaming the king. they also included my address and work address on the page. 

 

I am genuinely scared now in case he makes it public. What kind of crazy guy does this??

What should I do?

You need to preempt the situation. Get a lawyer to accompany you to a police station, show them the emails and let them take it from there. If you do that, then any further action from the scammer will only serve to get him into deeper trouble, and you will be in the clear. But you must grab the bull by the horns and neutralise the threat, and the only way to do that is to get one step ahead of the guy. You might want to bring a case of defamation, too, and reverse the roles.

Good luck, and don't delay. The longer you leave it, the more difficult it becomes.

5 hours ago, fashionablesally said:

I have nothing against smokers...i am an ex-smoker myself but i promise you the e-cig is better...way better. I used it for a year before officially quitting. The most vivid change has been that my taste buds are way better and hence gaining weight has become a real problem. I don't know. I somehow always managed to stay trim under the Cig. Are there any scientific facts behind this phenomenon? Sometimes i get so tempted to just have one..or two..or three

Smoking is an appetite suppressant. It's very common for people to put on weight when they quit smoking. This is one of the reasons that type 2 diabetes is also common in ex-smokers.

I think you'll find that the fake ones won't be nearly as good as the real ones. I always used to use Hunter boots when I lived in UK, because they were so soft and comfortable to wear. Knock-offs will use cheaper materials and won't have the same level of comfort. Which is what people pay a premium price to have. It's not just about the label. At least, it wasn't for me. I would have bought Tesco's own for a couple of quid if they'd been comfortable to wear.

I'm surprised there aren't more places along the river. Yes, there's the Sheraton and a few other big hotels, but I would guess that even with the discount Thian mentions, they will still be pretty expensive. And perhaps a bit more formal than I like for a light lunch.

There used to be an S&P on the river near Sanam Luang a few years ago (ok, maybe 10), which was a great place to pop in for a coffee and / or lunch, but when we looked a couple of years ago, it seemed to have disappeared. I'd be very interested if anyone knows of some nice, inexpensive places on the river where one can get a drink, snack or full meal.

I love sitting and watching the river traffic. It's a whole microcosm that exists completely apart from the city; a constantly changing tapestry. The riverside in central Bangkok is woefully under-seviced by the mass transit systems, and woefully underused. It's a great shame.

Also in the news, another recent poll by NIDA found that the majority of turkeys thought that Christmas was the best time of year, with Thanksgiving running a close second...

Buy local. I've been wearing the Gambol brand flip-flops (thongs) for years (can't remember exactly how much they cost, but less than 200 Baht in Big C - 169 or thereabouts?). They are comfortable, well made, last for ages, come in a huge range of colours and materials (I have some with suede straps, which I think were a bit more expensive than the fabric strap, but not much), and they are cheap. I must have about a dozen pairs in various stages of decrepitude, from almost had-it to almost new. I probably get at least a couple of years wear out of them. Nice soft sole and well designed insole shape.

I'm not American, so I rarely use Dollars, but I'm intrigued to know why banks and money changers in Thailand won't change old notes. That same thing doesn't apply to Pounds or Euros, as far as I'm aware (although the notes aren't dated), so what is it with US Dollars?

3 hours ago, samsensam said:

 

if you had children in your home country would you be happy with random adults either from your own country or from other countries approaching and trying to interact with them?

And therein lies the rot that has set into our society. The 'precautionary principle'. Wrap 'em in cotton wool.

The attitude of "...would you be happy with random adults either from your own country or from other countries approaching and trying to interact with them?" is borne of reading the gutter press and believing every word. According to the papers, there's a paedophile lurking under every bush, and for that reason we shouldn't let our kids talk to anyone, in case they're raging paedophiles.

What rot. It's attitudes like that that have created the current 'snowflake' generation, demanding 'safe spaces' and 'trigger warnings'.

I've found when in Thailand that kids react well to me, and many times I've had teenage (and younger) girls or boys come up to me and practice their English. It's great. Where I've lived for the past 15 years (Greece), it's the same. There's been no 'Paedophile Panic' whipped up by the gutter press, and kids roam freely. And it's not unusual at all to be sitting in a café and have some kid from another table come and chat. And mum will just look over and ask if he / she is being a nuisance. If not, she'll just go back to her coffee and friend(s) or smartphone and leave me to chat with her kid. No big deal. The kid learns how to deal with strangers, and mum gets five minutes peace.

And I say this as the father of four (now adult) kids who were encouraged to interact with other adults. Of course be sensible, but don't be scared. There's a big world out there full of all sorts of people, and kids need to learn how to deal with that.

On 8/23/2017 at 3:27 PM, mommysboy said:

They should ban any sort of steam.  And as for water....well now, don't get me started.

"Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters. The atomic components of DHMO are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.

For more detailed information, including precautions, disposal procedures and storage requirements, refer to one of the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) available for DHMO:"

And just to show how easily people are fooled by this sort of chicanery:

A similar study conducted by U.S. researchers Patrick K. McCluskey and Matthew Kulick also found that nearly 90 percent of the citizens participating in their study were willing to sign a petition to support an outright ban on the use of Dihydrogen Monoxide in the United States."

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

On 8/20/2017 at 3:27 PM, mommysboy said:

What also needs to be noted is that for the Thais it may have been a case of following this influential country or that, and you don't have to go far to see USA, UK, and Australian media-to name a few- peddling scare stories that appear to have no basis.  The US anti-smoking lobby is particularly strong in subverting even scientific findings.

You make a pertinent point, and one that not many people are aware of. The Anti-Smoker industry likes to portray itself as a latter-day David bravely battling with the Goliath of Big Tobacco, but in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. TC (Tobacco Control) is awash with money - globally it's a multi-billion dollar business, and so-called 'Big Tobacco' can only look on in envy at the vast funds (and the influence that comes with that level of financial clout) that are available to their nemesis. Not only do TC get vast amounts of taxpayer cash, (plus in the USA they get some $ 600,000,000 a year from the Master Settlement), but also the pharmaceutical companies pour countless millions into the TC coffers because smoking bans are good for business. The global NRT business is worth billions. It's why the pharmaceutical industry has been trying to get e-cigs medicalised, so that they will be the only ones who can afford to get e-cigs through the rigorous (and very expensive) medical approval system.

My excerpt above, and the link it came from was written specifically to illustrate how organisations like Tobacco Control manipulate science to suit their agenda. (Do have a read of the whole article - it is all factual and truthful, but completely misleading.) They rely on the fact that people won't question their 'findings' because they are 'experts'. Much of their 'research' which they use to scare gullible people into hating smokers, and to lobby similarly gullible politicians into introducing stupid laws (like the e-cig ban in Thailand) is written exactly in the style of the linked article above, and things presented as hazardous are usually anything but. They always omit to point out the first law of toxicology - that the dose makes the poison. In fact lying by omission is another of their favourite tactics. 

SECOND-HAND SMOKE IS DANGEROUS if you are in a small, sealed and unventilated room for at least 200 years with someone who smokes 200 cigarettes a day,

is the sort of thing, although they tend not to bother to publish the small print.

The e-cig ban in Thailand is a product of this kind of legerdemain, where self-proclaimed 'experts' (with an ideological agenda) from TC have submitted 'evidence' like the example above to government ministers who have no scientific knowledge. The ministers look at the gobbledygook in front of them and think "Omigod, these things must be dangerous! Quick, ban them!". And that's it. Job done. Another step towards that utopian 'smoke-free' world the anti-smokers fantasise about. To hell with unforeseen consequences; to hell with collateral damage. The jihad must continue unabated.

What I did when I had this problem with a fan was to cut a couple of thin strips (5mm wide, about) of some aluminium sheet I had (about 1mm thick) and cut those into pieces about 15 - 20 mm long. I then folded those small strips in half, and started crimping them with a pair of pliers to the webs at the back of the blade hub. It was trial and error, but I guess it didn't take much more than half an hour of jiggling around to get the blade balanced, including all the removing and replacing the blade each time.

I quite enjoy little challenges like that. I must be getting old.

3 hours ago, Briggsy said:

Only 2 large companies and one medium-sized company have government concessions to produce, distribute and wholesale to the mass market in Thailand.

 

Their relations with lawmakers remains very tight. They have considerable input in any government decision that affects their industry.

 

The reason is of course protection of a lucrative cartel.

That there is collusion between the concessionaires and the government departments concerned I accept, and it doesn't surprise me, but it still doesn't explain why the taxes are so high. If they have the sole concession anyway, it would be in their interests for the endpoint price to be lower, as they would sell far more of their products. They make nothing from the taxes, as that money goes directly to the government. And lower taxes on their products wouldn't affect their grip on the industry if, as you say, they are tight with the government departments that give the concessions. So I'm still baffled as to why wine, and not other alcoholic drinks, attracts such a ridiculously high rate of tax.

58 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

 

There IS rhyme or reason it is taxed so highly, as are cars and other imported goods deemed to be luxurious. Due to low incomes and a very large black economy very few, I believe 10 percent, of Thais pay tax. Where do you expect the government to get funds from to run the country? It is therefore logical to tax items that are not considered essential or for everyday use.

So presumably imported Scotch whisky at less than 600 Baht a bottle is considered essential for everyday use? That's comparable to prices in Europe - in fact cheaper than many countries. And there is a Thai whisky industry which is probably larger than the Thai wine industry, which is tiny, so it can't be protectionism. So why has wine been singled out for punitive taxation when whisky has not?

As I say, there is no rhyme or reason behind it. It makes no sense at all. If imported whisky was taxed at the same rate, I could see some logic in it, but the way it is is beyond comprehension.

On 8/21/2017 at 5:52 AM, oldhippy said:

I am all in favour of banning (public) ads for alcohol - included for Chang soda or sports events.

But banning pics with beer or wine on Facebook etc???

Has this been confirmed?

If so, it is paternalism of the worst kind.

Why on earth are you in favour of banning ads for alcohol?

We're not so easily led that seeing an advertisement for beer is going to make us rush out and get hopelessly drunk. It's also not going to make kids borrow their dad's pistol so they can hold up the nearest 7/11 and steal all their Chang. These people who make these laws live in a fantasy world, where no-one has any control over themselves, and the mere sight of a bottle of beer is enough to induce a schizophrenic transformation from Jekyll to Hyde. I mean, really, does the sight of a beer advert make you want to rush out and buy a case of Heineken? Because if so, you have a problem. 

Christ, up until the nannies of this world got their grubby little hands on the reins of power, we all were exposed to alcohol advertising (and tobacco advertising) all our lives. Are we all alcoholics and smokers? This whole 'banning advertising' is just the infantilisation of adults, and is an insult to our intelligence. The people who instigate this stupidity are professional 'Public Health' tax troughers who rely on lobbying for new bans to keep their jobs; and puritanical zealots (who by definition have psychological problems) who can't bear to think of anyone enjoying life in a way they don't approve of. The whole sorry shambles of 'Public Health' should be swept away, and we should be allowed to get on with our lives as we see fit. The world would be a better place.