Jump to content

PM stops Hazardous Substances Committee reviewing ban on 3 chemicals


snoop1130

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Adumbration said:

Something is not right here.

 

Who owns the companies that supply the alternatives to these banned chemicals?

 

That might shed some light on the decisiveness.

If you could wade your way through the paperwork and shell companies my guess would be a megga conglomerate starting with MONSAN 

Edited by wombat
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

The prime minister has ordered Industry Minister Suriya Jungrungreangkit, who chairs the committee, to drop the planned review of the ban on the substances immediately from its agenda and not to raise the issue again.

There.. now you've been told.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few decades ago the USA helped Mexico spray its marijuana fields with paraquat. Turns out some of the plants made it thru and ended up being smoked in the USA. Bad part is that smoke caused cancer. Ultimately paraquat on marijuana was considered bad. Hope none of it is used in Thailand on the new fields.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Adumbration said:

Something is not right here.

 

Who owns the companies that supply the alternatives to these banned chemicals?

 

That might shed some light on the decisiveness.

Exactly. If he was really concerned about these types of issues he would tackle the chemicals in cigarettes that cause cancer by allowing the much less harmful Vaping. But no, that would upset the Thailand Tobacco Monopoly.

 

Or tackle the carcinogenic filth that is expelled from public buses in Bangkok every day. But no, that would cost money and leave less in the trough to siphon off.

 

I too suspect he (or his cohorts) has a vested interest in selling the alternative. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

One can only hope he is sincere about the health and well being of his people. That would be an amazing development. 

Sure. 

More cynical folks might suggest that there's an angle somewhere in the mix, which has little or nothing to do with the well being of the population or beneficial to the commons. 

 

Just sayin'.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...