Authorities in Bangkok and Pattaya have issued notices banning the selling, distributing, giving away, or hosting events involving all types of alcoholic beverages within the Bangkok and Pattaya election constituencies. The restriction will apply from 18:00 on 27 June 2026 until 18:00 on 28 June 2026, covering the full voting period for the local election.

Get today's headlines by email

The notice comes ahead of the local election scheduled for 28 June 2026, when residents will go to the polls to select representatives and influence the future direction of city administrations. Officials said the alcohol ban applies across the entire constituencies areas and covers both commercial and private activity during the designated timeframe.

Authorities stated that the restriction forms part of standard election regulations designed to maintain order, transparency, and fairness during the voting process. They added that limiting alcohol availability is intended to reduce the risk of disruption and help ensure that voting takes place in a controlled and lawful environment.

Officials have warned that compliance with the regulation is mandatory under election law. They said that anyone found violating the ban may face penalties of up to six months in prison, a fine of up to 10,000 baht, or both imprisonment and a fine. The enforcement measures are part of wider safeguards used during elections to prevent undue influence and maintain public order.

Residents and business operators have been urged to cooperate fully with the notice and to plan ahead for the temporary ban on alcohol-related activities. Authorities also encouraged eligible voters to participate in the election on 28 June 2026, stressing that turnout is an important part of the democratic process and that each vote carries equal weight in shaping local governance.

Officials added that enforcement teams will be monitoring compliance throughout the restriction period. They said inspections and checks will be carried out across affected areas to ensure adherence to the rules and to respond to any violations.

Authorities are expected to maintain oversight until the end of the restriction window at 18:00 on 28 June 2026. Residents, tourists and businesses have been advised to adjust operations and social plans accordingly to avoid penalties and disruptions during the election period.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

Adapted by ASEAN Now Khaosod 26 June 2026

View full article

This is the stupidest law on god's earth. I had to drink a nice bottle of wine out of a coffee cup the last time they did this at a restaurant.

2 minutes ago, giants49 said:

This is the stupidest law on god's earth. I had to drink a nice bottle of wine out of a coffee cup the last time they did this at a restaurant.

Why so, a simple 24 hour closure in limited areas. I shall go out to eat Sunday evening and let the Mrs cook on Saturday.

So remember everyone, go out today and buy yourself a nice bottle of wine, a couple of six packs of beer, or whatever it is that you fancy. I'm sure we can all get through this crisis if we all pull together!

2 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Why so, a simple 24 hour closure in limited areas. I shall go out to eat Sunday evening and let the Mrs cook on Saturday.

.

A rare touch of common sense in this type of thread but it won't go down well .

This is clearly a major and unwelcome inconvenience for many expats, some of whom have been supporting the Thai economy for years, and identify as fine examples of the quality people that , in their opinion Thailand should be encouraging .

What a slap in the face it must feel like for them, being treated just like anybody else,, having to change their regular routines, yet again, and not even being allowed a vote, despite knowing what Thailand needs better than anyone else. Surely exceptions could and should be made for them

heads up lads the next one will be at the end of july and its a double header get stocked up now to beat the last minute rush

2 hours ago, giants49 said:

This is the stupidest law on god's earth. I had to drink a nice bottle of wine out of a coffee cup the last time they did this at a restaurant.

That must have been awful, did it spoil the coffee?

The law shouldn't apply to foreigners who don't vote.

If you can't go 24 hours without drinking, maybe you have a problem.

Just sayin.

3 hours ago, Front Row said:

So remember everyone, go out today and buy yourself a nice bottle of wine, a couple of six packs of beer, or whatever it is that you fancy. I'm sure we can all get through this crisis if we all pull together!

Not everyone is up to date on the local news, especially people on holiday, so it's easy to be caught out. It happened to me a couple of months back and I've been here going on 20 years. The worst bit is when the assistant points at the sign in front of the booze bottles, it makes you feel like some sort of imbecile!

4 hours ago, giants49 said:

This is the stupidest law on god's earth. I had to drink a nice bottle of wine out of a coffee cup the last time they did this at a restaurant.

Those who's lives revolve around the bars and restaurants of the farang ghettos may not be aware of the amount 'vote buying' that goes on when elections are imminent. And much of it revolves around booze.

I still recall the joyous party that went on no far from our house when the 'rations' were issued out prior to our last local elections. And the party included my own wife and the Phu Yai Ban. (who just happens to my wife's nephew!)

There is a place in Pratumnak, Pattaya that will be fully open Saturday selling alcohol to anyone openly, it was at the recent election

What the point the outcome is already determine🤣

2 hours ago, Trippy said:

If you can't go 24 hours without drinking, maybe you have a problem.

Just sayin.

In every similar thread, there is always at least one person who quotes the above ad verbatim!!... Highly predictable, and it misses the point entirely.

The criticism is rarely about going without a drink for a day. It's about the thinking behind the regulation itself.

It stems from the assumption that ordinary adults cannot be trusted to separate having a beer from exercising their democratic right to vote responsibly. It also assumes that a blanket ban on retail alcohol sales somehow meaningfully influences electoral integrity, despite anyone determined to drink simply buying alcohol beforehand or obtaining it elsewhere.

In other words, the regulation appears to be based more on symbolism than evidence. It treats the public as though they need protecting from themselves, while doing little to address the behaviour it supposedly targets.

That's why people call it outdated. The inconvenience is trivial. The mentality behind it is what attracts criticism, because it reflects a paternalistic, somewhat patronising and ultimately flawed way of thinking that places faith in prohibition rather than personal responsibility.

2 hours ago, Moonlover said:

Those who's lives revolve around the bars and restaurants of the farang ghettos may not be aware of the amount 'vote buying' that goes on when elections are imminent. And much of it revolves around booze.

I still recall the joyous party that went on no far from our house when the 'rations' were issued out prior to our last local elections. And the party included my own wife and the Phu Yai Ban. (who just happens to my wife's nephew!)

All this says to me is that corruption is out of control and the authorities are too lazy to investigate and prosecute or ban those behind vote buying.

2 hours ago, Moonlover said:

Those who's lives revolve around the bars and restaurants of the farang ghettos may not be aware of the amount 'vote buying' that goes on when elections are imminent. And much of it revolves around booze.

I still recall the joyous party that went on no far from our house when the 'rations' were issued out prior to our last local elections. And the party included my own wife and the Phu Yai Ban. (who just happens to my wife's nephew!)

12 minutes ago, WHansen said:

All this says to me is that corruption is out of control and the authorities are too lazy to investigate and prosecute or ban those behind vote buying.

Did I suggest otherwise? I'm just saying it as it is.

I could agree with this if it were from Midnight to 6 in the afternoon.

8 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

In every similar thread, there is always at least one person who quotes the above ad verbatim!!... Highly predictable, and it misses the point entirely.

The criticism is rarely about going without a drink for a day. It's about the thinking behind the regulation itself.

It stems from the assumption that ordinary adults cannot be trusted to separate having a beer from exercising their democratic right to vote responsibly. It also assumes that a blanket ban on retail alcohol sales somehow meaningfully influences electoral integrity, despite anyone determined to drink simply buying alcohol beforehand or obtaining it elsewhere.

In other words, the regulation appears to be based more on symbolism than evidence. It treats the public as though they need protecting from themselves, while doing little to address the behaviour it supposedly targets.

That's why people call it outdated. The inconvenience is trivial. The mentality behind it is what attracts criticism, because it reflects a paternalistic, somewhat patronising and ultimately flawed way of thinking that places faith in prohibition rather than personal responsibility.

So run for mayor and change the law. Oh, you're just a guest in a foreign land with no voting rights you say. Then maybe let the Thai's run Thailand.

1 hour ago, Trippy said:

So run for mayor and change the law. Oh, you're just a guest in a foreign land with no voting rights you say. Then maybe let the Thai's run Thailand.

Rather an unintelligent response - you do actually grasp the point of a forum designed for discussion, right ?

What do you say to the Thai's who hold the same opinion ?

9 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

In every similar thread, there is always at least one person who quotes the above ad verbatim!!... Highly predictable, and it misses the point entirely.

The criticism is rarely about going without a drink for a day. It's about the thinking behind the regulation itself.

It stems from the assumption that ordinary adults cannot be trusted to separate having a beer from exercising their democratic right to vote responsibly. It also assumes that a blanket ban on retail alcohol sales somehow meaningfully influences electoral integrity, despite anyone determined to drink simply buying alcohol beforehand or obtaining it elsewhere.

In other words, the regulation appears to be based more on symbolism than evidence. It treats the public as though they need protecting from themselves, while doing little to address the behaviour it supposedly targets.

That's why people call it outdated. The inconvenience is trivial. The mentality behind it is what attracts criticism, because it reflects a paternalistic, somewhat patronising and ultimately flawed way of thinking that places faith in prohibition rather than personal responsibility.

No more predictable than your reply.

18 hours ago, Look Chang said:

The law shouldn't apply to foreigners who don't vote.

Thais don't think that way, allowing foreigners to have a drink and restricting the locals would incense some. Uncork a nice Chardonnay and have a drink at home Saturday evening.

8 hours ago, Trippy said:

So run for mayor and change the law. Oh, you're just a guest in a foreign land with no voting rights you say. Then maybe let the Thai's run Thailand.

7 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

What do you say to the Thai's who hold the same opinion ?

I don't say anything to them , but if i felt inclined to , I would suggest that they run for mayor and change the law

7 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Rather an unintelligent response - you do actually grasp the point of a forum designed for discussion, right ?

isn't the point of a discussion to put forward one's own responses? intelligent or otherwise ? I was not aware of a required minimum standard of intelligence

In Thailand, it's wise to always keep a bottle of whiskey in your safe...

4 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

12 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Rather an unintelligent response - you do actually grasp the point of a forum designed for discussion, right ?

isn't the point of a discussion to put forward one's own responses? intelligent or otherwise ? I was not aware of a required minimum standard of intelligence

I agree, the whole point of a discussion is to exchange ideas, whether people agree or disagree.

What doesn't really move the discussion forward is responding with tired pathetic borrowed clichés by someone trying to be a smart arse instead of engaging with the point being made.

"If you can't go without booze for 24 hours..." is probably one of the oldest and least original comments in these threads. It completely misses the point by pretending the discussion is about alcohol dependency, when it's actually about the reasoning behind the regulation.

Then doubling down with "You're a guest here, you can't have an opinion" is just another tired pathetic borrowed cliché that attempts to shut down discussion rather than address the argument. By that logic, no foreigner here should questions or discuss the law - which is obviously absurd.

Neither response engages with the actual issue. They simply avoid it.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Go ahead and disagree, at least argue against the point being made rather than substituting it with the nothin better than inane regurgitated mediocrity presented as wisdom - its just transparently dim.

5 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

13 hours ago, Trippy said:

So run for mayor and change the law. Oh, you're just a guest in a foreign land with no voting rights you say. Then maybe let the Thai's run Thailand.

12 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

What do you say to the Thai's who hold the same opinion ?

I don't say anything to them , but if i felt inclined to , I would suggest that they run for mayor and change the law

That comment sidesteps the discussion.

People discuss laws all the time without having to become politicians first. Suggesting "run for office" is a rather odd way of looking at discussion.

By that logic, nobody should ever question a law unless they're prepared to become a politician and change it themselves.

Society doesn't work that way. Most people have careers, families and responsibilities that make entering politics unrealistic, yet they're still perfectly entitled to evaluate, support or criticise public policy.

The entire purpose of public discussion is to exchange ideas, challenge assumptions and debate whether laws are sensible.

If every criticism were met with "run for office" or "we don't have the rights to an opinion because we're not Thai"... we'd have to shut down every discussion forum, newspaper opinion page and political debate overnight.

23 hours ago, Seppius said:

There is a place in Pratumnak, Pattaya that will be fully open Saturday selling alcohol to anyone openly, it was at the recent election

Just take a bolt to Jomtien Na it's in Sattahip district, so no local election.

7 hours ago, jacko45k said:

On 6/26/2026 at 11:43 AM, Look Chang said:

The law shouldn't apply to foreigners who don't vote.

Thais don't think that way, allowing foreigners to have a drink and restricting the locals would incense some. Uncork a nice Chardonnay and have a drink at home Saturday evening.

A foreigners-only exemption would be impractical and almost impossible to police - how can the police know its someone from China, Laos, Malaysia or Singapore sitting at a table having a beer with their dinner ?

The real question is whether a blanket prohibition makes sense at all.

The ban is a paternalistic, outdated approach that assumes the public can't be trusted to behave responsibly for a single day.

Its less like a carefully considered public safety measure and more like a relic of an era when governments believed controlling the behaviour of the many was easier than dealing with the misconduct of the few and thus everyone is treated as a potential offender.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to question whether regulations like this still serve any useful purpose. Many of us discuss these issues with our Thai spouses and friends, and they often share the same doubts and opinions.

Going without alcohol for a day is a complete nothing burger. It's the mindset behind the legislation that's more concerning, blanket, symbolic restrictions instead of focusing on more meaningful issues.

Once someone has voted, stamp their hand or forehead so that they CAN then have a beer.

And as previously said, why ban foreigners who do not have a vote. TIT.

I was told many years ago that it was to stop politicians getting the voters drunk to vote for them.

17 minutes ago, roger101 said:

I was told many years ago that it was to stop politicians getting the voters drunk to vote for them.

I understand that to be the underlying rationale as well, but it all feels rather pathetic.

Particularly when vote-buying, often for as little as 500 baht, is discussed so openly. It's a topic that has repeatedly surfaced on this forum, with numerous posters describing first-hand accounts of friends, relatives and spouses being offered cash in exchange for their vote.

Against that backdrop, banning alcohol for a day in the name of protecting the integrity of the electoral process seems to miss where the real problem lies.