New Bar Laws..

[anotheruser]

Sounds like responsible service of alcohol to me.

Of course, everyone recognises what an aweful substance alcohol is and it playing part in a large amount of assualts, domestic abuse, motor vehicle collisions and so forth.

It's a pity these new laws don't go far enough to ensure safety for all the worlds occupants & of course, irregardless of what the laws are its unlikely they will be enforced fairly.

Do you think people should be allowed to drink in moderation in a bar during the hours of 2 and 5 in the afternoon?

Actually carmine, I'm a bad person to ask that sort of question. Anyway, despite whatever we all think, obviousloy the law makers and policy makers here in LOS think its a bad idea to consume alcohol between these hours. I tend to agree with them but they have only come part way in a soloution to the alcohol problem here.

Of course, I think anyone being objective can see that there may be a problem with some kinds of people starting to consume alcohol early in the day & of course I am referring to those who start drinking then and dont stop until the wee hours & normally those ones are the ones who are later causing problems for the rest of society. I further acknowledge that its hard to pick the mark or selectively enforce the law fairly to all, ie: Allowing responsible drinkers to consume alcohol at 2pm yet stop irresponsible ones.

As I have already stated twice, the authorities have stopped short of addressing the real alcohol issues here, such as serving alcohol to intoxicated people & serving it late or into the early hours of the morning.

In a perfect world, alcohol would be either banned or highly regulated, such as 2 alcoholic beverages per person per day & when one purchases one drink they would have thier skin marked with a dye that didnt wash off easily, this would stop them moving up to the next watering hole for another two drinks. Of course all would be standard type drinks, heavily taxed to support increased enforcement & the drops in Assaults, domestic violence and alcohol related mva's would be overwhelmingly significant.

Of course, some would scream about drops in tourism whilst others would argue that this would attract a different type of tourist.

Alcohol is an evil substance and its costs on society worldwide has far outstripped the costs of illicit drugs. I don't understand people that need abuse drugs in order to enjoy themselves, something is wrong with people that do this.

Sounds like Saudi Arabia would be more to your liking than Thailand.

[NALAK]

they could not even enforce the curfew in Pattaya so i doubt this will stand up, places like soi 6 survive on day time drinkers. not heard anybody mention it , so they obviously not informed the people here as yet. all the air con bars allow smoking unfutunatly

[gotglue]

Just remind the government, what red <deleted> leader it was who originally implemented alot of the recent drink laws. They'll scrap them in a flash.

[neil324]

"This rule will decimate the bar trade, just look at England"

Is this true for England or are you being melodramatic? No smoking rules have been implemented in several cities in the US, and they had ZERO effect on bars. People actually say that it had a positive effect because the nonsmoking majority is coming out more often and feel better. Smokers just go outside for a few minutes to smoke and come back in and generally don't seem too bothered by the no smoking rule.

Its definitely changed things in the UK with more families using pubs and food sales are now more important. Old style men's boozers are closing daily and not being replaced as people stay at home but I reckon thats a cost issue with a pint at £3.50 who can blame them?

Smoking is a side issue now and to be honest as a smoker I think its better to have no smoking inside a bar but still some accomodation should be made outsi

Where about, Birmingham local boozer is about £2.

Edited May 28, 2010 by neil324

[tgw]

Sounds like responsible service of alcohol to me.

Of course, everyone recognises what an aweful substance alcohol is and it playing part in a large amount of assualts, domestic abuse, motor vehicle collisions and so forth.

It's a pity these new laws don't go far enough to ensure safety for all the worlds occupants & of course, irregardless of what the laws are its unlikely they will be enforced fairly.

Do you think people should be allowed to drink in moderation in a bar during the hours of 2 and 5 in the afternoon?

Actually carmine, I'm a bad person to ask that sort of question. Anyway, despite whatever we all think, obviousloy the law makers and policy makers here in LOS think its a bad idea to consume alcohol between these hours. I tend to agree with them but they have only come part way in a soloution to the alcohol problem here.

Of course, I think anyone being objective can see that there may be a problem with some kinds of people starting to consume alcohol early in the day & of course I am referring to those who start drinking then and dont stop until the wee hours & normally those ones are the ones who are later causing problems for the rest of society. I further acknowledge that its hard to pick the mark or selectively enforce the law fairly to all, ie: Allowing responsible drinkers to consume alcohol at 2pm yet stop irresponsible ones.

As I have already stated twice, the authorities have stopped short of addressing the real alcohol issues here, such as serving alcohol to intoxicated people & serving it late or into the early hours of the morning.

In a perfect world, alcohol would be either banned or highly regulated, such as 2 alcoholic beverages per person per day & when one purchases one drink they would have thier skin marked with a dye that didnt wash off easily, this would stop them moving up to the next watering hole for another two drinks. Of course all would be standard type drinks, heavily taxed to support increased enforcement & the drops in Assaults, domestic violence and alcohol related mva's would be overwhelmingly significant.

Of course, some would scream about drops in tourism whilst others would argue that this would attract a different type of tourist.

Alcohol is an evil substance and its costs on society worldwide has far outstripped the costs of illicit drugs. I don't understand people that need abuse drugs in order to enjoy themselves, something is wrong with people that do this.

I wouldn't be surprised if you were a former alcohol addict, Neverdie.

I value individual Liberty higher than a statistical benefit for society.

I am against an alcohol ban, against a smoking ban and against speed limits on large well-built hiways.

I'm a moderate beer, wine and cocktails drinker (I like to get a bit drunk maybe 1 or 2 times in a month), I don't drink strong beverages because they turn my stomach.

I don't smoke, but acknowledge other's rights to do so (but I don't agree with giving tobacco victims free healthcare).

I don't drive in a drunken state, and think motorists should be checked more often and the penalties should be more severe.

But I do drive fast when I'm in Germany.

I enjoy being considered as a responsible person able to decide for himself what's safe and what not, I don't need a nanny state deciding these things for me.

Everything is OK in moderation.

Eat, Drink or do too much of anything and you will die. Simple.

Drink 10 liters of water at once, and you will probably die. Eat 20 burgers and you will probably die.

My limit is "being able to decide". i.e. people who are not able to decide must be protected from suffering irreversible damages. For example, youth must be protected from health-damaging and/or addictive drugs. Since parents cannot do that effectively, the state has to issue a law.

By law in most countries, persons which are not mentally challenged are "able to decide" when they are 18. Let them be free.

The situation is totally different for motorcycles. I would never let my kids drive a motorcycle in the LOS. And I feel a law is missing. Not only should the parents' approval be necessary to obtain a driving license for a bike, but also the law should require the passenger under 18 to own a license himself, unless the driver is one of his legal guardians (parents)...

Abusive speed limits, smoking bans, drinking bans, gambling bans, restrictions on medicinal drugs (antibiotics, viagra, painkillers, whatever...)

I think all these laws are overprotective and unfair to people who have good judgement, taking away a good part of their advantage in life, burdening them with taxes (yes, because many of these bans have costs) and restricting their liberties.

[bonobo]

Sounds like responsible service of alcohol to me.

Of course, everyone recognises what an aweful substance alcohol is and it playing part in a large amount of assualts, domestic abuse, motor vehicle collisions and so forth.

It's a pity these new laws don't go far enough to ensure safety for all the worlds occupants & of course, irregardless of what the laws are its unlikely they will be enforced fairly.

Do you think people should be allowed to drink in moderation in a bar during the hours of 2 and 5 in the afternoon?

Actually carmine, I'm a bad person to ask that sort of question. Anyway, despite whatever we all think, obviousloy the law makers and policy makers here in LOS think its a bad idea to consume alcohol between these hours. I tend to agree with them but they have only come part way in a soloution to the alcohol problem here.

Of course, I think anyone being objective can see that there may be a problem with some kinds of people starting to consume alcohol early in the day & of course I am referring to those who start drinking then and dont stop until the wee hours & normally those ones are the ones who are later causing problems for the rest of society. I further acknowledge that its hard to pick the mark or selectively enforce the law fairly to all, ie: Allowing responsible drinkers to consume alcohol at 2pm yet stop irresponsible ones.

As I have already stated twice, the authorities have stopped short of addressing the real alcohol issues here, such as serving alcohol to intoxicated people & serving it late or into the early hours of the morning.

In a perfect world, alcohol would be either banned or highly regulated, such as 2 alcoholic beverages per person per day & when one purchases one drink they would have thier skin marked with a dye that didnt wash off easily, this would stop them moving up to the next watering hole for another two drinks. Of course all would be standard type drinks, heavily taxed to support increased enforcement & the drops in Assaults, domestic violence and alcohol related mva's would be overwhelmingly significant.

Of course, some would scream about drops in tourism whilst others would argue that this would attract a different type of tourist.

Alcohol is an evil substance and its costs on society worldwide has far outstripped the costs of illicit drugs. I don't understand people that need abuse drugs in order to enjoy themselves, something is wrong with people that do this.

I wouldn't be surprised if you were a former alcohol addict, Neverdie.

I value individual Liberty higher than a statistical benefit for society.

I am against an alcohol ban, against a smoking ban and against speed limits on large well-built hiways.

I'm a moderate beer, wine and cocktails drinker (I like to get a bit drunk maybe 1 or 2 times in a month), I don't drink strong beverages because they turn my stomach.

I don't smoke, but acknowledge other's rights to do so (but I don't agree with giving tobacco victims free healthcare).

I don't drive in a drunken state, and think motorists should be checked more often and the penalties should be more severe.

But I do drive fast when I'm in Germany.

I enjoy being considered as a responsible person able to decide for himself what's safe and what not, I don't need a nanny state deciding these things for me.

Everything is OK in moderation.

Eat, Drink or do too much of anything and you will die. Simple.

Drink 10 liters of water at once, and you will probably die. Eat 20 burgers and you will probably die.

My limit is "being able to decide". i.e. people who are not able to decide must be protected from suffering irreversible damages. For example, youth must be protected from health-damaging and/or addictive drugs. Since parents cannot do that effectively, the state has to issue a law.

By law in most countries, persons which are not mentally challenged are "able to decide" when they are 18. Let them be free.

The situation is totally different for motorcycles. I would never let my kids drive a motorcycle in the LOS. And I feel a law is missing. Not only should the parents' approval be necessary to obtain a driving license for a bike, but also the law should require the passenger under 18 to own a license himself, unless the driver is one of his legal guardians (parents)...

Abusive speed limits, smoking bans, drinking bans, gambling bans, restrictions on medicinal drugs (antibiotics, viagra, painkillers, whatever...)

I think all these laws are overprotective and unfair to people who have good judgement, taking away a good part of their advantage in life, burdening them with taxes (yes, because many of these bans have costs) and restricting their liberties.

The Nanny State argument gets pretty old (and I realize you didn't use that specific term, tgw).  Smoking is bad, and second hand smoke affects others, so restricting it in public places make eminent sense. Speeding kills not only those who crash, but other drivers/pedestrians who are not flouting the law.  Drinking combined with driving kills uncounted numbers of people who nary had a drop to drink.  Asbestos in insulation causes cancer.  Car pollution causes respiratory problems.  And so on.  I have no problem with the government using taking action to best serve the general population as a whole.  I believe that is part of the government's job.

What people do in their own home where it affects no one else is different.  Smoke 'em up, drink, whatever.  I don't think public health should pay for the abuses of others, but where do we draw the line?  Do we refuse to pay for obesity-caused diabetes when the obese person eats at McDonald's?  Do we refuse to pay for the skydiver's broken back because he or she chose to participate in a dangerous activity?  That is a slippery slope.  So I think we are stuck with the public footing the bill for the health issues.

Now as to these new rules?  I am not sure they will address any problem.  I see them almost the same as the television censorship that blurs out guns as soon as they are pointed to another or that blurs out cigarettes as soon as they approach an actor's mouth.

[tgw]

I wouldn't be surprised if you were a former alcohol addict, Neverdie.

I value individual Liberty higher than a statistical benefit for society.

I am against an alcohol ban, against a smoking ban and against speed limits on large well-built hiways.

I'm a moderate beer, wine and cocktails drinker (I like to get a bit drunk maybe 1 or 2 times in a month), I don't drink strong beverages because they turn my stomach.

I don't smoke, but acknowledge other's rights to do so (but I don't agree with giving tobacco victims free healthcare).

I don't drive in a drunken state, and think motorists should be checked more often and the penalties should be more severe.

But I do drive fast when I'm in Germany.

I enjoy being considered as a responsible person able to decide for himself what's safe and what not, I don't need a nanny state deciding these things for me.

Everything is OK in moderation.

Eat, Drink or do too much of anything and you will die. Simple.

Drink 10 liters of water at once, and you will probably die. Eat 20 burgers and you will probably die.

My limit is "being able to decide". i.e. people who are not able to decide must be protected from suffering irreversible damages. For example, youth must be protected from health-damaging and/or addictive drugs. Since parents cannot do that effectively, the state has to issue a law.

By law in most countries, persons which are not mentally challenged are "able to decide" when they are 18. Let them be free.

The situation is totally different for motorcycles. I would never let my kids drive a motorcycle in the LOS. And I feel a law is missing. Not only should the parents' approval be necessary to obtain a driving license for a bike, but also the law should require the passenger under 18 to own a license himself, unless the driver is one of his legal guardians (parents)...

Abusive speed limits, smoking bans, drinking bans, gambling bans, restrictions on medicinal drugs (antibiotics, viagra, painkillers, whatever...)

I think all these laws are overprotective and unfair to people who have good judgement, taking away a good part of their advantage in life, burdening them with taxes (yes, because many of these bans have costs) and restricting their liberties.

The Nanny State argument gets pretty old (and I realize you didn't use that specific term, tgw).  Smoking is bad, and second hand smoke affects others, so restricting it in public places make eminent sense. Speeding kills not only those who crash, but other drivers/pedestrians who are not flouting the law.  Drinking combined with driving kills uncounted numbers of people who nary had a drop to drink.  Asbestos in insulation causes cancer.  Car pollution causes respiratory problems.  And so on.  I have no problem with the government using taking action to best serve the general population as a whole.  I believe that is part of the government's job.

What people do in their own home where it affects no one else is different.  Smoke 'em up, drink, whatever.  I don't think public health should pay for the abuses of others, but where do we draw the line?  Do we refuse to pay for obesity-caused diabetes when the obese person eats at McDonald's?  Do we refuse to pay for the skydiver's broken back because he or she chose to participate in a dangerous activity?  That is a slippery slope.  So I think we are stuck with the public footing the bill for the health issues.

Now as to these new rules?  I am not sure they will address any problem.  I see them almost the same as the television censorship that blurs out guns as soon as they are pointed to another or that blurs out cigarettes as soon as they approach an actor's mouth.

Well, then read it again, because I used the term "nanny state". There's no reason not to tell a truth even if the term gets "old".

I have a more nuanced view on things:

>> Smoking is bad, and second hand smoke affects others, so restricting it in public places make eminent sense.

People should be given the choice of smoking or non-smoking offices. I.e. if there is a smoking office, there must be free desks in the non-smoking area.

Bars: no ban in open air places.

Allow for smoking bars. Make effective extractors compulsory for smoking bars.

>> Speeding kills not only those who crash, but other drivers/pedestrians who are not flouting the law.

Strongly disagree. Speeding doesn't kill, bad/drunk drivers kill. Most accidents happen at moderate speed.

In Germany, I sometimes speed at 220 KmH when the highways are free, as do most Germans, and their road deaths stats are not worse than the average of other countries.

Up the standards for the driving license, take stronger measures against drunk driving. ENFORCE it. The idiots are making life difficult for those who act responsibly.

Take measures against idiots, not against everybody.

>> Asbestos in insulation causes cancer.

What's the point? Regulations against asbestos are sensible and not restricting anyone's liberties.

>> Car pollution causes respiratory problems.

yes... so take measures to reduce car emissions. Don't restrict people's liberty to drive where they want when they want.

>> I have no problem with the government using taking action to best serve the general population as a whole. I believe that is part of the government's job.

Yes, as long as the government's actions don't interfere with the lives of people who are not having and not causing any statistically relevant problems.

>> I don't think public health should pay for the abuses of others, but where do we draw the line? Do we refuse to pay for obesity-caused diabetes when the obese person eats at McDonald's?

Eating at McDonald's is not a problem.

Eating too much of the wrong things is a problem.

I think of health welfare as an insurance. Make yearly health checks compulsory to be able to claim free or subsidised healthcare. When there's a well documented medical history and the person has been warned early enough and several times by the doc, I don't see why the insurance should pay for a disease that was caused by the person himself, in full knowledge of the risks?

>> Do we refuse to pay for the skydiver's broken back because he or she chose to participate in a dangerous activity?

In most countries there are insurances for this kind of activity, in many countries they are compulsory, you have to show a license before jumping, and the license means you got a health check and paid the insurance.

Now, I'm not in favor of making anything compulsory, but if some skydiver breaks his back without insurance, well, bad luck.

He can't say he wasn't aware of the risks and nobody told him about insurance.

>> So I think we are stuck with the public footing the bill for the health issues.

I hope not.

We need transparency on health risks and responsibility put on individuals once they have been informed on the risks.

Society sure has to pay for old mistakes, like the denial over the risks of smoking.

I think it was Benjamin Franklin (I could be wrong though) who said something along the lines of:

"Democracy is like 2 sheep and one wolf voting on what's for dinner".

Sadly, today's version of democracy and nanny-state is rather like 2 sheep and a wolf voting on a ban of eating meat.

Life is in all cases deadly - we will all die.

People should get over it.

Instead, we behave as if we were immortals and if avoiding one death was worth burdening the whole community.

Edited May 30, 2010 by tgw

[hhgz]

"This is a repost of information provided by a close mate of mine, who is connected with a bar in Kamala Phuket. Hes not the kind of guy who makes stuff up, dreams things, or posts things hes not sure of."

I'm afraid that he's pulling your leg.

[wayfarer108]

Stupid and short-sighted. Will not achieve anything.

The current laws are sufficient to curtail the problems this new law is supposed to address (underage drinking, drink driving, etc.).

Even the current laws are stupid and do nothing to address the actual problems. (Oh, I can't buy alcohol from 14:00 ~ 17:00? ok then I'll buy a case of Chang before 14:00).

I won't share it with minors nor drive a car after I've been drinking and I'm not at all violent after I've had a skinfull, the most antisocial I become is getting sleepy.

The real problem is that the law is only enforced as the BiB "feel like it".

So many and varied problems in this society would be solved if we had a properly functioning police force.

These laws restricting the hours during which alcohol may be sold were put in place under Thaksin. I don't understand why they haven't been repealed since he fled the country.

[twofortheroad]

These laws restricting the hours during which alcohol may be sold were put in place under Thaksin. I don't understand why they haven't been repealed since he fled the country.

Do you honestly believe that every law or policy introduced during Thaksin's time as Prime Minister were only his doing? A bit naive, I think. As far as I remember, Purichai (interior minister) was the main man involved with this law, and the very strict enforcement of opening or rather closing times. I'm sure Thaksin had more important things to worry about - like lining the pockets of his family and friends, for example.

Do you think the 30 baht health scheme should be scrapped because Thaksin was behind it and he's fled the country? 

[wayfarer108]

These laws restricting the hours during which alcohol may be sold were put in place under Thaksin. I don't understand why they haven't been repealed since he fled the country.

Do you honestly believe that every law or policy introduced during Thaksin's time as Prime Minister were only his doing? A bit naive, I think. As far as I remember, Purichai (interior minister) was the main man involved with this law, and the very strict enforcement of opening or rather closing times. I'm sure Thaksin had more important things to worry about - like lining the pockets of his family and friends, for example.

Do you think the 30 baht health scheme should be scrapped because Thaksin was behind it and he's fled the country? 

Of course not every policy set in place during Thaksin's rule was his doing. The alcohol laws were, however. He's a teetotaler. Also the early bar closings, after his son was caught doing coke in Narcissus at 3am.

Yes I do think the 30-baht health scheme should be scrapped. And it has been, replaced by one that is entirely free of any fee, once the current gov't found out it cost more than 30 baht to process the fee. That one definitely was not Thaksin's idea. In fact he initially fought the proposal until TRT colleagues who introduced the idea convinced him it would help him get re-elected.

[wayfarer108]

Sounds like another law that will be enforced for a few days and then ignored, similar to the no smoking in bars and restaurants what a joke that law is, with more tea money for the bib, ho hum.

It's not a new law, been around for years.

Edited May 31, 2010 by wayfarer108

[barkly313]

"This is a repost of information provided by a close mate of mine, who is connected with a bar in Kamala Phuket. Hes not the kind of guy who makes stuff up, dreams things, or posts things hes not sure of."

I'm afraid that he's pulling your leg.

No leg pulling on this one...my wife just had a visit to her restaurant on Jomtien Beach from local government officials & issued a formal warning in Thai of the new laws re alcohol advertising, hours of sale & the no smoking law which has changed since last year - now they are not permitting smoking in any area of an open air bar or restaurant. They said they were giving final warnings before strict enforcement shortly.

I've searched 5pages of responses here for a civil reply to the OP, but all I've seen is flaming & sidetracking from the original question.

Wish people would stick to the subject & if someone actually does have useful information then please post it.

[Badboldie]

"This is a repost of information provided by a close mate of mine, who is connected with a bar in Kamala Phuket. Hes not the kind of guy who makes stuff up, dreams things, or posts things hes not sure of."

I'm afraid that he's pulling your leg.

No leg pulling on this one...my wife just had a visit to her restaurant on Jomtien Beach from local government officials & issued a formal warning in Thai of the new laws re alcohol advertising, hours of sale & the no smoking law which has changed since last year - now they are not permitting smoking in any area of an open air bar or restaurant. They said they were giving final warnings before strict enforcement shortly.

I've searched 5pages of responses here for a civil reply to the OP, but all I've seen is flaming & sidetracking from the original question.

Wish people would stick to the subject & if someone actually does have useful information then please post it.

Yes any more info on this subject?

[bangkokcitylimits]

I'm happy to read that the Thai gov now really worries about our health.

New traffic safety rules, improvement of roads and signs, certification of driving schools, tight implementation of traffic rules and mandatory vehicle safety tests and certification may follow soon !

[Xircal]

This is discourage school children from skipping school in order to go out drinking. This way they will be prevented from doing so until the school day is over and homework is completed.

Er...uhum....where does a school kid get 120 Baht from to go buy a beer in a bar?

[Kilgore Trout]

I have to disagree with you here mr Neverdie I am all for free drugs and so on. I don't understand why the majority of people who can use a substance without abusing it should suffer for a minority that abuses it. Its better to focus on the abuse then on getting rid of the substance, humans have always used substances and always will.

I almost seldom drink alcohol but have in the past when i lived in Holland and i did enough illigal substances there. I had a perfectly normal life and a good job a no problem in the world. Just like many other people i knew, sure there are always a few who abuse it but those should be taken care of not the substance itself.

Its like banning cars because you can speed with them, speeding is the problem not the car itself.

Anyway this is my point of view some might flame me for it and others might see it the same way, but its a controversial opinion to say the least.

Thats alright mate, its a free world and on the forum we are allowed to agree or disagree with each other without being abusive about it. neverdie removes robblok from xmas card list. I agree with some of what you have said, such as the car speeding example BUT having said all of that, when one takes an educated look at the true cost of alcohol on society one can only see that something drastic needs to occur in order to make the world a safer place for all.

Neverdie is an anti drugs man & indeed silly enuf without being under the influence of anything.

I completely agree with you and would go one step further to say that any unhealthy foods should also be banned as well as with any music or tv that could result in any silly behavior being derived from them. Good thinking, mate!

[britmaveric]

Can't enforce the old laws so I doubt their will be any chance the new laws are actually enforced either.

[dumball]

'Tony121' timestamp='1274773804' post='3640958']

'smokie36' post='3640902' date='2010-05-25 14:37:50']

My tongue in cheek add on brought one out of his cage at least , these are things that have been re-itterated a multitude of times over the years concerning Falang and their destructive influence on the young and easily led , Thai are great at 'Finger pointing '.

Have a good life at this current time thank you ]

I might be joining you in Cambodia if this nonsense has any truth to it.

Don't think about following me folks its a terrible place full of crime and way too expensive.

Don't think that Cambodia will be better when I was there in 2001 they banned dancing ! yes the evil of dancing all nightclubs where told to shut down a few of the big clubs got round this by putting menu's on the table and saying it was now a restauarant.

Oh so terribly wrong , Cambodia has changed a great deal in the intervening years from when you were there , the people are growing up and showing some consideration for others , including the goverment , some bars stay open all night or until the last customer leaves . I do not frequent bars as such but spend time in areas where they are located , they can be noisy , but in the

barang bars it can be quite peacefull , I have had no problem making a request to "Tone it down " , when the Kymer were VERY noisy in an area I had an apartment some years back , they kept the noise up practically 24/7 , I took my landlord to the local police station to request they do something about it . The following morning a police officer came and told them to turn down the noise and no noise after 9 pm , a few of the older ladies thanked me for this plus a young mother next door to me .

[Kilgore Trout]

I wonder if there is anything official on the OP's friend's experience.

Looking back at some newsclippings I only see this from last Dec...

phuketgazzet.com

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Alcohol act to be strictly enforced in Phuket

PHUKET: Phuket businesses selling and promoting alcohol and tobacco will face stricter enforcement of the Alcohol Control Act in the New Year.

Operators of bars, pubs, restaurants and advertising agencies face fines up to 500,000 baht and prison sentences of up to two years for infringements of the laws.

The imminent crackdown follows a Ministry of Public Health report claiming that despite the introduction of the Alcohol Control Act in February 2008, many businesses are still selling alcohol outside of the regulated hours and to minors.

The report also claims that minors can still easily obtain tobacco.

On Wednesday, Director of the Phuket Public Health Office Dr Pongsawat Rattanasaeng and Phuket Vice-Governor Worapoj Rathasima, announced stricter enforcement of the 2008 Alcohol Control Act in the New Year with tougher monitoring of bars, restaurants and other places selling alcohol and tobacco.

A public relations campaign will also be launched with the aim of creating awareness of the dangers associated with smoking and drinking, especially for minors.

In the past year, investigators have come across many businesses that are not abiding by the law or do not even understand the laws when it comes to alcohol and tobacco sales, said Dr Pongsawat.

“So far, business operators have only received warnings when found to be selling alcohol and tobacco illegally. However, as of January, businesses will face stricter inspections,” he said.

The 2008 Alcohol Control Act states that alcohol cannot be sold at places of worship, health centers and hospitals, government offices, education institutions, and gas stations.

Venue operators found breaking these laws face 10,000-baht fines and/or up to six months in jail.

Alcohol can only be sold between 11am and 2pm and from 5pm until midnight.

Violators face fines of up to 4,000 baht and/or a maximum of two years in jail.

Those found selling alcohol to minors (under 20 years old) face fines of up to 20,000 baht and/or up to one year in jail.

Dr Pongsawat said that alcohol advertising would come under closer scrutiny and that violators could face fines of up to 500,000 baht and/or one-year jail sentences.

He recommended sponsorship of big events as a way for alcohol manufacturers to promote their products.

Dr Pongsawat stressed that the authorities must do their part to educate business operators on alcohol and tobacco laws and punishments for violators while initiating more anti-smoking and anti-alcohol campaigns and clamping down on violators.

– Sitthipong Nongkaew

Now reading this, I wonder, has the Alcohol Control Act changed?

So the doc says bars shouldn't be allowed to advertise the products they sell but the big alcohol companies should be able to sponsor (and heavily advertise) at "big events" where I am sure many minors view or attend; brilliant.