SURVEY: Is the new law about selling alcohol near an educational institution a good idea?

[Scott]

In your opinion, do you think that the new law which bans the sale of alcohol within 300 meters of any educational institution a good idea?

For further information on the law and it's impact, please see these links:

Surprise New Thailand Booze Ban Now in Effect

Two Bars Closed Down Under Junta's Sweeping Booze Ban

Please feel free to post your thoughts on the topic.

[Credo]

This is another silly law which is poorly thought out and even more poorly executed. First, you need to give businesses a chance to relocate and second, if you have a minimum drinking age, then it needs to be enforced.

They have done this stuff before and didn't work. Some businesses got by with it because they were across the road, which someone decided didn't count as being in the vicinity.

This is just an opportunity for backhanders.

[Brit_Doggie]

As with anything else addiction wont stop it by local sanctions.

[NongKhaiKid]

Just what the country needs, another vague law that won't be enforced except as a way to extort money.

If any business selling alcohol has doubts about a customer's age they can ask for production of an ID card but how many bother as they don't want to lose a sale ? Does the authorities actually think setting a distance standard will deter students from buying alcohol if they really want ?

A friend has a small restaurant / bar near a school and is confused by the new laws especially the supplementary one introduced after the original was signed into effect by the PM. The vague ' near any school ' is a game changer and if enforced could put him and so many others out of business. He's afraid to ask for clarification from local authorities and draw attention.

Has anyone in authority given any thought to the potential effect on tourism etc or the livelihood of many small business owners which certainly won't return any ' happiness ' ? Somehow I think I can answer my own question.

[z42]

just seems hair brained and unnecessary imo. Taking away a shopkeepers discretion about who they sell to and what they sell seems kind of ridiculous. I mean if they are worried about students drinking alcohol why are they also not worried about students being sold candy and other unhealthy things. It doesn't make sense.
It would make more sense to enforce the actually fairly reasonable laws in place already than thinking of new and highly impractical ones to merely crack down on the problem du jour

[englishoak]

I voted yes just for the heck of it

like this poll is needed ............. yeeesh

[chiang mai]

I'm not suggesting it's the be all end all answer but it's certainly a positive step, one of many that needs to be taken. But is it a good idea, yes of course it is, only an alcoholic or very selfish person would think otherwise.

[trogers]

The beer dispensing machine should be next to the one dispensing condoms in all schools and colleges.

[Crossy]

I admit to still being confused as to whether it's all schools or just tertiary education.

In our area every village has a Wat, and every bigger Wat has a school.

Of course the Wat is right in the centre of town, the 300m radius encompasses the entire village. Ergo - no alcohol sales at all - period.

Step-son's restaurant, already struggling, is within the 300m radius (heck so is the beer wholesaler - but a different school). I suspect it will be curtains for a rather nice riverside eating place

[halloween]

As good ideas go, about on par with the captain of the Titanic's decision not to slow down in fog.

[jerojero]

In principle may have some merit, but not well thought out, nor clearly defined and horribly implemented. As a result will not achieve its objective and will cause massive negative side effects. Too many like this the past year!

Edited July 27, 2015 by jerojero

[oneday]

People who want to drink will find a way to drink irregardless of stupid laws. All this law is doing is harming businesses.

[Tatsujin]

Just what the country needs, another vague law that won't be enforced except as a way to extort money.

If any business selling alcohol has doubts about a customer's age they can ask for production of an ID card but how many bother as they don't want to lose a sale ? Does the authorities actually think setting a distance standard will deter students from buying alcohol if they really want ?

A friend has a small restaurant / bar near a school and is confused by the new laws especially the supplementary one introduced after the original was signed into effect by the PM. The vague ' near any school ' is a game changer and if enforced could put him and so many others out of business. He's afraid to ask for clarification from local authorities and draw attention.

Has anyone in authority given any thought to the potential effect on tourism etc or the livelihood of many small business owners which certainly won't return any ' happiness ' ? Somehow I think I can answer my own question.

Isn't the new law that specifies it's 300m coming into effect at the end of August?

[Saan]

Only if you and your family don't depend on a living from a bar or if you are a multi millionaire general.

Us old toss pots will survive, we'll just move to a bar 301 metres from a school.

God help the poor people that have a business involving alcohol and can't move that all important 301 metres.

[masuk]

I admit to still being confused as to whether it's all schools or just tertiary education.

In our area every village has a Wat, and every bigger Wat has a school.

Of course the Wat is right in the centre of town, the 300m radius encompasses the entire village. Ergo - no alcohol sales at all - period.

Step-son's restaurant, already struggling, is within the 300m radius (heck so is the beer wholesaler - but a different school). I suspect it will be curtains for a rather nice riverside eating place

Surely if the age limit is observed, then the only people allowed to purchase alcoholic drinks would be senior University students, and that would normally be long after school students would be home.

So why bother?

[Dap]

It just won't make any difference. 7/11's will cease stocking and Mom & Pop's will

relish the biz. The Bars that wouldn't/shouldn't be serving students anyway will be

hurt and no one will enforce the law after a few months as is the norm. 300 or 3000

meters won't make any difference to those that wish to purchase and will do so,

law or not. Totally misdirected thinking in my opinion.

[chrisinth]

Just what the country needs, another vague law that won't be enforced except as a way to extort money.

If any business selling alcohol has doubts about a customer's age they can ask for production of an ID card but how many bother as they don't want to lose a sale ? Does the authorities actually think setting a distance standard will deter students from buying alcohol if they really want ?

A friend has a small restaurant / bar near a school and is confused by the new laws especially the supplementary one introduced after the original was signed into effect by the PM. The vague ' near any school ' is a game changer and if enforced could put him and so many others out of business. He's afraid to ask for clarification from local authorities and draw attention.

Has anyone in authority given any thought to the potential effect on tourism etc or the livelihood of many small business owners which certainly won't return any ' happiness ' ? Somehow I think I can answer my own question.

Isn't the new law that specifies it's 300m coming into effect at the end of August?

It did say with immediate effect (23rd July) and as we are seeing senior police being transferred and so far, two bars reported as being closed down by the police, it just adds to the confusion.

If it truly is the case, and businesses are not being given any time to adjust, then it is a very strict action that will have minimum effect on the targeted students and maximum disruption for those premises that have gone through the system and licensed their business.

IMO, it makes no sense what-so-ever, unless the premises in question has been illegally selling alcohol to minors before hand..........................

And that opens another door as to why that has been previously been allowed to happen.

[MikeTexas]

It's an appeasement law. It serves no purpose other than to look good on paper. Does anyone have any doubt that people will just drive a little further up the road (assuming that the existing business stop in the first place of course)?

[NongKhaiKid]

Just what the country needs, another vague law that won't be enforced except as a way to extort money.

If any business selling alcohol has doubts about a customer's age they can ask for production of an ID card but how many bother as they don't want to lose a sale ? Does the authorities actually think setting a distance standard will deter students from buying alcohol if they really want ?

A friend has a small restaurant / bar near a school and is confused by the new laws especially the supplementary one introduced after the original was signed into effect by the PM. The vague ' near any school ' is a game changer and if enforced could put him and so many others out of business. He's afraid to ask for clarification from local authorities and draw attention.

Has anyone in authority given any thought to the potential effect on tourism etc or the livelihood of many small business owners which certainly won't return any ' happiness ' ? Somehow I think I can answer my own question.

Isn't the new law that specifies it's 300m coming into effect at the end of August?

It did say with immediate effect (23rd July) and as we are seeing senior police being transferred and so far, two bars reported as being closed down by the police, it just adds to the confusion.

If it truly is the case, and businesses are not being given any time to adjust, then it is a very strict action that will have minimum effect on the targeted students and maximum disruption for those premises that have gone through the system and licensed their business.

IMO, it makes no sense what-so-ever, unless the premises in question has been illegally selling alcohol to minors before hand..........................

And that opens another door as to why that has been previously been allowed to happen.

Thanks for the clarification as I did think it was with immediate effect but the issue has become so confused especially with the supplementary provision that magically appeared and really muddied the waters with it's vague wording where 300 meters was changed into ' near ' which is most definitely open to interpretation and abuse.

[Tatsujin]

Just what the country needs, another vague law that won't be enforced except as a way to extort money.

If any business selling alcohol has doubts about a customer's age they can ask for production of an ID card but how many bother as they don't want to lose a sale ? Does the authorities actually think setting a distance standard will deter students from buying alcohol if they really want ?

A friend has a small restaurant / bar near a school and is confused by the new laws especially the supplementary one introduced after the original was signed into effect by the PM. The vague ' near any school ' is a game changer and if enforced could put him and so many others out of business. He's afraid to ask for clarification from local authorities and draw attention.

Has anyone in authority given any thought to the potential effect on tourism etc or the livelihood of many small business owners which certainly won't return any ' happiness ' ? Somehow I think I can answer my own question.

Isn't the new law that specifies it's 300m coming into effect at the end of August?

It did say with immediate effect (23rd July) and as we are seeing senior police being transferred and so far, two bars reported as being closed down by the police, it just adds to the confusion.

If it truly is the case, and businesses are not being given any time to adjust, then it is a very strict action that will have minimum effect on the targeted students and maximum disruption for those premises that have gone through the system and licensed their business.

IMO, it makes no sense what-so-ever, unless the premises in question has been illegally selling alcohol to minors before hand..........................

And that opens another door as to why that has been previously been allowed to happen.

I was of the understanding the law that came into effect last Friday simply says "near" and that the end of August version specifies it in law as 300m.

As for why it happened before ... simple ... the Thaksin philosophy of keeping those nearest and dearest to him (his bought and paid for Royal Thai Thieves) able to steal from those around them with impunity.

The Military on the other hand aren't in Thaksin's pocket and therefore you've seen over the past 18 months or so a massive increase in arrests, transfers etc of those Thaksin money men.

That's not to say (perhaps) that the Military themselves aren't out to help themselves also however ...

[chatette]

This is an unnecessary and economically detrimental law that highlights an inability to enforce the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, which bans the sale of alcohol to anyone under 20-yrs old.

A blanket ban of sales within whatever radius of schools won't stop underage drinking, if that's the objective.

More effective (and socially responsible) would be to introduce responsible drinking programs in schools.

Just a little brain activity on the part of regulators could identify simple and effective methods that make it more difficult for underage purchasing of alcohol, like inputting ID number at retail points of sale, for example. ID card is issued to everyone from 14 yrs old up....

[peterrabbit]

Rather than pass new laws when faced with a problem why don't they just concentrate on enforcing the laws they already have. If they just enforced all the current laws/regulations for all the bars with the 300m most of the problems would be solved.

[FangFerang]

I side with many posters here: they should just call it the new Bribe Law and be done with it.

[NongKhaiKid]

Rather than pass new laws when faced with a problem why don't they just concentrate on enforcing the laws they already have. If they just enforced all the current laws/regulations for all the bars with the 300m most of the problems would be solved.

It's a sensible suggestion but unfortunately there's the ' small ' matter of who owns the bars, who has a financial stake in them, who the owner(s) are connected to etc etc.

Prime candidates for closure are those owned by a ' nobody ' with no silent partners, no connections and no clout.

[DM07]

Of course it is!

The PM telled me so, so it has to be!

[chrisinth]

Just what the country needs, another vague law that won't be enforced except as a way to extort money.

If any business selling alcohol has doubts about a customer's age they can ask for production of an ID card but how many bother as they don't want to lose a sale ? Does the authorities actually think setting a distance standard will deter students from buying alcohol if they really want ?

A friend has a small restaurant / bar near a school and is confused by the new laws especially the supplementary one introduced after the original was signed into effect by the PM. The vague ' near any school ' is a game changer and if enforced could put him and so many others out of business. He's afraid to ask for clarification from local authorities and draw attention.

Has anyone in authority given any thought to the potential effect on tourism etc or the livelihood of many small business owners which certainly won't return any ' happiness ' ? Somehow I think I can answer my own question.

Isn't the new law that specifies it's 300m coming into effect at the end of August?

It did say with immediate effect (23rd July) and as we are seeing senior police being transferred and so far, two bars reported as being closed down by the police, it just adds to the confusion.

If it truly is the case, and businesses are not being given any time to adjust, then it is a very strict action that will have minimum effect on the targeted students and maximum disruption for those premises that have gone through the system and licensed their business.

IMO, it makes no sense what-so-ever, unless the premises in question has been illegally selling alcohol to minors before hand..........................

And that opens another door as to why that has been previously been allowed to happen.

I was of the understanding the law that came into effect last Friday simply says "near" and that the end of August version specifies it in law as 300m.

As for why it happened before ... simple ... the Thaksin philosophy of keeping those nearest and dearest to him (his bought and paid for Royal Thai Thieves) able to steal from those around them with impunity.

The Military on the other hand aren't in Thaksin's pocket and therefore you've seen over the past 18 months or so a massive increase in arrests, transfers etc of those Thaksin money men.

That's not to say (perhaps) that the Military themselves aren't out to help themselves also however ...

Sorry, that is not true. I was running a bar both before and during Thaksin's 'reign' and nothing changed.

The bars that were selling to minors just continued doing so when Thaksin came into power.

Absolutely no reason to bring him into this discussion on this issue....................

[Emster23]

I'm not suggesting it's the be all end all answer but it's certainly a positive step, one of many that needs to be taken. But is it a good idea, yes of course it is, only an alcoholic or very selfish person would think otherwise.

I don't drink often. Last time was 2 glasses of wine 4 months ago. Is it selfish of me to consider this "positive first step" a grandstanding move to increase extortion by local BIB? You really haven't made a case for this draconian measure. There are already laws regarding age of drinking (I think those might qualify as "first steps" if they were enforced), so why not push for enforcement of those? Have to be rather naive to assume it makes sense to enact a law that restricts everyone in order to attempt to prevent those already breaking the law (minors drinking) from access to alcohol. Keep it simple stupid: require outlets to check ID. I do not want to see Thailand become another Singapore, or rather attempt to become another Singapore....

[amerasianex]

I think the intentions are good. But the reality is they will most likely still drink. Maybe some alcohol ? awareness would be a good idea. I hope tho foes not backfire where they feel compelled to drove to get alcohol......

[Bellacissa]

I haven't been here long (about 7 months) but I've noticed a pattern:

1) Someone makes a decision without consulting the local population.

2) Locals throw a tantrum and demand that it be rescinded.

3) Decision is rescinded.

We had this happen a couple of months ago on the dark side of Pattaya. The powers that be decided to change the traffic pattern along the bypass. They barricaded the streets and re-striped the roads. The locals raised hell and everything went back to the way it was before about a week later.

I expect this ban will go along roughly the same pattern. We have to remember that we (the outsiders) are not the target audience. They don't care what we think. But, when the locals start throwing a fit, there will be backpedaling and they'll "clarify" the law to fit what the locals want. Barring that, the tea money will flow and it won't matter anyway.

[dominique355]

These new rules are another piece of evidence of the failure of this country to enforce a law, any law.

The law already makes it illegal to sell alcohol to minors. But it's not enforced.

So what makes anyone believe that this law will be enforced?

Sure in the first days or weeks, but there is no follow through - fortunately I would add in this case. And it will be another nail in the coffin of a country without rule of law.

Edited July 27, 2015 by dominique355