Bangkok Rock Festival 2007 Cancelled Due To Alcohol Ban

hitori_one · November 24, 2006

Just another step away from a democratic government and a step closer to a dictatorship.

wimster · November 24, 2006

That's not clear the way you wrote it. Yeah....of course it's millions of dollars....what in Thailand, worldwide? You obviously do not really know what you are talking about.

You need to read my posts a little more closely wimster. I said "Sponsoring major rock concerts or sporting events costs millions of dollars...." That encompasses all their sponsorships, not just one single event. But any one of these events is not cheap. So YOU get YOUR facts right before YOU write something.

Edited November 24, 2006 by wimster

corkscrew · November 24, 2006

The point of this thread is still valid.... as of the 3rd of Dec there is no more 'public' alco advertising allowed. Considering the ad agencies which promote alco brands in Thailand spend about 30% of their annual budgets in the last quarter of the year means a hel_l of a lot of agencies are struggling for business and many people will be losing their jobs.
Where is this money going to go? No more sponsorship means no more Chivas Elephant Polo, no more DJ Spondorship -- many clubs are going to suffer nationwide . Say goodbye to the jonnie Walker ads. Hua Hin Jazz festival -- no Heineken, hello green tea. Tiger Girls serving you a beer, forget it...public display supporting alcohol not allowed, no beer for the punter and no income for the beer girl serving.

Anyone seen an ad for Lao Kao lately???

I am going to have lunch tomorrow with the organizer of elephant polo. In the past I have sponsored two teams. This worries me, too.

dai ru55 · November 24, 2006

The real problem here has very little to do with alcohol ads, but has everything to do with seriously bad Thai drivers, who until recently (3 years ago I think) just bought their driving licence, nothing has really changed people who fail their driving test, just pay the examiner... that’s Thai logic for you… sorry Thai logic that’s an oxymoron!!

DonTron · November 24, 2006

Ban on tobacco ads...

Ban on alcohol ads...

hmmm...

I wonder if there are ban on ads like this one:

Christmas Sales....

Come to Whatever a Go Go!

Barfine only 299 bath

Short time 599 bath

Long time 1499 bath

Happy hour, 3 girls for the price of 2.

Valid for December ONLY!

etc. etc....

Barney_the_Dinosaur · November 24, 2006

Are bars or places that sell booze allowed to advertise?

gharknes · November 24, 2006

Are bars or places that sell booze allowed to advertise?

no they have to hide the bottles and pumps from site, maybe they could serve the drink from a back room and then we'll never know what we're drinking

this is all just plain stupid, if they want to tackle road death through drinking then they need to address driving standards - policing standards and detection

lets stop deaths in the fishing industry we'll all stop eating fish

For a lot of people bars and drinking is a major part of our social interaction, it ain't going to change, for those that don't drink I don't think you have a place in this argument

unbiasbob · November 24, 2006

I guess they will have to repaint this downtown icon.

That will always be the dtac tower in my eyes. Get that Johnny Walker off of there already

jellykookabanj · November 24, 2006

Have been a lurker here for many years and feel compelled to throw in my 2 cents on this subject. This upcoming ban on alcohol advertising was brought about by the Ministry of Heath's desire to reduce the number of alcohol related road fatalities. Particularly those people driving motorbikes. Maybe I'm thinking too logically, but wouldn't enforcing a nationwide helmet law that already exists instantly reduce the number of motorbike deaths? On the rare occasions when I'm in BKK, I do notice more bikers wearing helmets, but here in Chiang Mai I would conservatively guess that less than 40% of people on motorbikes are wearing helmets, and I include policemen as well. When we make our annual trek to Roi Et, that number drops to 15 - 20%.
I think banning alcohol sales at gas stations, especially those on highways, is a good idea. Yet it seems that nothing is being done to restrict the number of roadside stands that sell lao khao ...... day or night. I can't buy a bottle of wine or a case of warm beer at Lotus between 3 and 5 PM, but I can drive around the corner on my motorbike (with no helmet) and drink rice whiskey 'til I'm blind.

I do expect to see a price war on beer once the ban takes effect. If anything will encourage more alcohol consumption it's cheaper alcohol. Why not allow the companies to advertise ..... responsibly (ie: no happy social drinking, or showing only helmet wearing motorcyclists), and at the same time force them to match their ad money - baht for baht - and set up a special fund to help out the education system in Thailand? Yeah, I know, I'm dreaming. Oh well, just a thought.

Nice point. The Motorcycle Helmet Laws are absurd anyway. The rider(driver) of the bike "must" wear a helmet, but the passengers (up to 7 others) don't have to. The absurdly easy way that licenses are issued by authorities (if the rider has bothered) and the very large numbers of children riding motorcycles cause many problems too.

It is extremely amusing to watch the police directing traffic at schools at the end of the day when swarms of "KIDS" ride out of school (without looking first), maybe with 1% of them wearing helmets. They ride erratically and also downright dangerously and the police just give there usual very pleasant smile.

30 minutes later, the police hit squads are setting up a road block to check for traffic offenses but totally ignore the many motorcycles that just turn around and ride the wrong way back down the road to avoid the checkpoint.

SORRY if it appears that I have strayed from the topic, but I fervently believe that the ban on advertising is a very strange way to combat road deaths. Little or no driver/rider instruction is given and underage driving/riding is prevelant. The government needs to attack the root cause of bad driving to start with and then maybe concentrate later on advertising.

It has always been socially acceptable to look the other way when when wrongdoings are taking place.

Finally, does advertising include umbrellas, drip mats, waitress uniforms, and many other things that carry brand logos.

TAWP · November 24, 2006

This country neds education, not ban on advertisement.

Some misinformed person claimed that there where several countries in europe that have succesfull bad on ads and that everything is great due to it. Couldn't further from the truth.

In Sweden we not only have ban on ads, we have the infamous 'Systembolaget', which is a goverment-run liquer-shop, and they - and they alone - may sell any strong stuff over 3.5%vw IIRC.

And let's face it, there is huge problems with teens drinking.

And yet, these things above has been in affect for over 50 years. I guess kids are slow learners, huh?

Edited November 24, 2006 by TAWP

cclub75 · November 24, 2006

The whole issue is getting more and more confused.

The Council of State says the ban has no legal effect.... Health Ministry says "mai pen rai, we do it".

Council says : "ok boys, but then companies could take the case to Administrative Court".

Meanwhile, the french embassy, backed by some local producers, made a very thai suggestion indeed : to postpone the application of the ban to... the 15 january. Too much red wine I guess. ah ah ah ah

What will be the next episode of this Great Thai Drama ? Stay tuned !

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/25Nov2006_news008.php

pap · November 25, 2006

When the fag companies were banned out of sports in the UK the negative effects to the sporting events and related industries (advertising, printing etc) were short lived.

The cost to Thailand if a few advertising companies go under and they miss out on a few rock concerts would be a small price to pay IF the ban saves even one life. Around 14,000 people die on Thai roads annually. 80%+ of these deaths are drink related. And that represents only one of the negative effects alcohol has on society.

Less drinking, less puking, less hangovers, less hospital visits, lower insurance, safer roads etc.

A very good news indeed !

Let's wait a few more month, to have other cancelations. And then, maybe, the government will start to understand that they should review their ridiculous face-based decision...

Sponsorship is only the tip of the iceberg... Actually, it's a big economic blow to the advertising and printing industries. That's the main issue.

Less activities, less revenues, less VAT, less taxes, etc.

Face has a price. They will pay it. At no discount.

now that's the stupidest post i've read here yet, advertising has nothing to do with drink driving, perhaps a sponsored campain and some advertising from the drink companies about drinking and driving might be the way to go, I don't think any manufacturing ccompany in the world would support driving while drunk, seperate issues, you think everyone will stop drinking because there are no adds......are you for real.

Yes I am. I'm sorry you think it's stupid, but I've researched it and it's possible for you to do the same. Try typing, "arguments for ban on alcohol advertising" in google. You might be able to find a link to some research papers on the subject. One (from a little school called MIT) has data suggesting that if there was a ban on broadcast advertising (only) with no bans on advertising for events etc, then around 3,000 lives would be saved (in the US at the time the study was carried out).

I never said that "everyone will stop drinking", read back to what I did say. Oh wait, I'll just say it again and try and make it clear....

IF the ban saves EVEN ONE LIFE, then isn't that worth inconveniencing a few rockers booze makers and a few advertising firms?

And "adds" is "ad" in this case, short word for advertisement. Also "separate" not "seperate... and "campaign" not "campain". (Sorry, but just check your spelling before you send a post to tell someone else that what they wrote is stupid. And check your facts after that. And then be sure that you read the other person's post properly and try to understand what they were actually saying.

If people drink, they might get drunk... if they get drunk they might drink drive and are then more likely to crash. People who crash are more likely to get hurt or hurt others than people who don't crash. You follow? It's not really rocket science is it?

And advertising products does effect sales, otherwise they wouldn't spend millions of baht on ads would they? So taking the ads away should have a negative effect on sales, right?

Less alcohol sales = less drunks = less drunk drivers = less crashes = less roadkill

I am sure MIT had a much more involved formulation for their conclusions, but I suspect that mine are reasonably accurate.

And "adds" is "ad" in this case, short word for advertisement. Also "separate" not "seperate... and "campaign" not "campain". (Sorry, but just check your spelling before you send a post to tell someone else that what they wrote is stupid.

Very well put Pal. Some of the posters cannot spell their own name and then come along as experts or at the very least setting out to ridicule those people who put up very valid and considered arguments.

You have made a number of quite compelling reasons as to why alcohol advertising would be no great loss were we not to have it.

And the link between the consumption of alcohol and road traffic accidents (and resulting fatalities) is not open for debate.

You're right on track with your comments.

What do spelink and gramar have to do with having a valid opinionn. Does that mean that all people who are lousy typists don't have valid opinions. This cracks me up. I wonder how many valid ideas have crossed the screen of others but were discounted due to improper punctuation or a mispalledd word or two.

I agree with much of what he says but I can't help wonder how many times posters here agree with ideas simply because it has worked in their country. Thais have other ways of doing many things that seem to me to work just fine. From a western perspective I know banning advertising does not work just like banning drinking doesn't work.

Banning drinking and driving however has been highly effective exactly because it has been "advertised" as bad. Educate.....it works mo better. This ties in nicely to Buddhism which preaches balance.

The price of banning anything (which has been proved repeatedly not to work) is not the death of a few advertising agencies. It is freedom. The freedom to choose. Each time you ban or force things on people instead of show them better options you lose a little freedom. That is when the law of unintended consequences catches up to you. It has a nasty way of making a bigger mess of things. For the record I will continue to read and respect your opinions even if you don't run a spellink and gramor check before posting.

If you look at it in a vacuum and then ask "if it saves even one life isn't it worth it?" then the answer is simple. Nothing is ever this simple in the long run. And everything we do has effects that are not always immediately evident. For example. If effort is spent on banning advertising and not on educating which could have saved 50,000 lives than maybe this exercise was a waste of energy that could have been better spent on something else. I would rather apply a tournequet if that is what a person needed than a bandaide. It might make me feel good to apply the bandaide but it would hardly have any effect. If the action being taken is not the most effective than maybe a fresh look at the issue is required.

Salud.

jumnien · November 25, 2006

The end of rock concerts? Fellas, Woodstock wasn't sponsored by Budweiser or Smirnoff. Get back to the roots man. Sex, drugs and rock and roll, brother! Hendrix, Morrison, Joplin, 90% of all the greats would have puked on these advertising wizards in their 3 piece suits controlling our experience. Remember, don't trust "The Man".

pap · November 25, 2006

I guess they will have to repaint this downtown icon.

Ah the plot thickens.....it must be that pesky painters union behind this....think of all the work they will get now.

pap · November 25, 2006

Personally I think it is not a bad thing to ban advertising of Alcohol and Cigarettes (yes I am a drinker so no axes to grind). Whereas I hate prohibition for adults (like the no alcohol sales at certain times of day that is crass ignorant and achieves nothing), I do think it eminently sensible to not push these two health damaging activities proverbially down the throats of the young or anyone else for that matter. I find it so so sad and very silly that you need alcohol and cigarette advertising to run these type of events (including my favourite sport of Motor Racing). What is wrong with big electronic companies like Samsung, Sony, LG etc advertising and sponsoring or soft drinks like Coke, Pepsi etc or TV stations, or Car/Motorbike makers/distributors or even PC associated manufacturers, fashion clothes like Levi/Wrangler jeans, Insurance companies like Blue Cross etc etc ?? Okay some of them maybe not appropriate to the younger folk but it is surely not good pushing booze and smokes at them.
Sorry but I think this advertising ban is a good thing but do not want to see Rock Festivals taken away form the young fans as I am all for everyone having a good time .

The reason you don't see Sony or Samsung sponsoring these events frequently is that it is tough to Drink a Samsung or smoke a Sony at the event. I don't ever recall seeing a Sony store at any concert I have been to.

pap · November 25, 2006

The end of rock concerts? Fellas, Woodstock wasn't sponsored by Budweiser or Smirnoff. Get back to the roots man. Sex, drugs and rock and roll, brother! Hendrix, Morrison, Joplin, 90% of all the greats would have puked on these advertising wizards in their 3 piece suits controlling our experience. Remember, don't trust "The Man".

How many records did they sell again? I'm sure the man didn't profit off this. Thank god they were so virtuous.

jumnien · November 25, 2006

The end of rock concerts? Fellas, Woodstock wasn't sponsored by Budweiser or Smirnoff. Get back to the roots man. Sex, drugs and rock and roll, brother! Hendrix, Morrison, Joplin, 90% of all the greats would have puked on these advertising wizards in their 3 piece suits controlling our experience. Remember, don't trust "The Man".

Doesn't anyone get it? Has the whole world gone mad? Corporate sponsorship itself is the end of rock concerts, beautiful people. Rock and rollers clamoring to save the freakin' ad industry, what a Clockwork Orange deal that is! Fire up another one, knobs on 10 (or is it 11?), and party hardy. But support the corporate culture, no my brothers and sisters. Next thing you know we'll all want to invade Iran because they don't allow beer ads! Where have all my people gone?

pap · November 25, 2006

The end of rock concerts? Fellas, Woodstock wasn't sponsored by Budweiser or Smirnoff. Get back to the roots man. Sex, drugs and rock and roll, brother! Hendrix, Morrison, Joplin, 90% of all the greats would have puked on these advertising wizards in their 3 piece suits controlling our experience. Remember, don't trust "The Man".

Doesn't anyone get it? Has the whole world gone mad? Corporate sponsorship itself is the end of rock concerts, beautiful people. Rock and rollers clamoring to save the freakin' ad industry, what a Clockwork Orange deal that is! Fire up another one, knobs on 10 (or is it 11?), and party hardy. But support the corporate culture, no my brothers and sisters. Next thing you know we'll all want to invade Iran because they don't allow beer ads! Where have all my people gone?

I got it exactly. My point was Janis and her friends participated while they screamed at the world. They sold records because of "the man", they got their booze from "the man", they had an audience because people were mad at "the man" that fed them and built their roads and educated them. Those were the good things that came from "the man".

That doesn't recount the multitude of wrongs that were done or are being done but they didn't live in a cave and I doubt you do. There are good things and bad things. For those that really care about true freedom and well being of others they have to take action to get the big companies to do things that are right. Like it or not its a symbiotic relationship.

jumnien · November 25, 2006

The end of rock concerts? Fellas, Woodstock wasn't sponsored by Budweiser or Smirnoff. Get back to the roots man. Sex, drugs and rock and roll, brother! Hendrix, Morrison, Joplin, 90% of all the greats would have puked on these advertising wizards in their 3 piece suits controlling our experience. Remember, don't trust "The Man".

Doesn't anyone get it? Has the whole world gone mad? Corporate sponsorship itself is the end of rock concerts, beautiful people. Rock and rollers clamoring to save the freakin' ad industry, what a Clockwork Orange deal that is! Fire up another one, knobs on 10 (or is it 11?), and party hardy. But support the corporate culture, no my brothers and sisters. Next thing you know we'll all want to invade Iran because they don't allow beer ads! Where have all my people gone?

I got it exactly. My point was Janis and her friends participated while they screamed at the world. They sold records because of "the man", they got their booze from "the man", they had an audience because people were mad at "the man" that fed them and built their roads and educated them. Those were the good things that came from "the man".

That doesn't recount the multitude of wrongs that were done or are being done but they didn't live in a cave and I doubt you do. There are good things and bad things. For those that really care about true freedom and well being of others they have to take action to get the big companies to do things that are right. Like it or not its a symbiotic relationship.

Oh no, are you "the man", man? I found some shrooms this morning and it's becoming so crystal clear to me, brother. This whole coup thing had nothing to do with Thaksin at all, that was a rouse, dude. You see the Generals, and the People Against Democracy and Chuwit - they were all at Woodstock, they saw the light, it changed their souls forever, my man. These are freedom fighters, for sure. Their aim is to liberate rock and roll from the corporate culture. It's all about the alcohol ad ban, that phone company- Singapore thing means nothing to them. As soon as they get rid of the rotten ad agencies and liquor corporations they are going after the record companies and having a bloody War on CR_P music! Clear as day!

farang prince · November 25, 2006

The end of rock concerts? Fellas, Woodstock wasn't sponsored by Budweiser or Smirnoff. Get back to the roots man. Sex, drugs and rock and roll, brother! Hendrix, Morrison, Joplin, 90% of all the greats would have puked on these advertising wizards in their 3 piece suits controlling our experience. Remember, don't trust "The Man".

Doesn't anyone get it? Has the whole world gone mad? Corporate sponsorship itself is the end of rock concerts, beautiful people. Rock and rollers clamoring to save the freakin' ad industry, what a Clockwork Orange deal that is! Fire up another one, knobs on 10 (or is it 11?), and party hardy. But support the corporate culture, no my brothers and sisters. Next thing you know we'll all want to invade Iran because they don't allow beer ads! Where have all my people gone?

I got it exactly. My point was Janis and her friends participated while they screamed at the world. They sold records because of "the man", they got their booze from "the man", they had an audience because people were mad at "the man" that fed them and built their roads and educated them. Those were the good things that came from "the man".

That doesn't recount the multitude of wrongs that were done or are being done but they didn't live in a cave and I doubt you do. There are good things and bad things. For those that really care about true freedom and well being of others they have to take action to get the big companies to do things that are right. Like it or not its a symbiotic relationship.

Oh no, are you "the man", man? I found some shrooms this morning and it's becoming so crystal clear to me, brother. This whole coup thing had nothing to do with Thaksin at all, that was a rouse, dude. You see the Generals, and the People Against Democracy and Chuwit - they were all at Woodstock, they saw the light, it changed their souls forever, my man. These are freedom fighters, for sure. Their aim is to liberate rock and roll from the corporate culture. It's all about the alcohol ad ban, that phone company- Singapore thing means nothing to them. As soon as they get rid of the rotten ad agencies and liquor corporations they are going after the record companies and having a bloody War on CR_P music! Clear as day!

Classic. Great post dude.

pap · November 25, 2006

The end of rock concerts? Fellas, Woodstock wasn't sponsored by Budweiser or Smirnoff. Get back to the roots man. Sex, drugs and rock and roll, brother! Hendrix, Morrison, Joplin, 90% of all the greats would have puked on these advertising wizards in their 3 piece suits controlling our experience. Remember, don't trust "The Man".

Doesn't anyone get it? Has the whole world gone mad? Corporate sponsorship itself is the end of rock concerts, beautiful people. Rock and rollers clamoring to save the freakin' ad industry, what a Clockwork Orange deal that is! Fire up another one, knobs on 10 (or is it 11?), and party hardy. But support the corporate culture, no my brothers and sisters. Next thing you know we'll all want to invade Iran because they don't allow beer ads! Where have all my people gone?

I got it exactly. My point was Janis and her friends participated while they screamed at the world. They sold records because of "the man", they got their booze from "the man", they had an audience because people were mad at "the man" that fed them and built their roads and educated them. Those were the good things that came from "the man".

That doesn't recount the multitude of wrongs that were done or are being done but they didn't live in a cave and I doubt you do. There are good things and bad things. For those that really care about true freedom and well being of others they have to take action to get the big companies to do things that are right. Like it or not its a symbiotic relationship.

Oh no, are you "the man", man? I found some shrooms this morning and it's becoming so crystal clear to me, brother. This whole coup thing had nothing to do with Thaksin at all, that was a rouse, dude. You see the Generals, and the People Against Democracy and Chuwit - they were all at Woodstock, they saw the light, it changed their souls forever, my man. These are freedom fighters, for sure. Their aim is to liberate rock and roll from the corporate culture. It's all about the alcohol ad ban, that phone company- Singapore thing means nothing to them. As soon as they get rid of the rotten ad agencies and liquor corporations they are going after the record companies and having a bloody War on CR_P music! Clear as day!

I know for sure your shroomin cause most people can't tie the bigger plan in as you have. :)Shrooms are hard to get without a good nose these days so I have no doubt none of the others will catch on. Your stomach muscles will be to sore for you to stop us. After rock n roll we go after the tuk tuks. Soon it will be all classical music sponsored by Foster's playing in BMW's. Bad news though, Chewit is on our side and the Coup was put on by us so we could keep Singapore from taking over the world.

Cheers.

Neeranam · November 25, 2006

Oh no, are you "the man", man? I found some shrooms this morning and it's becoming so crystal clear to me, brother. This whole coup thing had nothing to do with Thaksin at all, that was a rouse, dude. You see the Generals, and the People Against Democracy and Chuwit - they were all at Woodstock, they saw the light, it changed their souls forever, my man. These are freedom fighters, for sure. Their aim is to liberate rock and roll from the corporate culture. It's all about the alcohol ad ban, that phone company- Singapore thing means nothing to them. As soon as they get rid of the rotten ad agencies and liquor corporations they are going after the record companies and having a bloody War on CR_P music! Clear as day!

Right on bro.

Didn't know they had shrooms down in Prachuab Kiri Khan. Fly up to KK with some for me . Who is 'the man'?

Great mlets down on Koh Pan Ngan

Alcohol is a crap drug and should be banned completely. The country would be a much better place if heroin and cannibis were legalized and promoted.

Alcohol is the cause of MANY of this country's problems;

days off work

road accidents/deaths

physical abuse

sexual abuse

murder

etc etc.

Why not ban it and get everyone smoking the weed. I am involved in the largest alcohol treatment centre in SE Asia and am amazed at what destruction this drug does. Open your eyes people - why do you think that Thai people are thought of as smiley? Easy, they're all legal junkies. MANY many men here in Khon Kaen are either addicted to alcohol or been given benzodiazepines to stop drinking. There's one clinic that is infamous - all these legal junkies, due to alcohol queue up every day and have these weird spaced out grins. Even see monks there Now that is very sad. I've seen the tourist walk past doing the same one back and will probably tell everyone in their home country that Thai men are soooooo friendly.

Now, I've been through that alcohol addiction followed by tranquilizer addiction and it becomes worse than shooting crack/heroin(if it were legal and pure)

Why are you people on this thread(well only read one page) against banning alcohol?

Easy you are users, some of you being addicted but not realising it.

Take a careful look at yourself - could you go to a concert, eat afterwards and not consume and ethanol?

Pure hypocrisy, like the alcoholic judge sitting in his chambers with his hidden bottle of brandy, taking a top up for some courage before going out and fining some young guy for smoking non habit forming ganja.

I remember seeing Carabao playing a concert protesting against the crash helmet law back in 93, although don't know why. The sooner we all help to rid this country of that terrible, evil drug alcohol

and promote safer ones like heroin and cannibis, the better for us all - exept the alcohol addicts.

What was this thread about again, the mention of shroomin confused me.

Why can't Singha soda and Chang soda and M150 sponsor it? Looks like the big boys are not happy, ie those owning the breweries and are making the rest of us suffer. I wonder what these creaters of misery's karma is like? Boon Rawd, Adolph Hitler, Taksin, Andrew Biggs - not sure whose would be the worst.

teddy_bare · November 25, 2006

Oh no, are you "the man", man? I found some shrooms this morning and it's becoming so crystal clear to me, brother. This whole coup thing had nothing to do with Thaksin at all, that was a rouse, dude. You see the Generals, and the People Against Democracy and Chuwit - they were all at Woodstock, they saw the light, it changed their souls forever, my man. These are freedom fighters, for sure. Their aim is to liberate rock and roll from the corporate culture. It's all about the alcohol ad ban, that phone company- Singapore thing means nothing to them. As soon as they get rid of the rotten ad agencies and liquor corporations they are going after the record companies and having a bloody War on CR_P music! Clear as day!

Right on bro.

Didn't know they had shrooms down in Prachuab Kiri Khan. Fly up to KK with some for me . Who is 'the man'?

Great mlets down on Koh Pan Ngan

Alcohol is a crap drug and should be banned completely. The country would be a much better place if heroin and cannibis were legalized and promoted.

Alcohol is the cause of MANY of this country's problems;

days off work

road accidents/deaths

physical abuse

sexual abuse

murder

etc etc.

Why not ban it and get everyone smoking the weed. I am involved in the largest alcohol treatment centre in SE Asia and am amazed at what destruction this drug does. Open your eyes people - why do you think that Thai people are thought of as smiley? Easy, they're all legal junkies. MANY many men here in Khon Kaen are either addicted to alcohol or been given benzodiazepines to stop drinking. There's one clinic that is infamous - all these legal junkies, due to alcohol queue up every day and have these weird spaced out grins. Even see monks there Now that is very sad. I've seen the tourist walk past doing the same one back and will probably tell everyone in their home country that Thai men are soooooo friendly.

Now, I've been through that alcohol addiction followed by tranquilizer addiction and it becomes worse than shooting crack/heroin(if it were legal and pure)

Why are you people on this thread(well only read one page) against banning alcohol?

Easy you are users, some of you being addicted but not realising it.

Take a careful look at yourself - could you go to a concert, eat afterwards and not consume and ethanol?

Pure hypocrisy, like the alcoholic judge sitting in his chambers with his hidden bottle of brandy, taking a top up for some courage before going out and fining some young guy for smoking non habit forming ganja.

I remember seeing Carabao playing a concert protesting against the crash helmet law back in 93, although don't know why. The sooner we all help to rid this country of that terrible, evil drug alcohol

and promote safer ones like heroin and cannibis, the better for us all - exept the alcohol addicts.

What was this thread about again, the mention of shroomin confused me.

Why can't Singha soda and Chang soda and M150 sponsor it? Looks like the big boys are not happy, ie those owning the breweries and are making the rest of us suffer. I wonder what these creaters of misery's karma is like? Boon Rawd, Adolph Hitler, Taksin, Andrew Biggs - not sure whose would be the worst.

i guess you fell off your motorbike without your helmet on

pap · November 25, 2006

Oh no, are you "the man", man? I found some shrooms this morning and it's becoming so crystal clear to me, brother. This whole coup thing had nothing to do with Thaksin at all, that was a rouse, dude. You see the Generals, and the People Against Democracy and Chuwit - they were all at Woodstock, they saw the light, it changed their souls forever, my man. These are freedom fighters, for sure. Their aim is to liberate rock and roll from the corporate culture. It's all about the alcohol ad ban, that phone company- Singapore thing means nothing to them. As soon as they get rid of the rotten ad agencies and liquor corporations they are going after the record companies and having a bloody War on CR_P music! Clear as day!

Right on bro.

Didn't know they had shrooms down in Prachuab Kiri Khan. Fly up to KK with some for me . Who is 'the man'?

Great mlets down on Koh Pan Ngan

Alcohol is a crap drug and should be banned completely. The country would be a much better place if heroin and cannibis were legalized and promoted.

Alcohol is the cause of MANY of this country's problems;

days off work

road accidents/deaths

physical abuse

sexual abuse

murder

etc etc.

Why not ban it and get everyone smoking the weed. I am involved in the largest alcohol treatment centre in SE Asia and am amazed at what destruction this drug does. Open your eyes people - why do you think that Thai people are thought of as smiley? Easy, they're all legal junkies. MANY many men here in Khon Kaen are either addicted to alcohol or been given benzodiazepines to stop drinking. There's one clinic that is infamous - all these legal junkies, due to alcohol queue up every day and have these weird spaced out grins. Even see monks there Now that is very sad. I've seen the tourist walk past doing the same one back and will probably tell everyone in their home country that Thai men are soooooo friendly.

Now, I've been through that alcohol addiction followed by tranquilizer addiction and it becomes worse than shooting crack/heroin(if it were legal and pure)

Why are you people on this thread(well only read one page) against banning alcohol?

Easy you are users, some of you being addicted but not realising it.

Take a careful look at yourself - could you go to a concert, eat afterwards and not consume and ethanol?

Pure hypocrisy, like the alcoholic judge sitting in his chambers with his hidden bottle of brandy, taking a top up for some courage before going out and fining some young guy for smoking non habit forming ganja.

I remember seeing Carabao playing a concert protesting against the crash helmet law back in 93, although don't know why. The sooner we all help to rid this country of that terrible, evil drug alcohol

and promote safer ones like heroin and cannibis, the better for us all - exept the alcohol addicts.

What was this thread about again, the mention of shroomin confused me.

Why can't Singha soda and Chang soda and M150 sponsor it? Looks like the big boys are not happy, ie those owning the breweries and are making the rest of us suffer. I wonder what these creaters of misery's karma is like? Boon Rawd, Adolph Hitler, Taksin, Andrew Biggs - not sure whose would be the worst.

Humbly disagree. By looking at your previous posts I would have thought you could have found the answer all around you. "Everything in moderation" Its stupid that cannabis isn't legal and taxed. Again "Everything in moderation". That however can not be said of heroin. Duh! 1 pop and your addicted. Few other drugs posses that trait.

Apparently you Do want to impose your choices on others of course only if they disagree with you. Its all moot anyway. Its the Thais choice and thats fine by me. I may not agree but I don't have to. Its their country and as long as I can stay or go whatever they come up with is fine by me.

dplast · November 25, 2006

If Islamic values tend towards trying to protect life ahead of corporations wealth, then go Islam!

I welcome the kingdoms new leadership in moving us more closer to the values of Islam.

What are you two doing in Thailand then? Perhaps what you're looking for is in Iran?

Virgil, Out!

I think you misunderstand....

I believe dplast was being sarcastic, and I was being contemptuous, and sarcastic in return.

I know where Iran is and have no need to look for it. I'm happy here in Thailand thanks.

Right on

ding · November 25, 2006

ALL YOU'RE BEER ADS ARE BELONG TO US!!!!!!!

Livinginexile · November 26, 2006

now that's the stupidest post i've read here yet, advertising has nothing to do with drink driving, perhaps a sponsored campain and some advertising from the drink companies about drinking and driving might be the way to go, I don't think any manufacturing ccompany in the world would support driving while drunk, seperate issues, you think everyone will stop drinking because there are no adds......are you for real.

So you believe that alcohol promotion doesn't work? that the billions spent on alcohol promotions globally has no effect on how much a particular product is consumed?

My friend...are YOU for real?

Are you for real? Many posters have already stated that advertising does not increase over all sales and that is not what the companies are trying to do. They are trying to capture market share. Let me explain it to you in more simple terms. The market is already there ! People are buying alcohol ! The advertising tries to get people to buy THAT BRAND and NOT another.

There has never been advertising for any type of marijuana but people still smoke it.

Unbelievable...so you really believe if they started advertising dope the comsumption levels would not rise?

The logic you are stating is the same logic tobacco companies used to try to maitain active media advertising when they came under threat.

What you are saying is COMPLETLY wrong. Advertising is not only about market share, its about overall market growth. Your ignorant statement only shows your complete lack of knoledge about market advertising and its effect, especially amongst young people.

In the USA and other western countries child obesity is a big problem and governments are now legislating media bans on the active promotion of junk food. The result will be an overall reduction in junk food consuption. Do you disagree with this statement? they why in gods name would it not apply to alchohol.

I'll tell you another thing...only heavy drinkers would feel under threat with these new laws, same as smokers were outraged when smoke free zones were introduced.

So drink yourself to an early grave by all means but please...don't drag the next generation down with you just because you are starting to feel lonely.

Livinginexile · November 26, 2006