thailand
787383192875417600
Thailand moves to recriminalize cannabis, shaking $1 billion industry | REUTERS
787380537499254784
Noise Pollution
In the United States, noise pollution is regulated primarily at the state and local level, but there are also federal guidelines in place. Here’s an overview of how noise pollution law works in the U.S.:
1. FEDERAL LEVEL:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
- Under the Noise Control Act of 1972, the EPA was given authority to:
– Identify major sources of noise.
– Set noise emission standards (e.g., for transportation equipment, machinery).
– Promote noise control through research and public education.
Note: The EPA defunded its Office of Noise Abatement and Control in 1982, so enforcement has mostly shifted to state and local governments.
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA)
- Regulates noise exposure in workplaces.
- For example, OSHA sets permissible noise exposure limits for workers (e.g., 90 dB over an 8-hour shift).
2. STATE LEVEL:
- States may adopt their own noise control laws, often related to:
– Environmental protection.
– Transportation.
– Industrial operations. - Many states defer detailed enforcement to local governments.
3. LOCAL LEVEL (CITY & COUNTY ):
- This is where most enforcement happens.
- Local ordinances usually cover:
– Quiet hours (e.g., 10 p.m. – 7 a.m.)
– Vehicle noise
– Construction noise
– Loud music or parties
– Commercial activity
Example:
In Los Angeles, the municipal code limits residential noise levels to:
• 50 dBA at night
• 60 dBA during the day
Example:
In New York City, Local Law 113 sets maximum allowable sound levels for vehicles, music, and construction, with fines up to $8,000 for violators.
4. COMMON PENALTIES:
- Warnings for first offenses
- Fines, which vary by jurisdiction (can range from $100 to several thousand)
- Stop orders or injunctions (especially for businesses)
- Seizure of equipment in extreme or repeated violations
LEGAL RECOURSE FOR CITIZENS:
- File a complaint with local police or noise control officers.
- Civil lawsuit for nuisance if the noise causes harm or disrupts reasonable enjoyment of property.
- Request mediation or use small claims court in some cases.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:
- EPA Noise Pollution site (archived)
- Local government websites usually publish current noise ordinances.
By ChatGPT
787347297668300800
Thai cannabis stores fear for their future
“Cannabis will be classified as a narcotic in the future,” Public Health Minister Somsak Thepsuthin declared on Tuesday. The move by the Pheu Thai government is expected to plunge into limbo an industry estimated to be worth over $1 billion that has boomed since cannabis was taken off the country’s narcotics list in 2022.
786414044940812288
True freedom of speech can’t exist alongside lèse majesté laws. If we can’t speak the truth, can we really call it freedom?
785622960093495296
Thailand and Cambodia face rising tensions over Emerald Triangle dispute
“Cambodia has said it will go to the World Court (ICJ) to help resolve a dispute over the so-called Emerald Triangle boundary, after a firefight with Thai troops last week that resulted in the death of a Cambodian soldier.”
785463993671221248
“Neither the king nor any member of the royal family has ever personally filed any charges under this law. In fact, during his birthday speech in 2005, King Bhumibol Adulyadej encouraged criticism: “Actually, I must also be criticized. I am not afraid if the criticism concerns what I do wrong, because then I know.” He later added, “But the King can do wrong”, in reference to those he was appealing to not to overlook his human nature.“
785463355932573696
“Most notably, over the past month, the Criminal Court has begun issuing formal orders in individual case dockets—particularly in Section 112 cases and those involving political expression that have drawn public attention—prohibiting anyone from reporting or disseminating details of courtroom proceedings or any events within the Criminal Court without prior authorization. These publication bans have been issued in at least four cases, with the wording of the orders being identical in every instance, despite being issued by different judicial panels. This pattern suggests that the orders may not reflect the individual discretion of each judge, but rather stem from a broader administrative directive. Such a practice raises concerns about potential conflicts with the principle of judicial independence, as well as the right to a fair trial—one that is conducted openly, transparently, and subject to public scrutiny.”