nisakiman

The first thing I thought of was all those people with allergies. Pseudoephedrine is one of the best medications for allergies. So millions have to suffer because a few use pseudoephedrine to make meth.
   I've always hated mass punishment.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

soundman, on 2012-04-19 16:49:25, said:

Having spent 20+ years doing Data Processing for Market Research companies I can assure that it is not just Thai polls that start with the desired result

Foolish?  Yes

Menace to society?  Definitely not.   Some of you "hang 'em high brigade" need to get a life.  Far more wrongs in the world committed by alcohol abusers than by the likes of this fellow.   How many of you calling for this guy to be banged up have had a couple of beers tonight & then driven home?

MEL1, on 2012-03-16 19:07:43, said:

Spoken like a true politicians rent boy, todays drug laws are akin to burning witches and are only supported by people who have very low IQs. It looks to me as though the drugs found were for personal use but through his own stupidity is now facing serious charges.

RickBradford, on 2012-03-06 09:20:20, said:

I'm sorry, but the article you have quoted is full of holes - the author makes sweeping, unsubstantiated statements that make no sense - for example:

'But once a prohibition has been removed, it is hard to restore, even when the newfound freedom proves to have been ill-conceived and socially disastrous.'

This little piece of untamed wisdom is predicated on the idea that prohibition actually works. It assumes that people don't have the freedom to take drugs already - which of course is absolute nonsense. It's a well known fact that most kids and teenagers in the 'West' have greater access to illegal drugs than they do alcohol (source:http://blog.norml.org/2009/08/28/study-says-its-easier-for-teens-to-buy-marijuana-than-beer/)

So exactly what 'new found freedom' is the author referring to?

There are many other fallacies in his article that I really don't have the time and energy to tear apart as they deserve, but I'll just comment on his conclusion:

'Analogies with the Prohibition era, often drawn by those who would legalize drugs, are false and inexact: it is one thing to attempt to ban a substance that has been in customary use for centuries by at least nine-tenths of the adult population, and quite another to retain a ban on substances that are still not in customary use, in an attempt to ensure that they never do become customary.'

Actually, pot, opium, coca leaves, 'natural' halucigenics and many other 'drugs' have been in customary use by societies around the world for far, far, far longer than alcohol.

And of course, he's clearly still stuck on the idea that prohibition is actually working right now - I requote:

                             'in an attempt to ensure that they never do become customary'

Well, here's news - they already ARE customary, or we wouldn't be talking about this issue in the first place!




Let me make my position clear: I want the same as everyone - for the awful social ills caused by drug abuse to be removed or at least significantly reduced. However, the 'war on drugs' have been going on for 30 years now. Not only has this way of dealing with the problem failed miserably, but has actually INCREASED levels of drug related crime and suffering by pushing up prices and creating a huge black market over which criminals continually fight for a share of. See here for statistics:

http://civilliberty....Drugs-Facts.htm
http://en.wikipedia....ki/War_on_Drugs

The cost of these utterly ineffective programs to the tax payer is astronomical and continues to rise annually, despite the fact the drug problem is getting worse.

Perhaps a better solution would involve good old education for the uninformed, and the provision of health services for the mentally ill. It's not rocket science!

So, with all due respect, I DO think you are re-iterating the official, politically correct, fundamentally flawed line. You even stoop to using the old 'won't somebody think of the children' line (quote: do you think that would improve if we made alcohol legal and available to 10-year-olds?) This sort of language is cynically used to sway opinion using our natural instinct to protect our young. It's an age old rhetoric that has always worked, whether constructive or not.

To close, I genuinely believe the best way to protect society is to provide education and choice. If that fails and abuse / addiction is observed in an individual, then we treat the problem for what it is - a mental health issue - quickly and without stigma, before things get worse (as they invariably do under the current policies).

Sane, well informed people do not self destruct. Conversely, people with health problems will always find a way to self destruct, whether drugs are available or not . Simply criminalising those who need medical assistance is not constructive - in fact, as history has shown, quite the opposite. The current naive, over simplified thinking on the issue is causing huge amounts of unnecessary suffering in the world today, and it needs to stop. Drugs are everywhere, they have always been everywhere, and we need to deal with that fact in a rational, unbiased, informed and caring way.

RickBradford, on 2012-03-06 08:16:49, said:

It really does bug me when uninformed people spout the rehashed 'official line' on drugs when they clearly have no idea of the real issues. Drug abuse and dependency are health issues, full stop. There are many drug enforcement workers who now agree with this - see http://www.leap.cc/ for an example. Criminalising any sort of drug use has historically never worked. Remember prohibition in the US? The rise of the mafia? Now we have a far bigger, global drug 'mafia' - a clear and obvious consequence of the management of this terrible social ill.

The other issue here is people's right to USE drugs as they deem fit. Make no mistake, most people who 'take drugs' (and I include pot smokers here) are simply users, holding down good jobs, supporting their families and generally having no problem with recreational drug use. The difference between use and abuse is clear - yet it's the drug USERS who are either prohibited from or persecuted for their choice of recreational activity. Of course, this majority of drug users are forced to form a silent majority from which they cannot speak their true opinions - they'd have too much to lose by doing so.

The same issues apply to politicians - how can any politician tackle the true issues without loss of credibility - the politician who speaks honestly about these issues will be vilified by people spouting the sort of reactionary nonsense posted above. In the meantime, the drug problem is getting worse, the criminals are getting richer, society continues to be damaged and more families are broken up by the mismanagement of this HEALTH issue.

So please, don't just reiterate the 'official line' on drug prohibition without a clear understanding of the issues - get informed, there's a LOT more to this issue than you'll read in the papers...

RaoulDuke, on 2012-03-06 07:55:44, said:

Wrong as long as people want sex there will be the sex trade. Wanting and having sex IS human nature after all.

Quote

As  the article clearly states there are women that want to work in the trade and within thier philosophies many are not dead inside. Also in my 17 yrs here in Thailand quite alot of the Bar Girls I've met are looking for long term partners and most of the breakups (or alot anyhow) are caused by cultural diffrences or the expats themselves. (If relationships failed in their own countries how can they believe they would succeed here?)

Legalize it.

Bottom line is that the war on drugs is a failure and this approach does nothing but guarantee the longest war in history ... where there are no winners and only losers.

There is no perfect solution but decriminalization, control and taxing would clearly be hugely more successful and less costly than the current approach.

By the way, I drink occasionally but am not a weed smoker but was for many years long long ago. However, it is just simply idiotic given the known facts that marijuana is illegal while booze is not. This alone causes more people to experiment with drugs because it is clear the government cannot be believed when it speaks of the dangerous of drugs. There is absolutely no correlation between the number of deaths, injuries and illnesses associated with alcohol vs. marijuana.

One has to wonder why a government feels so compelled to mislead its people ...

The 'hang em high' brigade should be well pleased with Chalerm now, regardless of their political persuation.

thai4me, on 2012-02-14 02:18:10, said:

extreme laws do not justify the hanging of a woman for such an offense.

you don't think you should question a law... because it's... a law.

scary.

what do you think about stoning women to death in iran for adultery?

i guess your answer is

Quote

the posts in this thread makes for sad reading... these people with their draconian stances, it's pathetic and narrow minded.
it's people who think like this who halt any progress on the handling of societies drug issues - worldwide
i could elaborate greatly but i don't see the point in trying to debate it here

some people sound like they'd do the execution themselves...

sorry, not easy on the ipad..take 2:  so what is your point? That people who make a stupid decision should be killed? Or that any law, as stupid and unfair it is, should never be questioned?

Like prohibition, the war on drugs has not resulted in less crime, but more.  But, even an idiotic war does not justify the killing of a 28 year old girl.

The difference is, Thailand has its OWN currency, Greece does not.