One Million Baht Worth Of Drugs

[tropo]

I am just calling it as I see it tropo. You behave in a boorish and immature manner. If the cap fits wear it!!

How blind can a person be? You rubbish another posters opinions and flame him, then when he returns the same you come along with all this school yard stite about immaturity etc.

Check out your posting style, have a good look in the mirror and stick the cap on your own head.

[Robski]

You seem to think you are very knowledgable, but have said nothing to prove that you are, what does make you such an expert Tropo?

So what does make you think your such an expert then Tropo? We're not convinced.

[tropo]

Sure why don't you read a post before you try and argue against it, you might learn something, it would save you making it up as you go along.

If good ideas were gunpowder you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.

I did read it. The insightful post of how you and Jack hold hands and everything you guys say is fact. Can't argue that can we?

If you can find some gunpowder, how about putting it to good use by sticking it up your nose.

[tropo]

You seem to think you are very knowledgable, but have said nothing to prove that you are, what does make you such an expert Tropo?

So what does make you think your such an expert then Tropo? We're not convinced.

You repeated this question twice so allow me to take you through a little hand holding session here as it's obvious your experience on Internet forums is limited.

Look up the word: Ad hominem

This is a personal attack against the person presenting an argument.

Now after I presented a rebuttal argument in reasonable fashion (no attack) that you and Jack did not agree with, the following replies were received:

First one from Jack:

I really do not think you know your a#s from your elbow when it comes to drugs.

Then one from your's truly:

I don't understand you some times, in your rush to tell us how knowledgeable you are you forgot to engage your brain

And then one from Jack again:

Suffice to say if a suggestion were to come up allowing tropo and tufty to be expelled to some far off desert island, I would be all for it.

I am just trying to work out who has made the most ridiculous post

Now believe it or not, once one engages in ad hominem in any debate, debate can no longer continue. This would be obvious to most debaters, but since you are new at this I'm finding it necessary to explain it to you so that you can learn.

The moral of the story: don't expect civil debate with a poster you attack.

[Khleerm]

The yaba is the meth. I'll bet what they're calling meth is really Ecstasy. Didn't the girlfriend of fellow who jumped off the third floor balconey recently state that he was dosing on E every day?

That would indicate easy availability and a dearth of it.

[Khleerm]

Sorry legalizing hard drugs will create more problems, strict enforcement and punishment is the the route to go.

Indeed. Thirty years on and the War on Drugs has... Uh, well, has it made so much as a dent?

[tropo]

Sorry legalizing hard drugs will create more problems, strict enforcement and punishment is the the route to go.

Indeed. Thirty years on and the War on Drugs has... Uh, well, has it made so much as a dent?

Thanks Khleerm for bringing the original topic back again.

How that we've had our little flame war, let's get back to the discussion.

The country that spends by far the most money on a "war on drugs" of course is the US. Apparently 18 billion dollars a year under the Bush administration.

With that amount of spending, how is this war going? Here an interesting commentary on the progress of the US War on drugs written in about 6 months ago:

Reading this, Jack and Robski can say "I told you so" as some people will agree with their assessment, others will agree with mine. Read it and make up your own mind:

War on Drugs

Mission Accomplished in War on Drugs?

August 4, 2006

News Feature

and Commentary

By Bob Curley

A mostly overlooked article published in late June put forth an interesting proposition: that the U.S. war on drugs has already been won.

Writing in the Columbus Dispatch on June 30, Ohio State University historian John C. Burnham recounted a recent meeting of seven former U.S. drug czars at the University of Maryland, held to mark the 35th anniversary of the appointment of the first U.S. drug czar, Jerome H. Jaffee, who served in the Nixon administration from 1971 to 1973.

Attendees at the program included Jaffe, Robert L. Du Pont, Dr. Peter G. Bourne, Lee I. Dogoloff, Donald Ian Macdonald, Lee Brown, and retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey; William Bennett and current drug czar John Walters were among those absent.

"The seven former czars and former staff members held remarkably unanimous views, though they come from a variety of backgrounds and included Democrats and Republicans who worked for five very different presidents. And what they had to say was often surprising," wrote Burnham. "The main conclusion -- that we won the war on drugs -- was the biggest surprise, because advocates of illegal drugs have in recent years filled the media with rhetoric about 'the failed war on drugs.'

"The czars' straightforward conclusion may come as a shock," wrote Burnham, "but as they outlined what the war was about, what they had to say made a lot of sense."

Burnham wrote that the "War on Drugs" initially grew out of concern about heroin use among returning U.S. Vietnam War veterans, but a combination of methadone maintenance, education, and law enforcement has resulted in a decline in heroin use and overdose deaths over the past 35 years. "This was the great victory of the war on drugs," wrote Burnham. "A recent small uptick in illegal drug use is remarkably insignificant compared with the original problem."

Drug Czars Dispute Conclusions

As it turns out, Burnham's conclusions did come as a bit of a shock – to some of the drug czars who took part in the program. In interviews with Join Together, Jaffe, Dogoloff, and Brown each disputed the notion that the drug czars agreed that the drug war had succeeded. Dogoloff, who served as drug czar during the Carter administration, said he was "flabbergasted" at Burnham's characterization. Brown, who served as Bill Clinton's drug czar, said, "I do not recall anyone, especially me, reaching the conclusion that we have won the war on drugs."

"In the long scope of our country dealing with drug use – which has been going on for more than 100 years – the Vietnam issue was a small blip," added Jaffee. "I can't say we won a war; we addressed what was an acute problem at the time and got it to be a more manageable, chronic problem."

Jaffee said that Burnham came closer to the truth when he wrote that, "Everyone at the conference knew that the problem is going to continue for American society, but at a much lower level than 35 years before. That is what laws do: They attempt to control problems, not bring perfection. Laws against murder provide hope to control the problem, not abolish murder."

Burnham's other major conclusion from observing the event -- that even drug "czars" with little formalized power can make a difference through leadership -- won more acceptance. Dogoloff, for example, pointed to success in using policies like drug testing to prevent returning Vietnam veterans from continuing to use heroin. "You can change behavior and culture," he said. "The fun part and the challenging part was learning how we could do that."

Finding Consensus on Treatment

Maia Szalavitz, a senior fellow at the media watchdog STATS who has written extensively about drug policy, took issue with both Burnham's article and the recent 2006 U.N. World Drug Report, which concluded that the world's drug problems "have been contained."

"There's a curious new trend amongst drug warriors these days -- declaring victory," wrote Szalavitz. "Nixon spent $16 million per year on his drug war; Bush now spends more than $18 billion, and this is victory?" she wrote. "Our prison population has more than doubled, a majority of teens still try drugs before they finish high school, and a 5 percent drop in use is a victory?"

Szalavitz conceded that drug use is down from its peak in 1979-80, but added, "If you're going to declare victory, shouldn't drug trends show some relationship to your efforts? Drug-war spending has increased every single year -- but drug use trends have waxed and waned with little connection to this."

"If drug warriors want to declare victory and go home ... I'm all for it," she wrote. "But claim that you've won and maintain the same policy that spends billions and locks up millions and has virtually no effect on either drug use rates, drug-related harm or addiction rates? What have you been smoking?"

Oddly, the one area of agreement that Burnham overlooks in his article is where the views of reformers like Szalavitz and drug czars like Dogoloff – a self-described "right-wing Democrat" who serves on the board of the conservative Drug Watch International – tend to dovetail: the need for more addiction treatment.

"Everyone has agreed for the past 20 or 30 years that the only real improvements will come from demand reduction, not supply reduction," said Dogoloff, who concluded his presentation at the drug-czar anniversary event by saying, "Despite repeated demonstrations that comprehensive treatment-on-demand programs reduce the demand for drugs, we fail to translate that learning into the federal drug-strategy budget.

"Given what we now know about the co-occurrence of mental illness and substance abuse, the negative economic and social impact of these disorders on our citizens, and the cost-benefit of treatment, isn't it time to make drug abuse and mental health treatment available to all who seek it?" said Dogoloff. "It seems to me that when we accept this truth, our demand for drugs will decrease and the federal drug strategy will have a greater likelihood of achieving success."

COMMENTARY

No neutral observer could argue that some of the key goals of the drug war have been approached, if not exactly met. Adolescent use of illicit drugs has declined over the past 20 years, while use of heroin has remained stable, if stubbornly so. On the other hand, America's addiction problem is a constantly moving target, and one that increasingly is falling outside the parameters of the traditional drug war.

With national drug-control policy focused on marijuana, cocaine and heroin, prescription-drug abuse has slipped through the back door and -- as the product of a legal industry like alcohol and tobacco -- may prove to be more difficult to control than its illegitimate cousins.

And, of course, alcohol remains the most popular drug of choice among adolescents and adults -- a fact that no drug czar or national drug-control strategy has adequately addressed, thanks to pressure from the alcohol industry. Undoubtedly, the equally powerful pharmaceutical companies are already working to ensure that policies to prevent abuse of prescription drugs are similarly attenuated to reflect their interests.

Critics like Szalavitz are correct to question the cost of "victory" in the drug war, both in monetary terms and in erosion of civil liberties and increased incarceration.

But perhaps the bigger question is how long the nation will continue to wage this costly battle.

Burnham finds proof of the success of the drug war in public-opinion polls: "Thirty-five years ago, illegal drugs were usually first or second and no lower than fourth as public concerns," he noted. "Now the drugs issue trails many other problems."

Others might argue that this is less a sign of progress than combat fatigue. Already, the addiction treatment and prevention fields are seeing federal spending eroded, and the Bush administration has elicited howls of protest from lawmakers and constituency groups for cutting back on funding for local anti-drug law enforcement.

One suspects that the latter group will continue to have more luck arguing their case than the former, despite the consensus about the primacy of demand reduction. As Dogoloff says, "You can't see treatment; you can see powder on the table."

Many of the looming cutbacks in the anti-drug budget are directly attributable to the "War on Terror," which shares with the drug war the promise of open-ended commitment, fuzzy parameters for victory, and a disturbing focus on an abstraction rather than an "enemy."

The budget scenario at home and experiences abroad -- I'm thinking specifically of the poppy fields of Afghanistan, where U.S. drug policy has become a critical impediment to establishing stability and defeating the Taliban -- suggest that the U.S. is incapable of fighting successfully on both fronts.

So perhaps the issue is not if we've had a "Mission Accomplished" moment in the drug war, but rather if the 35 years of tangible progress touted by the drug czars in Maryland will be sustained in the face of diminished funding and attention.

Edited January 21, 2007 by tropo

[Robski]

Thats what you call moving the goal posts tropo. Were not talking about the global war on drugs, this is a local issue.

1.I still don't see an effective argument from you against the fact that removing drugs, dealers and addicts from a community reduces crime in that community, which is what the issue is here. We're talking about Pattaya not Columbia or Burma.

2.What does make you such an expert Tropo?

3.And what would be a good solution in your opinion?

I have refrained from flaming you or name calling, (unless you want to take quotes out of context), it seems that you are unable to conduct a disscussion in an adult manner, saying things like me and jack like to hold hands, or protesting about comments in an ingenuous manner does not make a case in itself.

Why don't you read Libyas' post on this discussion and make a comment on that, surprisingly you may find that some people do know more than you.

Edited January 21, 2007 by Robski

[Tolley]

Keeping drugs illegal is the most profitable route for those involved in the sale and manufacture of these products.

After all the police or army have a vested interest in keeping drugs illegal because in most countries they are initimately involved in the sale and distribution of these drugs.

Every now and then they sacrifice a few low level dealers and the public is happy because these 'scum' are being given their just desserts. They get promoted and they make even more money out of drugs.

Those at the bottom of the pile, your street dealers and addicts are easy targets for public vilification but they are just the unwitting pawns of much more ruthless people in positions of power and authority who are making a fortune out of the misery of others.

Unfortunately while the economic incentive remains so high the lure of easy cash from the sale of illicit drugs will never stop.

The people that should be punished rarely are and i get no solace from the fact that .5 of a kilo of speed has been taken off the market.

Big deal. That is small potatoes in the scheme of things.

[tropo]

Thats what you call moving the goal posts tropo. Were not talking about the global war on drugs, this is a local issue.

1.I still don't see an effective argument from you against the fact that removing drugs, dealers and addicts from a community reduces crime in that community, which is what the issue is here. We're talking about Pattaya not Columbia or Burma.

2.What does make you such an expert Tropo?

3.And what would be a good solution in your opinion?

I have refrained from flaming you or name calling, (unless you want to take quotes out of context), it seems that you are unable to conduct a disscussion in an adult manner, saying things like me and jack like to hold hands, or protesting about comments in an ingenuous manner does not make a case in itself.

Why don't you read Libyas' post on this discussion and make a comment on that, surprisingly you may find that some people do know more than you.

Talk about being thick and stubborn. I indicated to you and Jack very clearly that once I'm attacked for making a statement or opinion, the discussion for all intents and purposes has already ended . What part of that don't you understand?

If you want to discuss an idea, or debate an issue in an adult fashion, then have due respect for the poster. Saying that a poster has "disengaged his brain", or as Jack had stated that a poster's ideas (mine) were ridiculous is no way to continue a discussion.

Now you back-track by saying I took your insults "out of context".

You turned this into a flame war. You're a fool.

[tropo]

Keeping drugs illegal is the most profitable route for those involved in the sale and manufacture of these products.

After all the police or army have a vested interest in keeping drugs illegal because in most countries they are initimately involved in the sale and distribution of these drugs.

Every now and then they sacrifice a few low level dealers and the public is happy because these 'scum' are being given their just desserts. They get promoted and they make even more money out of drugs.

Those at the bottom of the pile, your street dealers and addicts are easy targets for public vilification but they are just the unwitting pawns of much more ruthless people in positions of power and authority who are making a fortune out of the misery of others.

Unfortunately while the economic incentive remains so high the lure of easy cash from the sale of illicit drugs will never stop.

The people that should be punished rarely are and i get no solace from the fact that .5 of a kilo of speed has been taken off the market.

Big deal. That is small potatoes in the scheme of things.

Well said Tolley. Watch out for Jack and Jill on this one.

[Pattaya_Fox]

As the subject of low level drug dealers has been brought up I am pleased to post this information from Pattaya People Newspaper:-

A YOUNG MAN`S 4TH ARREST FOR DRUG DEALING.

Since the Police have received a lot of complaints from tourists and residents of Pattaya that Yaba dealers and Addicts seem to crowd around Jomtien beach-especially at the entrance to White House Hotel, they went out to investigate.

At twent past midnight on the 13th January, the Police spotted a suspicious man walking around the mentioned area. The suspect Sirichai, aged 22, was searched and Police found 10 Yaba tablets packed in a plastic bag in his jeans. He was taken to Dongtan sub-station for questioning and he confessed to dealing Yaba. On that day he was supposed to deliver the amount to a friend in that soi when he was captured by the Police.

Sirichai stated that he was released from prison a month ago and decided to stop getting involved with drugs. However when he came out, he found that his friends were still addicted and dealing in Yaba and making a lot of money. So his thoughts turned to quitting at the age of 25 instead.

This is already his FOURTH arrest and he says that he will definitely quit when he is released this time.

Sirichai was charged with possessing illegal drugs class 1(Yaba) and will be sent to prison for way past his 25th birthday resolution.

[Robski]

Thats what you call moving the goal posts tropo. Were not talking about the global war on drugs, this is a local issue.

1.I still don't see an effective argument from you against the fact that removing drugs, dealers and addicts from a community reduces crime in that community, which is what the issue is here. We're talking about Pattaya not Columbia or Burma.

2.What does make you such an expert Tropo?

3.And what would be a good solution in your opinion?

I have refrained from flaming you or name calling, (unless you want to take quotes out of context), it seems that you are unable to conduct a disscussion in an adult manner, saying things like me and jack like to hold hands, or protesting about comments in an ingenuous manner does not make a case in itself.

Why don't you read Libyas' post on this discussion and make a comment on that, surprisingly you may find that some people do know more than you.

Talk about being thick and stubborn. I indicated to you and Jack very clearly that once I'm attacked for making a statement or opinion, the discussion for all intents and purposes has already ended . What part of that don't you understand?

If you want to discuss an idea, or debate an issue in an adult fashion, then have due respect for the poster. Saying that a poster has "disengaged his brain", or as Jack had stated that a poster's ideas (mine) were ridiculous is no way to continue a discussion.

Now you back-track by saying I took your insults "out of context".

You turned this into a flame war. You're a fool.

I didn't even notice that you had posted until I looked at PattayaFox's post. I thought you would have given it a rest by now.

Tropo you are a very strange lad indeed.

Whenever you get involved in a topic and someone disagees with you, you always debase the topic with petty insults.

If you don't want to answer the questions that I asked, fine don't answer, then let the matter lay.

What's the point in posting what you've just said? You're just making yourself look ridiculous.

You feel strongly about your viewpoint, yet you have no personal experience or documentry evidence to support what you're saying, I think you should know by now that all members have the right to question another members statements, I'm questioning yours, so either put your money where your mouth is or shut up.

BTW this comment of yours;

'once I'm attacked for making a statement or opinion, the discussion for all intents and purposes has already ended . What part of that don't you understand?'

It says it all really, keep it up son, you'll get a nice holiday soon.

Edited January 22, 2007 by Robski

[Humphrey Bear]

So - by what percentage has Tropo increased his post count now?

My wife and daughter were held up at gun point a month or so back, by an addict needing money / easily fenced goods.

I am now rather mature, although still working. In the early sixties I was a user, but never an addict. Mainly amphetamines, sometimes a pipe of hash. But this was 'recreational' and I soon saw the idiocy of it. Nowadays it seems that most drugs are made addictive (taking a leaf out of cigarette makers book?) and the effect also seems to reduce the addicts coherence and general appearance, so that they are virtually unemployable. I am talking about the teenage / young adult type taking yaabaa and similar, not the 'swinging' executive snorting coke.

Being unemployed, needing drugs, they steal. Using yaabaa, they are violent. Thus robbery with violence increases.

But I still maintain my earlier argument that both users and dealers should be jailed. The one cannot exist without the other, so the more of both that are removed from the streets, the better.

[tropo]

I didn't even notice that you had posted until I looked at PattayaFox's post. I thought you would have given it a rest by now.

Why don't you give it a break? You're looking more ridiculous the more you post. Put some money where your mouth is and tell us why you are an expert. Let's see your credentials.

Come on Einstein. Let's see you post something intelligent.

Edited January 22, 2007 by tropo

[tropo]

So - by what percentage has Tropo increased his post count now?

Glad you asked. This will be my 4th post today so my post count has gone from 806 to 810 = 0.496%

Edited January 22, 2007 by tropo

[Robski]

I didn't even notice that you had posted until I looked at PattayaFox's post. I thought you would have given it a rest by now.

Why don't you give it a break? You're looking more ridiculous the more you post. Put some money where your mouth is and tell us why you are an expert. Let's see your credentials.

Come on Einstein. Let's see you post something intelligent.

Ok don't answer the questions then.

Edited January 23, 2007 by Robski

[tropo]

Ok don't answer the questions then.

Try asking some intelligent questions without bait in the future. Don't forget to engage the brain before you post.

[Robski]

Thats what you call moving the goal posts tropo. Were not talking about the global war on drugs, this is a local issue.

1.I still don't see an effective argument from you against the fact that removing drugs, dealers and addicts from a community reduces crime in that community, which is what the issue is here. We're talking about Pattaya not Columbia or Burma.

2.What does make you such an expert Tropo?

3.And what would be a good solution in your opinion?

Ok don't answer the questions then.

Try asking some intelligent questions without bait in the future. Don't forget to engage the brain before you post.

There you go, you can see that I already did ask you some questions that you declined to answer, as I said that's ok it's up to you.

I'm glad that you found your sense of humour Tropo. We all need a good laugh now and then.

[pumpuiman]

I believe these drugs are smuggled in to the country from drug labs that are in part known to officials of the government and the military.

The corruption culture of Thailand and surrounding countries makes the perfect arena for drug smuggling.

As long as corruption is a normal way of life in Thailand, unfortunately drug use will be rampant in my opinion.

[tropo]

Thats what you call moving the goal posts tropo. Were not talking about the global war on drugs, this is a local issue.

1.I still don't see an effective argument from you against the fact that removing drugs, dealers and addicts from a community reduces crime in that community, which is what the issue is here. We're talking about Pattaya not Columbia or Burma.

2.What does make you such an expert Tropo?

3.And what would be a good solution in your opinion?

1. I did offer some information showing that the world's most intense war on drugs has failed in most observers' opinions. You viewed this as irrelevant and you're entitled to you opinion. We disagree on what's an "effective argument". There's no need to continue there.

2. It's irrelevant on an Internet forum to start giving credentials. We are all anonymous and don't give out personal information, and even if people did there's no reason to believe what is being given is true.

3. My intentions here were to debate the issue of whether or not "drug wars" curtail or slow down drug use on the streets, not to offer solutions. In my view there are no perfect solutions.

Edited January 23, 2007 by tropo

[Robski]

Thats what you call moving the goal posts tropo. Were not talking about the global war on drugs, this is a local issue.

1.I still don't see an effective argument from you against the fact that removing drugs, dealers and addicts from a community reduces crime in that community, which is what the issue is here. We're talking about Pattaya not Columbia or Burma.

2.What does make you such an expert Tropo?

3.And what would be a good solution in your opinion?

1. I did offer some information showing that the world's most intense war on drugs has failed in most observers' opinions. You viewed this as irrelevant and you're entitled to you opinion. We disagree on what's an "effective argument". There's no need to continue there.

2. It's irrelevant on an Internet forum to start giving credentials. We are all anonymous and don't give out personal information, and even if people did there's no reason to believe what is being given is true.

3. My intentions here were to debate the issue of whether or not "drug wars" curtail or slow down drug use on the streets, not to offer solutions. In my view there are no perfect solutions.

Ok thanks.

[tropo]

Ok thanks.

You're welcome.