Caught With Cannabis In Thailand

[Neeranam]

I'm a little hedonist myself, but always within the frame work of the law.

But the OP commit the crime, so he should take the beating.

And Frankly I'm fed up with all the lame excuses to defend dopers, alcoholics, sex offenders and others.

So no sympathy what so ever with the OP.

A good punishment would be deportation and a long-life ban to ever to set foot again in Thailand.

who pissed you off dude?

what a offensive post, how can you compare someone that smokes a little weed on vacation to a sex offender, sounds to me like you could use some smoke to chill out man...

Good Luck To You Gregg

He's an old guy who doesn't know anything about dope or alcoholism, for that matter.

He'd be surprised at how many great men of history took dope and drink.

Agreed a very offensive post - unless you are a sex offender.

[Priceless]

A good punishment would be deportation and a long-life ban to ever to set foot again in Thailand.

No judicial caning ? You are far too lenient !

Could you please tell me why smoking weed should be illegal ?

Who was he harming while smoking ?

If one day breathing was deemed illegal, would you stop breathing ?

I think you are just a little bit beside the point. The fact is that it is illegal, never mind whether that law is reasonable or he is hurting somebody.

If you want a country where it is up to you to decide which laws you want to adhere to and which ones to break, try Somalia

/ Priceless

[Neeranam]

A good punishment would be deportation and a long-life ban to ever to set foot again in Thailand.

No judicial caning ? You are far too lenient !

Could you please tell me why smoking weed should be illegal ?

Who was he harming while smoking ?

If one day breathing was deemed illegal, would you stop breathing ?

I think you are just a little bit beside the point. The fact is that it is illegal, never mind whether that law is reasonable or he is hurting somebody.

If you want a country where it is up to you to decide which laws you want to adhere to and which ones to break, try Somalia

/ Priceless

Priceless, have you never broken the law?

Ridden a motorcycle with out a helmet?

Played cards for 10 baht?

Stolen a doughnut from Tesco Lotus?

Paid someone for sex?

Gone through a red light?

Gone over the speed limit?

Given 100 baht to a policeman?

If you can answer no to all the above, get a life.

If you want to decide which laws are more important than others, try Somalia

[Moonrakers]

A good punishment would be deportation and a long-life ban to ever to set foot again in Thailand.

No judicial caning ? You are far too lenient !

Could you please tell me why smoking weed should be illegal ?

Who was he harming while smoking ?

If one day breathing was deemed illegal, would you stop breathing ?

I think you are just a little bit beside the point. The fact is that it is illegal, never mind whether that law is reasonable or he is hurting somebody.

If you want a country where it is up to you to decide which laws you want to adhere to and which ones to break, try Somalia

/ Priceless

Priceless, have you never broken the law?

Ridden a motorcycle with out a helmet?

Played cards for 10 baht?

Stolen a doughnut from Tesco Lotus?

Paid someone for sex?

Gone through a red light?

Gone over the speed limit?

Given 100 baht to a policeman?

If you can answer no to all the above, get a life.

If you want to decide which laws are more important than others, try Somalia

You beat me to it Neeranam.

But to add to that list:

How many have driven whilst drunk, or committed some other alcohol fuelled offence?

How many have counterfit software on their PC?

Along with counterfit DVD's even clothes etc?

How many have had a drink before the legal age or allow others to do so?

How many have dodged taxes?

How many have been on overstay or worked without a work permit?

How many have bribed an official in the past?

Driven over the speed limit?

Driven without tax, insurance or even a licence?

The list goes on really, and all are offences punishable to varying degrees and some are considered a greater crime than having a spliff.

Yet the holiest of though on here would insist that they are squeaky clean of course whilst denying that they have done everything wrong because their 'crimes' are acceptable to them, or of course that they have never ever committed a single crime now matter how minor in their life.

Edited March 15, 2009 by Moonrakers

[huggybear]

I'm a little hedonist myself, but always within the frame work of the law.

But the OP commit the crime, so he should take the beating.

Good Luck To You Gregg

He'd be surprised at how many great men of history took dope and drink.

This is a good point.

Almost all modern psychotherapy is based on Freud's studies who was an opium addict.............

[coventry]

Almost all modern psychotherapy is based on Freud's studies who was an opium addict.............

So was Queen Victoria. I understand that she became addicted due to taking it for period pains.

[britmaveric]

Well you confessed the errors of your ways, and hopefully you won't be made an example of - a good mate of mine who is a notorious weed addict. I put the fear of god in him before he went - told him not to even consider it because this is serious business and you could do hard time for slightest offense doing drugs. Luckily he listened and switched his vice to alcohol while he was in country.

[Groongthep]

Almost all modern psychotherapy is based on Freud's studies who was an opium addict.............

Very few psychotherapists continue to use Freud's techniques of psychoanalysis today since they have proven to be virtually useless in successfuly treating any psychological disorder.

Edited March 15, 2009 by Groongthep

[MrHammer]

I too don't have much sympathy for dopers traveling through SE Asia...

Does that imply you have far more sympathy for the more common alcoholic lowlifes that populate these boards? I mean I am sorry, but a guy having a little toke while on vacation does not necessarily equate to a "doper" in my mind's eye. But then again, I have no sympathy for the hordes who married a Thai woman met in the bars, get married, and then the woman leaves the man high and dry several years later. I actually have more sympathy for this guy.

Word.

I don't smoke weed anymore (haven't since I was teen), but its no biggie and certainly less offensive than drunk losers.

[MrHammer]

There's a lot of urban myth floating around about penalties for drug possesion in Thailand. The fine she mentioned is correct, whether you have an attorney or not.

What is the fine for possesion of say 1 gram of cocaine? If you are otherwise a reasonably productive member of society?

[Priceless]

A good punishment would be deportation and a long-life ban to ever to set foot again in Thailand.

No judicial caning ? You are far too lenient !

Could you please tell me why smoking weed should be illegal ?

Who was he harming while smoking ?

If one day breathing was deemed illegal, would you stop breathing ?

I think you are just a little bit beside the point. The fact is that it is illegal, never mind whether that law is reasonable or he is hurting somebody.

If you want a country where it is up to you to decide which laws you want to adhere to and which ones to break, try Somalia

/ Priceless

Priceless, have you never broken the law?

Ridden a motorcycle with out a helmet?

Played cards for 10 baht?

Stolen a doughnut from Tesco Lotus?

Paid someone for sex?

Gone through a red light?

Gone over the speed limit?

Given 100 baht to a policeman?

If you can answer no to all the above, get a life.

If you want to decide which laws are more important than others, try Somalia

I should obviously have made myself clearer:

Yes I have broken laws, of this country and others. My point was that if you get caught, you should take what's coming to you. It is not the law that is in the wrong if you break it, it is you.

My point about Somalia was that this seems to be one of the (few) places where laws are virtually never enforced, and it could consequently be considered optional whether you adhere to them.

Whenever you stay in a country, this implies an obligation to adhere to the laws of the land. If you happen to be a citizen, you can (in democracies) work to change any law you consider wrong, but the fact that you don't like a law does not give you the right to break it (though you may do that anyway, at your own peril).

/ Priceless

[adjan jb]

There's a lot of urban myth floating around about penalties for drug possesion in Thailand. The fine she mentioned is correct, whether you have an attorney or not.

What is the fine for possesion of say 1 gram of cocaine? If you are otherwise a reasonably productive member of society?

If after snorting 1 gram of cocaine you're only reasonably productive, the stuff was not that good

Edited March 15, 2009 by adjan jb

[MrHammer]

There's a lot of urban myth floating around about penalties for drug possesion in Thailand. The fine she mentioned is correct, whether you have an attorney or not.

What is the fine for possesion of say 1 gram of cocaine? If you are otherwise a reasonably productive member of society?

If after snorting 1 gram of cocaine you're only reasonably producive, the stuff was not that good

You're right!

But I was wondering how seriously it is looked upon, because I understand it is not much of a an issue in Thailand, since too expensive for the average thai.

Its the only drug I ever enjoyed, and I would say it is perfectly possible to use in moderation and get no negative side effects. After all it is a natural drug, unlike amphetamines and extasy all that junk.

So do you get whopped in jail for a small amount of coke or what?

[adjan jb]

There's a lot of urban myth floating around about penalties for drug possesion in Thailand. The fine she mentioned is correct, whether you have an attorney or not.

What is the fine for possesion of say 1 gram of cocaine? If you are otherwise a reasonably productive member of society?

If after snorting 1 gram of cocaine you're only reasonably producive, the stuff was not that good

After all it is a natural drug

So do you get whopped in jail for a small amount of coke or what?

I beg to differ. In order to make cocaine you need kerosene, sulfuric acid or hydrochloric acid.

Stay away from it. This shit is a class A drug. You'll rot in jail for a few years.

[Moonrakers]

There's a lot of urban myth floating around about penalties for drug possesion in Thailand. The fine she mentioned is correct, whether you have an attorney or not.

What is the fine for possesion of say 1 gram of cocaine? If you are otherwise a reasonably productive member of society?

If after snorting 1 gram of cocaine you're only reasonably producive, the stuff was not that good

You're right!

But I was wondering how seriously it is looked upon, because I understand it is not much of a an issue in Thailand, since too expensive for the average thai.

Its the only drug I ever enjoyed, and I would say it is perfectly possible to use in moderation and get no negative side effects. After all it is a natural drug, unlike amphetamines and extasy all that junk.

So do you get whopped in jail for a small amount of coke or what?

About a 60k 'fine', or so I have heard

[MrHammer]

About a 60k 'fine', or so I have heard

Thats steep..

[Moonrakers]

About a 60k 'fine', or so I have heard

Thats steep..

Or considering the alternative punishment, it's a bargain.

[adjan jb]

This shit is a class A drug.

I did a google search. Actually cocaine is a category II drug

Section 7 Narcotics shall be classified into 5 categories, viz :

category I consists of dangerous narcotics such as heroin:

category II consists of ordinary narcotics such as morphine, cocaine, codeine, medicinal opium: (14)

category III consists of narcotics which are in the form of medicinal formula and contain narcotics of category II as ingredients in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Minister and published in the Government Gazette:

category IV consists of chemicals used for producing narcotics of category I or category II such as acetic anhydride, acetyl chloride ;

category V consists of narcotics which are not included in category I to category IV such as marijuana, kratom plant. (16)

Narcotics Act (No.3) B.E. 2530 (1987)

[MrHammer]

This shit is a class A drug.

I did a google search. Actually cocaine is a category II drug

Section 7 Narcotics shall be classified into 5 categories, viz :

category I consists of dangerous narcotics such as heroin:

category II consists of ordinary narcotics such as morphine, cocaine, codeine, medicinal opium: (14)

category III consists of narcotics which are in the form of medicinal formula and contain narcotics of category II as ingredients in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Minister and published in the Government Gazette:

category IV consists of chemicals used for producing narcotics of category I or category II such as acetic anhydride, acetyl chloride ;

category V consists of narcotics which are not included in category I to category IV such as marijuana, kratom plant. (16)

Narcotics Act (No.3) B.E. 2530 (1987)

OK, so there is some sense at least..

[henryalleman]

And Frankly I'm fed up with all the lame excuses to defend dopers, alcoholics, sex offenders and others.

I'm an alcoholic, should I be branded in the same category as a sex offender and be deported?

No, not at all, I was talking lame excuses to defend alcoholism. If somebody is an alcoholic its his or her decision to do something about it. Don't blame society, family, spouse or bad friends, for the reason to become an alcoholic.

People of AA admit they are an alcoholic and never use lame excuses for it, they fight a very hard daily battle all there life to resist the temptation, they do have and deserve my genuine respect. But I feel no sympathy what so ever for the ones, and certainly no pity for the ones who are to weak to change their life. Because they not only ruin their own life but also the life of his wife and children.

BTW lame excuses and pity is not helping anybody.

I think many participants misunderstood my topic completely. I never wrote that I put sex offenders and others at the same line as dopers. I only wrote about lame excuses to defend it.

To make things very clear a sex offender should have capital punishment, on the other hand an alcoholic and a doper give themwelves the capital punisgment, its only take a while longer.

And yes I have been drunk like any normal human being, I told that I'm an hedonist by myself but always within the law and moral boundaries

Edited March 15, 2009 by henryalleman

[Jingthing]

If somebody is an alcoholic its his or her decision to do something about it.

Excuse me but the guy didn't say he was doing anything about it. Just that he was one.

In the objective world outside the law, some backpacker smoking one joint doesn't compare with a full time expat who is drunk off his arse night and day. Yet who gets demonized here by the "moralists"?

[henryalleman]

A good punishment would be deportation and a long-life ban to ever to set foot again in Thailand.

No judicial caning ? You are far too lenient !

Could you please tell me why smoking weed should be illegal ?

Who was he harming while smoking ?

If one day breathing was deemed illegal, would you stop breathing ?

Could you please tell me why smoking weed should be illegal ?

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/...030039&ct=1

I rest my case

[Texpat]

Who gets demonized here by the "moralists"?

The criminal.

One act is illegal. One isn't.

Edited March 15, 2009 by Texpat

[Jingthing]

Who gets demonized here by the "moralists"?

The criminal.

One act is illegal. One isn't.

I asked you to think about the objective reality for a moment, and not the law.

Which is objectively more harmful? Obviously the alcoholic.

Of course to save our own asses, we must respect the laws (those that are enforced anyway) but that doesn't mean we can't also understand objective reality and that the law doesn't always reflect that in a balanced way.

Edited March 15, 2009 by Jingthing

[adjan jb]

Could you please tell me why smoking weed should be illegal ?

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/...030039&ct=1

From the article: "As a rule of thumb, adolescents who use cannabis more than weekly probably increase their risk of experiencing psychotic symptoms and developing psychosis if they are vulnerable"

As psychosis is a "loss of contact with reality" watching television should also be illegal.

[Texpat]

Thais make the laws in Thailand.

They say weed is illegal and booze is OK.

Hem and haw all you like, but thems is the facts. Twist and contort away, but mj is a crime and booze ain't.

"Which is objectively more harmful? Obviously the alcoholic."

Obviously that's your opinion.

If the speed limit is 80 and you're caught doing 81, are you going to argue that 81 is no more dangerous than 80? That inexperienced drivers are more dangerous than speeding experts? That the cops ought be out catching bank robbers?

The law is what it is. If you want to smoke dope, I recommend a holiday in Amsterdam.

Edited March 15, 2009 by Texpat

[Duciboy]

Drugs, once freely used in Australia and in other parts of the world, were, in many cases, available without prescription. Many were originally thought to be relatively harmless. Some are now completely banned, while others are in limited supply on the most restricted basis only. When freely available, they were promoted as being harmless. Heroin, cocaine, the amphetamines, morphine, Mandrax and phenmetrazine were all claimed to be non-addictive.

It is not sufficient to compare each substance to alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol and tobacco should not be the benchmarks by which all drugs are compared. To do so is misleading, given the known toxicity and physiological damage that these substances may cause. There is no successful role model for drug legalisers to follow, and, without such a model, theories and hypotheses are simply not good enough.

Two theories commonly advanced here are that:

* if illicit drugs were legalised, then drug prices would fall

* illegal drugs are too expensive and sometimes difficult to obtain.

The truth is that cheaper drugs have not helped the countries in which this has occurred. Indeed the very opposite has happened. Cheaper drugs have led to more widespread drug-taking. Current examples of cheap, readily available drugs include: 'crack', the 'poor man's cocaine', which has lead to wider use in the United States; affordable heroin on the streets of Bombay and Calcutta; widely-used cocoa paste in Lima and cheap hashish in Cairo, which even the poverty-stricken can afford. Historical examples include the Corn Laws in Britain, which resulted in Britain being deluged with cheap gin and with an epidemic of alcoholism which has not since been repeated. Easy access to cocaine in Germany in the 1920's caused many health and social problems. Legal cheap cocaine was freely available in the US in the 19th century. The cheap and ready access to amphetamines and heroin in Sweden in the 1960's lead to an epidemic. Cheap amphetamines saw drug epidemics in Japan in the 1950's and 1960's. Egypt suffered a cocaine and hashish epidemic in the 1920's. None of these countries controlled the situation by increasing availability and lowering the price.

The theory is that drug legalisation would destroy the financial base of organised crime and therefore minor crimes against property would be reduced. The claim is that the laws have failed. The facts are that drug use itself is actually the cause of much sociopathic and 'criminal' behaviour. Many users commit crimes completely unrelated to the cost of the drug. New South Wales Police (Australia) submissions show that approximately half of all criminal addicts have been charged with previous criminal offences before their involvement with drugs. These figures also show that incest, sexual abuse and motor accidents are associated with drug use. According to the NSW Police Submission to the National Crime Authority, "there is likely to be a substantial increase in the rate of road deaths and accidents due to drug use" (if drugs were legalised), and "legalisation will not eliminate crime".

To suggest that organised crime exists because of drugs is erroneous. Organised crime existed long before drugs became a problem. (eg the Chinese Triads and the Sicilian Mafia). The reality is that, if illegal drugs were legalised, organised crime would still exist. Most of the legalisation arguments collapse because, unless all countries are willing to make every drug available to any person in unlimited quantities and combinations, upon the demand of the user, then there will always be a place for a blackmarket and criminal exploiters.

Organised crime can only be addressed by attacking corruption at all levels in our society. It is corruption that makes organised crime possible. In New South Wales (Australia), 20% of car theft is controlled by organised crime. Yet nobody is suggesting that car theft should be legalised to eliminate organised crime. Nor is anybody suggesting that cars should be provided free for those who want them, merely to take the profit out of the car-theft industry.

Laws cannot make a wrong into a right. To claim that the laws have failed, because a minority of people are not deterred by them, makes no sense. In drawing the line between what is and what is not permissible, criminal law is directed not only toward the lawbreakers but towards the law-abiders.

Any government that is willing to experiment with legalisation policies, without any proven model to follow, is irresponsible because it is placing a large portion of the naive community at risk, not to mention the children. Are Government's naive enough to take this enormous step? A new super-bureaucracy would have to be created to control distribution, prices, strengths, purity and quantity for dozens of illegal drugs, with potentially hundreds of future new variations to be introduced. If the illegal drugs were still governed by some restrictions, how would the bureaucracy regulate the different degrees of tolerance that the users would have? What penalties would be invoked for breaking these controls?

It is inconceivable that all drugs would be legalised. There would have to be a dividing line somewhere across the spectrum, as some of these chemicals can never be released. Would the dividing line allow marijuana, cannabis resin and hashish oil? If so, what concentration of their psychoactive ingredient, tetrahydrocannabinol - 1%, 10%, 20% or 60%? Would it allow pethidine, morphine and heroin and, if so, in what strengths? Would cocaine be legalised along with its other forms - basuco paste and 'crack'? What percentage of cocaine would be legal - 100%? Would the dividing line allow the use of MDMA ('Ecstasy'). If so, how many tablets could be purchased at a time? What of the hallucinogenic drugs: LSD, mescaline, PCP ('Angel Dust') and peyote? What strengths and in what quantities? Would all amphetamines, including the latest form of methamphetamine, 'ice', be legal? What of the once-thought-safe phenmetrazine? What strengths and what forms and what quantity? Would Mandrax, once again, be available with little control? How many barbiturates would it be safe to supply? Would it be legal to smoke opium again? Would 'Burmese no. 3 grade heroin' be legal and, if so, would Mexican 'Black Tar' be controlled or not? What of 'China White'? The list is endless.

Which of these drugs should be legalised? All or only some? According to what criteria would they be legalised? In what strength, concentrations, forms and quantities? What body or new government authority would determine the criteria? Or would there be no controls or limits? From whom and where would these products be distributed? Would they be available at all hours? Yet if they are not all legalised, then nearly all the arguments for legalisation amount to nothing. Where the dividing line is drawn between what is legal and what has to be restricted, the criminal millieux will deal in and promote the remaining restricted substances. Yet there is no way that all the presently controlled drugs could be made legal. Their effects on our society would be obvious.

If illicit drugs were legalised, who would be allowed to buy them? What age limits would be set? Would sales be restricted to dependent people? Would cocaine or heroin be restricted to cocaine-dependent or heroin-dependent persons respectively? Could a heroin addict purchase PCP or cocaine? Would the combined use of cocaine and heroin (speedballing) be legal? Who and what body would determine if a user was dependent on amphetamines? If only dependent persons were allowed to purchase their drugs, where would the recreational and experimental users obtain their supplies? If it were possible to answer these questions satisfactorily, in what quantities and in what form would they be supplied? Having supplied these preparations in multi-dose forms, how would the flow of these drugs to the general population be prevented? Who would be the suppliers - pharmacies, government stores? What hours would they be open? Should the drugs be available on prescription and from all doctors? How would a refill be allowed? Or should they be available merely on demand?

If drugs were legalised, what controls would be placed on users? Would those with psychoses be allowed to purchase drugs? What of incompatibilities with prescribed medication? How would a medical practitioner know what a patient was self-administering? Would workers in vital industries be allowed to use these drugs? What categories of workers would be allowed to use them and what categories would not? What consideration would be given to marijuana, with its long half-life compared to heroin and cocaine with very short half-lives? Most establishments allow staff to use alcohol and coffee. What would they do about the use of legalised drugs? As with tobacco now, would there be drug-using and drug-free zones?

Other issues which need to be addressed include civil liberties, the countries which supply drugs, the myth & mystique of drugs, ignorance of the pharmacology of drugs, financial considerations, the 'victimless crime' argument, responsible usage, the problem with heroin, varying levels of dependence with different drugs, and de facto legalisation through common usage.

The questions posed are difficult and I cannot answer them. But that is not my problem. It is the drug legalisers who must provide satisfactory answers if their position is to be given credibility. They claim that the 'war' against drugs has been lost, and therefore that we should legalise drugs. Firstly, the so-called 'war' against drugs has never really started. Secondly, if one accepts the position that there is a war, then what sort of defeatist attitude are they promoting? From their point of view, one could argue that we are losing the war against crime, and therefore that we should legalise crime. In reply to statements that there may be no answer to the drug problem, the United Nations states:

"The permissive and fatalistic attitudes of the past have allowed the drug problem to reach epidemic proportions which we face today. But there is reason to be hopeful, the nations of the world have recognised that drug abuse has grown at an alarming rate. Progress is being made in areas where intense and concerted pressure has been applied to all aspects of the problem: abuse, supply, production, trafficking and treatment. The drug problem cannot be solved in a day or a year, but with the active participation of peoples, organisations and nations, the problem can be ultimately be solved."

Countries that will not countenance legalisation are Singapore, Taiwan, Germany, Great Britain, Sweden and Japan - not exactly backward countries. Other countries, including China, Egypt, Turkey and Nepal, have introduced tough counter-measures to control the spread of drug abuse in their countries. Yes, there are other remedies, but not the soft option of quitting and submitting to the struggle by legalisation. Like the Westminster System of government, our present system is far from perfect, but consider the alternatives.

There are two realistic criteria to consider before releasing any chemical or drug onto the market: is the chemical relatively safe and is it of any benefit to mankind? As with controlled pharmaceuticals, the burden of proof that the benefits of legalisation of the currently illegal drugs outweigh their disadvantages, rests with those who seek to legalise the use of these substances.

[Jingthing]

As psychosis is a "loss of contact with reality" watching television should also be illegal.

Touche.

[Gary A]

If you don't like the laws, go somewhere else. Don't cry that the laws are not fair. They are not fair but no one here is going to change them. Making the argument that alcohol is more damaging than pot doesn't prove anything. The fact is that pot is against the law and alcohol is NOT.

[Pakeha]

Who gets demonized here by the "moralists"?

The criminal.

One act is illegal. One isn't.

I asked you to think about the objective reality for a moment, and not the law.

Which is objectively more harmful? Obviously the alcoholic.

Of course to save our own asses, we must respect the laws (those that are enforced anyway) but that doesn't mean we can't also understand objective reality and that the law doesn't always reflect that in a balanced way.

JT - I respect your posts and always appreciate what you have to say. However 'objective reality' just aint something we are going to achieve. Anyone who can truly have an 'objective reality' is going to be sitting under a tree. Not on TV