Australian Jailed For Life In Thailand

[EndofDays]

It amazes me that with all the life sentences handed out, fully covered by the media, that fools in full knowledge of the conditions in Thai prisons still take a chance with their futures when most have the safety net of a welfare system back home. I wonder if the success rate is so high that most mules make it through and they consider it a safe bet. Junkies numbed beyond repair, I can understand, but the rest. Madness beyond belief.

Regards Bojo

God's way of weeding out the stupid.

[EndofDays]

Hooray for the guy who escaped the clutches of these Thai cop maniacs with their idiotic war on drugs.

----------------

We're Losing the Drug War Because Prohibition Never Works

By Hodding Carter III.

There is clearly no point in beating a dead horse, whether you are a politician or a columnist, but sometimes you have to do it just the same, if only for the record. So, for the record, here's another attempt to argue that a majority of the American people and their elected representatives can be and are wrong about the way they have chosen to wage the "war against drugs." Prohibition can't work, won't work and has never worked, but it can and does have monumentally costly effects on the criminal justice system and on the integrity of government at every level.

Experience should be the best teacher, and my experience with prohibition is a little more recent than most Americans for whom the "noble experiment" ended with repeal in 1933. In my home state of Mississippi, it lasted for an additional 33 years, and for all those years it was a truism that the drinkers had their liquor, the preachers had their prohibition and the sheriffs made the money. Al Capone would have been proud of the latitude that bootleggers were able to buy with their payoffs of constables, deputies, police chiefs and sheriffs across the state.

But as a first-rate series in the New York Times made clear early last year, Mississippi's prohibition-era corruption (and Chicago's before that) was penny ante stuff compared with what is happening in the U.S. today. From Brooklyn police precincts to Miami's police stations to rural Georgia courthouses, big drug money is purchasing major breakdowns in law enforcement. Sheriffs, other policemen and now judges are being bought up by the gross. But that money, with the net profits for the drug traffickers estimated at anywhere from $40 billion to $100 billion a year, is also buying up banks, legitimate businesses and, to the south of us, entire governments. The latter becomes an increasingly likely outcome in a number of cities and states in this country as well. Cicero, Ill., during Prohibition is an instructive case in point.

The money to be made from an illegal product that has about 23 million current users in this country also explains why its sale is so attractive on the mean streets of America's big cities. A street salesman can gross about $2,500 a day in Washington, which puts him in the pay category of a local television anchor, and this in a neighborhood of dead-end job chances.

Since the courts and jails are already swamped beyond capacity by the arrests that are routinely made (44,000 drug dealers and users over a two-year period in Washington alone, for instance) and since those arrests barely skim the top of the pond, arguing that stricter enforcement is the answer begs a larger question: Who is going to pay the billions of dollars required to build the prisons, hire the judges, train the policemen and employ the prosecutors needed for the load already on hand, let alone the huge one yet to come if we ever get serious about arresting dealers and users?

Much is made of the cost of drug addiction, and it should be, but the current breakdown in the criminal justice system is not one of them. That breakdown is the result of prohibition, not addiction. Drug addiction, after all, does not come close to the far vaster problems of alcohol and tobacco addiction (as former Surgeon General Koop correctly noted, tobacco is at least as addictive as heroin). Hard drugs are estimated to kill 4,000 people a year directly and several tens of thousands a year indirectly. Alcohol kills at least 100,000 a year, addicts millions more and costs the marketplace billions of dollars. Tobacco kills over 300,000 a year, addicts tens of millions and fouls the atmosphere as well. But neither alcohol nor tobacco threaten to subvert our system of law and order, because they are treated as personal and societal problems rather than as criminal ones.

Indeed, every argument that is made for prohibiting the use of currently illegal drugs can be made even more convincingly about tobacco and alcohol. The effects on the unborn? Staggeringly direct. The effects on adolescents? Alcoholism is the addiction of choice for young Americans on a ratio of about 100 to one. Lethal effect? Tobacco's murderous results are not a matter of debate anywhere outside the Tobacco Institute.

Which leaves the lingering and legitimate fear that legalization might produce a surge in use. It probably would, although not nearly as dramatic a one as opponents usually estimate. The fact is that personal use of marijuana, whatever the local laws may say, has been virtually decriminalized for some time now, but there has been a stabilization or slight decline in use, rather than an increase, for several years. Heroin addiction has held steady at about 500,000 people for some time, though the street price of heroin is far lower now than it used to be. Use of cocaine in its old form also seems to have stopped climbing and begun to drop off among young and old alike, though there is an abundantly available supply.

That leaves crack cocaine, stalker of the inner city and terror of the suburbs. Instant and addictive in effect, easy to use and relatively cheap to buy, it is a personality-destroying substance that is a clear menace to its users. But it is hard to imagine it being any more accessible under legalization than it is in most cities today under prohibition, while the financial incentives for promoting its use would virtually disappear with legalization.

Proponents of legalization should not try to fuzz the issue, nonetheless. Addiction levels might increase, at least temporarily, if legal sanctions were removed. That happened after the repeal of Prohibition, or so at least some studies have suggested. But while that would be a personal disaster for the addicts and their families, and would involve larger costs to society as a whole, those costs would be minuscule compared with the costs of continued prohibition.

The young Capones of today own the inner cities and the wholesalers behind these young retailers are rapidly buying up the larger system which is supposed to control them. Prohibition gave us the Mafia and organized crime on a scale that has been with us ever since. The new prohibition is writing a new chapter on that old text. hel_l-bent on learning nothing from history, we are witnessing its repetition, predictably enough, as tragedy.

---

Reprinted with permission of Wall Street Journal Jul 13, 1989. Mr. Carter is a political commentator who heads a television production firm.

The above post is another way God weeds out the stupid.

[EndofDays]

Hooray for the guy who escaped the clutches of these Thai cop maniacs with their idiotic war on drugs.

----------------

We're Losing the Drug War Because Prohibition Never Works

By Hodding Carter III.

this is by far one of the best articles I read on the subject. Yes drug kills and the idiot who was carrying it should be prosecuted, but maybe we are creating the system that entertains this. With this guy, we have only caught an idiot who lost the plot when he became himself a victim and the system we have in place pushed him later on to become a mule to feed his addiction, but we have not stopped the real criminals organising it at a higher level, and we won't be able to touch them.

the result, a lost family in Australia, or a least a young girl who will suffer from it, a guy who was too stupid to see what he was doing and now will have the time to regret it, a terrible cost to all, family, friends, state and tax payers, and a bunch of morons who enjoy the fact that this guy is going to suffer... what a positive outcome...

I am sure there is better than this to be done, informing potential users of the risks has probably a greater chance of success, and let those who ignore the warning suffer from it, like those who still smoke today...

I wonder if amongst those who wish him to die in jail, some do smoke? Shouldn't they get a life sentence for poisoning the atmosphere and making smoking look good and perfectly acceptable in front of young kids who as a result might pick up the habit... aren't they contributing to kill more people that way? Yes certainly but it is legal...

flg

Yeah!! Lets legalize everything else because smokingis bad too!! Yea! and lets legalize sex with minors because of all those darn movies showing young girls in skimpy clothes. Lets legalize moonshine because Thai whiskey is legal!!! Yea, lets not have any societal boundaries!!!!

[EndofDays]

Yes you DO have recreational heroin users - same as "social" drinkers, but less socially acceptable, clearly.

The Dealer who supplied the heroin was probably the person who gave up this Aussie to the police, for money, thus increasing his income, or to wriggle out of previous trouble with the police.

America does lead the world on the drugs issue - probably as the Yank govt. IS the worlds biggest drug dealer. To make it legal would make things visible. The present arrangement suits. There is plenty of documented evidence for this assertion - remember Vietnam? and the Contras?

and another post showing how God weeds out the stupid. It was the sandinistas NOT the contras with the drug trade. The sandys had connections to south american drug cartels for running money through drugs and weaspons. I reported your post as inflamatory. This post is about a man's incarceration in Thailand. Why is it that at least one American-hater has to show up to a post. My dad fought in Vietnam, four tours to be exact...uhm, he didn't do any drugs. What is your document evidence. If you talk it, walk it (and not from nutbug journo sites like "high times").

[Lucifer]

No Farrang is going to do life in a Thai prison. 3-5 years in Bangkok Hilton, then 2-4 years in a Farrang-land prison.

Basic rule-of-thumb.

You dont know and you make a point.Its half true what you say,if not gross bullshit.You have comp - you can check on BangKwang

website.Your basic rule of thumb is your misconseption.Americans have to sit here 8yrs before they qualify for transfer- not 3-5.

Every country - different rules.British after transfer - must sit half of remaining original number,which is - very long.Swedish can go home

quite early,but they keep them inside in home for ages!(behind PolarCircle all day in cells).Many countries do not have transfers,they sit here

and they do not like it!

My point is:somebody read your post and then he is looking for "job" because he doesnt see much danger.3+2=5 not a big deal?what about

100?Death was awarded to two farangs recently,what will you do with them?8 yrs in Bankwang is equal to life in UK(quite bad jails there).

What, just my post. No one else's post on here. Just mine eh?

Farrangs who commit these crimes either don't read these forums, or just don't care.

[rayong09]

I just hope that he lives to be 100 so that the punishment is a long slow death for the vermon. He knew what he was getting into so now he has reaped his reward. I know that all the other criminals and low lifes in the world will come out and say his punishment is to hard but theses types allways stick together.

The sentence was right anything less would of given out the wrong message. That however does not take away the fact, that you sound like, a proper prize prat.

[Grey11]

Hooray for the guy who escaped the clutches of these Thai cop maniacs with their idiotic war on drugs.

----------------

We're Losing the Drug War Because Prohibition Never Works

By Hodding Carter III.

There is clearly no point in beating a dead horse, whether you are a politician or a columnist, but sometimes you have to do it just the same, if only for the record. So, for the record, here's another attempt to argue that a majority of the American people and their elected representatives can be and are wrong about the way they have chosen to wage the "war against drugs." Prohibition can't work, won't work and has never worked, but it can and does have monumentally costly effects on the criminal justice system and on the integrity of government at every level.

Experience should be the best teacher, and my experience with prohibition is a little more recent than most Americans for whom the "noble experiment" ended with repeal in 1933. In my home state of Mississippi, it lasted for an additional 33 years, and for all those years it was a truism that the drinkers had their liquor, the preachers had their prohibition and the sheriffs made the money. Al Capone would have been proud of the latitude that bootleggers were able to buy with their payoffs of constables, deputies, police chiefs and sheriffs across the state.

But as a first-rate series in the New York Times made clear early last year, Mississippi's prohibition-era corruption (and Chicago's before that) was penny ante stuff compared with what is happening in the U.S. today. From Brooklyn police precincts to Miami's police stations to rural Georgia courthouses, big drug money is purchasing major breakdowns in law enforcement. Sheriffs, other policemen and now judges are being bought up by the gross. But that money, with the net profits for the drug traffickers estimated at anywhere from $40 billion to $100 billion a year, is also buying up banks, legitimate businesses and, to the south of us, entire governments. The latter becomes an increasingly likely outcome in a number of cities and states in this country as well. Cicero, Ill., during Prohibition is an instructive case in point.

The money to be made from an illegal product that has about 23 million current users in this country also explains why its sale is so attractive on the mean streets of America's big cities. A street salesman can gross about $2,500 a day in Washington, which puts him in the pay category of a local television anchor, and this in a neighborhood of dead-end job chances.

Since the courts and jails are already swamped beyond capacity by the arrests that are routinely made (44,000 drug dealers and users over a two-year period in Washington alone, for instance) and since those arrests barely skim the top of the pond, arguing that stricter enforcement is the answer begs a larger question: Who is going to pay the billions of dollars required to build the prisons, hire the judges, train the policemen and employ the prosecutors needed for the load already on hand, let alone the huge one yet to come if we ever get serious about arresting dealers and users?

Much is made of the cost of drug addiction, and it should be, but the current breakdown in the criminal justice system is not one of them. That breakdown is the result of prohibition, not addiction. Drug addiction, after all, does not come close to the far vaster problems of alcohol and tobacco addiction (as former Surgeon General Koop correctly noted, tobacco is at least as addictive as heroin). Hard drugs are estimated to kill 4,000 people a year directly and several tens of thousands a year indirectly. Alcohol kills at least 100,000 a year, addicts millions more and costs the marketplace billions of dollars. Tobacco kills over 300,000 a year, addicts tens of millions and fouls the atmosphere as well. But neither alcohol nor tobacco threaten to subvert our system of law and order, because they are treated as personal and societal problems rather than as criminal ones.

Indeed, every argument that is made for prohibiting the use of currently illegal drugs can be made even more convincingly about tobacco and alcohol. The effects on the unborn? Staggeringly direct. The effects on adolescents? Alcoholism is the addiction of choice for young Americans on a ratio of about 100 to one. Lethal effect? Tobacco's murderous results are not a matter of debate anywhere outside the Tobacco Institute.

Which leaves the lingering and legitimate fear that legalization might produce a surge in use. It probably would, although not nearly as dramatic a one as opponents usually estimate. The fact is that personal use of marijuana, whatever the local laws may say, has been virtually decriminalized for some time now, but there has been a stabilization or slight decline in use, rather than an increase, for several years. Heroin addiction has held steady at about 500,000 people for some time, though the street price of heroin is far lower now than it used to be. Use of cocaine in its old form also seems to have stopped climbing and begun to drop off among young and old alike, though there is an abundantly available supply.

That leaves crack cocaine, stalker of the inner city and terror of the suburbs. Instant and addictive in effect, easy to use and relatively cheap to buy, it is a personality-destroying substance that is a clear menace to its users. But it is hard to imagine it being any more accessible under legalization than it is in most cities today under prohibition, while the financial incentives for promoting its use would virtually disappear with legalization.

Proponents of legalization should not try to fuzz the issue, nonetheless. Addiction levels might increase, at least temporarily, if legal sanctions were removed. That happened after the repeal of Prohibition, or so at least some studies have suggested. But while that would be a personal disaster for the addicts and their families, and would involve larger costs to society as a whole, those costs would be minuscule compared with the costs of continued prohibition.

The young Capones of today own the inner cities and the wholesalers behind these young retailers are rapidly buying up the larger system which is supposed to control them. Prohibition gave us the Mafia and organized crime on a scale that has been with us ever since. The new prohibition is writing a new chapter on that old text. hel_l-bent on learning nothing from history, we are witnessing its repetition, predictably enough, as tragedy.

---

Reprinted with permission of Wall Street Journal Jul 13, 1989. Mr. Carter is a political commentator who heads a television production firm.

The above post is another way God weeds out the stupid.

End of Days - Do you have anything to add other than calling others "stupid?" A difference of opinion from your opinion does not make someone "stupid" ignorants, whatever. If you already know everything there is to know you must be from New York or Massachusetts.

[thaijasmine]

I just hope that he lives to be 100 so that the punishment is a long slow death for the vermon. He knew what he was getting into so now he has reaped his reward. I know that all the other criminals and low lifes in the world will come out and say his punishment is to hard but theses types allways stick together.

The sentence was right anything less would of given out the wrong message. That however does not take away the fact, that you sound like, a proper prize prat.

But I have equal contempt for the officials of governments that Thailand turns a blind eye to .......

There is so much hypocrisy in this world

That is especially so when critics blame the ruling generals for their country's role as one of the world's major producers of illicit narcotic drugs. Myanmar's generals are routinely accused of promoting the drug trade as a matter of government policy. Simplistic charges of official government complicity in the drug trade overlook the underlying security, political, and economic realities that have made Myanmar a major drug production and trafficking centre. Moreover, by demonizing the Yangon government in the eyes of the international community, those charges pose an obstacle to counter-narcotics co-operation between the West and Myanmar.

[jackr]

The more I hear of the goings on in Thailand the less of a paradise it seems. Life in prison for drug smuggling?

That's a little over the top to say the least. It's testament to a primitive culture with third world mentality.

On the contrary, I think it's far more advanced thinking than the so-called first world where scum like this would be moddy-coddled, rehabilitated and then out and about to trade their filthy <deleted> to our sons and daughters all over again. And in any case, that's the law here, it's written up everywhere when you enter the place so why would you be stupid enough to risk it for something which is illegal! There is just zero point in arguing about it and nevermind 'prohibition is dumb'/'alcohol effects more lives' etc etc, ad nauseam; that diatribe is just of no relevance to this whatsoever. At the end of the day, he's lucky he's not going down permanently, because that's what would have happened if he were Thai or had flown out of KL, Beijing or Singapore.

[TAWP]

jackr has a point.

The guys wasn't making a political statement for legalization, infact the opposite.

If it was legal he would NOT be doing it, since it would NOT be giving him a huge reward if succeeding.

As such, he has himself to blame.

[neverdie]

He deserves a life sentence, hopefully it will lead to his death anyway. He should finalise his life sentence inside a thai jail, he comitted a crime inside Thailand & as he hadn't yet made the Australian border it has nothing to do with them so theres absolutely NO WAY Australian tax payers should fund anything, more than they already have.

Any application under the prisoner exchange program in years to come should be me with fierce opposition, simply because its not right for Australian tax payers to fork out for this loser & this should serve as a great warning to all idiots that head to foriegn countries to break laws, especially laws as serious as these. I have personally thought about setting up an organisation to rally responsible Australian Citizens to oppose these types of Prisoner exchanges.....grubs like HOODS, CORBY (in Bali) etc, should serve out their sentences & Australians should not allow WISH WASHY Aussie pollies to wobble around on these issues .

Good Riddance HOODS, enjoy your fish head soup, the flavour hasnt changed for years and isnt expected to .

People should really learn to THINK before acting.

Mr TOAD, you say you feel sorry for this mans daughter.....NOT ME, She is much better off without him in her life, this is hardly the sort of person that you would want guiding ANY child through life. He has failed as a father, he is a poor excuse for a man, he took no consideration into the fact that his drugs could possible end up killing other peoples children. Hopefully his daughter is either with more responsible family members or adopted out to a decent family unit.

[Tigs]

Heroin is not very very addictive and does not ruin peoples' lives, guaranteed. Pharmaceutical heroin causes far less harm to the body than alcohol. The problem with heroin is its legal status.

At the risk of being banned, no on better thoughts I will put some astrixes in, that is possibly the most idiotic w**k statement I have ever read on this entire site. Let us know when you come back from the Planet Lah Lah! you muppet.

[luvU2much500THB]

Video at court and more on http://www.foreignprisoners.com/

Video_Link : http://www.usp.com.au/fpss/frames/frame-abc-hoodvid.html

Hope it works

Edited August 8, 2009 by luvU2much500THB

[Brewsta]

It amazes me that with all the life sentences handed out, fully covered by the media, that fools in full knowledge of the conditions in Thai prisons still take a chance with their futures when most have the safety net of a welfare system back home. I wonder if the success rate is so high that most mules make it through and they consider it a safe bet. Junkies numbed beyond repair, I can understand, but the rest. Madness beyond belief.

Regards Bojo

Says it All.....Man is many times a pretty dumb animal. Self Abuse is an art form specific to homo sapiens ??

Discuss.

rgdz,

Brewsta

Edited August 9, 2009 by Brewsta

[Tigs]

It amazes me that with all the life sentences handed out, fully covered by the media, that fools in full knowledge of the conditions in Thai prisons still take a chance with their futures when most have the safety net of a welfare system back home. I wonder if the success rate is so high that most mules make it through and they consider it a safe bet. Junkies numbed beyond repair, I can understand, but the rest. Madness beyond belief.

Regards Bojo

Says it All.....Man is many times a pretty dumb animal. Self Abuse is an art form specific to homo sapiens ??

Discuss.

rgdz,

Brewsta

Well to discuss Brewsta, your statement is not strictly true. It is a known and recorded fact that Dogs are susceptible to a psychological condition that results in mild to severe self mutilation, a dog can become so obsessed with this behaviour they can literally chew their own limbs off. Horses can get so stressed that they have been known to scratch their eyes out on barbed wire. A while back, a pod of dolphins, reputedely more intelligent (certainly equally so on an emotional level) than humans became so upset and depressed about something they all beached themselves, and point blank refused to go back into the water resulting in the whole pod dying. Birds self mutilate.

Clearly in terms of self abuse this is as much as animals can get up to to display (like heroin users) that there is something clearly wrong in their world. The only reason that we have been succesful as a species is that we are the only species with a diametrically opposed thumb! The capability we recieve from our amazingly engineered thumb and forefinger is beyond most peoples appreciation. Sadly though it is that little wonder of natural engineering that makes it easy to hold a syringe and inject yourself with a fix. I am sure if the humble donkey in egypt that has to spend 12 hours a day in the unshaded searing heat of 50 degrees in summer were able to pick up a needle and give itself a fix in order to escape the horrors of daily survival, it would do so in an instant. But just like with animals, we humans tend to self abuse when their is an underlying emotional or psychological issue.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Tigs

[TPI]

They seem to be comparing apples with oranges here.

Alcohol and Heroin are totally different. Heroine is VERY VERY addictive and absolutely ruins peoples lives, guaranteed. There is no such thing as a "casual heroine user" or "social user", like a social drinker or whatever.

So I cant see any real alternative. Making Heroine legal (cheap and easily accessible) isnt going to make it easier for people to kick their habit. I for one am a cigarette smoker and I would WELCOME any law that made cigarettes illegal. I have tried so many times to give up, but I find I myself going to the local shop to buy a pack. If they weren't easily available, I would have given up by now.

People usually get addicted to heroin because they have deep rooted emotional issues and the drug takes their pain away. However the drug itself does not help them in any way in the long run. Heroin addiction is a reflection of our modern society and the problems people have, usually from childhood, breakdowns of the family, rape, abuse, poverty and all the other issues that give people emotional and psychological problems. Also many people are "born" with psychological problems - for example you can find physical differences in the brains of bi-polar people to healthy people.

I think in many cases its unkind to label people as "bad" "scum" etc because of their heroin addiction. But yes the drug does ruin people and turn otherwise good people into killers, muggers. People who could kill their own grandmother and then have a shot and feel OK again.

Alcohol is also VERY VERY addictive and absolutely ruins peoples lives, guaranteed.

There is such thing as a "casual heroine user" or "social user", like a social drinker or whatever.

"People usually get addicted to heroin because they have deep rooted emotional issues and the drug takes their pain away." How about alcoholics?

"Heroin addiction is a reflection of our modern society..." Modern society? Heroin (opium) was a problem for people in this part of the world ever after there was a demand in europe and people around here were choosen to grow opium. (ever heard of the opium wars?)

"...and the problems people have, usually from childhood, breakdowns of the family, rape, abuse, poverty and all the other issues that give people emotional and psychological problems." If it would be a junkie telling me this, I would tell him that if this would be an excuse most of us would be junkies. But we are not.

"Also many people are "born" with psychological problems - for example you can find physical differences in the brains of bi-polar people to healthy people." Sounds little spartan to me...

"I think in many cases its unkind to label people as "bad" "scum" etc because of their heroin addiction. But yes the drug does ruin people and turn otherwise good people into killers, muggers." Yes it does! But it's not only heroin that can do that, I saw otherwise very good people going to the army and becoming killers, rapists, and yes heroin addicts. Everything that makes you "emotionless" could turn you into something "bad".

Don't take it personal Crossbones, I just liked this article and I felt like it is important for some people not to see heroin addicts as something like another species or race, specially after what you wrote about your inability to stop smoking, mostly they are people like you (and me), that just lack a little bit of will-power to stop before getting sucked into something they don't find a way out.

My opinion is also that many of the new "designer" drugs are far more dangerous than the "old" ones, for the simple reason that the "kids" ( most of the people taking drugs come the first time in contact with them when they are still young) learn about the evil of heroin but there are so many so called "soft" drugs, which will alter the brains and personality of people faster than even heroin would be able to. (and rarely someone educates them about them, besides they are called "soft")

Coming back to the actual thread, yes this guy would have ended up in jail anywhere in the world (except for the countries that would have him executed), and yes he fits the picture people have of the "species" of junkies. (almost too much to be carrying it)

Hear, hear! Legalise the lot...it's obvious that the punishment does not fit the "crime", education is and always was the key to opening people's minds to what is harmful and what is not! Some people just can't get off the "tit"...

[Tigs]

ouch! you could be being a touch oversensitive there Northerngoat!

[Tigs]

[cdnvic]

Just a note, if you want your post read, make it legible. Posting all in caps just gets your post deleted.

[nisakiman]

Heroin is not very very addictive and does not ruin peoples' lives, guaranteed. Pharmaceutical heroin causes far less harm to the body than alcohol. The problem with heroin is its legal status.

At the risk of being banned, no on better thoughts I will put some astrixes in, that is possibly the most idiotic w**k statement I have ever read on this entire site. Let us know when you come back from the Planet Lah Lah! you muppet.

In fact, tigs, it is you who are being the muppet here.

Have you any personal experience of this subject?

No. Thought not.

But I bet you read "The Daily Mail" or something, don't you...

So of course, that makes you an expert, doesn't it....

oshoshitzu is correct in stating that pharmaceutical heroin is less harmful, (in moderate, comparable doses) than alcohol. (Of course, anything will screw you up if indulged in to excess). As far as addictiveness is concerned, that is somewhat subjective. Some people will be much more vulnerable to addiction than others, as with tobacco. That it is addictive is a well established fact. However, as is pointed out, addictiveness notwithstanding, the main problem with heroin is it's illegality. Were it to be available through controlled channels, in a standard strength, pharmaceutically pure form at real market prices, it would no longer be the problem that it is now. It would merely be an issue on a par with alcoholism - something that society has to deal with, but not something that will create any major problems.

No, in fact I overstate the problems of heroin addiction there, as it is less destabilising than alcoholism. A heroin addict, if given access to a steady, cheap and reliable supply of his drug of choice will live a full, productive and long life. The reason we have the desperado element of thieving junkies is simply down to the fact that we forbid them their preferred poison. Which is also quite likely why they got involved in it in the first place - fobidden fruit always tastes the sweetest. Particularly when you are young and rebellious.

No, all the redneck tub-thumpers out there ( hang 'em high, prison's too good for 'em, they don't deserve to live, the scum, etc. etc. ) obviously haven't really thought about it, they're just repeating, parrot-fashion, what they've read in the "Daily Braindead".

[newtronbom]

No Farrang is going to do life in a Thai prison. 3-5 years in Bangkok Hilton, then 2-4 years in a Farrang-land prison.

Basic rule-of-thumb.

You should do some research mate. Every country has it's own arrangement with the Thai gvt. regarding prisoners. The UK for example, has a stupid arrangement that allows prisoners to apply for transfer back to the UK after serving 1 third of their sentence, or 4 years, whichever is the shortest. Then the prisoner "must serve out" the balance of their time back home. They do in theory, get time knocked off for any amnesties that come through. Trouble is, their "big sentence" puts them in category"A" "high risk" or whatever and they have to spend 22 hours a day in their rooms, where as if they stay here, at least they get to see the sun for most of the day. Also if they have brains and a bit of cash, they can make their "stay" tolerable, if not comfortable. I said "stupid" for the UK and compared to the NZ deal it is. The Kiwis do it different. They still have the "1 third or 4 years" bit, but when the prisoner gets home, they are taken to court and sentenced under NZ law, which will make a big difference to the "time left to serve". The Aussies have a different deal and so forth. I know of several cases where UK prisoners in Taiwan, have done 15 plus years already for drug cases, with no end in sight yet! I do charity visits once a month here, to a couple of prisons, so I know what I am talking about. This "farang doing a few years" inside, is a big misconception. As another poster rightly pointed out too, most people will be "mentally damaged" after 5 years here. What are they going to be good for, when they do get out, at the current pace of technology? Eg. one guy I met, came here after spending 14 and a half years in a Taiwan prison. When he went away, there were no mobile phones, ATM cards or Wii fi spots outside Starbucks - he was in shock, he had steep learning curve just to carry on normal life, let alone get a job. At 54, I can tell you it was no easy ride for him! A lot of people seem to think these cases get an easy deal. They are wrong.

Edited August 29, 2009 by newtronbom

[sunholidaysun1]

At least he will have time now to play with his Digeredo

[newtronbom]

Heroin is not very very addictive and does not ruin peoples' lives, guaranteed. Pharmaceutical heroin causes far less harm to the body than alcohol. The problem with heroin is its legal status.

At the risk of being banned, no on better thoughts I will put some astrixes in, that is possibly the most idiotic w**k statement I have ever read on this entire site. Let us know when you come back from the Planet Lah Lah! you muppet.

In fact, tigs, it is you who are being the muppet here.

Have you any personal experience of this subject?

No. Thought not.

But I bet you read "The Daily Mail" or something, don't you...

So of course, that makes you an expert, doesn't it....

oshoshitzu is correct in stating that pharmaceutical heroin is less harmful, (in moderate, comparable doses) than alcohol. (Of course, anything will screw you up if indulged in to excess). As far as addictiveness is concerned, that is somewhat subjective. Some people will be much more vulnerable to addiction than others, as with tobacco. That it is addictive is a well established fact. However, as is pointed out, addictiveness notwithstanding, the main problem with heroin is it's illegality. Were it to be available through controlled channels, in a standard strength, pharmaceutically pure form at real market prices, it would no longer be the problem that it is now. It would merely be an issue on a par with alcoholism - something that society has to deal with, but not something that will create any major problems.

No, in fact I overstate the problems of heroin addiction there, as it is less destabilising than alcoholism. A heroin addict, if given access to a steady, cheap and reliable supply of his drug of choice will live a full, productive and long life. The reason we have the desperado element of thieving junkies is simply down to the fact that we forbid them their preferred poison. Which is also quite likely why they got involved in it in the first place - fobidden fruit always tastes the sweetest. Particularly when you are young and rebellious.

No, all the redneck tub-thumpers out there ( hang 'em high, prison's too good for 'em, they don't deserve to live, the scum, etc. etc. ) obviously haven't really thought about it, they're just repeating, parrot-fashion, what they've read in the "Daily Braindead".

A very good post 'nisakiman'. It is rare for a poster here on TV to "tell it like it is" instead of screaming out ill-informed invective. I don't believe heroin is good, nor do I advocate it's use, but as you quite rightly point out, many people do use it and live a normal life and under controlled conditions/production, it is safe to use. I have mentioned this in another post

See >> http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Foreign-Drug...61#entry2967661 << Where I suggest a way to stamp out the illegal production of heroin and other drugs - not that it will ever happen, as the profits are too high to ever see a change in the near future.