In Depth Analysis Of A Piece Of Journalism

[Guest IT Manager]

Many people talked during February to May about what was happening in the country, in the name of "Eradication of Drugs".

Following is another perspective. I would like to garner responses from members, regarding this.

US PRAISES THAI DRUG WAR!

From Marc Emery

Sat Nov 29 2003

From February of 2003, to 100 days later, June 2003, Thai police executed over 4,000 Thais, jailing 60,000, in a bid to meet targets set by the Thai Prime

Minister to 'completely end all illegal drug use by whatever means necessary'.

This is from the Bangkok Post (english language newspaper)

Thailand: US Official Declares War On Drugs A Success

(27 Nov 2003) Bangkok Post Thailand

A senior US drug official yesterday hailed Thailand's war against drugs

as a success.

William J. Snipes, the regional director of the US Drug Enforcement Administration, said the war on drugs has been effective.

``Whether that's a lasting effect, we'll have to wait and see. Temporarily, we look at it as successful,'' he said.

Thailand had the will to eradicate drugs, but as evidenced in the United States it was a problem that might never disappear altogether.

He was speaking at the Bang Pa-In industrial estate where seized drugs worth about 2.9 billion baht were incinerated, including 19 million methamphetamine pills, marijuana, heroin, ketamine liquid and ecstasy pills.

The government began a violent crackdown on drugs in February and plans

to announce the country drug free ahead of the King's birthday on Dec 5.

MAP Source: Bangkok Post (Thailand) Thu, 27 Nov 2003

Contact: [email protected]

Website: http://www.bangkokpost.co.th

Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/39

[Thomas_Merton]

I'm a bit worried I can't live up tp the ambition hidden in the "thoughtful response" part, but here goes:

Until the fat cats start getting chopped in Thailand or banged-up in the US, whatever we read is just show business.

But when that time comes we'll also see the turkeys voting for Christmas.

[TizMe]

Attacking the drug problem at the source has never worked and never will work. For every supplier that is caught another one will pop up.

The U.S has proved this over and over by trying to stem the flow of drugs out of South America.

If there is demand, there will always be supply.

Death penalties for trafficers also doesn't work.

By restricting the supply, all that is achieved is the increase of price to the consumer to cover the risks that the supplier needs to take.

The only way they will ever fix the problem is by elliminating the demand for drugs.

[phazey]

Sure, the idea of "Eradication of Drugs" was quite bold and it was a step in the right direction, the execution of this i think was somewhat flawed. Too many lost lives, too many fingers pointed without the correct process. Too many "mistakes".

If the US government went out and tried to "completely end all illegal drug use by whatever means necessary"....well we can all ponder the results and following shitwar.

Just my 2p.

./P

[stumonster]

did he mean drugs... or drugs

or just the drugs declared illegal... you can probably get better ephidrine in the chemist than on the street.

you have got to look at why drugs are taken if you have any real motive to control their use.

anything in excess is bad for you...

drugs are bad.... most of the people who make these statements have no experience with consuming any of the substances they condemn

they are not interested in fixing the issues that cause people to consume the plethora from alcohol to heroin.... and I am definately not just talking thailand here.

I do not think the situation will change for the next couple of generations, until there are people with direct experience with with various substances and the way they effect people, making decisions.

war against drugs

war against poverty

war against guns

fantasy world, pure facade

bet he likes his soap operas and movies as well

absurdity should not be taken seriously

[KevinN]

To start with,I do not think that alcohol is a drug,It is a mind altering chemical,to which if I ingest and it sets up in my system an enormous craving which can only be satisfied by more and more until I pass out. As long as I put none in my system I am OK and it is only a craving and not an addiction.

I do believe that the stiffer the penalty,the harder it will be to obtain drugs,If there was no penalty I and others would be making some of the money,but the advantages with the easy penalties in most country's makes it worth the risk,but with death to dealers,it is going to be harder to find people that will take the risk.

But as long as there is a market ,there will be dealers,and as long as there are people that want to use drugs,there will be a market, and as long as they just get high they will continue to use,maybe let the word on the market that the drugs contain some very bad impurities that can cause death,then stop a lot of drugs coming into a country,lace them with cyanide and let them go to market,I can guarantee you that the market will dry up,because the ones just joy poppin will think that it is not worth it,but the hardcore user will die because he will not quit as long as he is alive anyway.because it is an addiction.

But this will never fly,to many liberals and over tolerant people will not let it happen.

You can make it legal,but then the prices will be less,but you will have more junkies and more thievery because they get to a point that they can not work,so it is welfare or steal.

I have been in a 12 step program for 23 years and I do know what I am talking about,there would be a very slight loss of life that could have been saved,and there will be a lot of them die because they would rather die than quit,My oldest son had been to a dozen treatment facility's and to prison,he was educated and had an IQ of over 170 and he died with a needle in his arm.

[the gentleman]

Who will the CIA sell all that heroine to now - did you know since the "eradication" of the Taliban infrastructure in Afganahstan, where no poppy was being produced, the CIA has now taken over those fields and now are one of the highest producers of heroin in the world - fact or fiction? www.rense.com

Well done to the Thai Government........... it cleaned up a few of the scum!

[the gentleman]

Attacking the drug problem at the source has never worked and never will work. For every supplier that is caught another one will pop up.

The U.S has proved this over and over by trying to stem the flow of drugs out of South America.

If there is demand, there will always be supply.

Death penalties for trafficers also doesn't work.

By restricting the supply, all that is achieved is the increase of price to the consumer to cover the risks that the supplier needs to take.

The only way they will ever fix the problem is by elliminating the demand for drugs.

I think you have been to busy watching the Brady Bunch and all those feel good shows as you are so un educated in the world of "The USA" in curbing drug trafficking - please check CIA reports and go to a few web sites other than disneyland.com - they actually have proof of it and even had a national hearing for the CIA's involvement in drug trafficking from South America - would you be from the USA by any chance?

[The_Moog]

I don't know anything about drugs, but if you're concerned about the tone of the journalism, rest assured that one can sell extreme pieces and diatribes to Press Agencies far easier than carefully balanced, nuanced critiques.

My own scribblings have been said to be 'fact mixed with biased opinion'

[maerim]

Heroin is a trade name Bayer used in the early part of the last century for diacetylmorphine. They come with the name to make people "heroic" by the 1920's they had about 225,000 heroes in the states thats why it was made illegal.

I used to live in Manchester U.K.where there is about one shooting a week, and these are just the ones reported,all drug related. These people get up at the crack of noon drive very expensive cars, wear designer clothes and you don't need any academic qualifications to sell drugs.Just say no?can't see them getting a job in a burger bar for the minimum wage.

[TizMe]

Attacking the drug problem at the source has never worked and never will work. For every supplier that is caught another one will pop up.

The U.S has proved this over and over by trying to stem the flow of drugs out of South America.

If there is demand, there will always be supply.

Death penalties for trafficers also doesn't work.

By restricting the supply, all that is achieved is the increase of price to the consumer to cover the risks that the supplier needs to take.

The only way they will ever fix the problem is by elliminating the demand for drugs.

I think you have been to busy watching the Brady Bunch and all those feel good shows as you are so un educated in the world of "The USA" in curbing drug trafficking - please check CIA reports and go to a few web sites other than disneyland.com - they actually have proof of it and even had a national hearing for the CIA's involvement in drug trafficking from South America - would you be from the USA by any chance?

Can you please explain what your reply has to do with my quote?

You also don't need to flame me for expressing my opionion.

What CIA reports are you talking about? How do they in any way contradict my assumtion that to stop the drug problem that the demand needs to be tackled rather than the supply.

Please try to answer intelligently without the need to mention the Brady Bunch or Disneyland..!!

If you cant guess where I come from by looking at my avatar, then I guess there really is no hope for you.

[Thomas_Merton]

If you cant guess where I come from by looking at my avatar, then I guess there really is no hope for you. 

Ought to be a condition of membership

[TizMe]

Who will the CIA sell all that heroine to now - did you know since the "eradication" of the Taliban infrastructure in Afganahstan, where no poppy was being produced, the CIA has now taken over those fields and now are one of the highest producers of heroin in the world - fact or fiction? www.rense.com

Well done to the Thai Government........... it cleaned up a few of the scum!

OK. So the Thai Government cleaned up a few scum ! But did they actually achieve any thing that remotely indicates a drop in drug use? The answer is a definate NO.

As for www.rense.com, it is full of "conspiracy theories" and how we are all being denied the truth about everything from the CIA, to UFOs to AIDS to what really happened on 9/11 and to ZIONISM.

I think I'll take my news from a more balanced source thanks.

Just remember, just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.

[the gentleman]

Dear Tizme?,

Firstly mate, I didnt look at your picture, I looked at the comments next to it, so you are an Aussie, so am I.

In your first reply to me, you said "Can you please explain what your reply has to do with my quote?"

this is what you wrote.

The U.S has proved this over and over by trying to stem the flow of drugs out of South America.

That was my reply of "I think you have been to busy watching the Brady Bunch and all those feel good shows as you are so un educated in the world of "The USA" in curbing drug trafficking".

your second reply stated that you will look for more balanced news, what would that be CNN?, Channel 9 - try michael moore and some of his links, not commercial enough to be taken seriously, no NIKE adds - mcdonlads is good for you, and coca cola will make you thin............ balanced?!

not paranoid buddy, just better read.......

[the gentleman]

If you cant guess where I come from by looking at my avatar, then I guess there really is no hope for you. 

Ought to be a condition of membership

yes, I have read a few of your posts, if you can be a member of this forum - well!

[the gentleman]

"OK. So the Thai Government cleaned up a few scum ! But did they actually achieve any thing that remotely indicates a drop in drug use? The answer is a definate NO."

What are you talking about, what particular part of the medical/drug rehab program do you work in Thailand. You just make a call about something you dont know about and call it fact.............. you are a very funny bloke, or are you woman, and shut up Thomas you wingnut - Re read the sh*t you write and then make another judgement.

[Thomas_Merton]

..shut up Thomas you wingnut - Re read the sh*t you write and then make another judgement.

Is this argument or yet another example of post World Cup trauma?

[taxexile]

interesting thread, surprised at the thoughtfulness of the responses.

[TizMe]

not paranoid buddy, just better read.......

So I'm interested in what you think happenned to Harold Holt.

• He was picked up by a Russian submarine and whisked away to spend the rest of his days working for the KGB
  
• He was assassinated by the CIA because they didn't like that he wanted to pull the troops out of Vietnam
  
• A passing Japanese trawler thought he was a whale, so they harpooned him so they could "experiment" on him
  
• it was a dingo with scuba gear - "A dingo took my Prime Minister"
  

Don't believe everything that you read..

[FATBOYTHAI]

I'M IN LOVE WITH BARGIRLS !!!

Oh, sorry, thought that was the only way to get people to respond thoughtfully. Another topic devolves into flaming and bitching.

As a citizen of the USA I can say that the "War on Drugs" does not work. Whenever a country declares war on its own citizens it can only harm the country. While I would never say that a heroin or coke dealer are exemplary role models neither would I comdemn them to death. Nor do I wish to see all distilleries or breweries shut down. Addressing the need is about the only way to come close to controlling addiction. Why do people get high? There are myriad, deep seated reasons. It is a problem far too complex to be "solved" by strangers on a chat forum, but, what the ######, I'll try anyway.

People get high because they are depressed, because they want a thrill, because their friends do, because they were told not to, because they are addicted chemically, because they are bored, because they are unemployed, because they are overemployed, because television, radio and print ads encourage them to do so. The reasons are as varied as the people on the planet.

Constantly in my country we are bombarded by advertisements that suggest in not so subtle ways that the way to feel better and be more productive is to pop a pill, preferably the pill being advertised so that Phizer or Bayer or Big Drug, Inc. can recoup the costs of Research and Development. Alchohol and tobacco kill far more people than any street drug, but they are regulated and taxed. As with most issues it boils down to money. Who has it, who wants it?

The prison population has nearly tripled in the USA since Ronald Reagan declared the "War". A large percentage of those incarcerated are in for petty drug offences. Are they better off in jail, in treatment, or in a free country which values their lives as worthwhile and meaningful? The messages sent by our respective governments as to the value of our lives go a long way in our decisions. When our fellow human beings echo these negative messages is it any wonder that many choose oblivion as a lifestyle?

[TizMe]

From Andrew M Brown in the UK.

THE WAR AGAINST DRUGS MUST BE FOUGHT IN SCHOOLS AND HOMES

No industry exists in which the laws of the free market operate so freely and so purely according to the conditions that Adam Smith described in his Wealth of Nations, than the trade in illegal drugs - "Consumption is the sole end and purpose of production; and the sole interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer."

Yet seeking to control the market at the producer end - which is to say, banging up the dealers - has nevertheless been the consensus among policy-makers in recent years. The Lib Dem MP Simon Hughes summed up the view of many when he spoke of "catching more big-time drug dealers and middlemen", as if no one had thought of this before.

But no home secretary has devised a Big Idea of the slightest efficacy for dealing with the consumption end of this nasty chain of supply and demand, however much David Blunkett wants to empower the police to burst into homes and seize the so-called "lesser" drugs. Oliver Letwin's plan - to fund "abstinence-based treatment" - can mean almost anything. Who decides who qualifies to go to the top of the very long queue? ( I should declare an interest in treatment, having experienced its manifold varieties. )

The misuse of drugs that are already legal causes enough distress to the guardians of public health. Can it be long before a sans serif, black-on-white health warning defaces the homely label on the bottle of Bristol Cream that your maiden aunt decants into a schooner on "special occasions"? Warning people off things they're already keen on is the wrong way round: much better to stop people plunging into a life of illegal drug addiction in the first place.

The tobacco companies were held to account for denying, for years, the addictive properties of cigarettes and for vigorously promoting smoking. Eighty per cent of the adult population smoked a few generations ago. Now the figure is down to 30 per cent. But the hard-sell techniques - now outlawed - that blighted the reputation of Big Tobacco do not apply to the illegal drug producers. Dealers make no claims about their wares - the product sells itself.

Pablo Escobar, the late Colombian cocaine baron, took special delight in the irony that his billions derived from the despised Yankees' unquenchable demand for his product. Like the Hydra, for each Escobar who gets the chop, plenty more monstrous heads sprout. For every 20 "mules" arrested at Heathrow, their bellies pregnant with drug-stuffed condoms, another 20 will be "persuaded" to make the trip.

And it's hard to stop the producers. Send pilots to spray insecticides over the plantations, and the planes receive guided missiles in return. These men are not amateurs. A new trick is to import "fibreglass" dog kennels. Once through Customs, the kennels are crumbled down into their priceless constituent: pure heroin. Adam Smith could have explained it to any modern home secretary: what producer would go to such lengths of risk and ingenuity, unless demand was huge and the rewards for its supply exceeded Croesus's maddest fantasies?

Yesterday's "last chance" sentencing of Angelika Dodd, one of three addict sisters from Tunbridge Wells, is not the way forward. Prevention has come too late for most convicted addicts, but there is one hope for the addicted criminal, in a development that is far from new.

In America in the early 1960s, under the direction of President Kennedy, researchers developed naltrexone, which blocks the receptors in the brain that give the opiate high: it is an antidote to heroin. Medicine is not the only answer. Some psychological treatments are proven to work; there is often an inherited component to addiction, and some addicts share certain psychological features, though the concept of an addictive personality is now largely discredited.

But naltrexone treatment has been shown in countless studies, especially in parts of the world other than Britain, to be rapid, cheap and effective. Astonishingly, some NHS GPs have never heard of it. At least some of the mess may be cleared up with naltrexone, even if only a single percentile could be turned around. Think of the money that might be saved: sending offenders on rehabilitation courses of spiritual and psychological intervention costs thousands, and even then the relapse rate is high, as it is for drug supervision orders.

But how do you really go about cutting drug addiction? Demand for drugs sets in at an early age. At my own school, some 20 years ago, I took up smoking at 11. And, as one of the country's leading addiction specialists, psychiatrist Colin Brewer, told me recently: "The first drug heroin addicts are introduced to is nicotine."

The desire to copy the cool kids begins at school. Teachers may say that it is not their responsibility to test children for drugs, or discover whether the children are drinkers, or smokers of cigarettes, or cannabis, or whatever. The family, pleading lack of control over fractious children, may say the same as teachers. But what if a probation officer conducted a non-invasive hair test for cannabis or ecstasy, say, which proved conclusively that little Jack or Jill was breaking the law? Might a positive result not cause a few privileges to be withheld, even in the most recalcitrant of households?

"Prevention is better than cure" is an aphorism that home secretaries would do well to study. Curbing demand for drugs is, naturally, easier to accomplish if you start before demand is engendered. Policemen bashing in the doors of low-level dealers and users create headlines. For Mr Blunkett, however, to address demand for drugs while children are still at school age would require him to confront the issue of what these children are doing in the periods when they are out of school as well. This would include the times when they are in the care of that doddering institution, the family: even if nobody is suggesting that troops bash down anyone's door to find out what their offspring are up to.

It was once said that Jesuit teachers could take any child and turn him into a lifelong believer. Drug dealers have unwittingly appropriated that principle, and their little charges are only too eager to learn.

[francois]

To start with,I do not think that alcohol is a drug,It is a mind altering chemical

sorry to go against this ...

but this is 100% wrong, and may I add, alcohol is one of the worst one!

the alcohol addiction comes to you so slowly and viciously, and as you said in an

altered mind, you can't even recognize that you are addicted to it.

these are facts!

I have seen too many people in cure to quit, to let anyone say; alcohol is ok, they sell it in supermarket, see?

yes, I see teenagers getting drunk, and this doesn't please me

you can do want you want, everyone is free ... but don't say things like this,

I thought everyone here were aware of the danger of alcohol addiction ...

looks like, it's not the case

drugs are drugs, and alcohol is one of them, as tobacco is another one.

give it a try ... don't drink a drop of it for two days ... and tell me how you feel

if you are used to drink some 3/4 bottle of beer here everyday ...

which means 2/3 liters of it ...

your body is so used to it, that at least you should feel more nervous than normal.

please don't missunderstand me ... I'm not on a crusade against alcohol ...

far from me to get an idea like this, but facts are facts .. lets face them!

francois

[Kan Win]

The U.S has proved this over and over by trying to stem the flow of drugs out of South America.

The only way they will ever fix the problem is by elliminating the demand for drugs.

Tiz Me

That is why Pepsi just pulled out of Colombia citing, that there is too much Co_ca Co_la there, LOL

Me think

[Axel]

if you are used to drink some 3/4 bottle of beer here everyday ...

which means 2/3 liters of it ...

Francois, now you really got me on the wrong time. I mean a calculation with

"3/4 bottle of beer which means 2/3 liters of it ..." and I had to do the mathematics. OK, on small bottles it works out, but it took me a looong time.

Where I come from, in the neighboring villages they grow wine and never ever count it by the litre. You order a quart (liter) and after four you ask the waitress if 1 liter sounds better than four x 1/4. If she denies, you order another 1/4.

Btw, I am still waiting for your 'allohol'-poll your promised

[the gentleman]

not paranoid buddy, just better read.......

So I'm interested in what you think happenned to Harold Holt.

• He was picked up by a Russian submarine and whisked away to spend the rest of his days working for the KGB
  
• He was assassinated by the CIA because they didn't like that he wanted to pull the troops out of Vietnam
  
• A passing Japanese trawler thought he was a whale, so they harpooned him so they could "experiment" on him
  
• it was a dingo with scuba gear - "A dingo took my Prime Minister"
  

Don't believe everything that you read..

Well with comments like you put across mate, Ill let you get on with it....

to get back to the question - I think Thaksin saved a lot of people in his efforts to curb drugs. As the people here that are a little bit wordly will tell you, the drug culture and the people in it, meaning the heroine addicts and the more extreme of the group are the sh*t of society.

The smokers, the occasional weekend party people, well its life, we should experience most things to make a fair judgement.

Just to let you know Tizme, I worked in this field for nearly 10 years in Australia, if you want to "quote people", quote someone with facts as you said dont beleive everything you read!

[naja]

I am old and my neurons have been decreasing exponentially,and thus I'm dimwitted,but what were those exchanges between Tizme and The Gentleman all about?What did the conspiracy theories of Holt's disappearance have to do with the topic?

As an aside I would recommend :McCoy,A. [date?1996?]The Politics of Heroin.2nd ed.This is a book that the CIA[Cocaine Importing Agency] tried to suppress when it was in manuscript form.Remember "Air America"?

[francois]

Btw, I am still waiting for your 'allohol'-poll your promised

I'll do it, just waiting for a good inspiration for the title of the poll ..

I should have written 2 or 3 liters ...

not 2/3 ...

and as you see it's not really the same

[thomasjojo]

there is several Authorities in the western world, that have admitted that they have allready lost the drug war, so therefore they work harder into advice and no-drugs social appearance among youngsters. That is the future dug-user. To try to decrease the demand.

That seams to be the best way..

[Pink Mist]

I say we blame the dingo or it could have been Lindy on a practice run.

[KevinN]

As one well versed on the use of alcohol, I say again, Alcohol is not an addictive drug.

Abstinance from alcohol causes no physical or mental discomfort,altho it is a compulsion.

When they made morphine,it got people off of opium,which they then found it to be 10 times as addictive as opium,and was a teriffic pain reliever,then they came up with heroin,which is also 10 times as addictive as morphine,then they came up with methadone to get people off of heroin,which is 10 times more addictive than heroin but from methadone altho it cuts the physical craving for heroin,you do not get the rush from it that is attained with heroin,so some people can not get off of heroin,,you get a rush when you inhale the smoke of a regular cigarette,there for the addiction to nicotine and heroin are in the same class,and it is very hard to quit cigs. because of this rush,that is why no substitute can be used thet will get people off of tobacco., you get no rush from ZYBAN or nicodent or transdermal transfer or any form of nicotine replacement.