Suthep 'Confident' Latest Crackdown Will Ease Thailand's Drug Problem

[webfact]

Suthep 'confident' latest crackdown will ease drug problem

By The Nation

Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban expressed confidence yesterday that the Kingdom's drug problems would ease within three months, as a nationwide campaign was underway to crack down on the narcotic trade.

Suthep said the focus of the campaign was on drug gangs and beefing up of border areas to prevent smuggling from neighbouring countries, particularly in the North and South. He added that certain provinces were found to "have not been active enough".

"The three-month operation to reduce the country's drug problem will help restore public confidence, and I am confident the situation will improve," he said.

At Government House, Suthep chaired a meeting of high-level officials from all over the country about the government policy against illicit drugs. Among the participants were the Army commander-in-chief, the national police chief, the interior minister, the justice minister, provincial governors, and representatives from the Office of the Narcotics Control Board and the Internal Security Operations Command.

Suthep said the provincial governors should work with police, public prosecutors, and judges to speed up the process of sending drug addicts for rehabilitation, as part of the bid to ease the drug problem.

He also instructed the provincial governors and police commanders to crack down on military weapons such as AK-47 assault rifles being used by criminals.

He said these weapons, including those used by drug dealers, should be seized for the use of state officials, particularly those having to deal with heavily armed drug gangs.

Suthep said the relevant authorities should revoke firearm-possession licences of people involved in the drug trade.

-- The Nation 2011-01-15

[khaowong1]

Yes, I'm confident this lastest "Drug Crackdown" will make a big difference. After all, the government said it will...

[asiawatcher]

I don't think anyone has been able to quantify the actual numbers involved in drug trafficking or manufacturing. It is always at best a guestimate. Similarly, those taken out of play are quickly replaced by others - maybe less experienced - but the ownership of territories change by the elimination of the people, one by one. I don't think it can be effective stopped. There is way too much corruption in the Thai Police and Government as well as Thai businesses to effectively 'can' the supplies. It will just move more underground. As drugs destroy families and lives I think the penalty should be more open to harsher rulings and similarly any who by pass a death sentence, should at least have 'dealer' or DD tattooed on their forehead for all to see. Public humiliation and loss of face seems to be a far greater deterrent as not much else seems to be working.

[outre99]

I don't think anyone has been able to quantify the actual numbers involved in drug trafficking or manufacturing. It is always at best a guestimate. Similarly, those taken out of play are quickly replaced by others - maybe less experienced - but the ownership of territories change by the elimination of the people, one by one. I don't think it can be effective stopped. There is way too much corruption in the Thai Police and Government as well as Thai businesses to effectively 'can' the supplies. It will just move more underground. As drugs destroy families and lives I think the penalty should be more open to harsher rulings and similarly any who by pass a death sentence, should at least have 'dealer' or DD tattooed on their forehead for all to see. Public humiliation and loss of face seems to be a far greater deterrent as not much else seems to be working.

Why not just shoot them all? And their families. That should teach them. And while you're at it let's get rid of the sellers of cigarettes and alcohol because they destroy families too. And don't forget casinos and fried foods.

This is the kind of bone-headed puritanical thinking that has cost trillions, caused thousands of destroyed lives but produced no significant results. PROHIBITION OF ALCOHOL AND DRUGS DOES NOT WORK. The only sane way to solve it is to legalize, tax, and control. That reduces violent crime, reduces corruption, and provides the money to help the ones who cannot handle it, while allowing the vast majority to enjoy life. Not everybody who drinks beer is an alcoholic, and not everybody who smokes pot is an addict. Far from it. Stop encouraging public policy based on exceptional cases. We don't need the big daddy government to dictate what we can and cannot do in the privacy of our own homes without hurting anybody else.

[jayjay0]

They want to

" speed up the process of sending drug addicts for rehabilitation"

Rehabilitation only works for addicts who truly want to be rehabilitated. A minority.

Besides on another thread it was pointed out there is only one licensed treatment center for addicts in all of Thailand.

rounding up addicts will in no way help ease the problem.

They must roundup dealers and punish them accordingly. When they are replaced round up there replacements. Go for the bigger suppliers.

Makes no difference how much or how little they are dealing they are all selling death.

Punishments should reflect that fact. Make the monetary rewards less attractive keep the pressure on them and we will see results.

A three month operation will ease the problem.

A permanent operation will put a big dent in it.

And if all else fails look at what Portugal has done.

[DP25]

If they want to see a real drug problem they should check out Mexico or any inner city in the US, they'd wet their pants.

[Orac]

"Suthep said the relevant authorities should revoke firearm-possession licences of people involved in the drug trade."

Surely if they are caught being involved in the drug trade they should be locking them up???

[Pi Sek]

Makes no difference how much or how little they are dealing they are all selling death.

Punishments should reflect that fact.

I understand that small-time pot dealers are 'selling death', because waayyy up the chain one of their suppliers probably has killed someone else over the business. But you want to pin that one the small-time pot dealer?

By the same logic, what about Phillip Morris Inc. (who make L&M, Marlboro, etc.) and all those 'legal' drug dealers? Aren't they selling death too (OK, not through business-orientated hits but through literally selling death)? And Boonrawd brewery? What about pretty-much any chocolate? Nestle baby-milk products? Cars?

You can't put all drugs in the same boat. Law tends to put them in two categories - legal ones and illegal ones. We keep seeing legal ones shift into illegal ones (as governments find out they might be harmful after all, or they find that a major corporation is losing business due to this drug), but illegal ones very rarely become legal even though (in some cases) thousands of years of 'abuse' have not caused a single casualty. How about this - going to an NHS state hospital in the UK is more hazardous to your health than using pure heroine.

[Thai at Heart]

"Suthep said the relevant authorities should revoke firearm-possession licences of people involved in the drug trade."

Surely if they are caught being involved in the drug trade they should be locking them up???

How does someone apparently known to be in the drug trade get a licensed firearm?????

[Bagwan]

How on earth can you compare cigarette smoking with hard drugs? I have smoked for 60 years and in that time I have never been stoned out of my mind, seen green dragons with eleventy eight mouths, or taken to crime or begging on the street to feed my habit. I realise that smoking makes me less than attractive and nice to be around for some people but it wouldn't take me very long to find facets of them that I am not OK with. So much fuss is made by women about breast cancer yet little is heard of the need to address prostate cancer in men which is more common. Similarly attention is focused on smokers and yet few are campaigning against lorries and buses belching out fumes which pollute so much more.

In the instance of the consumption of alcohol - a poison I remind everybody - I doubt that any government would ban it. I would forecast that they would face severe difficulty at election times and a re-run of the 1920's and early 30's in the US. In the UK landlords of pubs and other places where alcohol is consumed are constrained to refuse to serve anybody who appears to be drunk. I think that is a good law. I foresee that implementation of such a law here in Thailand would generate much violence however. Governments can only govern with the consent of the people (well, that is the theory anyway) and the consumption of alcohol is far too popular for anything to be done. Democracy in action?

I do not go along with legalisation of hard drugs although I wouldn't turn a hair to implementing sensible regulations regarding cannabis. Hard drugs are not popular, indeed overwhelmingly unpopular may not be overstating the case, so governments could and should take executive action. The chattering classes and weak kneed liberals are happily screwing up the World, apparently having used the UK as a test bed, and they have in my view exacerbated the situation regarding hard drugs. I do however admit to having dire forebodings about what form of remedial action might be taken in Thailand.

This announcement by a Minister that the drug scene will be cleared up has as much credibility as that of a Pattaya deputy mayor who said that he would clear all working girls from Beach Road,and that he would put his reputation on succeeding. His reputation ,with me at least, remains a constant..

[Pi Sek]

"Suthep said the relevant authorities should revoke firearm-possession licences of people involved in the drug trade."

Surely if they are caught being involved in the drug trade they should be locking them up???

How does someone apparently known to be in the drug trade get a licensed firearm?????

My guess is, when filling out the paperwork, they are not entirely honest when they sign off saying they will not use the firearm for criminal purposes.

[neverdie]

So how many CRACK DOWN's is that for 2011? Somebody should keep a 'tally' record of them

[Pi Sek]

How on earth can you compare cigarette smoking with hard drugs? I have smoked for 60 years and in that time I have never been stoned out of my mind, seen green dragons with eleventy eight mouths, or taken to crime or begging on the street to feed my habit. I realise that smoking makes me less than attractive and nice to be around for some people but it wouldn't take me very long to find facets of them that I am not OK with. So much fuss is made by women about breast cancer yet little is heard of the need to address prostate cancer in men which is more common. Similarly attention is focused on smokers and yet few are campaigning against lorries and buses belching out fumes which pollute so much more.

In the instance of the consumption of alcohol - a poison I remind everybody - I doubt that any government would ban it. I would forecast that they would face severe difficulty at election times and a re-run of the 1920's and early 30's in the US. In the UK landlords of pubs and other places where alcohol is consumed are constrained to refuse to serve anybody who appears to be drunk. I think that is a good law. I foresee that implementation of such a law here in Thailand would generate much violence however. Governments can only govern with the consent of the people (well, that is the theory anyway) and the consumption of alcohol is far too popular for anything to be done. Democracy in action?

I do not go along with legalisation of hard drugs although I wouldn't turn a hair to implementing sensible regulations regarding cannabis. Hard drugs are not popular, indeed overwhelmingly unpopular may not be overstating the case, so governments could and should take executive action. The chattering classes and weak kneed liberals are happily screwing up the World, apparently having used the UK as a test bed, and they have in my view exacerbated the situation regarding hard drugs. I do however admit to having dire forebodings about what form of remedial action might be taken in Thailand.

This announcement by a Minister that the drug scene will be cleared up has as much credibility as that of a Pattaya deputy mayor who said that he would clear all working girls from Beach Road,and that he would put his reputation on succeeding. His reputation ,with me at least, remains a constant..

Well, you can't, and that was my point.

But you should be a little more specific than "hard drugs". Many present hard drugs used to be soft drugs, and vice versa. Some used to be legal and now they're not. So what is a "hard drug"? Which drugs do they include? Different countries provide different lists, and you shouldn't be surprised that the lists are compiled with politics in mind.

[Jimi007]

I always love the brilliant "hang 'em high" posts on TV. It reminds me of my favorite phrase from the movie, The Wizard of OZ; "If I only had a brain."

Prohibition and wars on drugs have never worked out anywhere, that I have ever read about. It just makes more of a profit for some people and costs others their lives and tax dollars. If criminalizing alcohol didn't work, how is criminalizing other drugs going to work? There is no basic logic to it...

[mrtoad]

So how many CRACK DOWN's is that for 2011? Somebody should keep a 'tally' record of them

We are living in "The Hub of Crackdowns", so what do you expect?

[jayjay0]

I always love the brilliant "hang 'em high" posts on TV. It reminds me of my favorite phrase from the movie, The Wizard of OZ; "If I only had a brain."

Prohibition and wars on drugs have never worked out anywhere, that I have ever read about. It just makes more of a profit for some people and costs others their lives and tax dollars. If criminalizing alcohol didn't work, how is criminalizing other drugs going to work? There is no basic logic to it...

As I mentioned earlier take a look at Portugal. They have made great strides in cleaning up the problem. Yes they still have a problem but it has been greatly reduced. All countries could benefit from there experience.

[coma]

"Suthep said the relevant authorities should revoke firearm-possession licences of people involved in the drug trade."

Gee! I hope this isn't news for the provincial authorities. I mean F##k. Talk about stating the obvious.

[Nisa]

Rehabilitation only works for addicts who truly want to be rehabilitated. A minority.

This is VERY untrue. Drug "Addicts" are usually very aware they have a problem and truly wish they didn't but don't know a way to stop or believe it is not possible or too hard for them.

[Soutpeel]

Suthep 'confident' latest crackdown will ease drug problem

Why what they are going to do ?........Start arresting some of Thailand's finest ?...

The drug dealers must be quaking in their boots....

[ableguy]

So how many CRACK DOWN's is that for 2011? Somebody should keep a 'tally' record of them

I have long advocated for a crack down on crack downs.

[kimamey]

Makes no difference how much or how little they are dealing they are all selling death.

Punishments should reflect that fact.

I understand that small-time pot dealers are 'selling death', because waayyy up the chain one of their suppliers probably has killed someone else over the business. But you want to pin that one the small-time pot dealer?

By the same logic, what about Phillip Morris Inc. (who make L&M, Marlboro, etc.) and all those 'legal' drug dealers? Aren't they selling death too (OK, not through business-orientated hits but through literally selling death)? And Boonrawd brewery? What about pretty-much any chocolate? Nestle baby-milk products? Cars?

You can't put all drugs in the same boat. Law tends to put them in two categories - legal ones and illegal ones. We keep seeing legal ones shift into illegal ones (as governments find out they might be harmful after all, or they find that a major corporation is losing business due to this drug), but illegal ones very rarely become legal even though (in some cases) thousands of years of 'abuse' have not caused a single casualty. How about this - going to an NHS state hospital in the UK is more hazardous to your health than using pure heroine.

I'm not sure of your logic here. Yes cigarettes kill but they are already legal so stopping them is more difficult but that doesn't mean other things should be given the same status. Alchohol is pretty safe and can be beneficial in thinning blood. It's its misuse which kills either through liver damage or due to the adverse effects on behaviour such as violence and dangerous driving. As for the rest well even water will kill you if drunk to excess as far as I know.

I'm not sure of the accuracy of your facts about the NHS but it's worth pointing out that most people going to NHS hospital are ill to start with and some have very serious health conditions. I have been to hospital after a car crash, had operations for an acoustic neuroma and a hernia. If you had these or any other serious physical or mental problem would you honestly ask to be taken to a heroin dealer rather than an NHS doctor?

How would you know if something has been used for thousands of years if there has or has not been a single casualty?

[coma]

Makes no difference how much or how little they are dealing they are all selling death.

Punishments should reflect that fact.

I understand that small-time pot dealers are 'selling death', because waayyy up the chain one of their suppliers probably has killed someone else over the business. But you want to pin that one the small-time pot dealer?

By the same logic, what about Phillip Morris Inc. (who make L&M, Marlboro, etc.) and all those 'legal' drug dealers? Aren't they selling death too (OK, not through business-orientated hits but through literally selling death)? And Boonrawd brewery? What about pretty-much any chocolate? Nestle baby-milk products? Cars?

You can't put all drugs in the same boat. Law tends to put them in two categories - legal ones and illegal ones. We keep seeing legal ones shift into illegal ones (as governments find out they might be harmful after all, or they find that a major corporation is losing business due to this drug), but illegal ones very rarely become legal even though (in some cases) thousands of years of 'abuse' have not caused a single casualty. How about this - going to an NHS state hospital in the UK is more hazardous to your health than using pure heroine.

I'm not sure of your logic here. Yes cigarettes kill but they are already legal so stopping them is more difficult but that doesn't mean other things should be given the same status. Alchohol is pretty safe and can be beneficial in thinning blood. It's its misuse which kills either through liver damage or due to the adverse effects on behaviour such as violence and dangerous driving. As for the rest well even water will kill you if drunk to excess as far as I know.

I'm not sure of the accuracy of your facts about the NHS but it's worth pointing out that most people going to NHS hospital are ill to start with and some have very serious health conditions. I have been to hospital after a car crash, had operations for an acoustic neuroma and a hernia. If you had these or any other serious physical or mental problem would you honestly ask to be taken to a heroin dealer rather than an NHS doctor?

How would you know if something has been used for thousands of years if there has or has not been a single casualty?

I think Governments like the tax revenue smoking and consuming alcohol brings in.

[random]

Rehabilitation only works for addicts who truly want to be rehabilitated. A minority.

This is VERY untrue. Drug "Addicts" are usually very aware they have a problem and truly wish they didn't but don't know a way to stop or believe it is not possible or too hard for them.

Clearly this is just your opinion, or if you have read this somewhere I am sure I have read something that contradicts it, so it is harsh to use the term 'VERY untrue' to jayjay. Or are you going to tell us that as well as being an expert on juvenile delinquency you are also an expert on drug addicts or addiction?

[Nisa]

Rehabilitation only works for addicts who truly want to be rehabilitated. A minority.

This is VERY untrue. Drug "Addicts" are usually very aware they have a problem and truly wish they didn't but don't know a way to stop or believe it is not possible or too hard for them.

Clearly this is just your opinion, or if you have read this somewhere I am sure I have read something that contradicts it, so it is harsh to use the term 'VERY untrue' to jayjay. Or are you going to tell us that as well as being an expert on juvenile delinquency you are also an expert on drug addicts or addiction?

No it is not an opinion it is a true statement from real world experiences and you would only need to ask folks within the addiction industry or treatment professionals and/or addicts/ex-addicts themselves. Not sure where you can look it up on the internet but if you wanted to find the truth I am sure you could.

But first I suggest you do some research on the term addiction or addict to better understand what that term means. A typical addict (one who is not suffering from a severe mentally illness such as schizophrenic) is not happy at all that they are enslaved by a drug and watching their life become out of control but their inability to control their use of the drug. A typical heroin addict doesn't use to get high but uses to prevent sickness or to feel normal. A typical crack addict also doesn't get much of high from their continued use but find they cannot control trying to chase that first high. A speed addict who can't sleep and locks themselves in a room because of delusions and paranoid thoughts is not a happy camper nor are they when they look in the mirror and see scabs all over their body. The vast majority of the addicts are still connected with reality enough to know they have lost control and want to stop but can't visualize how they can or get caught up in constant promises to themselves that they will stop after this time or stop next week when the timing is better.

Grant it, when the addiction first takes control of these people they are usually unaware they have a problem until it is too late but the vast majority of addicts (which doesn't include early addiction) realize they have a problem and wish they could stop. They talk about addicts needing to reach "rock bottom" before getting help and that is often exactly what happens because they finally get to a point where they cannot use anymore such as losing all their money but the desire for not wanting to be an addict happens long before rock bottom.

Although different it is similar with smokers. The vast majority wish they didn't smoke but they either except it is too hard to stop or continually put off stopping. Although alcoholics are not considered drug addicts (at least concerning this topic) they often are the ones who are hardest to admit they have a problem let alone want to change. This is in part due to the legality of alcohol and social acceptance. It is a lot different when you need to hide while you hit the crack pipe or stick a needle in your arm or go down to the ghetto to score your dope and worry about constantly getting busted and how you will manage to physically get by the withdrawals if you are locked up in a jail cell.

On of the biggest wake up calls for a drug addict is when they can't get their drug of choice or decide to give a go at stopping and they go through intense mental cravings and physical withdrawals and it is impossible to deny they have a serious problem. Usually they will just pick back up using again as the addiction has not runs its course and they haven't hit rock bottom but make no mistake the addicts wishes he was not in this place and will usually make many attempts to stop before eventually being successful or forever giving up hope on stopping..

[geriatrickid]

He said these weapons, including those used by drug dealers, should be seized for the use of state officials, particularly those having to deal with heavily armed drug gangs.

If anyone ever needed a demonstration that Thailand has an unreliable forensic and investigations ability, therein is a demonstration. The appropriate step would be to fire the weapons to register ballistics data so as to determine if the weapons were linked to any of the thousands of crimes involving firearms that occur in Thailand. The weapons would then be destroyed or at least recycled. it seems that this is a tacit admission that ballistics data is not collected nor is there any attempt to use a comprehensive ballistic database.

Why would state officials need some of these weapons? Is this now an admission that the criminal gangs are more heavily armed than the state officials and that there is an indirect admission that the drug trade is the equivalent of an insurecctionist group? Or maybe, there is just a hope that the weapons be returned to the army from which they may have come?

[Nisa]

Rehabilitation only works for addicts who truly want to be rehabilitated. A minority.

This is VERY untrue. Drug "Addicts" are usually very aware they have a problem and truly wish they didn't but don't know a way to stop or believe it is not possible or too hard for them.

Clearly this is just your opinion, or if you have read this somewhere I am sure I have read something that contradicts it, so it is harsh to use the term 'VERY untrue' to jayjay. Or are you going to tell us that as well as being an expert on juvenile delinquency you are also an expert on drug addicts or addiction?

I will state again that what I said wasn't opinion but after having a minute to review my initial response and reread JayJay's post I realize I misread JayJay's post the first time and believed it was saying a minority of addicts want to stop as opposed to his actually saying rehab works for only those who "truly want" to be rehabilitated. I would pretty much agree somebody needs to want change in most cases to receive it. And would even take it a step further by saying that just wanting it is often not enough. I'll assume "truly wanting" is the same as hitting rock bottom and I have no clue how many addicts are at that stage.

I apologize JayJay for missing what you were saying the first time around. However, I do believe exposing people to rehab early on will help the addict in the future when they are capable or ready for change ... especially if the rehab is geared in such a way to show the effects down the road ... just a different approach to a clinic that is seeing people voluntarily who have hit their bottom. Not only will it give the addict the confidence that change is possible but there are those who stop by seeing that rock bottom is coming as opposed to having to hit it. In other words there are certain rehabs that are geared to educate an addict before hitting rock-bottom to instill a "true" desire to want to stop as opposed to being focused on helping the addict, that voluntarily check-in, stop.

[garrfeild]

In the instance of the consumption of alcohol - a poison I remind everybody - I doubt that any government would ban it. I would forecast that they would face severe difficulty at election times and a re-run of the 1920's and early 30's in the US. In the UK landlords of pubs and other places where alcohol is consumed are constrained to refuse to serve anybody who appears to be drunk. I think that is a good law.

.

Yes, But has it stopped drunks from spilling onto the streets at closing time! NO it hasn't.

[jimmybkk]

Prohibition is not, and will never be, a solution to the whole drug situation. Quite how this fact escapes anyone is beyond my comprehension. Has there ever been a more comprehensive case study undertaken than the one which occurred in the U.S. in the 1920's with the prohibition of alcohol? Some 100 million people participated in a 14-year experiment that resulted in a total u-turn by the government with the conclusion that..... Prohibition is not the solution.

There are basically two types of individual that support the prohibition of drugs: the conservative crowd and, surprise surprise, the drug dealers/producers. To all you conservatives out there, next time you meet a drug dealer, or see one being arrested on TV, why not give them an imaginary pat on the back and say "I commend and support your stance on the continued prohibition of drugs. We are brothers in arms". Prohibition only serves to ensure high prices and tax-free revenue for those involved in the industry.

As mentioned in a previous post the US annually spends billions of dollars on the war on drugs. It also spends billions on the cost of keeping persons convicted of drug offenses incarcerated. How many man-hours of law enforcement officers are spent chasing and following up on the arrest of drug users and dealers? Personally I would prefer it if they spent their time chasing perpetrators of violent crimes, sex crimes etc.

The governments of the US and the UK would love to legalize, regulate and, most importantly, TAX all drugs. In the UK, for example, where the tax on a packet of cigarettes is around 78% of the cost of the pack, the government generates around 10 billion pounds annually from the tax on tobacco. Imagine the revenue that could be generated on a drug tax. Unfortunately, for the foreseeable future no leader is likely to have the balls to do so as it would undoubtedly cost them their position and leave them with the legacy that they were "the idiot who tried to implement a wacky legalize drugs policy".

It all boils down to economics. Why are cigarettes, which (apparently) are known to kill not only the user but also those who happen to be in the vicinity of the user, still legal in the UK and the US? Why not simply ban the sale of them? For one reason - money. The governments enjoy both the taxes they receive on their sale and also the contributions made to their party funds by the large tobacco companies. Sure, go ahead and tax the hell out of them, but whatever you do don't make them illegal.

Maybe one could assume that the same situation occurs with the drug trade. Maybe the only reason that drugs are kept illegal is because it is in the financial interests of the governments in question to do so. Maybe Pablo Escobar was just as financially supportive to the US and UK governments as Philip Morris.

In Thailand, where the cost of committing a driving offence, for example, may range between 200 and 1,000 Baht to the BiB, and the cost of committing a drug-related offence may be anywhere between 20,000 and several million Baht to the BiB, the legalization of drugs, without a significant revamp and redistribution of government coffers, would almost certainly result in anarchy. Imagine the number of resignation letters on the chief of police's desk and the number of new cadets at the police office training academy. Legalization is not currently an option here, but perhaps in other countries it should be.

[cdnvic]

One racist post was deleted, as well as one with profanity. Unfortunately a whole slew of people felt the need to quote them and their posts had to be deleted as well. There's a lot of unnecessary quoting done, but when the post you are quoting makes obvious rule violations you are only marking your post for deletion by quoting it.

[diehard60]

I don't think anyone has been able to quantify the actual numbers involved in drug trafficking or manufacturing. It is always at best a guestimate. Similarly, those taken out of play are quickly replaced by others - maybe less experienced - but the ownership of territories change by the elimination of the people, one by one. I don't think it can be effective stopped. There is way too much corruption in the Thai Police and Government as well as Thai businesses to effectively 'can' the supplies. It will just move more underground. As drugs destroy families and lives I think the penalty should be more open to harsher rulings and similarly any who by pass a death sentence, should at least have 'dealer' or DD tattooed on their forehead for all to see. Public humiliation and loss of face seems to be a far greater deterrent as not much else seems to be working.

Why not just shoot them all? And their families. That should teach them. And while you're at it let's get rid of the sellers of cigarettes and alcohol because they destroy families too. And don't forget casinos and fried foods.

This is the kind of bone-headed puritanical thinking that has cost trillions, caused thousands of destroyed lives but produced no significant results. PROHIBITION OF ALCOHOL AND DRUGS DOES NOT WORK. The only sane way to solve it is to legalize, tax, and control. That reduces violent crime, reduces corruption, and provides the money to help the ones who cannot handle it, while allowing the vast majority to enjoy life. Not everybody who drinks beer is an alcoholic, and not everybody who smokes pot is an addict. Far from it. Stop encouraging public policy based on exceptional cases. We don't need the big daddy government to dictate what we can and cannot do in the privacy of our own homes without hurting anybody else.

Well I agree with you that it is ok to use drugs in your own home, And it is a good way to teach

your children the right way to use them in the future. I guess you are real smart.

I hope I have not offened anyone here at Thai Visa with this. But maybe Thaksin's way was good.