A He*l Away From Home

[Ping]

The lack of compassion evidenced by many posters(usually the same ones) no longer surprises me, but continues to sadden me. They may deny it but they are people who find it easy to hate "the other". Every religion advises compassion because so many need to hear the message. They are also hypocrites unless they are following a lifestyle of abstaining from ALL intoxicants and stimulants. No compassion for people who set-out to cause misery to others through their methods of financing illegal drug use. It is not hypocritical if one conducts oneself in accordance with the law. Do some research as to why laws are put in place in societies.

As noted by several posters, the only SANE way to deal with the problems created by over-legislating human behavior with regard to mood-altering substances is education. Education that points out the pitfalls of addictive substances. By logical extension, you are arguing that enactment and enforcement of the law in respect of illicit drugs is 'insane'. You seem to hold the view that ALL problems will be solved if we sit in a circle and sing kumbaya.

The current world climate re "drug policy" is directed and financed by the United States of America. They have it wrong. Anyone who makes the slightest effort to research the history of the "Drug War" will learn that initially it was political pork-bellying to absorb the law-enforment officers displaced by the end of Alcohol prohibition. Another failed policy. As one poster noted above, many of you alcohol drinkers could and would fall afoul of the laws in muslim countries. Many posters have worked and still work in these countries. The production of home-brewed alcohol is one reaction to these laws. Actual production of an "prohibited" intoxicant. If shared with friends, add trafficking to the list. Yes, of course the USA directs and finances this and everything else to which you are opposed. Your views on this speak for themselves. Oh, and let's dragout those fallacious old arguments comparing heroin with tobacco...

The "haters" have absorbed the propaganda and merely regurgitate it when the opportunity presents itself. They have never questioned. So, those of us who are opposed to illicit drug use and support penalising this form of criminality are the victims of propaganda? Only those who sing kumbaya are the ones who can think for themselves?

I wish I liked to type as much aas I like to talk for I surely could go on at length. When given the opportunity I have often engaged the type of poster i decry. I point out the social and financial costs of pursueing a policy that will inevitably fail in the end. Often they are surprised to find their outlook has broadened. It is more likely that they tire of trying to conduct a reasoned debate with you.

My hope is that all foreign prisoners have the chance to return to their countries, where one day they will have the chance to recover from an all-to-human mistake. All mistakes by man are human mistakes. Those who embark upon a lifestyle that will cause misery and death to others need to be punished and others need to be deterred. If they can be rehabilitated as well, then so much the better.

(Apologies for not responding to your statements more directly in my previous post. Now please refer to my other comments.)

Your views are held strongly - that is clear enough. So are mine. One of us is wrong.

[mikethevigoman]

It's not a recreational drug she was smuggling anyway - it was heroin. That stuff cases so much misery and heartbreak. Whatever anyones views on drugs there is no denying that heroin wrecks lives.

Anyone that makes a living out of human misery is scum. Simple as that.

My ex business parners son was given an overdose of heroin by a girl and died instantly,she was an addict, he wasnt,.if you mention his son now 5 years on he still cries ,and hes a big guy,. if these pusher/dealers knew what these drugs do to families ,ie parents of prisoners or parents of people that have over dosed would they care ? i doubt it and i for one have no sympathy im afraid,.

[observer21]

It's hard to criticise addicts who become pushers (as much as I'd like to) when their own addiction criminalises them (for possession) anyway. We need a better way of dealing with addicts than this.

"Steven"

No it is not.  Many people are addicted to cigaretes but we dont make excuses for smugglers when they are caught.  Same goes for booze.  Yes, i hear you say but we cant compare cigs and booze to othere drugs - why not ?

Anyone who smuggles or pushes knows the price to pay.  People living in areas where crime is ruining their everyday life need to be protected - not the scum pushers and smugglers.  Let them rot.

I

[qualtrough]

I don't use drugs, and I certainly hope my daughters don't grow up to use drugs. That being said, the 'War on Drugs' has been a total failure and has created more misery than any drugs ever had. If heroin was legal it would be cheap and addicts would have no need to resort to petty theft and crime to support their habits, and the huge drug rings that have grown up to supply the demand would wither on the vine. You don't have to like drugs to think that current policies are stupid.

[Ping]

I don't use drugs, and I certainly hope my daughters don't grow up to use drugs. That being said, the 'War on Drugs' has been a total failure and has created more misery than any drugs ever had. If heroin was legal it would be cheap and addicts would have no need to resort to petty theft and crime to support their habits, and the huge drug rings that have grown up to supply the demand would wither on the vine. You don't have to like drugs to think that current policies are stupid.

Really?

[observer21]

I don't use drugs, and I certainly hope my daughters don't grow up to use drugs. That being said, the 'War on Drugs' has been a total failure and has created more misery than any drugs ever had. If heroin was legal it would be cheap and addicts would have no need to resort to petty theft and crime to support their habits, and the huge drug rings that have grown up to supply the demand would wither on the vine. You don't have to like drugs to think that current policies are stupid.

Really?

I think you may find that drugs have caused infinitley more misery than Thaksins so called war on drugs.  Seems that you dont really have much of an understanding - especially if you have never experimented

with drugs.  Legalising heroin wouldnt help much since the naughty drugs today are ya ba, ice, crack, etc.

People using all these chemicals are a lot more dangerous the the sleepy smack heads of old.

The big players never seem to get caught because they are  - the big players - and well connected.

So as you say, current policies are fairly useless.  Governments know this, as prohibition always creates

more demand.   

[endure]

There's an article from the Guardian written in 1991 that's worth reading here.

A quote:

"There is no drug known to man which becomes safer when its production and distribution are handed over to criminals."

[liketobe]

I don't use drugs, and I certainly hope my daughters don't grow up to use drugs. That being said, the 'War on Drugs' has been a total failure and has created more misery than any drugs ever had. If heroin was legal it would be cheap and addicts would have no need to resort to petty theft and crime to support their habits, and the huge drug rings that have grown up to supply the demand would wither on the vine. You don't have to like drugs to think that current policies are stupid.

I aree. There is hardly anyone in the US now days with any thing resembling a functioning bran, that doesn't know the present policy of the war on drugs has not and will not work.

The anount of tax payer money spent each year has become such an embarrassment that the Bush administration chose to change the way expenses are tallied about two years ago. The annual expenditures now reflect minus thirty percent of actual costs. And it's still an outregeouse amount, my tax dollars at work

Mean wile down on the southern boarder foreign smugglers with less than FIVE HUNDRED pounds of weed are not prosecuted, wile the hard working regular weekend neighbor hood barbecue party animal gets seriouse life complications for half pound.

I accept that any time some one shows up and says we are from the government and we are here to help the results will stink. The question is WHEN? will the polices change not will they change.

[Ping]

I don't use drugs, and I certainly hope my daughters don't grow up to use drugs. That being said, the 'War on Drugs' has been a total failure and has created more misery than any drugs ever had. If heroin was legal it would be cheap and addicts would have no need to resort to petty theft and crime to support their habits, and the huge drug rings that have grown up to supply the demand would wither on the vine. You don't have to like drugs to think that current policies are stupid.

I aree. There is hardly anyone in the US now days with any thing resembling a functioning bran, that doesn't know the present policy of the war on drugs has not and will not work.

The anount of tax payer money spent each year has become such an embarrassment that the Bush administration chose to change the way expenses are tallied about two years ago. The annual expenditures now reflect minus thirty percent of actual costs. And it's still an outregeouse amount, my tax dollars at work

Mean wile down on the southern boarder foreign smugglers with less than FIVE HUNDRED pounds of weed are not prosecuted, wile the hard working regular weekend neighbor hood barbecue party animal gets seriouse life complications for half pound.

I accept that any time some one shows up and says we are from the government and we are here to help the results will stink. The question is WHEN? will the polices change not will they change.

Half a bran? Not All Bran?

Do your views also extend to heroin, meth and cocaine?

Why are you so fervent a supporter of legalising drug use - the problems caused to society are bad enough without sanctioning them. Are you suggesting that use of hard drugs should be legalised?

[qualtrough]

I don't use drugs, and I certainly hope my daughters don't grow up to use drugs. That being said, the 'War on Drugs' has been a total failure and has created more misery than any drugs ever had. If heroin was legal it would be cheap and addicts would have no need to resort to petty theft and crime to support their habits, and the huge drug rings that have grown up to supply the demand would wither on the vine. You don't have to like drugs to think that current policies are stupid.

Really?

I think you may find that drugs have caused infinitley more misery than Thaksins so called war on drugs. Seems that you dont really have much of an understanding - especially if you have never experimented

with drugs. Legalising heroin wouldnt help much since the naughty drugs today are ya ba, ice, crack, etc.

People using all these chemicals are a lot more dangerous the the sleepy smack heads of old.

The big players never seem to get caught because they are - the big players - and well connected.

So as you say, current policies are fairly useless. Governments know this, as prohibition always creates

more demand.

I am wondering if you might have done a little too much experimenting with drugs. You are against legalization, but you end your reply by noting that prohibition always creates more demand. So you want more demand??

[Steely Dan]

I don't use drugs, and I certainly hope my daughters don't grow up to use drugs. That being said, the 'War on Drugs' has been a total failure and has created more misery than any drugs ever had. If heroin was legal it would be cheap and addicts would have no need to resort to petty theft and crime to support their habits, and the huge drug rings that have grown up to supply the demand would wither on the vine. You don't have to like drugs to think that current policies are stupid.

Really?

I think you may find that drugs have caused infinitley more misery than Thaksins so called war on drugs.  Seems that you dont really have much of an understanding - especially if you have never experimented

with drugs.  Legalising heroin wouldnt help much since the naughty drugs today are ya ba, ice, crack, etc.

People using all these chemicals are a lot more dangerous the the sleepy smack heads of old.

The big players never seem to get caught because they are  - the big players - and well connected.

So as you say, current policies are fairly useless.  Governments know this, as prohibition always creates

more demand.   

Oh spare us the moralising sleight of hand. Try walking round a hospital ward seeing the misery caused by cancer to smokers sold legal tobacco. Or perhaps examine the road fatality statistic every Songkran and how many of those are caused by alcohol. Drug prohibition is both a fiscal and control issue of governments and the fact that dangerous tobacco is legal and relatively less harmful cannabis is not is just a sad accident of history.

[Steely Dan]

I don't use drugs, and I certainly hope my daughters don't grow up to use drugs. That being said, the 'War on Drugs' has been a total failure and has created more misery than any drugs ever had. If heroin was legal it would be cheap and addicts would have no need to resort to petty theft and crime to support their habits, and the huge drug rings that have grown up to supply the demand would wither on the vine. You don't have to like drugs to think that current policies are stupid.

I aree. There is hardly anyone in the US now days with any thing resembling a functioning bran, that doesn't know the present policy of the war on drugs has not and will not work.

The anount of tax payer money spent each year has become such an embarrassment that the Bush administration chose to change the way expenses are tallied about two years ago. The annual expenditures now reflect minus thirty percent of actual costs. And it's still an outregeouse amount, my tax dollars at work

Mean wile down on the southern boarder foreign smugglers with less than FIVE HUNDRED pounds of weed are not prosecuted, wile the hard working regular weekend neighbor hood barbecue party animal gets seriouse life complications for half pound.

I accept that any time some one shows up and says we are from the government and we are here to help the results will stink. The question is WHEN? will the polices change not will they change.

Half a bran? Not All Bran?

Do your views also extend to heroin, meth and cocaine?

Why are you so fervent a supporter of legalising drug use - the problems caused to society are bad enough without sanctioning them. Are you suggesting that use of hard drugs should be legalised?

Well that's the view taken by the ecomonist. The full article is well worth reading, an extract can be found here;-

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3917

[Temp]

It's hard to criticise addicts who become pushers (as much as I'd like to) when their own addiction criminalises them (for possession) anyway. We need a better way of dealing with addicts than this.

"Steven"

Believe it or not, I agree.

Believe it or not, I have some controversial views regarding the subject.

I find the whole issue of controlled or illegal substances a bit silly as it involves one or more persons telling one or more persons:"You are not going to eat, drink, smoke, inject or otherwise consume that with your own body or there will be hel_l to pay. Sure there is a lot of money involved, but that happens during any prohibition? A lot of the social problems arise from the high costs that again arise from the prohibition. Also a lot of things that will have similar effect are not prohibited because they are less known or not popular. There are some flower seeds and some spices that will have an effect similar to some of the prohibited drugs. Yet again it is difficult to outlaw the mushrooms that grow in the wild both in Europe and many more kinds here in Thailand that have effects similar to LSD, or outlaw hemp where it grows naturally in the wild. In the west arguments for legislation are often of the socioeconomic type, but I do not see where that fits with the ridiculously harsh sentencing in Asian countries. Countries like Thailand goes from BIG producers of poppy to having some of the strictest laws in the world in about 50 years.:-) Wonder if outside pressure have anything to do with that? It was alright before to make money for the west from drugs, but that changed didn't it. Also interesting that China once outlawed coffee. Didn't wan't people to wake up maybe or maybe it had something to do with already wealthy families concerned with tea growing not wanting to loose money?

Does anyone know know what kind of arguments are presented for why a death sentence is warranted for a specific crime in an asian country? I guess they have some kind of discussion about the graveness of the crime and other lines of thought as exists in the west and don't just grab "death sentence" out of thin air? Anyone?

Temp

[Ping]

I don't use drugs, and I certainly hope my daughters don't grow up to use drugs. That being said, the 'War on Drugs' has been a total failure and has created more misery than any drugs ever had. If heroin was legal it would be cheap and addicts would have no need to resort to petty theft and crime to support their habits, and the huge drug rings that have grown up to supply the demand would wither on the vine. You don't have to like drugs to think that current policies are stupid.

I aree. There is hardly anyone in the US now days with any thing resembling a functioning bran, that doesn't know the present policy of the war on drugs has not and will not work.

The anount of tax payer money spent each year has become such an embarrassment that the Bush administration chose to change the way expenses are tallied about two years ago. The annual expenditures now reflect minus thirty percent of actual costs. And it's still an outregeouse amount, my tax dollars at work

Mean wile down on the southern boarder foreign smugglers with less than FIVE HUNDRED pounds of weed are not prosecuted, wile the hard working regular weekend neighbor hood barbecue party animal gets seriouse life complications for half pound.

I accept that any time some one shows up and says we are from the government and we are here to help the results will stink. The question is WHEN? will the polices change not will they change.

Half a bran? Not All Bran?

Do your views also extend to heroin, meth and cocaine?

Why are you so fervent a supporter of legalising drug use - the problems caused to society are bad enough without sanctioning them. Are you suggesting that use of hard drugs should be legalised?

Well that's the view taken by the ecomonist. The full article is well worth reading, an extract can be found here;-

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3917

Well that coming from Greg Barns is no surprise. The artical appeared in Online Opinion in which 'Editorial direction and policy are set by an Editorial Advisory Board Chaired by former ABC managing Director Brian Johns.' Barns is also a contributor to the Alternative News Network. Some would describe his views as radical while others have questioned his credibility. For example, here are some excerpts of a review of one of his 'works':

'At the end of this book it is hard to escape the feeling that very little has actually been said. There is little evidence supporting the unoriginal arguments Barns pursues apart from personal experience and anecdote. Chapters and facts seem to sit randomly without substantial links to the overriding thesis... His use of quotes is also mystifying. Barns will often quote writings or speeches and then draw dramatic conclusions that a person less passionate about the arguments might find difficult to justify... The passion with which he holds his views is obvious, but it seems to blind him to the need to present a credible case in support of his conclusions.'

The 'legalise it' proponents have been around for years. Thankfully, hard drugs remain unlawful in all countries. So, if you are suggesting that all of these countries are wrong and that the radical minority are right, then (thankfully) I am confident that you will remain in the minority.

[steveromagnino]

The whole idea of legalisation usually stems around the 'we can't control it anyway' idea, the 'it will be much cheaper and demand might reduce' scenario and finally the 'people should be allowed to do what they want' angle.

Obviously, the first one is nonsensical, we haven't reduce the murder rate to zero, so therefore that should be legalised. Crazy.

The second is arguable; because of its dirty reputation, even though legal, the pornography trade in USA is widely known to have major mob connections with the channels of distribution controlled by mobsters and used as a way to money launder. Can we really see major corporations deciding to sell some crack once legalised? i think not. Which means that the channels of distribution probably won't change; rather the same people will continue to sell at the same price, but will be beyond the reach of the hand of law. This is at least the experience of legalising prostitution in NZ; around the casino in auckland you now find plenty of knock shops, many with illegal Chinese (mostly) and East European prostitutes, owned by bike gangs, triads and the like. Some have said that it is a license to print money; prices haven't dropped and the customer base at a guess probably haven't changed that much, maybe grown a bit. The same tax evasion and whatever goes on as b4, perhaps marginally more legitimate but certainly the idea that legalising means bringing vice into the traditional economy is in that example, miles off base.

The people should be allowed to what they like angle is perhaps the most compelling; and one I cannot really argue against; after all cigarettes, booze, E, cocaine, they all tend to turn people into total bell ends. They are all pretty damaging. And they all encourage crime to greater/lesser degrees as soon as some sort of tax is introduced which can somehow help pay for the cost of lung cancer etc, because the untaxed grey market/black market version will always be potentially cheaper than the taxed one. Having seen the effects of pot and harder drugs on my friends, it's hard to say whether the damage is greater than booze since i have a few family members in graves from alcoholism. Certainly, the illegality encourages lack of control over quality, and addicts will take anything that they think will give them their buzz despite risks.

I doubt legalisation will decrease demand but it will probably improve quality. With the quality issue addressed, my own guess is that demand will increase; if price decreases then demand will increase significantly as well; there is no reason to believe that demand in inelastic. By legalising, it is perceived to be safe, and therefore this will also impact demand. Heroin reading is interesting, but to then apply that to cocaine, crack and yah bah - well let's just say I am extremely skeptical that these drugs are as benign as heroin is made out to be. And the extreme reliance on heroin users to get their fix is what makes them do crazy things; legalising it but not dropping the price to very low levels will still leave people addicted, but willing to do whatever to get their fix; what exact work other than being a singer in the rolling stones are these addicts suitable to do?

[bobbin]

Dear Ping

My initial response to your post was a bit abrupt and has as much to do with my aversion to typing at length as anything else.

Several posters have now refered to the "premium of illegality" currently priced into prohibited drugs. Criminal entrepeneurs now reap excessive profits on what in most cases would be reasonably priced products.

Several experiments have shown that prescribed heroin significantly cuts heroin-related crime.

Most of these drugs were available before prohibition. Why did society not crumble?

When prohibition was first enacted, most people had no knowledge of these drugs and accepted their governments' assertion than criminalizing them was a good thing. Yet up to that point they were freely available and society should have been a mess, as predicted by opponents of harm-reduction. This was the beginning of the indoctrination you suffer from. If you feel strongly about this issue, educate yourself and argue from a position of knowledge.

Your attack on persons who do not support the current stance does you no credit. Continue to attack the message, not the man. That is the high road. No pun intended. This is a reference to the newsman you ridiculed.

Your insistence that the "grandfathered" drugs that you enjoy should be left out of the discussion is the true fallacious argument.

Societal pressure without involving criminal prosecution has been effective in reducing smoking of cigarettes and excessive alcohol consumption. These products are regulated and restricted as to time and place of consumption. This is the correct approach and will in time be shown to be the model for dealing with the current illegal drugs.

Additionally, and with compassion, I would state that there will always be casualties. We cannot save everyone from themselves, as much as some would have you believe is possible. But the current situation is creating far far more victims.

[Dupont]

Dear Ping

My initial response to your post was a bit abrupt and has as much to do with my aversion to typing at length as anything else.

Several posters have now refered to the "premium of illegality" currently priced into prohibited drugs. Criminal entrepeneurs now reap excessive profits on what in most cases would be reasonably priced products.

Several experiments have shown that prescribed heroin significantly cuts heroin-related crime.

Most of these drugs were available before prohibition. Why did society not crumble?

When prohibition was first enacted, most people had no knowledge of these drugs and accepted their governments' assertion than criminalizing them was a good thing. Yet up to that point they were freely available and society should have been a mess, as predicted by opponents of harm-reduction. This was the beginning of the indoctrination you suffer from. If you feel strongly about this issue, educate yourself and argue from a position of knowledge.

Your attack on persons who do not support the current stance does you no credit. Continue to attack the message, not the man. That is the high road. No pun intended. This is a reference to the newsman you ridiculed.

Your insistence that the "grandfathered" drugs that you enjoy should be left out of the discussion is the true fallacious argument.

Societal pressure without involving criminal prosecution has been effective in reducing smoking of cigarettes and excessive alcohol consumption. These products are regulated and restricted as to time and place of consumption. This is the correct approach and will in time be shown to be the model for dealing with the current illegal drugs.

Additionally, and with compassion, I would state that there will always be casualties. We cannot save everyone from themselves, as much as some would have you believe is possible. But the current situation is creating far far more victims.

So your first posts attack and insult anybody that disagrees with you or may seek to disagree with you. That failed old tactic again. Then you start to patronise and seek support for your trendy dangerous ideas, dressing them up as something only the intellegentsia would understand.

IMHO as one who has watched friends turn from soft drugs, to hard drugs, from petty pilfering to serious crime to fund it (including holding up a post office where a friends father worked) they should throw apologists such as yourself in the same stinking hole as the traffikers/users.

It's the likes of you that give them a mental safety net and a bunch of social workers, free solicitors etc. when the police catch them. A further massive financial burden along with the costs of cleaning up spent needles from playgrounds and sterelising buildings where these vermin have broken into and hung out. I've personally done this and it is a sickening feeling that somebody would leave a needle - lots of them in fact and in one case, so many of them that they blocked a main drainage system, it backed up with other debris and took a whole day with specialist contracters to clear it out - where children are going to be playing the next morning.

A Thai prison is in any event a cleaner place than a squatted building where many of them choose to hang out. Can't so the time? Don't do the crime.

I also never met a drug addict that didn't start out experimenting with drugs because they thought it was cool and rebellious. They only turn themselves into victims when they get into shit in countries beyond the reach of trendies like you. Places beyond the reach of the stupid pandering to and supporting criminals in their lifestyle type of programms of the west. Nobody "innocently" and as a poor victim, starts sticking syringes full of drugs into their own bodies. Its a concious determined step up the drug ladder.

Stick to your Guardian reports and leave the real world to those that live in it.

Edited June 16, 2007 by Dupont

[bobbin]

Dupont

I see that like Ping you have trouble with the big picture.

In the give and take of discussions(arguments) on contentious social issues, it is not unexpected that some comments will be made that seem insulting or patronizing. But sometimes it is necessary to shake the complacency of someone who is obviously only repeating what they have been told to think.

Ping refers to junkies robbing to pay for the next fix. You refer to squats left littered with used syringes. Both of these examples are the direct result of criminalization.

The true discusssion has to be much broader. There are many illicit drugs. The question is how to educate people so that they can make informed choices. Our western society attempts to educate citizens to think independently. And many here have critisized the Thai and other Asian educational systems for teaching by rote. Addictive drugs make slaves of their users. There are many addictive drugs. Some are legal at present. Not many find the prospect of addiction to be attractive. This is the kernal of education that people need to hear. From sources they trust to have no agenda.

The markets for these drugs is huge. It is inconceivable that all users are crimnals. If not you that is a customer, it is your brother or neighbour. Most users of most of these drugs are functioning members of society. Some are arrested and after receiving a criminal record find many options in life curtailed. In the USA, you cannot get a student loan if you have a drug conviction. Does this make sense?

At one time or another both alcohol and tobacco have been illegal. If I recall my history correctly, a previous King of your country decreed that the noses of tobacco smokers should be cut off. How long that particular law was enforced I do not recall. Alcohol prohibition in the USA allowed organized crime there to establish a foothold and the financial resources that go with it.

Every military person will tell you that it is foolish to start a war you cannot win. Unfortunately, politicians are not so sensible. They start wars all the time because it suits their short-term agenda. The Drug Wars are one example.

As my ol' grandpappy used to say,"There is more than one way to skin a cat!" There is rarely only one solution to a problem. People like me are merely inviting you to engage your original thinking processes and consider the possibilty that there are other solutions.

[Mid]

steveromagnino came close to it , then stopped ............

the question is which set of circumstances is cheaper for society as a whole ??

carry on .

[Dupont]

Dear bobbin

Yawn!!!

We'll just support the Thais and anybody else in banging these dregs up.

I note that she is a repeat offender. How many times these people get cautioned then become emboldened in the west. Hoe many would go on to become addicts if they got 6 months jail the first time they got caught with pot? 5 years for smack etc? This route is more worth following than your trying molly coddle them.

How many times has she trafficked drugs since she has been banged up? Same as the others... none.

With regard to your tired argument about alcohol and tobacco. Most people I know who use these, work hard to pay for these items, don't leave infected needles lying around and don't expect free substitues off the NHS.

I am open minded about other solutions, just not yours. I've seen em tried and failed miserably as the one person that matters (the addict) is the one that doesn't play ball..... every time. I've been to case conferences with social workers, doctors, lawyers etc and who's missing.. The junkie dead head.

Why not bang em up then at least they keep the appointments with all these highly paid professionals who are funded by us tax payers?

[Ping]

Bobbin, I take exception to your comment that 'If you feel strongly about this issue, educate yourself and argue from a position of knowledge'. I have considerable expertise in this particular area and have undertaken a number of projects and studies (including a published study of recidivism). I dare say that my educational and experiential qualifications would at least match yours.

[meemiathai]

So people are victims when they take drugs and become drug addicts, but when the same people carry the drugs from one place to another they suddenly become evils?

If I was as stupid as to become a drug addict, let me rot! I am not going to blame any person!

If your children are as weak, stupid, indulgent as to choose to take drugs and ruin their own lives, then they deserve it as much as those who are weak and stupid enough to have been used by other people to smuggle drugs!

You people think is fair? Are there judges taking cocaine? Lawyers? Doctors? Professionals? But they are the people for us to look up to. But those who risks their lives to get them the cocaine are scumbags!!!?

Some young man/woman made a mistake, and you people want his/her life? You people are very kind! And Oh! You have so much love for the victims! Kill those who build buildings when someone chose to jump off!

Give you guys a stone, a knife or maybe a gun and let you kill them! OK? Oh but you can't do it! You are people with good hearts. You have so much love. You want other people to do it and don't let you know or see.

Hypocrisy and Humans are inseperable, aren't they?

[observer21]

Bottom line here is: if these people were hanging around your neighbourhood making your

life a misery, and they had the upper hand through fear, they would continue to do

so without remorse.  It is only when they lose that they becmome remorsefull ,

Trouble with the  do gooders is they often dont come from neighbourhoods affected by drugs so its all a bit of a crusade for them.

Personaly i think addiction is an excuse to become a criminal - its like its not my fault its

the drugs.  Bull sh - - !  

If you have strict laws then you have less addicts.  Not many people smuggle drugs to Saudi.  Infact the last 2 Thai guys that did got their heads chopped off.  well if thats what it takes to protect society from this evil !

Why dont these do gooders spend their time trying to protect victims - not users, they are only victims when they want to be.  Any fereang who smuggles drugs in thailand knows the cost - they are scum

[meemiathai]

What victims are you talking about?

[observer21]

What victims are you talking about?

victims of crime through drugs, victims of antisocial behahior through drugs, victims

of violence through drugs, victims of road injurys and deaths through drugs, orphans through drugs,  etc etc etc

[meemiathai]

What victims are you talking about?

victims of crime through drugs, victims of antisocial behahior through drugs, victims

of violence through drugs, victims of road injurys and deaths through drugs, orphans through drugs,  etc etc etc

So they are victims and they are scum?

[observer21]

What victims are you talking about?

victims of crime through drugs, victims of antisocial behahior through drugs, victims

of violence through drugs, victims of road injurys and deaths through drugs, orphans through drugs,  etc etc etc

So they are victims and they are scum?

what are you talking about - maybe you dont understand english.  read the text properly

dumbo

I have just read your previous posts on this thread and i understand , yes i was right your ramblings dont make a lot of sense

Edited June 16, 2007 by observer21

[meemiathai]

What victims are you talking about?

victims of crime through drugs, victims of antisocial behahior through drugs, victims

of violence through drugs, victims of road injurys and deaths through drugs, orphans through drugs,  etc etc etc

So they are victims and they are scum?

what are you talking about - maybe you dont understand english.  read the text properly

dumbo

I have just read your previous posts on this thread and i understand , yes i was right your ramblings dont make a lot of sense

Yes you make a very good point. People who dont(is it dont or don't) understand English are dumbos.

[bobbin]

Dear Ping

You have been "sand-bagging"?

Why then did you limit yourself to dragging out those tired old arguments you posted in your first post?

Draw upon your expertise to counter my argument that laws are not static. They reflect the times they are written in and are oten re-drawn.

Many countries in the western world are backing away from criminalization, with the notable exception of the USA. Yet to stay on topic, many Asian countries, especially those with close economic ties to the previously noted super-moralizing super-power, have enacted and are enforcing completely disproportionate laws.

As noted in the OP, there are many young Australians who have been caught up the current enforcement. I am sure there are young Europeans in that situation as well. While in their own countries there is a steady trend towards the position I advocate, they find themselves at risk while vacationing in Asia of receiving excessive punishment for actions which have much less severe consequences at home.

Surely it is therefore encumbent upon their Governments to intervene whenever possible on behalf of their nationals.

Time for another coffee.

It's been illegal before as well.

BTW. Google for tobacco and noses cut off. I know I made that comment to Dupont but as I was relying on memory from schooling that took place more than 40 years ago, I did just that and surprised even myself at the gyrations the law has taken with regards to "illegal drugs"

[meemiathai]

Anyone here would claim that he is perfect?

I bet no one would be as stupid as to say they have not made any mistakes in life?

What if we now say that having bullied anyone should get you a life imprisonment? For because you have caused permament psychological damage to that person you bullied.

Are you capable of really imagining of looking into the life of that person who commited a drug offence in Asia? Are you capable of understanding that that person might not necessarily be an evil? That that person could actually be quite a normal person? He/she might just be vulnerable at that moment and got used by gangsters? I can guarrantee you that those who actually have to carry drugs through airports are not even close to being good at commiting evil crimes.

People use people in this world. People eat people. Can you not get it?

What about people who carry weapons to war zones by order? Should they be killed?

How one can say they are as guilty as murderers and rapists is beyond me. Unfortunately these people get punished even less. You people have been brainwashed I think.