Expect A Narcotics Flood From Burma, US Drug Chief Warns Thailand

[Tanaka]

Law enforcement community? In Thailand? They were joking, right?

[NanaFoods]

The reason why some countries, such as the US, failed in their wars against drugs is because their stance is weak. There's no death penalty. Only when the Grim Reaper is involved, then only will the drugs problem be under control.

Wow. So misguided.

Any war against inanimate objects or substances is doomed to fail. Murdering people with addictions isn't going to solve anything. There is no difference between an alcoholic or a heroin addict, except that one's substance of addiction is deemed illegal and stigmatized.

As for supply, there will always be a way when the very illegality of it makes it far more expensive and profitable than its worth. Decriminalization and proper medical treatment is the only way to "win". The money wasted on these "wars" would be better spent starting clinics and treatment centers. Decriminalization is the only way to take the money out of the equation and render the market unattractive to violent drug mafias and cartels.

[Para]

Law enforcement community? In Thailand? They were joking, right?

Maybe drug distribution enforcement community would better describe whats going on here?

[mcottage]

Does this mean the U.S will be looking for a way to start a war in Burma so they can take control of the drugs trade much like afghanistan? or am I just being cynical?

War on Drugs has always been the cover for other US interests....the war on drugs has increased the prison population within the US in their newly minted Prisons for Profit [CCA corporation] all under the auspices of the Republican Party and their pimps in office....Afghanistan is another point in this scenario....it is not drugs they wish to control, but rather the rare earth minerals found there by Pentagon survey quite some years back; some one to five trillion worth.....if drugs were really the issue then to legalize and control through government sacntion and taxation with adequate controls and treatment for all who desire to curtail drug use would be the smart and much more effective manner in which to deal with the trade, but if you wish to see something such as alcohol or drugs flourish then criminalize it and the only ones profiting are the criminals....and everyone else suffers especially the people whose taxes are being spent to line the pockets of ex-military delinquents such as retired general McCaffrey....who contributes to CNN.......

[mcottage]

The reason why some countries, such as the US, failed in their wars against drugs is because their stance is weak. There's no death penalty. Only when the Grim Reaper is involved, then only will the drugs problem be under control.

Weak....hmmmm and you propose to kill people because of an addiction....I think you just like the thought of killing to satisfy some inherant weakness in yourself...next time think before you speak; the US puts many people to death and some of them are actually innocent....that's what the death penalty does to idiots who like George W. Bush who actually like to pull the switch as evidenced by his derisiveness exhibited towards a female he mocked as she was about to die after having undergone an internal conversion of penitence and recognition of her deeds.....it defies the imagination that one so cruel could possibly have been president of the United States, but then again we had Johnson who lied to us about the incident in the Tonkin gulf to start the Vietnam war, which was in fact an applied death penanty to poor folks in the United States as it singled them out in easily recognizable terms of educational opportunities and poor neighborhood backgrounds......it needed to stop as the military began to encroach on middle class structure and the then complacent American awoke to OMG it could happen to my son too....oooops!

[scotbeve]

Does this mean the U.S will be looking for a way to start a war in Burma so they can take control of the drugs trade much like afghanistan? or am I just being cynical?

That should be obvious. You're cynical.

It's spot on and NOT CYNICAL!!!

I'll second that paco.

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed as well as the reply to it.

[qdinthailand]

The reason why some countries, such as the US, failed in their wars against drugs is because their stance is weak. There's no death penalty. Only when the Grim Reaper is involved, then only will the drugs problem be under control.

Yes indeed - the death penalty works to stop the import into Malaysia, Singapore, China, etc? Hell no. Crime syndicates will find a way, will find desperate people to serve as their mules. (they will make people desperate in order to do their bidding - like, loaning them money knowing they'll never make payments, then offering them an opportunity to make it all right). The flow may be disrupted now and then, but money will always find a way - even if it has to corrupt the officials meant to stop the flow.

Money, Money, Money.

Way more of an incentive than the disincentive of maybe being caught and facing the death penalty.

[Farang0tang]

By Supalak Ganjanakhundee

The Nation

[Chris Lawrence]

Does the US really think anyone here in Thailand cares... its the police and army who allow these drugs to come through Thailand... who else..? moneys moneys moneys..... !

C.I.A.?

[Chris Lawrence]

How else are the yanks going to pay back 14 trillion dollars?

[heybruce]

Does this mean the U.S will be looking for a way to start a war in Burma so they can take control of the drugs trade much like afghanistan? or am I just being cynical?

Everythings a conspiracy, right? If the US wanted to control a lucrative drug trade it would have invaded Columbia long ago; it's closer, easier and more profitable. But I don't think logic will change your paranoid mind.

[Lovedog100]

Does this mean the U.S will be looking for a way to start a war in Burma so they can take control of the drugs trade much like afghanistan? or am I just being cynical?

Not cynical, uninformed. The Taliban had eradicated drug production in Afghanistan, it wasn't until occupied by US forces, that poppy growing became a cash crop again.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Lovedog100

[NanaFoods]

Does this mean the U.S will be looking for a way to start a war in Burma so they can take control of the drugs trade much like afghanistan? or am I just being cynical?

Everythings a conspiracy, right? If the US wanted to control a lucrative drug trade it would have invaded Columbia long ago; it's closer, easier and more profitable. But I don't think logic will change your paranoid mind.

Newsflash - conspiracies DO happen. First off, it's not the "US" per se, rather it's the CIA (fair to say a rogue agency). Secondly, they don't need to invade Columbia because they already have a working relationship....since the 1950's. This is a well known conspiracy that happens to be fact - not a theory.

http://djd.newsvine....tons-of-cocaine

http://www.dailykos....Tons-of-COCAINE

CBS News 60 MINUTES November 21, 1993

Its also a fact that US troops have been (maybe still are) guarding the opium fields in Afghanistan and seeing to it that the farmers can grow their crops. Even Geraldo Rivera reported on it. So for them to say they've shored up the Afghan opium flow... hmmm... maybe what they mean is they've cornered the market.

Also:

http://en.wikipedia....rug_trafficking

http://en.wikipedia....cking_in_the_US

And as an aside...from wiki

"During the early to mid-1990s, the Clinton administration ordered and funded a major cocaine policy study, again by RAND. The Rand Drug Policy Research Center study concluded that $ 3 billion should be switched from federal and local law enforcement to treatment. The report said that treatment is the cheapest way to cut drug use, stating that drug treatment is twenty-three more times effective than the supply-side "war on drugs". ^[52] President Clinton's drug czar's office disagreed with slashing law enforcement spending. ^[53]"

Edited September 18, 2011 by NanaFoods

[scotbeve]

" Things we tried 1971 we don't do today since we have learnt what worked and did not work."

So 40 years later, same stuff, another day.

I would say the approach the U.S. is taking on the "war on drugs" is not working - for the same reason you can't make booze illegal. It just criminalizes what people do. All it does is raise the price, makes some crime syndicates very wealthy.

Time to rethink the war on drugs - not the tactics.

Agree 100%.... Such a waste of taxpayers funds is criminal! Especially NOW!

[nurofiend]

from OP "following the success of narcotics control activities in Afghanistan."

hahaha, who do they think they are kidding... opium production sky rocketed after the US invasion, the taliban were far more effective in cultivation prevention than the US.

in the year before the invasion the taliban reduced it by 91%.....91%!!!!

maybe for once in their lives the US should stay out of other countries business, but oh yeah there's that word... business

[NowImEasy]

Does this mean the U.S will be looking for a way to start a war in Burma so they can take control of the drugs trade much like afghanistan? or am I just being cynical?

No Jeremy, you are not being cynical. You are just being a stupid as***le!

Thanks for your kind words and your eloquent imput. xxxxxxxx

OK, maybe harsh words, sorry for that, but after reading this entire thread, I think there are many who agree with your basic premise, which is that the US invaded Afghanistan, and would like to wage war in Burma in order to profit from the drug trade. This is ludicrous (sp) in the extreme. Maybe poppy production in Afghanistan has increased after the US invasion. This is due to the hypocritical Taliban needing cash after Osama and his Saudi backers were crushed. But in any case, those posters who quote news sources as saying that the US is supporting the drug trade should check their sources. Was it Al Jazeera? MSNBC? DailyCos? In Egypt, a well educated country by arab standards, most (about 85%) of the people believe that Jews were behind the 9/11 terror attacks. Get real, people. The moon landings were real, by the way.

I wish this forum would keep the focus on Thailand, and not to take any news event as an opportunity to bash the USA. The USA is the first to act when a disaster strikes. The USA helped Muslims in Bosnia, Inonesia after the tsunami, and Pakistan after the earthquake, even though the Muslims there will always hate America. Mai bpen rai. Sent the aid anyway. As a people, Americans give more to charity per capita than any other nation on earth.

If it wasn't for the USA, (along with allies such as Australia, Canada, GB and NZ) Thailand would now be a province of the Japanese Empire. And the EU would be speaking German under the third reich Nazis today without the sacrifice of the US and its allies.

So let's get after those baddies bringing dope in over the mountains from Burma, and if the US or China or Switzerland wants to help, then all power to them.