Society Demands That Examples Be Made Of Addicts: Thai Opinion

[webfact]

EDITORIAL

Society demands that examples be made of addicts

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Instead of violent anti-drug crusades, the authorities should be addressing this social problem at its root causes of bad education, poverty and inequality

Opium production in Asia is set to rise, and more and more illicit drugs are being sold through social media, targeting young adults, the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) warned in its recently released annual report.

Hamid Ghose, president of the Vienna-based UN agency, pointed to several factors which he said "could lead to even further increases in (opium) production beyond 2011".

While North America remains the biggest market for drugs overall, Europe is the biggest consumer of opiates. Europe is also the world's second biggest market for cocaine. The report identified heroin as causing the most problems in terms of health and mortality.

But illicit drug use is not solely a Western problem. Opium production has been increasing in our region, namely Laos and Burma, feeding local markets. Successive governments have declared war on drugs but their efforts come across as trying to get votes rather then getting to the bottom of the problem and the social dynamics of drug abuse.

It's easy for our law-makers to label drug use as a "crime" rather than a "social problem". We went through this mess in early 2003 when the police under the then-government of Thaksin Shinawatra went on a killing spree under the guise of a "war on drugs" that ended in the extra-judicial deaths of some 2,500 people.

The fact that the general public mostly supported his dangerous endeavour says something about our society, and it's not good. A healthy society would not tolerate such methods to solve a social problem. But this goes back to how our society and our leaders frame the problem. If we are to understand drug abuse as a social problem, then we will have to talk about education, employment, social equality and mobility among other things.

Apparently, for Thailand, it is easier just to take lives, as if the problem is going to go away with the deaths of some drug users.

The drug debate in Thailand often misses the point. Take the recent publicity involving rock star Seksan "Sek Loso" Sukpimai, and the Office of the Narcotic Control Board (ONCB).

The issue came about after Sek went public about his drug use and told the media that if Thai society doesn't like his behaviour, he is willing to move to London, a place where he can supposedly live a freer lifestyle.

ONCB chief Adul Saengsingkaeo, a police general, saw it as his duty to summon the star to his office and straighten him out. The top drug tsar apparently believes he has the moral authority to "set people straight".

But taking the moral high ground doesn't necessarily make one "better" than anyone else. The spitting contest between Adul, a senior law enforcement officer with an inflated ego, and rock star Sek Loso was more about a show of force on the former's part, and a celebrity's attempt to demonstrate that he can be his own man. Sek Loso's point is that he is a free-spirited person who should be able to take drugs as long as he doesn't harm or violate the rights of others.

People who take up any top government post will always get offended. It goes with the job. But one person's arrogance doesn't justify another person reacting in the same manner. Adul seems so concerned about the life of a drug-addict rock star, but perhaps he should look for other trees to bark up. There are plenty of children and young adults out there on the street who need help and attention, not just one rock star who finally gave in to the demands of the ONCB and went through the motions that society prescribes "for people like him" - a public apology, hugs and kisses with parents, a visit to monks, and appearances with political bigwigs who, incidentally, are not generally known for their moral authority.

The problem with our society and our policy-makers especially is that no one really knows the line between integrity and showmanship. And as they go through the motions, thinking they are righting wrongs, there is a tendency to lose sight of reality.

-- The Nation 2012-03-06

[johna]

De-criminalize drug addiction, and make it a health issue.

Portugal has seen good results from this strategy.

[OzMick]

Treat drug addicts, shoot corrupt politicians.

[RickBradford]

And then decriminalise rape and murder as well, and make them behavioural issues.

One big fallacy about drug addiction is that it only hurts the addict, which is nonsense, as anybody who has dealt with an addict in their family will tell you. The moment you have been assaulted by drug takers rendered psychotic by their drug, you get a very chilling view of the prospect of the further spread of the abuse of stimulants.

We could equally say that it is acceptable to conduct public exhibitions of necrophilia, since the corpse isn't going to object, and the viewers would be there by choice.

The biggest argument is that decriminalizing drugs eliminates all the other surrounding criminal activities -- the smuggling and corruption, exploitation of minors and violent turf wars.

Well, that's true, in the same way that decriminalizing the stealing of cars gets rid of car thieves, illegal chop shops, vehicle smugglers and bogus licence makers. In fact, the ultimate cause of all criminality is law. As far as I am aware, no one has ever suggested that law should therefore be abandoned.

Then there's the argument "we're losing the war on drugs." What, and so we should just give up? Doctors are losing the war against death, but does that mean they should stop work? If every man has to die, it doesn’t matter very much when he does so.

If the war against drugs is lost, then so are the wars against theft, speeding, incest, fraud, rape, murder, arson, and illegal parking. Few, if any, such wars are winnable. So let us all do anything we choose.

Contrast free-drug Amsterdam, one of the most squalid and violent cities in Europe, with drug-free Singapore, clean and safe.

Do the streets become safer when they are full of people pumped up on 'yaba'?

[Om85]

decriminalize drugs in specific marihuana , create more jobs, give better education to the people, that's the right path to follow.

[IAMHERE]

"ONCB chief Adul Saengsingkaeo, a police general, saw it as his duty to summon the star to his office and straighten him out. The top drug tsar apparently believes he has the moral authority to "set people straight"."

Appears the police general did have the moral authority needed in this case.

[robblok]

And then decriminalise rape and murder as well, and make them behavioural issues.

One big fallacy about drug addiction is that it only hurts the addict, which is nonsense, as anybody who has dealt with an addict in their family will tell you. The moment you have been assaulted by drug takers rendered psychotic by their drug, you get a very chilling view of the prospect of the further spread of the abuse of stimulants.

We could equally say that it is acceptable to conduct public exhibitions of necrophilia, since the corpse isn't going to object, and the viewers would be there by choice.

The biggest argument is that decriminalizing drugs eliminates all the other surrounding criminal activities -- the smuggling and corruption, exploitation of minors and violent turf wars.

Well, that's true, in the same way that decriminalizing the stealing of cars gets rid of car thieves, illegal chop shops, vehicle smugglers and bogus licence makers. In fact, the ultimate cause of all criminality is law. As far as I am aware, no one has ever suggested that law should therefore be abandoned.

Then there's the argument "we're losing the war on drugs." What, and so we should just give up? Doctors are losing the war against death, but does that mean they should stop work? If every man has to die, it doesn’t matter very much when he does so.

If the war against drugs is lost, then so are the wars against theft, speeding, incest, fraud, rape, murder, arson, and illegal parking. Few, if any, such wars are winnable. So let us all do anything we choose.

Contrast free-drug Amsterdam, one of the most squalid and violent cities in Europe, with drug-free Singapore, clean and safe.

Do the streets become safer when they are full of people pumped up on 'yaba'?

I guess your an American who is ill informed ? Could you please come up with some statistics about the violence in Amsterdam. I believe bill o reily has been put on his place before when he was spreading lies about the Netherlands. Not to long ago even a presidential candidate was set straight on when he was talking about euthanasia in the Netherlands. It seems Americans love to lie about Holland to make a point and then when they are confronted with their lies act like Thai politicians denying it all.

Legalized drug use would not be a problem, just like alcohol you would not be allowed to use it in traffic and stuff like that. There are many people who can handle drugs not everyone will become an crazy addict. I believe its a free choice as long as you take responsibility for it. Meaning you will have to pay more for your healthcare and stuff. But just look at alcohol is a drug too and a bad one its legalized.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

[belg]

pick up all dealers and users and put them in a big football stadium... then release by helicopter a mass of coke and heroin and let them feast on it till none is moving anymore... apply a few times per year till none are left ???

drug dealers are the worst scum of the earth, selling death to youth and others and cousing a lot of disturbance, violence, etc...

china has a good permanent solution for this problem

[hanuman2543]

It is remarkable that the author sees the social reason behind the rampant drug use among Thai people. The "good people don't do drugs"attitude of many Thai politicians and high government officials surely don't help. But to change their attitude they have to admit that there are problems in the society, which is unthinkable because that would mean that they have to leave their ivory towers and face reality.

[jybkk]

And then decriminalise rape and murder as well, and make them behavioural issues.

One big fallacy about drug addiction is that it only hurts the addict, which is nonsense, as anybody who has dealt with an addict in their family will tell you. The moment you have been assaulted by drug takers rendered psychotic by their drug, you get a very chilling view of the prospect of the further spread of the abuse of stimulants.

We could equally say that it is acceptable to conduct public exhibitions of necrophilia, since the corpse isn't going to object, and the viewers would be there by choice.

The biggest argument is that decriminalizing drugs eliminates all the other surrounding criminal activities -- the smuggling and corruption, exploitation of minors and violent turf wars.

Well, that's true, in the same way that decriminalizing the stealing of cars gets rid of car thieves, illegal chop shops, vehicle smugglers and bogus licence makers. In fact, the ultimate cause of all criminality is law. As far as I am aware, no one has ever suggested that law should therefore be abandoned.

Then there's the argument "we're losing the war on drugs." What, and so we should just give up? Doctors are losing the war against death, but does that mean they should stop work? If every man has to die, it doesn’t matter very much when he does so.

If the war against drugs is lost, then so are the wars against theft, speeding, incest, fraud, rape, murder, arson, and illegal parking. Few, if any, such wars are winnable. So let us all do anything we choose.

Contrast free-drug Amsterdam, one of the most squalid and violent cities in Europe, with drug-free Singapore, clean and safe.

Do the streets become safer when they are full of people pumped up on 'yaba'?

I guess your an American who is ill informed ? Could you please come up with some statistics about the violence in Amsterdam. I believe bill o reily has been put on his place before when he was spreading lies about the Netherlands. Not to long ago even a presidential candidate was set straight on when he was talking about euthanasia in the Netherlands. It seems Americans love to lie about Holland to make a point and then when they are confronted with their lies act like Thai politicians denying it all.

Legalized drug use would not be a problem, just like alcohol you would not be allowed to use it in traffic and stuff like that. There are many people who can handle drugs not everyone will become an crazy addict. I believe its a free choice as long as you take responsibility for it. Meaning you will have to pay more for your healthcare and stuff. But just look at alcohol is a drug too and a bad one its legalized.

http://www.nationmas...ders-per-capita

Exactly what I thought when I read "RickBradford" piece. Pure Fox News "fair and balanced" reporting. Amsterdam "squalid and violent". What a joke! And what about Portugal? Is it squalid and violent too?

Then after that he goes on using the good old "reductio to absurdum" and suggest we abolish all laws.

There's a moment when punition does more harm than good. Mostly when you deal with mental illnesses such as drug addiction. Because that's the main difference with the other crimes mentionned here: drug addicts are sick. They need to be treated, and brandishing a stick won't really do anything good about their addiction. After all, that's already what we do when some murderers are deemed mentally ill and legally irresponsible. Fear of punishment doesn't work with these people. We have to find other ways.

[Davedub]

And then decriminalise rape and murder as well, and make them behavioural issues.

One big fallacy about drug addiction is that it only hurts the addict, which is nonsense, as anybody who has dealt with an addict in their family will tell you. The moment you have been assaulted by drug takers rendered psychotic by their drug, you get a very chilling view of the prospect of the further spread of the abuse of stimulants.

We could equally say that it is acceptable to conduct public exhibitions of necrophilia, since the corpse isn't going to object, and the viewers would be there by choice.

The biggest argument is that decriminalizing drugs eliminates all the other surrounding criminal activities -- the smuggling and corruption, exploitation of minors and violent turf wars.

Well, that's true, in the same way that decriminalizing the stealing of cars gets rid of car thieves, illegal chop shops, vehicle smugglers and bogus licence makers. In fact, the ultimate cause of all criminality is law. As far as I am aware, no one has ever suggested that law should therefore be abandoned.

Then there's the argument "we're losing the war on drugs." What, and so we should just give up? Doctors are losing the war against death, but does that mean they should stop work? If every man has to die, it doesn’t matter very much when he does so.

If the war against drugs is lost, then so are the wars against theft, speeding, incest, fraud, rape, murder, arson, and illegal parking. Few, if any, such wars are winnable. So let us all do anything we choose.

Contrast free-drug Amsterdam, one of the most squalid and violent cities in Europe, with drug-free Singapore, clean and safe.

Do the streets become safer when they are full of people pumped up on 'yaba'?

It really does bug me when uninformed people spout the rehashed 'official line' on drugs when they clearly have no idea of the real issues. Drug abuse and dependency are health issues, full stop. There are many drug enforcement workers who now agree with this - see http://www.leap.cc/ for an example. Criminalising any sort of drug use has historically never worked. Remember prohibition in the US? The rise of the mafia? Now we have a far bigger, global drug 'mafia' - a clear and obvious consequence of the management of this terrible social ill.

The other issue here is people's right to USE drugs as they deem fit. Make no mistake, most people who 'take drugs' (and I include pot smokers here) are simply users, holding down good jobs, supporting their families and generally having no problem with recreational drug use. The difference between use and abuse is clear - yet it's the drug USERS who are either prohibited from or persecuted for their choice of recreational activity. Of course, this majority of drug users are forced to form a silent majority from which they cannot speak their true opinions - they'd have too much to lose by doing so.

The same issues apply to politicians - how can any politician tackle the true issues without loss of credibility - the politician who speaks honestly about these issues will be vilified by people spouting the sort of reactionary nonsense posted above. In the meantime, the drug problem is getting worse, the criminals are getting richer, society continues to be damaged and more families are broken up by the mismanagement of this HEALTH issue.

So please, don't just reiterate the 'official line' on drug prohibition without a clear understanding of the issues - get informed, there's a LOT more to this issue than you'll read in the papers...

[RickBradford]

@robblok

I guess your an American....

You guess wrong.

... who is ill informed ? ....

Possibly, but having visited Amsterdam, many times, I stand by the statement that it is squalid and violent, a sharp contrast with many other parts of the Netherlands which are very pleasant.

Legalized drug use would not be a problem ....

I think you are being naive. To work, legalised drugs would have to be cheap and readily available (or people will simply go back to the black market). When you make such substances cheap and available, many people are tempted to abuse them, such as children. Look at the under-age drinking problem in many Western countries -- do you think that would improve if we made alcohol legal and available to 10-year-olds?

I believe its a free choice as long as you take responsibility for it.

Drug addicts don't take responsibility for it -- that's the point. Everyone else has to take responsibility for them, and their tiresome, self-destructive behaviour.

But just look at alcohol is a drug too and a bad one its legalized.

So your argument is that since we have one bad substance that is legal, we should make all bad substances legal? How about dynamite? How about nerve gas?

EDIT: @DaveDub: I am not reiterating any official line. The source of my arguments are doctors who have worked with criminals and drug addicts for many years. Here is one such argument. http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_2_a1.html

[nurofiend]

And then decriminalise rape and murder as well, and make them behavioural issues.

One big fallacy about drug addiction is that it only hurts the addict, which is nonsense, as anybody who has dealt with an addict in their family will tell you. The moment you have been assaulted by drug takers rendered psychotic by their drug, you get a very chilling view of the prospect of the further spread of the abuse of stimulants.

We could equally say that it is acceptable to conduct public exhibitions of necrophilia, since the corpse isn't going to object, and the viewers would be there by choice.

The biggest argument is that decriminalizing drugs eliminates all the other surrounding criminal activities -- the smuggling and corruption, exploitation of minors and violent turf wars.

Well, that's true, in the same way that decriminalizing the stealing of cars gets rid of car thieves, illegal chop shops, vehicle smugglers and bogus licence makers. In fact, the ultimate cause of all criminality is law. As far as I am aware, no one has ever suggested that law should therefore be abandoned.

Then there's the argument "we're losing the war on drugs." What, and so we should just give up? Doctors are losing the war against death, but does that mean they should stop work? If every man has to die, it doesn’t matter very much when he does so.

If the war against drugs is lost, then so are the wars against theft, speeding, incest, fraud, rape, murder, arson, and illegal parking. Few, if any, such wars are winnable. So let us all do anything we choose.

Contrast free-drug Amsterdam, one of the most squalid and violent cities in Europe, with drug-free Singapore, clean and safe.

Do the streets become safer when they are full of people pumped up on 'yaba'?

so many flaws, so little time....

[robblok]

@robblok

I guess your an American....

You guess wrong.

... who is ill informed ? ....

Possibly, but having visited Amsterdam, many times, I stand by the statement that it is squalid and violent, a sharp contrast with many other parts of the Netherlands which are very pleasant.

Legalized drug use would not be a problem ....

I think you are being naive. To work, legalised drugs would have to be cheap and readily available (or people will simply go back to the black market). When you make such substances cheap and available, many people are tempted to abuse them, such as children. Look at the under-age drinking problem in many Western countries -- do you think that would improve if we made alcohol legal and available to 10-year-olds?

I believe its a free choice as long as you take responsibility for it.

Drug addicts don't take responsibility for it -- that's the point. Everyone else has to take responsibility for them, and their tiresome, self-destructive behaviour.

But just look at alcohol is a drug too and a bad one its legalized.

So your argument is that since we have one bad substance that is legal, we should make all bad substances legal? How about dynamite? How about nerve gas?

EDIT: @DaveDub: I am not reiterating any official line. The source of my arguments are doctors who have worked with criminals and drug addicts for many years. Here is one such argument. http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_2_a1.html

I disagree with you assessment of amsterdam, i worked there for 5 years. Also the law an enforcement of drugs is no different in amsterdam then in other parts of the netherlands. Maybe you dont realize

[RickBradford]

Also the law an enforcement of drugs is no different in amsterdam then in other parts of the netherlands. Maybe you dont realize

I do realize; the fact that the law is the same everywhere doesn't mean that the presence of drugs is the same everywhere.

For example, while there are many pleasant cities in the Netherlands, the town of Venlo has for long been a s**thole, because of the strong presence of drugs, in turn caused by its proximity to Germany, where drugs are not so free.

[thequietman]

Treat drug addicts, shoot corrupt politicians.

Society demands that examples be made of corrupt politicians - public opinion.

[Davedub]

EDIT: @DaveDub: I am not reiterating any official line. The source of my arguments are doctors who have worked with criminals and drug addicts for many years. Here is one such argument. http://www.city-jour...tml/7_2_a1.html

I'm sorry, but the article you have quoted is full of holes - the author makes sweeping, unsubstantiated statements that make no sense - for example:

'But once a prohibition has been removed, it is hard to restore, even when the newfound freedom proves to have been ill-conceived and socially disastrous.'

This little piece of untamed wisdom is predicated on the idea that prohibition actually works. It assumes that people don't have the freedom to take drugs already - which of course is absolute nonsense. It's a well known fact that most kids and teenagers in the 'West' have greater access to illegal drugs than they do alcohol (source:http://blog.norml.org/2009/08/28/study-says-its-easier-for-teens-to-buy-marijuana-than-beer/)

So exactly what 'new found freedom' is the author referring to?

There are many other fallacies in his article that I really don't have the time and energy to tear apart as they deserve, but I'll just comment on his conclusion:

'Analogies with the Prohibition era, often drawn by those who would legalize drugs, are false and inexact: it is one thing to attempt to ban a substance that has been in customary use for centuries by at least nine-tenths of the adult population, and quite another to retain a ban on substances that are still not in customary use, in an attempt to ensure that they never do become customary.'

Actually, pot, opium, coca leaves, 'natural' halucigenics and many other 'drugs' have been in customary use by societies around the world for far, far, far longer than alcohol.

And of course, he's clearly still stuck on the idea that prohibition is actually working right now - I requote:

'in an attempt to ensure that they never do become customary'

Well, here's news - they already ARE customary, or we wouldn't be talking about this issue in the first place!

Let me make my position clear: I want the same as everyone - for the awful social ills caused by drug abuse to be removed or at least significantly reduced. However, the 'war on drugs' have been going on for 30 years now. Not only has this way of dealing with the problem failed miserably, but has actually INCREASED levels of drug related crime and suffering by pushing up prices and creating a huge black market over which criminals continually fight for a share of. See here for statistics:

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/drugpolicy/p/War-on-Drugs-Facts.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs

The cost of these utterly ineffective programs to the tax payer is astronomical and continues to rise annually, despite the fact the drug problem is getting worse.

Perhaps a better solution would involve good old education for the uninformed, and the provision of health services for the mentally ill. It's not rocket science!

So, with all due respect, I DO think you are re-iterating the official, politically correct, fundamentally flawed line. You even stoop to using the old 'won't somebody think of the children' line (quote: do you think that would improve if we made alcohol legal and available to 10-year-olds?) This sort of language is cynically used to sway opinion using our natural instinct to protect our young. It's an age old rhetoric that has always worked, whether constructive or not.

To close, I genuinely believe the best way to protect society is to provide education and choice. If that fails and abuse / addiction is observed in an individual, then we treat the problem for what it is - a mental health issue - quickly and without stigma, before things get worse (as they invariably do under the current policies).

Sane, well informed people do not self destruct. Conversely, people with health problems will always find a way to self destruct, whether drugs are available or not . Simply criminalising those who need medical assistance is not constructive - in fact, as history has shown, quite the opposite. The current naive, over simplified thinking on the issue is causing huge amounts of unnecessary suffering in the world today, and it needs to stop. Drugs are everywhere, they have always been everywhere, and we need to deal with that fact in a rational, unbiased, informed and caring way.

[ding]

How about showing the west how to do it and create free treatment centers?

Nixon almost did that in the US. Too bad there was no money in it or the US might have been spared untold misery.

[nurofiend]

And then decriminalise rape and murder as well, and make them behavioural issues.

don't over-dramatise, you know as much as i do how ridiculous this statement is (i hope)

One big fallacy about drug addiction is that it only hurts the addict, which is nonsense, as anybody who has dealt with an addict in their family will tell you. The moment you have been assaulted by drug takers rendered psychotic by their drug, you get a very chilling view of the prospect of the further spread of the abuse of stimulants.

nope, no one arguing for decriminalization believes that. so your 'drugs are bad m'kay argument' isn't proving anyone wrong.

drug addiction isn't caused by whether they're legal or not

We could equally say that it is acceptable to conduct public exhibitions of necrophilia, since the corpse isn't going to object, and the viewers would be there by choice.

so here you are equating screwing a dead body to someone smoking a joint or doing a line.

basically what you're saying is, if we legalize drugs why don't we just bloody let mankind run rampant with every depraved act that he wishes to commit, yawn....

The biggest argument is that decriminalizing drugs eliminates all the other surrounding criminal activities -- the smuggling and corruption, exploitation of minors and violent turf wars

it's not a cure all band aid but it would make a faaaaar greater improvement on what you've suggested than what our current prohibitive stance does... how is that doing btw?

Well, that's true, in the same way that decriminalizing the stealing of cars gets rid of car thieves, illegal chop shops, vehicle smugglers and bogus licence makers. In fact, the ultimate cause of all criminality is law. As far as I am aware, no one has ever suggested that law should therefore be abandoned.

and here we are back to the 'may as well let people to anything' line.

it's a non-comparative suggestion.

Then there's the argument "we're losing the war on drugs." What, and so we should just give up? Doctors are losing the war against death, but does that mean they should stop work? If every man has to die, it doesn’t matter very much when he does so.

the war cannot be won, it's not that it is being lost.

there is no 'war' on drugs to lose, wars end.

If the war against drugs is lost, then so are the wars against theft, speeding, incest, fraud, rape, murder, arson, and illegal parking. Few, if any, such wars are winnable. So let us all do anything we choose.

it's not lost, it's unwinnable and causes more problems than it solves.

and you've basically made the exact same point in different ways throughout your post

Contrast free-drug Amsterdam, one of the most squalid and violent cities in Europe, with drug-free Singapore, clean and safe

squalid and violent? that's not the vibe i ever got walking around amsterdam day or night.

singapore where they can stop you in the street and bring you in for a blood test, charming... why not just be made walk in single file on public streets?

Do the streets become safer when they are full of people pumped up on 'yaba'?

no but i've never been on that street, where is it, meth town?

drug decriminalization doesn't mean that everyone will all of a sudden throw their keyboard off their office desk and go out and get bombed off their face, or kids will be seen shooting heroin on the playground.

i've said it before, people don't do heroin not because it's illegal... it's because... it's heroin!!

people don't do meth not because it's ill... well you get it.

i'm of the belief that if tough laws were put in place on the sale of drugs to minors or the supply by someone of age buying for them, then the government could at least have some control over kids ability to score cos now, there's next to none.

I think you are being naive. To work, legalised drugs would have to be cheap and readily available (or people will simply go back to the black market). When you make such substances cheap and available, many people are tempted to abuse them, such as children. Look at the under-age drinking problem in many Western countries -- do you think that would improve if we made alcohol legal and available to 10-year-olds?

they would be cheap and readily available (as in plentiful)

drugs prices are based on risk, that's it.

you think people decide on their first drug experience based on the price of the drug! really?

oh look there's some cocaine, i think i'll have some.. oh it's a bit expensive, nah... i don't think i'll take drugs at all for the rest of my life instead.

Drug addicts don't take responsibility for it -- that's the point. Everyone else has to take responsibility for them, and their tiresome, self-destructive behaviour.

huh? how sweeping.

and that's an argument for prohibition how?

your argument is based on drugs being bad.. and yes, some of them are very bad, but they should be controlled because they're here and they're here to stay.

so maybe society could try quit the same tired old repeated bs and maybe just consider trying another approach.

(man i hate the quote limit on this forum)

[Curt1591]

As far as abuse and violence goes, booze beats drugs, hands down!

If drugs were legalized, maybe the governments could spend their resources to deal with the problems associated with abuse. As it is now, they simply create more problems and violence.

[Wavefloater]

And then decriminalise rape and murder as well, and make them behavioural issues.

One big fallacy about drug addiction is that it only hurts the addict, which is nonsense, as anybody who has dealt with an addict in their family will tell you. The moment you have been assaulted by drug takers rendered psychotic by their drug, you get a very chilling view of the prospect of the further spread of the abuse of stimulants.

We could equally say that it is acceptable to conduct public exhibitions of necrophilia, since the corpse isn't going to object, and the viewers would be there by choice.

The biggest argument is that decriminalizing drugs eliminates all the other surrounding criminal activities -- the smuggling and corruption, exploitation of minors and violent turf wars.

Well, that's true, in the same way that decriminalizing the stealing of cars gets rid of car thieves, illegal chop shops, vehicle smugglers and bogus licence makers. In fact, the ultimate cause of all criminality is law. As far as I am aware, no one has ever suggested that law should therefore be abandoned.

Then there's the argument "we're losing the war on drugs." What, and so we should just give up? Doctors are losing the war against death, but does that mean they should stop work? If every man has to die, it doesn’t matter very much when he does so.

If the war against drugs is lost, then so are the wars against theft, speeding, incest, fraud, rape, murder, arson, and illegal parking. Few, if any, such wars are winnable. So let us all do anything we choose.

Contrast free-drug Amsterdam, one of the most squalid and violent cities in Europe, with drug-free Singapore, clean and safe.

Do the streets become safer when they are full of people pumped up on 'yaba'?

I guess your an American who is ill informed ? Could you please come up with some statistics about the violence in Amsterdam. I believe bill o reily has been put on his place before when he was spreading lies about the Netherlands. Not to long ago even a presidential candidate was set straight on when he was talking about euthanasia in the Netherlands. It seems Americans love to lie about Holland to make a point and then when they are confronted with their lies act like Thai politicians denying it all.

Legalized drug use would not be a problem, just like alcohol you would not be allowed to use it in traffic and stuff like that. There are many people who can handle drugs not everyone will become an crazy addict. I believe its a free choice as long as you take responsibility for it. Meaning you will have to pay more for your healthcare and stuff. But just look at alcohol is a drug too and a bad one its legalized.

http://www.nationmas...ders-per-capita

Exactly what I thought when I read "RickBradford" piece. Pure Fox News "fair and balanced" reporting. Amsterdam "squalid and violent". What a joke! And what about Portugal? Is it squalid and violent too?

Then after that he goes on using the good old "reductio to absurdum" and suggest we abolish all laws.

There's a moment when punition does more harm than good. Mostly when you deal with mental illnesses such as drug addiction. Because that's the main difference with the other crimes mentionned here: drug addicts are sick. They need to be treated, and brandishing a stick won't really do anything good about their addiction. After all, that's already what we do when some murderers are deemed mentally ill and legally irresponsible. Fear of punishment doesn't work with these people. We have to find other ways.

Gotta agree that RickBradford has been well indoctrinated to believe in a FOX News way of thinking. It's scary that the these types are allowed to roam the streets freely. I find his (apparent) mental addiction to stating the ridiculous nonsense that has been drummed into his head for too many years much much more disturbing than the smell of ganja wafting over from my very pleasant young neighbor's house. I'll definitely keep my sometimes red-eyed and gentle neighbor any day rather than have some nut job like RickBradford live beside me. Rick, you spout a bunch of complete crap. Stop believing everything the ultra-right wing authorities tell you to believe and use you own mind, if it's not too late.

[Reasonableman]

The argument for legalizing and regulating drugs is an interesting one. However, after all the thousands of threads and posts bemoaning the lack of law enforcement in LOS, on this issue those concerns disappear like mist in the sun. Legalise prostitution, legalise bribery, legalise drugs, because enforcement of the laws against them is not working. Then regulate them and all will be well? Surely you jest.

[robblok]

My reply went haywire, still have to get used to typing on a ipad. Anyway my statistics prove you wrong.

I dont use any drugs but id like people to be able too. Many drug users have no problems there are only a few abusers and most crime stems from sale and high prices. I know that it will never be legalized but i still think its a good solution.

I have used drugs and many of my friends did too. They held good jobs never had a problem.

[Davedub]

Gotta agree that RickBradford has been well indoctrinated to believe in a FOX News way of thinking. It's scary that the these types are allowed to roam the streets freely. I find his (apparent) mental addiction to stating the ridiculous nonsense that has been drummed into his head for too many years much much more disturbing than the smell of ganja wafting over from my very pleasant young neighbor's house. I'll definitely keep my sometimes red-eyed and gentle neighbor any day rather than have some nut job like RickBradford live beside me. Rick, you spout a bunch of complete crap. Stop believing everything the ultra-right wing authorities tell you to believe and use you own mind, if it's not too late.

+1

[RickBradford]

I seem to have poked a stick into a lot of 'progressive' cages this morning.

The evidence is clear; if you make drugs cheap and available, more people will abuse them.

If that's the kind of society you want to live in, fine, but I don't think Thai society would benefit from legal and cheap yaba, ice and heroin, and if y'all think that's a ultra right-wing nut-job stance, that's fine with me.

[nurofiend]

I seem to have poked a stick into a lot of 'progressive' cages this morning.

The evidence is clear; if you make drugs cheap and available, more people will abuse them.

If that's the kind of society you want to live in, fine, but I don't think Thai society would benefit from legal and cheap yaba, ice and heroin, and if y'all think that's a ultra right-wing nut-job stance, that's fine with me.

but you think Thai society does benefit from illegal and less-cheap yaba, ice and heroin..

good stuff.

[Davedub]

If that's the kind of society you want to live in, fine, but I don't think Thai society would benefit from legal and cheap yaba, ice and heroin, and if y'all think that's a ultra right-wing nut-job stance, that's fine with me.

What's up Rick - can't counter my arguments? Or is my opinion beneath your comment?

You just take the easy way - fall back to offhand, meaningless, unsubstantiated rhetoric again, why not.

Do you really care about this issue, or are you just trolling?

[RickBradford]

I seem to have poked a stick into a lot of 'progressive' cages this morning.

The evidence is clear; if you make drugs cheap and available, more people will abuse them.

If that's the kind of society you want to live in, fine, but I don't think Thai society would benefit from legal and cheap yaba, ice and heroin, and if y'all think that's a ultra right-wing nut-job stance, that's fine with me.

but you think Thai society does benefit from illegal and less-cheap yaba, ice and heroin..

good stuff.

No, I think Thai society would benefit from no yaba, ice and heroin, but we all know that's not going to happen.

[nurofiend]

I seem to have poked a stick into a lot of 'progressive' cages this morning.

The evidence is clear; if you make drugs cheap and available, more people will abuse them.

If that's the kind of society you want to live in, fine, but I don't think Thai society would benefit from legal and cheap yaba, ice and heroin, and if y'all think that's a ultra right-wing nut-job stance, that's fine with me.

but you think Thai society does benefit from illegal and less-cheap yaba, ice and heroin..

good stuff.

No, I think Thai society would benefit from no yaba, ice and heroin, but we all know that's not going to happen.

ha, exactly.

[Reasonableman]

It will be regulated. Drivers will be forbidden to take methamphetamines, smoke pot, use heroin, cocaine while driving. And if its forbidden, illegal, no-one will do it, because that's the law, right? So that's OK then.