Society Demands That Examples Be Made Of Addicts: Thai Opinion

[RickBradford]

Incest always involves harm caused to the victim. Drug use does not. Simply not comparable.

It's entirely relevant. There is an active movement to legalise incest on the grounds that it may not harm the victim. Disgusting, certainly, but apparently comparable.

Time Magazine, for starters.

The war on drugs has failed miserably - I know this because the evidence is everywhere - the fact we're having this discussion proves it.

No. Your logic switch is not on. You can't say that course of action A is a failure unless you know what the result would be if A had not been carried out. It could easily be that vast swathes of the West would be drug-ravaged wastelands to a much greater extent than is the case now, without the war on drugs. That's certainly more likely than the alternative.

Edited March 6, 2012 by RickBradford

[Davedub]

On balance, taking the arguments of both sides into account, I do not favor Governments appearing to condone drug use. I believe that governments should project and reinforce positive social values, and drug-taking IMHO is not one of them. I do not see drug-taking as an advancement of society, quite the opposite. That is my personal opinion. Feel free to disagree with it as you wish. Take whatever drugs you wish, but if it impacts negatively on other people, be prepared to wear the consequences.

@Reasonableman

In an ideal world, governments would provide education and healthcare for those afflicted by drug abuse without condoning the use thereof. For example, we currently treat someone who's had a car accident because they were driving too fast without condoning speeding - providing effective treatment is not the same thing as condoning.

Drug use need not be the antithisis of the advancement of society either - properly managed, drug use should have no effect, as it does now for the 'silent majority' of drug users. The negative consequences you speak of can almost all be attributed to the prohibitionist conditions we're all suffering under now, and are in any case enacted by the minority (drug abusers):

1) Crime is related to the inflated prices of drugs due to prohibition.

2) Abuse / addiction is often caused by ignorance of the dangers - i.e. lack of education

3) Abuse / addiction is often a symptom of mental health issues, not criminality. The underlying issues are often exacerbated by the criminalisation of the patient. I've seen this first hand in a good friend many years ago.

4) Overdosing and poisoning are usually due to the lack of regulation of drug production.

This is just an example list off the top of my head. Googling 'negative consequences of war on drugs' will back up my statements.

'Take whatever drugs you wish, but if it impacts negatively on other people, be prepared to wear the consequences.' - agreed. We are all responsible for our actions. You crash your car and kill someone whilst high, you go to prison, of course. You get addicted to meth / heroin whatever and mess up your family's finances, you lose your family. Same as gambling.

I'm not for the dropping of responsibility, I'm for an approach that betters society by dealing more effectively with the drug problem.

[ParadiseLost]

In Thailand, the human vices which constantly divide public opinion are all here to see: in alphabetical order, Alcohol Usage; Drug Usage; Gambling; Prostitution.

Alcohol: the legal manufacture and distribution is privatised and taxes are collected and are of public record - Thai people whether they drink or not benefit from the proceeds but have to deal with the social consequences. Given the choice hardly any would advocate prohibition.

Drug Usage: all forms are illegal but usage is widespread. There is no tax collected on huge amounts of money and the public has to deal with social ills, compounded by criminal conviction of many unfortunate victims - hardly any ringleaders are ever convicted.

Gambling: again illegal but widespread, with proceeds going to criminal types and corrupt authoritative figures. No taxes collected but again social impact is high. Hardly any illegal casino operators face justice.

Prostitution: illegal but even more widespread and condoned, no taxes collected. Populace deals with the moralistic and psychological damage to minors and young girls who deserve better opportunities in life. Perhaps the most damaging to Thai society.

As far as I am concerned alcohol shows that society can live with dangerous addictive substances being available to adults. Authoritative figures are easily corrupted and perhaps it suits them to keep drugs illegal but it does not benefit society one bit.

Making something illegal does nothing to help, it actually exacerbates the problem as there is little to no government help provided for victims - to do so would be to admit the law is not working (much like the Ostrich with it's head in the sand).

Edited March 6, 2012 by ParadiseLost

[sparebox2]

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

Where there is a buyer there is always a seller ,simple economics !.

Same same. Where there is a seller there is always a buyer

[daninthai]

Treat drug addicts, shoot corrupt politicians.

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

Certainly not Thai public opinion.

[Davedub]

Incest always involves harm caused to the victim. Drug use does not. Simply not comparable.

It's entirely relevant. There is an active movement to legalise incest on the grounds that it may not harm the victim. Disgusting, certainly, but apparently comparable.

Time Magazine, for starters.

The war on drugs has failed miserably - I know this because the evidence is everywhere - the fact we're having this discussion proves it.

No. Your logic switch is not on. You can't say that course of action A is a failure unless you know what the result would be if A had not been carried out. It could easily be that vast swathes of the West would be drug-ravaged wastelands to a much greater extent than is the case now, without the war on drugs. That's certainly more likely than the alternative.

I'm not even going there with comparing incest with drug use. If you can't make the distinction then you have a problem. I know nothing about incest, and it's a separate issue with which you're trying to muddy the waters. Whatever, it's not the topic of discussion here, and it disgusts me. Please try to stay on topic.

With your second point, it is fair to say the war on drugs is a failure - the goals were were set out very clearly, and the goals were not reached. The war on drugs failed. The war on drugs set out to eliminate (or at least reduce) drug abuse. Drug abuse is now a far bigger problem than when the war on drugs started. You are highly optimistic if you call that anything but a complete and utter failure. Don't be fearful of the alternatives - they may just work. The current policies certainly do not. To try to say we might be in a drug wasteland if we hadn't done it is, sigh, just reiterating the same old fearmongering nonsense that politicians spout - really, you need to turn off Fox news if you believe the war on drugs has had any positive effect whatsoever - there is so much irrefutable evidence out there to back this up it's not even funny.

[Davedub]

Making something illegal does nothing to help, it actually exacerbates the problem as there is little to no government help provided for victims - to do so would be to admit the law is not working (much like the Ostrich with it's head in the sand).

+1

[DLock]

The War on Drugs is not working?

That's not an excuse to abandon it...its a reason to go harder.

Legalizing drugs is a naive concept, poorly thought through and usually motivated by a personal agenda.

[RickBradford]

I'm not for the dropping of responsibility, ...

Well, you are, simply by advocating legalisation.

Your sense of social responsibility seems based around the education and treatment of drug abusers (as distinct from 'users', as you term them.)

Mine also includes protecting the vast majority of citizens from the effects of having to put up with these people, who are often psychotic, hostile and not infrequently violent (partly because of the effects of their drug use).

Even when they are none of those, their behaviour is usually anti-social -- I once lived near a famous beach where it had become unsafe to walk in bare feet because of all the used hypodermic needles lying around, quite possibly AIDS-infected. And that had nothing to do with criminality -- it was in a very tolerant city which provided clean needles for free and even a 'shooting gallery' for addicts to inject safely. They just chose not to go there. They couldn't care less.

Edited March 6, 2012 by RickBradford

[ParadiseLost]

I'm not for the dropping of responsibility, ...

Well, I think you are, simply by advocating legalisation.

Your sense of social responsibility seems based around the education and treatment of drug abusers (as distinct from 'users', as you term them.)

Mine also includes protecting the vast majority of citizens from the effects of having to put up with these people, who are often psychotic, hostile and not infrequently violent.

Even when they are none of those, their behaviour is usually anti-social -- I once lived near a famous beach where it had become unsafe to walk in bare feet because of all the used hypodermic needles lying around, quite possibly AIDS-infected. And that had nothing to do with criminality -- it was in a very tolerant city which provided clean needles for free and even a 'shooting gallery' for addicts to inject safely. They just chose not to go there. They couldn't care less.

I am glad you mention AIDS, society learnt how to deal with this terrible disease and a vast amount of money has been spent on research and care, sex was not made illegal...

Edited March 6, 2012 by ParadiseLost

[RickBradford]

sex was not made illegal.

And you think that is a sensible comparison with the drugs issue?

'Nuff said.

[DocN]

sex was not made illegal.

And you think that is a sensible comparison with the drugs issue?

'Nuff said.

..but incest and murder is???

[ParadiseLost]

sex was not made illegal.

And you think that is a sensible comparison with the drugs issue?

'Nuff said.

Another very well thought out response. Initially AIDS sufferers were treated very much like drug users; ostracised by society and condemned for their lifestyle choices - until it became clear that 'normal' people from all levels of society were susceptible. Today governments provide health care and treatment to victims, if their approach to drugs was similar we may already have some solutions other than jailing sufferers. For example how much research has gone into developing a vaccine against opiates, etc?

[RickBradford]

For example how much research has gone into developing a vaccine against opiates, etc?

None, I hope.

Opiates are a chemical; vaccines work against micro-organisms.

[UbonOz]

Smoking is legal, it is an addictive drug.

Everybody know it is not healthy.

More and more people are stopping, why? EDUCATION

Maybe you will say they are smoking younger but they will eventually see the light, in many cases.

Nothing can be better than education in any sphere.

[bigbamboo]

If something wants to drink, smoke or take drugs making it illegal isn't going to stop them. Prohibition proved that.

Edited March 6, 2012 by bigbamboo

[ParadiseLost]

For example how much research has gone into developing a vaccine against opiates, etc?

None, I hope.

Opiates are a chemical; vaccines work against micro-organisms.

Well you certainly have me there; in my uninformed statement I was considering a vaccine as a preventitive measure, not it's true definition. Perhaps I should have said prophylactic?

Anyway, you skirt the argument I make re AIDS (which is precisely the point you chose to dismiss so off-handed) without comment. This is a common trait with those who advocate criminilisation of everything they don't (or claim not to) do or like. Never look at both sides of the argument; make up your mind then stick to it until the bitter end.

Thankfully not everyone is the same or we would still be in the dark ages and you would be a champion of the crusades...

Edited March 6, 2012 by ParadiseLost

[chops]

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.

Silly. Bribery is not the same as drugs and prostitution. Nobody is affected by drugs and prostitution.

[RickBradford]

This is a common trait with those who advocate criminilisation of everything they don't (or claim not to) do or like

Unfortunately, you seem to have the common trait of assigning words to people which they have not expressed.

I have never written anything of the sort which you claim above. If you are going to invent statements on my behalf, it becomes difficult to have a sensible debate.

My point is that society deserves protection from the actions of these drug people and their self-destructive and selfish habits; if it doesn't get that protection, you will never get society's approval for care and education programs.

The worst signal that can be sent to society is that you are caving in to this social evil by legitimising it.

It is a given that if you reward bad behaviour, you will encourage more of it.

[Davedub]

I'm not for the dropping of responsibility, ...

Well, you are, simply by advocating legalisation.

Your sense of social responsibility seems based around the education and treatment of drug abusers (as distinct from 'users', as you term them.)

Mine also includes protecting the vast majority of citizens from the effects of having to put up with these people, who are often psychotic, hostile and not infrequently violent (partly because of the effects of their drug use).

Even when they are none of those, their behaviour is usually anti-social -- I once lived near a famous beach where it had become unsafe to walk in bare feet because of all the used hypodermic needles lying around, quite possibly AIDS-infected. And that had nothing to do with criminality -- it was in a very tolerant city which provided clean needles for free and even a 'shooting gallery' for addicts to inject safely. They just chose not to go there. They couldn't care less.

I can see you're not going to budge - every time I make a point you quote a small part of a sentence counter instead of answering my question. I think I explained that my sense / idea of social responsibility is actually MORE work than the current system. Nevermind.

"Mine also includes protecting the vast majority of citizens from the effects of having to put up with these people, who are often psychotic, hostile and not infrequently violent (partly because of the effects of their drug use)." - I agree, that's my priority too. Arrest, prison sentence, then out on the streets again is no answer, nothing changes. Treatment of a pre-existing medical condition may.

I share your disgust with shooting galleries.

But still the point remains - the current method of dealing with these ills is failing, drug abuse is increasing, period. Your way is to continue with the current system that has led to increased drug abuse. My alternative, no matter how politicly incorrect, may have a chance of doing some good.

[anterian]

Homo Erectus indulged in mind changing drugs, this may be how religion evolved. Many animals enjoy getting high on the alcohol in rotting fruit. Humans, particularly the young seem drawn to explore these experiences. But until recently it was never a major problem, most sources, except alcohol, are not easy to find, magic mushrooms, peyote, cannabis, opium, etc had to be foraged for, they were not readily available. It is modern mass production, refining and transportation which has caused this problem, particularly the synthetics. People keep talking of dealing with the pushers (retailers) not the addicts (customers). Far better to deal with producers (wholesalers).

[Davedub]

The War on Drugs is not working?

That's not an excuse to abandon it...its a reason to go harder.

Legalizing drugs is a naive concept, poorly thought through and usually motivated by a personal agenda.

Where to start lol!

Go harder? How?

~ The human rights abuses in the name of the 'war on drugs' have already shocked the world (Thanksin's war on drugs) - we can't condone extra-judicial killings

~ The US military is illegally invading countries in S.America to burn narcotic crops. We can't condone illegal invasions, whatever the motivation. The law is the law.

~ The US spending on the war on drugs is already unaffordable. Check the stats - the costs are astronomical - what a waste!

Personal agenda? Yes, if it's reasonable to say my personal agenda includes the protection of the mentally ill and the uninformed/uneducated from danger.

Poorly thought out? Please, read this: http://www.leap.cc/

[RickBradford]

But still the point remains - the current method of dealing with these ills is failing, drug abuse is increasing, period.

Another logical fallacy: the fact that drug use is increasing does not necessarily mean that the "current method ... is failing."

There are many plausible reasons why levels of drug use may be rising, such as greater disposable income among youth, societal ills such as increased stress and alienation, culture shifts to a more individual, narcissistic lifestyle, all of which are attested to in the literature. The world has not remained static over the last 30 years.

Methods to combat drug abuse need to be better and more intelligently applied, but not by legitimising and destigmatizing a social evil as the first step.

Yes, if it's reasonable to say my personal agenda includes the protection of the mentally ill and the uninformed/uneducated from danger.

Very commendable. It's reasonable to say my personal agenda includes the protection of the mentally sane and the informed/educated from danger in the first instance from the people you are keen on helping.

[Davedub]

But still the point remains - the current method of dealing with these ills is failing, drug abuse is increasing, period.

Another logical fallacy: the fact that drug use is increasing does not necessarily mean that the "current method ... is failing."

There are many plausible reasons why levels of drug use may be rising, such as greater disposable income among youth, societal ills such as increased stress and alienation, culture shifts to a more individual, narcissistic lifestyle, all of which are attested to in the literature. The world has not remained static over the last 30 years.

Methods to combat drug abuse need to be better and more intelligently applied, but not by legitimising and destigmatizing a social evil as the first step.

Yes, if it's reasonable to say my personal agenda includes the protection of the mentally ill and the uninformed/uneducated from danger.

Very commendable. It's reasonable to say my personal agenda includes the protection of the mentally sane and the informed/educated from danger in the first instance from the people you are keen on helping.

It truly saddens me to see such uninformed people having such strong opinions about things they clearly know so very little about. This is exactly the sort of selfish, uninformed, pious, reactionary, Fox-news-watching thinking that's got us into this mess in the first place.

Drug abuse is a medical problem, period. Treating it as a criminal problem has failed, period.

Think what you like - I have nothing more to say. History will tell the tale.

[RickBradford]

It truly saddens me to see such uninformed people having such strong opinions about things they clearly know so very little about.

In psychology, we call that 'projection' ....

[Davedub]

It truly saddens me to see such uninformed people having such strong opinions about things they clearly know so very little about.

In psychology, we call that 'projection' ....

On the Internet, we call that trolling. Nice try. (fail)

[Reasonableman]

It truly saddens me to see such uninformed people having such strong opinions about things they clearly know so very little about.

In psychology, we call that 'projection' ....

On the Internet, we call that trolling. Nice try. (fail)

Nice troll (fail)

[Reasonableman]

But still the point remains - the current method of dealing with these ills is failing, drug abuse is increasing, period.

Another logical fallacy: the fact that drug use is increasing does not necessarily mean that the "current method ... is failing."

There are many plausible reasons why levels of drug use may be rising, such as greater disposable income among youth, societal ills such as increased stress and alienation, culture shifts to a more individual, narcissistic lifestyle, all of which are attested to in the literature. The world has not remained static over the last 30 years.

Methods to combat drug abuse need to be better and more intelligently applied, but not by legitimising and destigmatizing a social evil as the first step.

Yes, if it's reasonable to say my personal agenda includes the protection of the mentally ill and the uninformed/uneducated from danger.

Very commendable. It's reasonable to say my personal agenda includes the protection of the mentally sane and the informed/educated from danger in the first instance from the people you are keen on helping.

It truly saddens me to see such uninformed people having such strong opinions about things they clearly know so very little about. This is exactly the sort of selfish, uninformed, pious, reactionary, Fox-news-watching thinking that's got us into this mess in the first place.

Drug abuse is a medical problem, period. Treating it as a criminal problem has failed, period.

Think what you like - I have nothing more to say. History will tell the tale.

Seems you are having heavy periods. You should see someone about that. Perhaps a little X---x for what ails you? 8-]

Edited March 6, 2012 by Reasonableman

[DLock]

The War on Drugs is not working?

That's not an excuse to abandon it...its a reason to go harder.

Legalizing drugs is a naive concept, poorly thought through and usually motivated by a personal agenda.

Where to start lol!

Go harder? How?

~ The human rights abuses in the name of the 'war on drugs' have already shocked the world (Thanksin's war on drugs) - we can't condone extra-judicial killings

~ The US military is illegally invading countries in S.America to burn narcotic crops. We can't condone illegal invasions, whatever the motivation. The law is the law.

~ The US spending on the war on drugs is already unaffordable. Check the stats - the costs are astronomical - what a waste!

Personal agenda? Yes, if it's reasonable to say my personal agenda includes the protection of the mentally ill and the uninformed/uneducated from danger.

Poorly thought out? Please, read this: http://www.leap.cc/

My point is very simple. The war on drugs is working, but it could work better.

To make it more effective, make the punishments harder....not softer.

What was your point again?

[Heimdallr]

My point is very simple. The war on drugs is working, but it could work better.

To make it more effective, make the punishments harder....not softer.

What was your point again?

I agree, you should be thrown in jail for using painkillers or alcohol.