Society Demands That Examples Be Made Of Addicts: Thai Opinion

[DLock]

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.

Ummm....last time I checked they were legal.

Where are you going with this?

[Heimdallr]

Ummm....last time I checked they were legal.

Where are you going with this?

Exactly, and the label of legality is the only thing separating them. Why do you want some substances to be controlled by criminals, instead of governments/legal businesses?

[Nacho]

When I was growing up the majority of kids that were taking drugs came from families that were not too well off, I suspect due to the children's boredom. The kids who's families could afford to put their children into sports seemed to be less likely to experiment with drugs.

How many billions of dollars could governments save by stopping the war on drugs? How many billions of dollars would governments make on taxes from legalized drugs? If all this extra money the governments had was spent on education, health and welfare, funding for social activities for children, (eg. sports) I would suspect you would see a drastic decrease in drug abuse.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Nacho

[DLock]

Ummm....last time I checked they were legal.

Where are you going with this?

Exactly, and the label of legality is the only thing separating them. Why do you want some substances to be controlled by criminals, instead of governments/legal businesses?

I don't want any substances controlled by criminals, hence the harder punishments. There is a provision for long prison terms and death penalty. Use it.

I have yet to read a single intelligent post about why making meth legal would in any way benefit society or how it can be controlled consistently worldwide.

I think people get caught up in their own agenda of legalizing "soft" drugs and lump everything together without really thinking through what it would mean to have easy access to harder, more dangerous drugs. The moment a new, potentially dangerous drug comes out and it doesn't fit under your legal umbrella, you are back to square one.

However, feel free to educate me how legalizing meth will work.

[RickBradford]

Much of the impetus for legalising drugs comes from the fluffy, post-modern idea that all drug users are "ill", and just need treatment to get "better".

That naive analysis ignores the fact that people become drug addicts for many different reasons -- some get into it from peer pressure, some are normal people who get hit with an appalling tragedy, some are just bad hats who like the feeling of being pumped up, some were brought up in druggie homes, some drift into it out of boredom etc etc.

Lumping all these people together as "victims" of an "illness" is useless in terms of treatment, but makes the do-gooders feel all puffed up with pride. Apart from anything else, it is very demeaning to some decent people who have temporarily slipped off the rails to be told they are "ill".

But, creating victims is what the post-modern Left is all about -- it validates their existence -- and what better way to create a huge new victim class than to reclassify all drug addicts as victims of an illness?

[Nacho]

Ummm....last time I checked they were legal.

Where are you going with this?

Exactly, and the label of legality is the only thing separating them. Why do you want some substances to be controlled by criminals, instead of governments/legal businesses?

I don't want any substances controlled by criminals, hence the harder punishments. There is a provision for long prison terms and death penalty. Use it.

I have yet to read a single intelligent post about why making meth legal would in any way benefit society or how it can be controlled consistently worldwide.

I think people get caught up in their own agenda of legalizing "soft" drugs and lump everything together without really thinking through what it would mean to have easy access to harder, more dangerous drugs. The moment a new, potentially dangerous drug comes out and it doesn't fit under your legal umbrella, you are back to square one.

However, feel free to educate me how legalizing meth will work.

The hard drugs could be controlled, the same way prescriptions are. If you really want to take it you go to your doctor and ask for a prescription for it. The doc can educate you all the dangers of the drug. If you are still foolish enough to want to take it, then it's your choice. At least a person would have some idea of what they are getting themselves into.

[rubl]

If Society really demands examples, may I suggest the introduction of the pillory?

Edited March 6, 2012 by rubl

[robblok]

Much of the impetus for legalising drugs comes from the fluffy, post-modern idea that all drug users are "ill", and just need treatment to get "better".

That naive analysis ignores the fact that people become drug addicts for many different reasons -- some get into it from peer pressure, some are normal people who get hit with an appalling tragedy, some are just bad hats who like the feeling of being pumped up, some were brought up in druggie homes, some drift into it out of boredom etc etc.

Lumping all these people together as "victims" of an "illness" is useless in terms of treatment, but makes the do-gooders feel all puffed up with pride. Apart from anything else, it is very demeaning to some decent people who have temporarily slipped off the rails to be told they are "ill".

But, creating victims is what the post-modern Left is all about -- it validates their existence -- and what better way to create a huge new victim class than to reclassify all drug addicts as victims of an illness?

How about the even larger group of people who do drugs and seem to be able to work and do drugs without bothering anyone ?. I seen this group, i have been part of this group.

Seems like some people think that every user is an addict. I would say that addicts are a small percentage of all users.

[RickBradford]

At least a person would have some idea of what they are getting themselves into.

As usual, the focus on the rights of the addict.

What about the people who have to put up with the addict's selfish and self-destructive behaviour? Spouse, friends, family, neighbours, even.

Why should addicts be given free rein to go and annoy everyone else?

@robblok - I agree with you that 95% of drug users cause little harm to other people. I don't think that is sufficient reason to let the other 5% run riot by giving them easier access to their drugs.

It's worth pointing out that in many of the proposed schemes, it is only the addict 5% who would get increased access (because they are "ill" and need "treatment"). Your quiet dope smoker will still be regarded as illegal.

Edited March 6, 2012 by RickBradford

[DLock]

Ummm....last time I checked they were legal.

Where are you going with this?

Exactly, and the label of legality is the only thing separating them. Why do you want some substances to be controlled by criminals, instead of governments/legal businesses?

I don't want any substances controlled by criminals, hence the harder punishments. There is a provision for long prison terms and death penalty. Use it.

I have yet to read a single intelligent post about why making meth legal would in any way benefit society or how it can be controlled consistently worldwide.

I think people get caught up in their own agenda of legalizing "soft" drugs and lump everything together without really thinking through what it would mean to have easy access to harder, more dangerous drugs. The moment a new, potentially dangerous drug comes out and it doesn't fit under your legal umbrella, you are back to square one.

However, feel free to educate me how legalizing meth will work.

The hard drugs could be controlled, the same way prescriptions are. If you really want to take it you go to your doctor and ask for a prescription for it. The doc can educate you all the dangers of the drug. If you are still foolish enough to want to take it, then it's your choice. At least a person would have some idea of what they are getting themselves into.

Nacho, if I had any faith that this could be achieved worldwide, I could see some logic, but much like you can buy supposed prescription medication over the counter in Thailand or on the Internet today, the same would happen with "hard drugs". The weak links would be exploited where they existed and the drug problem would be far bigger than it is today.

And I have no doubt that a backyard meth lab in Burma could make meth far cheaper than any pharmaceutical supply chain.

The logic of making drugs easier to get to benefit addicts and in turn stop trafficking is flawed.

Edited March 6, 2012 by DLock

[Nacho]

At least a person would have some idea of what they are getting themselves into.

As usual, the focus on the rights of the addict.

What about the people who have to put up with the addict's selfish and self-destructive behaviour? Spouse, friends, family, neighbours, even.

Why should addicts be given free rein to go and annoy everyone else?

They wouldn't be. People who abuse their spouse, friends, family, neighbours would still face punishment by the law. That goes for users and non users alike.

[DLock]

Much of the impetus for legalising drugs comes from the fluffy, post-modern idea that all drug users are "ill", and just need treatment to get "better".

That naive analysis ignores the fact that people become drug addicts for many different reasons -- some get into it from peer pressure, some are normal people who get hit with an appalling tragedy, some are just bad hats who like the feeling of being pumped up, some were brought up in druggie homes, some drift into it out of boredom etc etc.

Lumping all these people together as "victims" of an "illness" is useless in terms of treatment, but makes the do-gooders feel all puffed up with pride. Apart from anything else, it is very demeaning to some decent people who have temporarily slipped off the rails to be told they are "ill".

But, creating victims is what the post-modern Left is all about -- it validates their existence -- and what better way to create a huge new victim class than to reclassify all drug addicts as victims of an illness?

How about the even larger group of people who do drugs and seem to be able to work and do drugs without bothering anyone ?. I seen this group, i have been part of this group.

Seems like some people think that every user is an addict. I would say that addicts are a small percentage of all users.

Robblok, what sort of drugs are we talking about that you can take and "seem to be able to work"?

And what sort of "work" do you do?

I would hate to have my Doctor tripping on LSD, or my pilot on meth or my lawyer doing lines before court...but maybe that's just me.

Most addicts don't acknowledge they are an addicts. They rationalize.

[Nacho]

Nacho, if I had any faith that this could be achieved worldwide, I could see some logic, but much like you can by supposed prescription medication over the counter in Thailand or on the Internet today, the same would happen with "hard drugs". The weak links would be exploited where they existed and the drug problem would be far bigger than it is today.

And I have no doubt that a backyard meth lab in Burma could make meth far cheaper than any pharmaceutical supply chain.

The logic of making drugs easier to get to benefit addicts and in turn stop trafficking is flawed.

Drugs are already easy to get. I am only trying to point out that the war on drugs isn't working. There may be alternatives that do work, but unless governments can actually admit to this and try to come up with alternatives, everything will just stay the same.

[robblok]

Much of the impetus for legalising drugs comes from the fluffy, post-modern idea that all drug users are "ill", and just need treatment to get "better".

That naive analysis ignores the fact that people become drug addicts for many different reasons -- some get into it from peer pressure, some are normal people who get hit with an appalling tragedy, some are just bad hats who like the feeling of being pumped up, some were brought up in druggie homes, some drift into it out of boredom etc etc.

Lumping all these people together as "victims" of an "illness" is useless in terms of treatment, but makes the do-gooders feel all puffed up with pride. Apart from anything else, it is very demeaning to some decent people who have temporarily slipped off the rails to be told they are "ill".

But, creating victims is what the post-modern Left is all about -- it validates their existence -- and what better way to create a huge new victim class than to reclassify all drug addicts as victims of an illness?

How about the even larger group of people who do drugs and seem to be able to work and do drugs without bothering anyone ?. I seen this group, i have been part of this group.

Seems like some people think that every user is an addict. I would say that addicts are a small percentage of all users.

Robblok, what sort of drugs are we talking about that you can take and "seem to be able to work"?

And what sort of "work" do you do?

I would hate to have my Doctor tripping on LSD, or my pilot on meth or my lawyer doing lines before court...but maybe that's just me.

Most addicts don't acknowledge they are an addicts. They rationalize.

First of i don't do any drugs now its been a while now i dont even drink (training purposes). I was talking about weed and xtc. Of course i would not take those drugs while working but we would use them once or twice a month for party purposes.

I am an accountant and my friend was a printer an other was a police officer. Just normal people using drugs to party and work during the week. There were many of us there whole disco's full of people who just used for fun. I think that was a much bigger market then the full time users.

When i worked in Amsterdam i also knew of many people doing a line of coke in the weekends and stuff. We are all talking casual use. Thing is not everyone becomes an addict. Just be rational else the streets would be full of them.

[RickBradford]

At least a person would have some idea of what they are getting themselves into.

As usual, the focus on the rights of the addict.

What about the people who have to put up with the addict's selfish and self-destructive behaviour? Spouse, friends, family, neighbours, even.

Why should addicts be given free rein to go and annoy everyone else?

They wouldn't be. People who abuse their spouse, friends, family, neighbours would still face punishment by the law. That goes for users and non users alike.

Not all the distressing activities that happen inside families caused by drug abuse are illegal, or if they are, are often not reported. I guess you have seen headlines like Abused Spouse Declines To Press Charges...

[robblok]

@dlock,

I also dont want my doctor tripping or pilot on drugs. Not when they are working anyway. I mean you also would not want a drunk pilot or a drunk doctor but that does not mean you ban alcohol. You just expect them to be safe about it, not everyone who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic and not everyone who does drugs is an addict.

Why is it that people who never ever done drugs or know about them always think that everyone who does drugs is an addict and imagine them using drugs all the time and robbing old ladies to support the habit.

I expect the same from a drug user as from someone who drinks alcohol.. don't use it while going into traffic or other dangerous things. Kinda normal, but it seems people think all drug users are evil.

[moonshadow99]

Isn't about time that authorities governments countries woke up and realised the present strategy isn't working never will so let's legalise drugs and bring them under government control. Extra tax for governments, users would know exactly what they were buying ( Keith Richards wouldn't be alive today if he had bought street shit).

Legalise drugs today.

[Nacho]

There are drug users and non drug users alike who abuse their spouses.

Anyway I already know first hand about the negative effects drug abusers can have on people in their lives. Over the past 4 years I have watched 2 of my closest friends become addicted to meth. I will agree that this is a seriously evil drug. However they are still close friends despite their poor personal choices, they are still good people. I think it is unlikely that either one of them will die due to meth use, but it saddens me to see the depression it has caused in them. At the end of the day what scares me most of all is that one of them will end up in jail. This war on drugs can cause as much personal hardship to people and families as the drugs themselves

At least a person would have some idea of what they are getting themselves into.

As usual, the focus on the rights of the addict.

What about the people who have to put up with the addict's selfish and self-destructive behaviour? Spouse, friends, family, neighbours, even.

Why should addicts be given free rein to go and annoy everyone else?

They wouldn't be. People who abuse their spouse, friends, family, neighbours would still face punishment by the law. That goes for users and non users alike.

Not all the distressing activities that happen inside families caused by drug abuse are illegal, or if they are, are often not reported. I guess you have seen headlines like Abused Spouse Declines To Press Charges...

There are drug users and non drug users alike who abuse their spouses.

Anyway I already know first hand about the negative effects drug abusers can have on people in their lives. Over the past 4 years I have watched 2 of my closest friends become addicted to meth. I will agree that this is a seriously evil drug. However they are still close friends despite their poor personal choices, they are still good people. I think it is unlikely that either one of them will die due to meth use, but it saddens me to see the depression it has caused in them. At the end of the day one thing that scares me is that one of them will end up in jail. This war on drugs can cause as much personal hardship to people and families as the drugs themselves

Edited March 6, 2012 by Nacho

[RickBradford]

Isn't about time that authorities governments countries woke up and realised the present strategy isn't working never will so let's legalise drugs and bring them under government control. Extra tax for governments, users would know exactly what they were buying ( Keith Richards wouldn't be alive today if he had bought street shit).

Legalise drugs today.

Ah, yes, Keith Richards, what a great role model for kids today .....

There are drug users and non drug users alike who abuse their spouses.

Would you say that drug users are more or less likely to abuse their spouses than non drug users?

At the end of the day one thing that scares me is that one of them will end up in jail

.What an extraordinary statement. These "good people" have destroyed their lives, and saddened their friends by getting addicted to this "seriously evil drug" and you're still keen on the idea of legalising it for everyone to abuse?

You think a jail sentence is worse than the already complete destruction of who they were, and how that has affected those they were close to?

Edited March 6, 2012 by RickBradford

[Reasonableman]

List of Famous Deaths by Drug Overdose

GG Allin, cult psychopathic punk rock singer and country and western singer who fronted The Jabbers, The Scumfucs, The Murder Junkies among other bands.

Matthew Ansara, actor, son of Michael Ansara and Barbara Eden

Bridgette Andersen, child actress, Savannah Smiles

John Belushi, comedian/actor

Len Bias, college basketball star

Tommy Bolin, Deep Purple musician

Elisa Bridges, Playboy Playmate

Lenny Bruce, comedian

Robert Buck, 10,000 Maniacs Musician

Tim Buckley, musician

Ken Caminiti, baseball player

Steve Clark, Def Leppard musician

Robby Crosby, Lead Guitarist for RATT

Montgomery Clift, actor

Dorothy Dandridge, actress

Nick Drake, musician

Bobby Duncum, Jr., professional wrestler

John Entwistle, musician

Brian Epstein, Beatles manager

Howie Epstein, Bass player for Tom Petty

Chris Farley, comedian/actor

W.C. Fields, actor/comedian

Rainer Werner Fassbinder, film director

Keith Ferguson, Fabulous Thunderbirds, musician

Jerry Garcia, singer/musician, cardiac arrest induced by longtime heroin use

Judy Garland, musician/actress

Trevor Goddard, actor

Tim Hardin, musician

Bobby Hatfield, musician (fatal heart attack was triggered by a cocaine overdose)

Margaux Hemingway, model/actress

Jimi Hendrix, musician

Curt Hennig, professional wrestler

Shannon Hoon, musician

Anissa Jones, actress

Janis Joplin, musician

John Kordic,hockey player

Heath Ledger, Actor

Eugene (Big Daddy) Lipscomb, American football player

Sonny Liston, world champion boxer (possible)

Bela Lugosi, actor

Phil Lynott,Thin Lizzy, musician & Lead Singer (Man, I loved their music)

Frankie Lymon, musician

Aimee Semple McPherson, evangelist

Keith Moon, musician

Marilyn Monroe, actress (death of a barbituate overdose has still not been proven)

Jim Morrison, musician (fatal heart attack triggered by a heroin overdose)

Brad Nowell, musician

Hugh O'Connor, actor, In the Heat of the Night, son to actor Carroll O'Connor

Lani O'Grady, actress, Eight Is Enough

Brian O'Leary, actor

Marco Pantani, cyclist

Gram Parsons, musician

Robert Pastorelli, actor

Christopher Pettiet, actor

Christopher Penn, actor, brother of actor Sean Penn (AKA Spikoli)

Kristen Pfaff, musician

River Phoenix, actor

Rob Pilatus, acting singer Milli Vanilli

Edgar Allan Poe, author (possible)

Elvis Presley, musician

Freddie Prinze, comic, actor Chico and the Man, self-inflicted gunshot wound while under the influence of Quaaludes

Glenn Quinn, actor

Dee Dee Ramone, musician

Elis Regina, Brazilian singer

Don Rogers, American football player

Bon Scott, singer AC/DC, Aspiration brought on by alcohol intoxication

Edie Sedgwick, model/actress

Bobby Sheehan singer/musician, Blues Traveler

Eric Show baseball player

Anna Nicole Smith, model/reality star/playboy centerfold

Layne Staley, musician

Sid Vicious, musician

Andrew Wood, musician and singer

Paula Yates, TV personality

Hillel Slovak, musician

Enrique Urquijo, Spanish musician

Linda Wong, porn actress

Bradley Nowell, Musician Sublime

Edited March 6, 2012 by Reasonableman

[RickBradford]

Can you really include Bon Scott? -- the man drank himself to death.

A drug, I know, but legal in terms of this thread. Besides, you would have to add Winehouse, Hendrix, Bonham etc etc

The length of the list makes the point -- for celebrities, drugs are so easy to get that they might as well be legal.

Increased access = increased abuse. Legalisation = increased access.

[robblok]

Can you really include Bon Scott? -- the man drank himself to death.

A drug, I know, but legal in terms of this thread. Besides, you would have to add Winehouse, Hendrix, Bonham etc etc

The length of the list makes the point -- for celebrities, drugs are so easy to get that they might as well be legal.

Increased access = increased abuse. Legalisation = increased access.

Funny, please explain why the Netherlands have less of a drug problem then as the good ol USA. We certainly have more access to drugs over in Holland.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed. It seems this topic is veering way off topic as to the drug problem within Thailand. Let's try and keep discussion to the drug problem here in Thailand and how it affects Thailand. Thanks.

[DLock]

@dlock,

I also dont want my doctor tripping or pilot on drugs. Not when they are working anyway. I mean you also would not want a drunk pilot or a drunk doctor but that does not mean you ban alcohol. You just expect them to be safe about it, not everyone who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic and not everyone who does drugs is an addict.

Why is it that people who never ever done drugs or know about them always think that everyone who does drugs is an addict and imagine them using drugs all the time and robbing old ladies to support the habit.

I expect the same from a drug user as from someone who drinks alcohol.. don't use it while going into traffic or other dangerous things. Kinda normal, but it seems people think all drug users are evil.

Robblok, this debate isn't really about casual drug users. I'm pretty sure if drugs weren't available you wouldn't miss them.

And the drugs you used were not the destructive drugs like Meth or Heroin.

But much like alcohol, the minority that abuse alcohol and get behind the wheel of a car or get violent or make bad decisions are the ones that cause problems for everyone. It's the same as drugs. It's the minority of addicts of the more hardcore drugs that cause the problems.

Weed is probably best left out of the debate, but yes, I don't have a high opinion of anyone who is involved with destructive drugs. I have seen first hand what drugs can do to people and the people around them.

Not everyone is responsible, so unfortunately, there needs to be a "one size fits all" solution.

[robblok]

@dlock,

I also dont want my doctor tripping or pilot on drugs. Not when they are working anyway. I mean you also would not want a drunk pilot or a drunk doctor but that does not mean you ban alcohol. You just expect them to be safe about it, not everyone who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic and not everyone who does drugs is an addict.

Why is it that people who never ever done drugs or know about them always think that everyone who does drugs is an addict and imagine them using drugs all the time and robbing old ladies to support the habit.

I expect the same from a drug user as from someone who drinks alcohol.. don't use it while going into traffic or other dangerous things. Kinda normal, but it seems people think all drug users are evil.

Robblok, this debate isn't really about casual drug users. I'm pretty sure if drugs weren't available you wouldn't miss them.

And the drugs you used were not the destructive drugs like Meth or Heroin.

But much like alcohol, the minority that abuse alcohol and get behind the wheel of a car or get violent or make bad decisions are the ones that cause problems for everyone. It's the same as drugs. It's the minority of addicts of the more hardcore drugs that cause the problems.

Weed is probably best left out of the debate, but yes, I don't have a high opinion of anyone who is involved with destructive drugs. I have seen first hand what drugs can do to people and the people around them.

Not everyone is responsible, so unfortunately, there needs to be a "one size fits all" solution.

100% true.. also one of the reasons this debate is not ever going to be won by either side.

About not missing drugs.. i haven't used any in years so i guess your right. But i would prefer to use XTC over alcohol for a party night if it was legal. It would suit my needs much better (no calories).

But should you protect the minority at the cost of the majority ? I mean should you ban alcohol totally.. or cars.. because some people abuse them ? I don't think so but everyone has a different opinion.

I don't think that legalizing is a great solution. I also don't think that the current solution works. If i knew the perfect solution id tell you. But i do know the liberal Dutch policy works. Anyway i give this subject a rest because its impossible to solve and the sides will never get much closer.

[Nacho]

.What an extraordinary statement. These "good people" have destroyed their lives, and saddened their friends by getting addicted to this "seriously evil drug" and you're still keen on the idea of legalising it for everyone to abuse?

You think a jail sentence is worse than the already complete destruction of who they were, and how that has affected those they were close to?

The drugs haven't destroyed their lives. Would their lives be better off without them? Of course. If you were to meet many drug addicts on the street you woudn't even know it. My point being everyone is able to abuse drugs whether they are legal or not, but throwing people in jail over addiction just adds to the problem.

[Nacho]

Robblok, this debate isn't really about casual drug users. I'm pretty sure if drugs weren't available you wouldn't miss them.

And the drugs you used were not the destructive drugs like Meth or Heroin.

But much like alcohol, the minority that abuse alcohol and get behind the wheel of a car or get violent or make bad decisions are the ones that cause problems for everyone. It's the same as drugs. It's the minority of addicts of the more hardcore drugs that cause the problems.

Weed is probably best left out of the debate, but yes, I don't have a high opinion of anyone who is involved with destructive drugs. I have seen first hand what drugs can do to people and the people around them.

Not everyone is responsible, so unfortunately, there needs to be a "one size fits all" solution.

A good solution is what the Kings mother did at Doi Tung in Chiang Rai. In an effort to stop the drug trade in the area, the place was built to give many of the locals the ability to make money outside of the opium fields, which was the only source of income that they knew of.

Too many times around the world, the western war on drugs has financed governments with a known drug problem to erradicate drugs in the area. Too often some of these governments kill or throw in jail the locals of the drug trade areas, when they have no other means of making money to support their families. If other industries were put in place for these locals to make money, the trade would most likely start to fade away, as in Doi Tung.

In the past and possibly the present most of the drugs that were coming in from Burma were being produced by the minority groups of the area. The monies made were to finance weapons to fight back against Burma's military dictator government, You could almost say that the money being made off the drug trade was going to a good cause. But that is debatable.

[DLock]

@dlock,

I also dont want my doctor tripping or pilot on drugs. Not when they are working anyway. I mean you also would not want a drunk pilot or a drunk doctor but that does not mean you ban alcohol. You just expect them to be safe about it, not everyone who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic and not everyone who does drugs is an addict.

Why is it that people who never ever done drugs or know about them always think that everyone who does drugs is an addict and imagine them using drugs all the time and robbing old ladies to support the habit.

I expect the same from a drug user as from someone who drinks alcohol.. don't use it while going into traffic or other dangerous things. Kinda normal, but it seems people think all drug users are evil.

Robblok, this debate isn't really about casual drug users. I'm pretty sure if drugs weren't available you wouldn't miss them.

And the drugs you used were not the destructive drugs like Meth or Heroin.

But much like alcohol, the minority that abuse alcohol and get behind the wheel of a car or get violent or make bad decisions are the ones that cause problems for everyone. It's the same as drugs. It's the minority of addicts of the more hardcore drugs that cause the problems.

Weed is probably best left out of the debate, but yes, I don't have a high opinion of anyone who is involved with destructive drugs. I have seen first hand what drugs can do to people and the people around them.

Not everyone is responsible, so unfortunately, there needs to be a "one size fits all" solution.

100% true.. also one of the reasons this debate is not ever going to be won by either side.

About not missing drugs.. i haven't used any in years so i guess your right. But i would prefer to use XTC over alcohol for a party night if it was legal. It would suit my needs much better (no calories).

But should you protect the minority at the cost of the majority ? I mean should you ban alcohol totally.. or cars.. because some people abuse them ? I don't think so but everyone has a different opinion.

I don't think that legalizing is a great solution. I also don't think that the current solution works. If i knew the perfect solution id tell you. But i do know the liberal Dutch policy works. Anyway i give this subject a rest because its impossible to solve and the sides will never get much closer.

The Dutch policy works to a point, but the policy really only extends to weed (up to a certain THC content) and more recently to provide heroin assisted treatment to help junkies and clean up the streets - not to make money by taxing them.

But hard drugs like meth are illegal, so whilst I agree the Dutch have had some success, the Netherlands is still one the biggest transit points and one of the biggest producers of meth in Europe, so the relaxed attitude has not been ideal in the big picture.

But could this ever work in Thailand? In short, no. What makes The Netherlands work is the policing and the penalties that support the controlled coffee shop culture. Thailand can't even do a breath test for alcohol, and even if you are drunk, its 200baht and drive yourself home. In The Netherlands the police can drug test and the penalties are quite stiff for driving under the influence.

We are getting caught up in throwing all the drugs in one category - when I talk drugs, I talk about primarily destructive drugs like meth. I can see no reason why meth should ever be made legal. It's a horrible, horrible drug...

...but I accept that perhaps we are talking different scenarios - you are talking casual use of soft drugs, I am talking heavy use of hard drugs....big difference.

[nurofiend]

if people are ignorant enough to believe the war on drugs is working and something to continue forever, then let them off...

they themselves are the problem that stops any progress but there's not enough common sense in the world to make them realise it.

[DLock]

if people are ignorant enough to believe the war on drugs is working and something to continue forever, then let them off...

they themselves are the problem that stops any progress but there's not enough common sense in the world to make them realise it.

Typically, your post contains a well thought out premise, good points that support your main argument and a solution that is both detailed and articulate to the point where it is worthy of consideration...or not.