Society Demands That Examples Be Made Of Addicts: Thai Opinion

[nisakiman]

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.

It's the so-called "progressives" that want to legislate every aspect of our lives. I think you meant to say "common sense" cages.

What evidence, pray, is clear that if drugs are cheap and available more people will abuse them? Please show us this "evidence". Experience points to the fact that when the "forbidden fruit" aspect is removed from something, and it becomes merely humdrum, then for many (particularly the young) it loses its desirability. This is basic human nature.

Combine legalisation with education (stripped of the hyperbole) about the potential dangers involved with taking certain drugs, and usage would taper off as people lost interest.

Alcohol is an addictive drug, and is readily available. Are we beset by ravening hordes of alcoholics threatening our very existence? No, of course we're not. A small minority have a problem with it, and the vast majority have no problem regulating their intake to a level which doesn't interfere with their daily lives.

I don't think you are "an ultra right-wing nut job". Far from it. I just think you've swallowed the received orthodoxy on drugs hook, line and sinker without really considering its implications. Your comparisons with stealing cars, necrophilia etc are just silly, and I suspect you know that. You aren't comparing like with like, you are comparing apples with pears.

The "War On Drugs" has caused untold misery in the world. It has absolutely nothing to recommend it.

[TAWP]

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.

Assault is already illegal.

Would the attack hurt less if you knew that people that wasn't addicts or becoming psychotic and attacking people...went to jail anyway?

I think we have found the fallacy and it aint amongst those that want to legalize it.

[DocN]

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

Can I see a list of all the celebrities who use drugs and havn't died ?

[Reasonableman]

The responsible drinkers and the drunks can adopt the same strategies: stop drinking for one day (OMG), stock up in advance, go somewhere that ignores the law and have a drink there. Some locales have been suggested. Surely, this a minor inconvenience, no more. No-one is gonna die! ;-)

But how can I do my work! Will be glad when they legalize drugs and then we can revert to them

(Joking!!)

[Khunbilly]

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

What an idiotic reply

[Reasonableman]

What a substantive informed critique ;-) anyone for ping pong?

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

What an idiotic reply

[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.

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.

While again i agree with parts of what your saying you again put in untruths about the Netherlands. We are not the biggest producer of meth, the Czechs take that place. Why is it that people need to spread those untruths to demolish the successes we had.

Anyway the addicts are a small percentage of the users just like the alcoholics are a small percentage of the alcohol users. We did not outlaw alcohol because of it.

A poster said drug use leads to violence... violence is already punishable by law. So why outlaw use. I still see the use of drugs (if you dont harm others) a personal choice.

[ParadiseLost]

From the many replies here there seem to be equal numbers on both sides of the argument - a fair representation of worldwide opinion. However, internationally the laws are definitely skewed in favour of the criminalise it camp - so is there a middle ground?

Some have mentioned that 'soft' drugs such as weed and Ecstasy should be legalised, while methamphetamines should still be illegal and carry even harsher sentences.

I can live with that approach but does anyone see narrow minded, sanctimonious drug-haters accept it?

I don't...

[Reasonableman]

One would expect narrow-minded sanctimonious drug lovers/dependents to support it. Facing the everyday harsh realities of life undrugged is a pretty scary prospect for some.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Reasonableman

[Nacho]

One would expect narrow-minded sanctimonious drug lovers/dependents to support it. Facing the everyday harsh realities of life undrugged is a pretty scary prospect for some.

Most on either side of the fence would both like to see drugs irradicated from society. The harsh reality is this this isn't happening in the world today. A government can impose laws on it's people to try put a stop to it. However it becomes difficult when other countries laws are not in place or the country isn't strong enough to stop the production. Thus the supply is always there.

Basic economics tells us about supply and demand. What is happening now is billions of dollars are spent on trying to control the supply, which doesn't seem to be reducing the amount of drugs avaliable. A much smaller amount is spent on trying to control the demand, There are numerous ways to try to control the demand. Some seem to think the best way is to just lock up all users, and remove them from society, while others feel the best way to reduce the demand is through education to try to stop the young from ever starting in the first place, and through rehabilitation programs to give the addicted users the help they need. But why would we want to do that? Drug users are the scum of the earth and don't deserve our help or sympathy right?

Why not take the supply out of the hands of those who really don't care about the end result, and put it into the hands of those (the government) who can actually use the money made on help for addicts, as well as programs to stop people fromever getting started in the first place.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Nacho

[robblok]

One would expect narrow-minded sanctimonious drug lovers/dependents to support it. Facing the everyday harsh realities of life undrugged is a pretty scary prospect for some.

One would expect narrow minded sanctimonious prohibitionist to make sure nobody can use it because they dont like it. People having fun and taking responsibility is a pretty scary prospect to them because then they cant push their laws and their morals on others.

I still believe that people should have the right to use drugs as long as they don't bother others with it. I also believe that addicts are just a small portion of all drug users and that most cope quite well with the use of drugs. Its just a minority like alcoholics that cause the problems. That does not mean i think all drugs are harmless because they are not. But i do believe in the freedom to do with your body what you want.

[Reasonableman]

That's your belief, and it not my job to try to change it. Go for it. Have your fun, if it's legal, and _do_ take responsibility. Just don't seek medical help at the taxpayer expense if and when it all goes bad, as it has for so many. Cheers.

One would expect narrow-minded sanctimonious drug lovers/dependents to support it. Facing the everyday harsh realities of life undrugged is a pretty scary prospect for some.

One would expect narrow minded sanctimonious prohibitionist to make sure nobody can use it because they dont like it. People having fun and taking responsibility is a pretty scary prospect to them because then they cant push their laws and their morals on others.

I still believe that people should have the right to use drugs as long as they don't bother others with it. I also believe that addicts are just a small portion of all drug users and that most cope quite well with the use of drugs. Its just a minority like alcoholics that cause the problems. That does not mean i think all drugs are harmless because they are not. But i do believe in the freedom to do with your body what you want.

[toybits]

The addicts are also victims. The persons that should be punished are the enables of drug addiction, the dealers, the suppliers, the couriers and corrupt officials that turn a blind eye to the problem or even actively participate in the drug trafficking and supply. GRRRRRR!!!

[ParadiseLost]

One would expect narrow-minded sanctimonious drug lovers/dependents to support it. Facing the everyday harsh realities of life undrugged is a pretty scary prospect for some.

1. You assume drug users do so every day, and for some inane reason they cannot handle life.

2. You somehow see the use of alcohol as justified where the effect is not dissimilar to 'soft' drugs.

3. If you have never tried drugs then you are scared of the unknown and condemn anyone with actual knowledge.

4. You assume anyone who supports legalisation is a drug dependant waste of human life.

I say this to you; you have dealt with drug users almost every day in your life without even realising it. Eat at a restaurant - waiters, chefs, etc. are frequently users of drugs. Visit your bank, pay bills, watch musicians, tv, a movie. Visit your doctor, dentist, lawyer...

Now I know not all of these will always be a drug user, but how do you actually tell? And exactly how depraved are the users you meet? I have known people from all walks of life that enjoy an occasional joint, they also enjoy a glass of wine, or a good whisky. Such people, much as myself would rather die than touch Ice or it's like.

It is easy for you to be so judgemental as in your world all drug users are depraved psychotic animals waiting for an opportunity to assault your freedom; wake up - the use of drugs is so widespread if you get your way society as you know it will cease to operate.

[robblok]

That's your belief, and it not my job to try to change it. Go for it. Have your fun, if it's legal, and _do_ take responsibility. Just don't seek medical help at the taxpayer expense if and when it all goes bad, as it has for so many. Cheers.

One would expect narrow-minded sanctimonious drug lovers/dependents to support it. Facing the everyday harsh realities of life undrugged is a pretty scary prospect for some.

One would expect narrow minded sanctimonious prohibitionist to make sure nobody can use it because they dont like it. People having fun and taking responsibility is a pretty scary prospect to them because then they cant push their laws and their morals on others.

I still believe that people should have the right to use drugs as long as they don't bother others with it. I also believe that addicts are just a small portion of all drug users and that most cope quite well with the use of drugs. Its just a minority like alcoholics that cause the problems. That does not mean i think all drugs are harmless because they are not. But i do believe in the freedom to do with your body what you want.

Problem is that people like you make it impossible to use drugs because they feel their beliefs are more important. They feel that they should impose their rules on others. I don't need any drugs but i campaign for the freedom to use. I feel its a right, you made a good point you should not have to pay for drug users medical costs. If someone uses he should pay for it himself. Just like overweight people should pay more and people doing dangerous sports smokers should pay more too ect ect.

[Reasonableman]

Must be your fevered imagination. Where is the evidence for your points 1-4? I have said nothing of the kind, and you know it. Clutching at straws. I do believe however that the world would be far better off without psychoactive addictive drugs, including alcohol. So sue me.

[Reasonableman]

People like me? I do not influence or affect that agenda at all. It is legislated by Parliaments, lawmakers, who apparently reflect the prevailing values of society. Nothing to do with me, at all. If you want to change the law, sorry, I cannot do much to help, or prevent. Stand for Parliament, lobby where it makes a difference, would possibly be more effective.

;-)

That's your belief, and it not my job to try to change it. Go for it. Have your fun, if it's legal, and _do_ take responsibility. Just don't seek medical help at the taxpayer expense if and when it all goes bad, as it has for so many. Cheers.

One would expect narrow-minded sanctimonious drug lovers/dependents to support it. Facing the everyday harsh realities of life undrugged is a pretty scary prospect for some.

One would expect narrow minded sanctimonious prohibitionist to make sure nobody can use it because they dont like it. People having fun and taking responsibility is a pretty scary prospect to them because then they cant push their laws and their morals on others.

I still believe that people should have the right to use drugs as long as they don't bother others with it. I also believe that addicts are just a small portion of all drug users and that most cope quite well with the use of drugs. Its just a minority like alcoholics that cause the problems. That does not mean i think all drugs are harmless because they are not. But i do believe in the freedom to do with your body what you want.

Problem is that people like you make it impossible to use drugs because they feel their beliefs are more important. They feel that they should impose their rules on others. I don't need any drugs but i campaign for the freedom to use. I feel its a right, you made a good point you should not have to pay for drug users medical costs. If someone uses he should pay for it himself. Just like overweight people should pay more and people doing dangerous sports smokers should pay more too ect ect.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Reasonableman

[garro]

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.

Education may work for a minority of people, but it is almost useless for those individuals who are addicted. I spent 2 decades learning about addiction and it never helped me one bit. It actually made things worse because it taught me how to behave like an alcoholic – I learned to be helpless. Despite going in and out of rehab and recovery programs like a yoyo I remained an addict. I ended up at a treatment facility in Thailand six years ago where the focus moved from learning to doing. No attempts were made to teach me about the dangers of addiction, and that was a blessed relief. That it is why it worked for me.

Education is of limited value to addicts because their problem is not a lack of knowledge in most cases. They need to find a more satisfactory way of living – this involves action and not more education. In my opinion the whole educational approach to addiction in western countries is deeply flawed, and may even be doing more harm than good.

[ParadiseLost]

Must be your fevered imagination. Where is the evidence for your points 1-4? I have said nothing of the kind, and you know it. Clutching at straws. I do believe however that the world would be far better off without psychoactive addictive drugs, including alcohol. So sue me.

It would be interesting to know why you chose your name, you certainly are not reasonable in your arguments - the evidence you require is there for all to see. I actually read your posts and consider your statements, not snarl like a mongrel backed into a corner whenever someone disagrees with me.

I would be very interested to know if you have ever consumed drugs, or alcohol in your life. I would also like to know if you think prohibition in the US was either worth it, or a success.

Myself, I have used both in reasonable, responsible quantities and I like to think I have led a good responsible life. I have children who have grown into reasonable, responsible adults, and who consider other peoples opinions and rights before their own. They are very successful today so your arguments are proven very wrong in my experience.

Thailand is on a disaster course; their 'war on drugs' has caused more misery than solved problems. There has to be a better way to tackle this problem but to do so people need to have an open mind and accept the reality that drugs are a part of life and will never, ever be eradicated.

[robblok]

People like me? I do not influence or affect that agenda at all. It is legislated by Parliaments, lawmakers, who apparently reflect the prevailing values of society. Nothing to do with me, at all. If you want to change the law, sorry, I cannot do much to help, or prevent. Stand for Parliament, lobby where it makes a difference, would possibly be more effective.

;-)

Your right about that, anyway i just feel passionate about this subject. But im here in Thailand if i wanted drugs id be back in Holland. Also in Holland i did not need them. For me its more a conviction that people should be free to use IF they don't bother or endanger others.

[Reasonableman]

ParadiseLost, This discussion is not about me or you, it is a debate being conducted in the broader society, and has been conducted for decades. I doubt we will resolve it here. Personalising it is unproductive. And putting words in my mouth is poor debating practice, poor netiquette, and dishonest. Let's agree to disagree on the relative merits of drug use or abstention.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Reasonableman

[ParadiseLost]

ParadiseLost, This discussion is not about me or you, it is a debate being conducted in the broader society, and has been conducted for decades. I doubt we will resolve it here. Personalising it is unproductive. And putting words in my mouth is poor debating practice, poor netiquette, and dishonest. Let's agree to disagree on the relative merits of drug use or abstention.

I almost accepted this as a reasonable answer, but then you had to spoil it by accusing me of being dishonest... I stand by my points.

Also, "Let's agree to disagree on the relative merits of drug use or abstention." sounds quite reasonable but you have not been arguing for an individual's right to abstention at all, you have been demanding that all drugs remain criminalised and deriding anyone who advocates a different approach. I would be more than happy if I could sit and watch the sunset with a nice little j****t without fear of being arrested and treated like a criminal, paraded in front of corrupt officials to make themselves look good...

[Reasonableman]

On your 4 points, they are all erroneous, so stand by them steadfastly, as you wish. I guess they must be extrapolations from your discussions with others, not me. Enjoy the rest of your day. ;-)