Thailand To Burn Illicit Drugs Worth Bt6.9 Billion

[Moruya]

I read the first 3 words and assumed that Nattawut had spat his dummy out again

[Pseudolus]

Clever argument! Only one problem: You have raised economics to the yardstick of everything, above and beyond any other criteria of human life. Indeed simple!

Not so. The China and Thaksin version is to execute people whole sale to try and limit supply. My version is a deterrent to reduce demand. Everyone has a choice. If they wanted to snort a line of coke, and they know before hand there is a 50:50 chance that they will die as a result, do you not think it would reduce demand a tad? A form of natural selection for those that carry on regardless. Simple indeed; make no bones about it. Drug money and the trade has impacted every single one of us all around the world. it funds terrorist organisations (Largest source of income for the Taliban is opium money); crackpot dictatorships, raises crime levels; I am amazed that people think it is barbaric to threaten the lives of the users, the ones are actually the cause of the problem in the first place when so many other innocents have their lives ended or destroyed as we result.

[Morakot]

Because it is utterly detached from the reality of drug addiction. Economic is incapable of dealing with this problem.

I agree 100% . But you will notice that I make a clear distinction between the drug addict who IMHO needs treatment as its a disease, and the party goer throwing coke up their nose, or passing a joint around - the non addicted, recreational drug user. I can not believe that every serious drug addict did not actually start up as a social drug user; do people really wake up one day and think "Right, today I am going to become a crack addict". Not sure they do. People with serious addictions should have their hits prescribed to them by doctors. There is a homeless hostel in the UK somewhere for alcoholics that gives the people that stay there free unlimited booze. They find that once they sort out the housing and security for them by giving them a place to stay and removing the stress of having to find the drink each day, a lot of the piss heads started drinking significantly less to the point of being T-Total. The world cops will never be able to limit supply. Ever. They do not have the appetite for the fight, and frankly as long as the demand increases, the suppliers will find a way. My solution is simple economics. If they cant impact the supply chain, they lower the demand The irony is of course, the dealers that junkies and dope heads by their weekend fix from are cutting their skag with all sorts from crushed glass, horse trancs, you name it; they are doing what I suggest already and yet you all still support them... and buy their product...

As stated from another poster your blatant back peddling from your original post of mass poisoning of drug users has not been repeated in any of your post arguments and why is that? You wrote it and posted it and now you are obviously not standing behind your original post. Who is the troll here?

One may congratulate forum user Pseudolus for the degree of logical consistency he presents the argument. The premise from which the user starts is rather questionable in my opinion, if not morally despicable though. Dreadful if that is one's true conviction...

[Skywalker69]

About a month ago Thailand declared alcohol to be a drug.

So now Chalerm is a drug adict? I knew it.

[mca]

It's a pity they didn't put a few tonnes of the herb on the pyre. People downwind of that shit would be high as a mother......

[Pseudolus]

No, the problem being it takes some limited intellect to discern from the context of the post whether sarcasm is implied. Tonality has absolutely nothing to do with it my dear but confused friend!

To clarify - it was indeed a sarcastic comment, quite evident from the context. I don't believe anyone has the right to order the death of anybody, let alone call for the mass extermination of an entire swathe of society...

So why say it then? There was no other way to take it. wriggling away from your one single statement of belief you have issued on here?

OK, well my initial comment was sarcastic as well. Quite evident from the context to those without a vested or personal interest in keeping the drug trade running. Happy now comrade?

[Pseudolus]

Problem is with sarcasm, it doesn't work so well when written; it requires the subtle change in tonality to make it effective. [..]

Kill free thinking. [..]

Are you not censoring sarcasm in written communication? Where is this free thinking, or are you telling us that only you should be free?

Very true Morakot. So good you wrote it twice as well. Perhaps to avoid doubt sarcasm should be clearly labelled as such in text to avoid confusion and I should be culled as well. Just to teach me a lesson in daring to not accept what I am told.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Pseudolus

[MrMuddle]

They should taint the drugs with some really nasty shit that causes death, and then release it into the general population with massive warnings everywhere about what they have done. Therefore, anyone buying drugs will never quite know for sure if their next childish little kick will be their last. In fact, they would actually have to do it, just say so. Wonder how quickly drug taking would decline then especially from all the weekend warrior coke sniffers.

Drug users are not the most responsible of people, what happens if they buy some of these tainted drugs, take them home and a child eats them ?

As to your other response:

"Unless it is OK for thousands of lives to be ruined so a bunch of brainless nerks can get off their tits of a weekend."

How many millions of lives are ruined every weekend all over the world, by brainless nerks consuming alcohol, and then looking to cause trouble ?

[Pseudolus]

They should taint the drugs with some really nasty shit that causes death, and then release it into the general population with massive warnings everywhere about what they have done. Therefore, anyone buying drugs will never quite know for sure if their next childish little kick will be their last. In fact, they would actually have to do it, just say so. Wonder how quickly drug taking would decline then especially from all the weekend warrior coke sniffers.

Drug users are not the most responsible of people, what happens if they buy some of these tainted drugs, take them home and a child eats them ?

As to your other response:

"Unless it is OK for thousands of lives to be ruined so a bunch of brainless nerks can get off their tits of a weekend."

How many millions of lives are ruined every weekend all over the world, by brainless nerks consuming alcohol, and then looking to cause trouble ?

....keep reading the thread chap - all answered there in. Except for the kids at home getting hold of it. On this point, you got me. And that is why it is not a serious contention of mine anyway and only kept it going this long due to the moronic patronising sanctimoniousness postings of another chap on here. The booze argument is not valid to counter this at all, because I never refute that except in one key difference. My beer, on it's way to me, does not cause death and destruction. It is only after someone has consumed it. Also, if the same amount of people took hard drugs as there are drinkers in the world, the stats would balance out near enough.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Pseudolus

[Morakot]

Why not a more moderate tone of conversation?

[Pseudolus]

Why not a more moderate tone of conversation?

Sure - here we go.

So this booze argument. Lets look at some stats for that;

in the US, about 16m illicit drug users (so the US government says). Deaths attributed to drugs in a year? 38,000 in the US.

60% of Yanks drink booze. That's 190m people or there about's. Deaths attributed to alcohol, including diseases and other related deaths such as car incidents, 75,000.

Simple maths - if the same amount of people in the US took illicit drugs as drank booze, the amount of drug related deaths would be in the region of 1,100,000 per year. This number of course does not take into account the deaths of people that occur to get the drugs to the users but one can assume it would make this number higher.

(source; ncjrs.gov)

Is that moderate enough?

[Morakot]

Why not a more moderate tone of conversation?

Sure - here we go.

So this booze argument. Lets look at some stats for that;

in the US, about 16m illicit drug users (so the US government says). Deaths attributed to drugs in a year? 38,000 in the US.

60% of Yanks drink booze. That's 190m people or there about's. Deaths attributed to alcohol, including diseases and other related deaths such as car incidents, 75,000.

Simple maths - if the same amount of people in the US took illicit drugs as drank booze, the amount of drug related deaths would be in the region of 1,100,000 per year. This number of course does not take into account the deaths of people that occur to get the drugs to the users but one can assume it would make this number higher.

(source; ncjrs.gov)

Is that moderate enough?

And your point is?

[hellodolly]

Ferangled - the Autopsy in Canada found no evidence of narcotics. Stop dragging that dreadful event into this discussion. It is very unfair to them, and their family. You are assuming they were druggies and yet the evidence shows they were not. Very unfair of you to continue along that line and you should feel ashamed.

"has severe mental issues and a child like brain " - umm no. But if that concept helps you feel better about yourself why you justify the drug trade, carry on.

"Alcohol is the big killer"

- did I ever say otherwise? At what point do I say booze is great? Read what I wrote without your sanctimonious spectacles on.

"I've just read your clumsy analogy with prostitution, what a crock of <deleted>."

I said "If a hooker needs drugs to do her job (besides the argument that a fair amount of hookers the world over do the job to pay for their drugs), it a sad tale really, but she would get out of the bar quicker with out spending all her cash on smack and Yaba. She'd also be more likely to find the big ticket life-long time trick with a punter if she's not a smack head. "

In response to,,.," I know many boys and girls in the bars that are on them the reason then they can do what is required for money. without them many couldn't do the job"

I do wish that trolls like you read a full thread before steaming in, sitting on your keyboard turret, throwing abuse at people. Recreational drugs. You have a choice. Just say no!

If you can use a drug recreational with no side effects why say no. Many people drink one or two and have no problem with it some of them don't even finish the first one should we poison all alcohol to get at the small percentage that do have problem with it. Why is it you only want to stop the recreational users of certain drugs and leave the recreational users of the most popular drug alone even though it causes far more physical and material damage than the ones you want to stop.

[hellodolly]

They should taint the drugs with some really nasty shit that causes death, and then release it into the general population

Ah yes, I can clearly see how this policy would discern between recreational users and addicts... very consistent!

And then back to childish slurs again....

Serious drug users invariably die anyway. So what's the difference. Plus, you very helpfully posted up my comments saying that those with addictions should be given it free, from doctors. Will an addict who can get free drugs from his place of residence or other outlet then chose to go to the neighbourhood dealer and pay for drugs there? I don't think so.

Forgetfulness and irritability to the list of symptoms as well now. Seriously, I am getting concerned for your welfare. Perhaps you should Talk To Frank

I see what you are getting at now poison the recreational users and support the full blown addicts.

You might want to try a 12 step program.

[Pseudolus]

And your point is?

Fair play - you asked me to be more moderate in my reply to the guy saying "ohhhhh but heh dude, more people die from drink than drugs dude, don't bum my rush dude" (I paraphrase) so my point was that proportionally, they do not, and actually when you add in all the other deaths that occur prior to the point a person consumes a drug, most likely the drug death figure is higher. Even before you add into the mix the deaths that occur from the drug money terrorism.

If you can use a drug recreational with no side effects why say no. Many people drink one or two and have no problem with it some of them don't even finish the first one should we poison all alcohol to get at the small percentage that do have problem with it. Why is it you only want to stop the recreational users of certain drugs and leave the recreational users of the most popular drug alone even though it causes far more physical and material damage than the ones you want to stop.

Some would argue (and be factually correct in this) that by the time you use a drug, the path of that drug to the consumed has already reaped a massive death toll, and the money paid for it goes on to reap a further path of death and destruction. Also, proportionally speaking, there is a great likihood of a drug user causing a death than a drinker or a car driver. This is a fact my good friend and we should all be grateful that there are not more drug takers than drinkers in the world.

[Pseudolus]

I see what you are getting at now poison the recreational users and support the full blown addicts.

You might want to try a 12 step program.

I take the escalator.

Anyway, recreational drug taking leads to addiction. I've not seen any evidence that states that addicted drug users all wake up one day and decide that a life of heroin addiction is the life for them, and shoot up. The actually methodology behind is similar to what the dog charities do in Thailand; neuter street dogs. Why? By stopping the problem increasing. When a dog is on the street, it is actually too late to help that dog and nature will sort it out one way or another. Stop that dog making more puppies though and eventually that dog dies, and is not replaced by 20.

The drug addicts are soi dogs. They will either get clean or they will die. Some might work out how to balance their heroin addiction and life, but they will still die early. However, stop the recreational drug users (the puppies) and as the addict shuffles off to heaven, he is not being replaced by others. Decreasing demand is the result.

(sits back and waits for the massive ego I apparently have for daring to have a point of view to be stroked lol )

Edited June 29, 2012 by Pseudolus

[mamypoko]

Because it is utterly detached from the reality of drug addiction. Economic is incapable of dealing with this problem.

I agree 100% . But you will notice that I make a clear distinction between the drug addict who IMHO needs treatment as its a disease, and the party goer throwing coke up their nose, or passing a joint around - the non addicted, recreational drug user. I can not believe that every serious drug addict did not actually start up as a social drug user; do people really wake up one day and think "Right, today I am going to become a crack addict". Not sure they do.

People with serious addictions should have their hits prescribed to them by doctors. There is a homeless hostel in the UK somewhere for alcoholics that gives the people that stay there free unlimited booze. They find that once they sort out the housing and security for them by giving them a place to stay and removing the stress of having to find the drink each day, a lot of the piss heads started drinking significantly less to the point of being T-Total.

The world cops will never be able to limit supply. Ever. They do not have the appetite for the fight, and frankly as long as the demand increases, the suppliers will find a way. My solution is simple economics. If they cant impact the supply chain, they lower the demand The irony is of course, the dealers that junkies and dope heads by their weekend fix from are cutting their skag with all sorts from crushed glass, horse trancs, you name it; they are doing what I suggest already and yet you all still support them... and buy their product...

If I'm hearing you correctly, it would be a better idea to establish two or three government owned and medically supervised 'hit' houses with that soon to be burned mountainous pile of drugs.??

[Pseudolus]

Because it is utterly detached from the reality of drug addiction. Economic is incapable of dealing with this problem.

I agree 100% . But you will notice that I make a clear distinction between the drug addict who IMHO needs treatment as its a disease, and the party goer throwing coke up their nose, or passing a joint around - the non addicted, recreational drug user. I can not believe that every serious drug addict did not actually start up as a social drug user; do people really wake up one day and think "Right, today I am going to become a crack addict". Not sure they do.

People with serious addictions should have their hits prescribed to them by doctors. There is a homeless hostel in the UK somewhere for alcoholics that gives the people that stay there free unlimited booze. They find that once they sort out the housing and security for them by giving them a place to stay and removing the stress of having to find the drink each day, a lot of the piss heads started drinking significantly less to the point of being T-Total.

The world cops will never be able to limit supply. Ever. They do not have the appetite for the fight, and frankly as long as the demand increases, the suppliers will find a way. My solution is simple economics. If they cant impact the supply chain, they lower the demand The irony is of course, the dealers that junkies and dope heads by their weekend fix from are cutting their skag with all sorts from crushed glass, horse trancs, you name it; they are doing what I suggest already and yet you all still support them... and buy their product...

If I'm hearing you correctly, it would be a better idea to establish two or three government owned and medically supervised 'hit' houses with that soon to be burned mountainous pile of drugs.??

Not really (especially not here). Those particular drugs will end up being sold again by the cops so not to fear. In theory though, they would be the deterrent. The full on junkies would benefit from pharmaceutical grade hits that could be adjusted in strength over time without them realising....nice idea heh?

[Morakot]

I think, I need a "hit" after this threat. I'm off: Cheerio!

[Pseudolus]

So you propose to twist an existing method that substitutes real drugs for less harmful synthetics and replace those synthetics with the real thing? Surely anyone that fancies a hit would line up and proclaim themselves a "full time junkie"... and that would simply increase demand surely?

Incidentally your last comments..."Some would argue (and be factually correct in this) that by the time you use a drug, the path of that drug to the consumed has already reaped a massive death toll, and the money paid for it goes on to reap a further path of death and destruction. Also, proportionally speaking, there is a great likihood of a drug user causing a death than a drinker or a car driver"

Are simply not facts, no matter how much you would like them to be in order to help substantiate your ravings

Where did I say synthetic? I didn't.

Your second point is the interesting one though. Are you seriously contending that at the moment you are holding a gram of cocaine in your hand that you have bought from a deal, that for that to get there. no one has died? Imprisoned? Extorted? Seriously? You believe this? Also, so the countries that grow opium, hash and cocaine plants in mass amounts; these are nice places then? Afghanistan and the Taliban all funded by a small proportion of the money a junkie pays for his heroin or a pot head pays for his Afghan gold. Your statement is only true if you grow and consume the drugs yourself.

[Buchholz]

Link to News Media photo:

http://news.yahoo.co...-082243559.html

Thailand's Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra holds bags of methamphetamine

REUTERS

[stretchmaster]

My first post!

To the person who said "They should taint the drugs with some really nasty shit that causes death, and then release it into the general population with massive warnings everywhere about what they have done. Therefore, anyone buying drugs will never quite know for sure if their next childish little kick will be their last. In fact, they would actually have to do it, just say so. Wonder how quickly drug taking would decline then especially from all the weekend warrior coke sniffers."

Does that included all the perscription addicts and alcoholics and smokers too?

That is alot of people you want to kill? Does it just include them or is it any body that breaks the law or hurts people maybe armed robbers, aggravated burglary and people who accidentally kill someone (sleeping at the wheel)! Where would it stop - genocide!!! Always a good way to control the people!!

You really have a great insight into the human mind! People with such an insightful look on the world I really feel benefits us all! your children are so lucky!

Kenny Everet said "round them up, put them in a cornor and bomb the b******ds!!!"

Maybe you need to read Einstein "Peace cannot be kept by force can only be achieved through understanding"! - just incase you dont know who he is look up Albert Einstein in Wikipedia they have a little about him!!!

[damo]

Kenny Everit, geez hav'nt heard that name in a long time.

My first post!

To the person who said "They should taint the drugs with some really nasty shit that causes death, and then release it into the general population with massive warnings everywhere about what they have done. Therefore, anyone buying drugs will never quite know for sure if their next childish little kick will be their last. In fact, they would actually have to do it, just say so. Wonder how quickly drug taking would decline then especially from all the weekend warrior coke sniffers."

Does that included all the perscription addicts and alcoholics and smokers too?

That is alot of people you want to kill? Does it just include them or is it any body that breaks the law or hurts people maybe armed robbers, aggravated burglary and people who accidentally kill someone (sleeping at the wheel)! Where would it stop - genocide!!! Always a good way to control the people!!

You really have a great insight into the human mind! People with such an insightful look on the world I really feel benefits us all! your children are so lucky!

Kenny Everet said "round them up, put them in a cornor and bomb the b******ds!!!"

Maybe you need to read Einstein "Peace cannot be kept by force can only be achieved through understanding"! - just incase you dont know who he is look up Albert Einstein in Wikipedia they have a little about him!!!

get your hand off it!

Edited June 29, 2012 by damo

[Ferangled]

My first post!

To the person who said "They should taint the drugs with some really nasty shit that causes death, and then release it into the general population with massive warnings everywhere about what they have done. Therefore, anyone buying drugs will never quite know for sure if their next childish little kick will be their last. In fact, they would actually have to do it, just say so. Wonder how quickly drug taking would decline then especially from all the weekend warrior coke sniffers."

Does that included all the perscription addicts and alcoholics and smokers too?

That is alot of people you want to kill? Does it just include them or is it any body that breaks the law or hurts people maybe armed robbers, aggravated burglary and people who accidentally kill someone (sleeping at the wheel)! Where would it stop - genocide!!! Always a good way to control the people!!

You really have a great insight into the human mind! People with such an insightful look on the world I really feel benefits us all! your children are so lucky!

Kenny Everet said "round them up, put them in a cornor and bomb the b******ds!!!"

Maybe you need to read Einstein "Peace cannot be kept by force can only be achieved through understanding"! - just incase you dont know who he is look up Albert Einstein in Wikipedia they have a little about him!!!

Good first post but careful not to make the same mistake that I have... some people just like to argue for arguments sake I'm afraid! There seems to be no reasoning with this one

Edited June 29, 2012 by Ferangled

[tzthib]

Everyday on the front page of Thai Rat there is a picture of some guy who got busted with millions of pills of ice (or whatever). These gigantic drug busts seem to happen quite often. Also, does anyone ever follow up with these cases and see if someone was covicted? It may seem cynical, but I have often thought maybe they have a stack of drugs in the pack and they roll it out, rearrange it, and put some poor guy in front of it. Or they catch someone, take the picture, and then send him and his contraband back to the streets...

It just seems that way too many drugs pass through Thailand and get caught and photographed, yet no progess has been shown in actually lessening the amount of drug activity.

[Ferangled]

So you propose to twist an existing method that substitutes real drugs for less harmful synthetics and replace those synthetics with the real thing? Surely anyone that fancies a hit would line up and proclaim themselves a "full time junkie"... and that would simply increase demand surely?

Incidentally your last comments..."Some would argue (and be factually correct in this) that by the time you use a drug, the path of that drug to the consumed has already reaped a massive death toll, and the money paid for it goes on to reap a further path of death and destruction. Also, proportionally speaking, there is a great likihood of a drug user causing a death than a drinker or a car driver"

Are simply not facts, no matter how much you would like them to be in order to help substantiate your ravings

Where did I say synthetic? I didn't.

Your second point is the interesting one though. Are you seriously contending that at the moment you are holding a gram of cocaine in your hand that you have bought from a deal, that for that to get there. no one has died? Imprisoned? Extorted? Seriously? You believe this? Also, so the countries that grow opium, hash and cocaine plants in mass amounts; these are nice places then? Afghanistan and the Taliban all funded by a small proportion of the money a junkie pays for his heroin or a pot head pays for his Afghan gold. Your statement is only true if you grow and consume the drugs yourself.

Errr quite that's the point old bean!

Instead of synthetic "fake drugs" intended to wean addicts off you suggest the real thing, for free, coupled with free housing and security.... or a mass poisoning, depending what day it is, direction of wind, what personality you happen to be wearing on that particular day etc. It varies considerably from post to post!

As for your mute comments about weed, these days the vast majority is either home grown or grown in a controlled, legal environment in the Netherlands... showing your age mate! Afghan gold? You really are out of touch!

It strikes me that you have swallowed the US anti-drug propaganda hook, line and sinker without any real understanding of how this trade really works and those that truly profit/ suffer as a result...

And yes actually some of these countries are nice places and well worth a visit... get out a bit more you might gain a valuable sense of perspective on life and learn the valuable lesson that what you read isn't always true

[Pseudolus]

My first post!

To the person who said "They should taint the drugs with some really nasty shit that causes death, and then release it into the general population with massive warnings everywhere about what they have done. Therefore, anyone buying drugs will never quite know for sure if their next childish little kick will be their last. In fact, they would actually have to do it, just say so. Wonder how quickly drug taking would decline then especially from all the weekend warrior coke sniffers."

Does that included all the perscription addicts and alcoholics and smokers too?

That is alot of people you want to kill? Does it just include them or is it any body that breaks the law or hurts people maybe armed robbers, aggravated burglary and people who accidentally kill someone (sleeping at the wheel)! Where would it stop - genocide!!! Always a good way to control the people!!

You really have a great insight into the human mind! People with such an insightful look on the world I really feel benefits us all! your children are so lucky!

Kenny Everet said "round them up, put them in a cornor and bomb the b******ds!!!"

Maybe you need to read Einstein "Peace cannot be kept by force can only be achieved through understanding"! - just incase you dont know who he is look up Albert Einstein in Wikipedia they have a little about him!!!

Heh Bendix

Welcome back.

it is good form to read the whole thread though. It would be quite a waste of time for all concerned to go back over all the very good points you made.

[metisdead]

A number of inflammatory bickering and baiting posts have been removed.

[Dap]

6.9 BILLION baht. WOW!! I find it difficult to imagine that this much money will find it's way to the incinerator.

With all the shennanigans folk seem to come up with to divert funds into pockets (on a daily basis), it seems to me

that 6.9 billion baht (worth of drugs or anything for that matter) just sitting around waiting to be BURNED must

somehow also find it's way into the pockets of enterprising individuals. IMO of course.

[nurofiend]

Link to News Media photo:

http://news.yahoo.co...-082243559.html

Thailand's Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra holds bags of methamphetamine

REUTERS

caption: now this seizure will weaken the pad rallies

Edited June 29, 2012 by nurofiend