Caught With Weed

[NeverSure]

I forgot to mention the hypocrisy: I'd wager money that even if some of the people who have these narrow minded attitudes don't drink alcohol, they don't have the same sort of judgmental attitude about people who do drink that they do about marijuana users. Nor would I be likely to accept as truth their inevitable protestations that the difference is the legality and respective lack thereof.

I don't think "we're" capable of answering all of this on a forum. All I have, being a child of the 60's and watching many friends go through the hippie era is non-scientific. I have only my observations. I have only my lying eyes. I'm sure we'll all go on believing what we entered here believing.

The reason I chose not to smoke pot was because of what I observed in many friends (to me spaced out and forgetful even when sober,) but that's not scientific. Actually I wonder but don't know if there is a certain personality or body chemistry which is prone to addiction to relaxing drugs. I never cared for alcohol. I didn't like what it did to me, but that doesn't make me better than, or stronger than. I just didn't like it. I sure got hooked on cigarettes for a long time though.

We have legal gambling with one-armed bandits in just about every bar. Of course they are owned by the state. I see people who don't stop playing those things. Are they addicted? My unscientific observation is that just about every one of those people is also drinking alcohol and smoking while they gamble in the bar. How would I know why?

All I know is that on topic, the guy committed a crime in LOS and I'm glad it wasn't me. Really glad.

[endure]

Weed is a weed, even in all but high altitude or Northern US, and then they can have a nice basement with grow lights.

Weed is a criminal offence in Thailand whether you like it or not.

I honestly can't understand why people keep repeating this glaringly obvious and indisputable fact (that was never in contention.)

Because lots of people posting in this thread seem unable to understand the difference between their personal opinion as to whether weed is immoral or not or whether it's a criminal offence in the country that they get caught in.

I love a bacon sandwich but if I ate one in Jeddah I'd expect to be arrested if I were to be caught eating it.

We have posters in this thread defending and opposing the possession of pot. Their posts are irrelevant. Possession of pot in Thailand is illegal. The guy got caught. He's broken the law.

[SteeleJoe]

Weed is a weed, even in all but high altitude or Northern US, and then they can have a nice basement with grow lights.

Weed is a criminal offence in Thailand whether you like it or not.

I honestly can't understand why people keep repeating this glaringly obvious and indisputable fact (that was never in contention.)

Because lots of people posting in this thread seem unable to understand the difference between their personal opinion as to whether weed is immoral or not or whether it's a criminal offences in the country that they get caught in.

I love a bacon sandwich but if I ate one in Jeddah I'd expect to be arrested if I were to be caught eating it.

I don't recall having seen that even once but perhaps I'm not paying close attention (or having problems with short term memory loss?) I'd genuinely like to be shown an example if you can be bothered.

But speaking for myself, I'll go on record with what would have been obvious to anyone foolish enough to read my posts:

I have never once said it was not illegal in Thailand. (I haven't even said it should be legal in Thailand or opined about the appropriateness of the mandated penalties.)

I have never once said the individual in question should not have been arrested or should not be punished.

To me it's as if people were discussing the reasons for and against smoking cigarettes (and limiting that discussion to the dangers or ill effects or lack thereof -- not claiming that it was illegal) and every once in a while people pointed out that it was legal as if that diminished the relevance or negated the previous points made against the use of tobacco.

[MrRealDeal]

Thats nonsense ......... MJ is taxed just fine in places that make it legal. It's like saying that since you can grow corn it's impossible for the feds to figure out how to tax it. The feds could easily just say that the tax is X percent of the tax the state is collecting. If it were legal and sold at 7-11 most people would not bother to grow it because the corporations would be able to sell it cheaper at 7-11 than you could grow your own. The feds can't tax it only because you can't tax an illegal product making it legal would solve that. Why do people think taxing a pack of weed cigs would be harder than a pack of normal cigs ? Or a bottle of soda ?

Nonsense. Hmmm. It is so much harder to know how, and to have the environment (climate) to grow, cure, and blend tobacco than it is to grow weed. If I planted weed in my yard it would do just fine. The states tax it, LOL? I'm in Oregon, USA where you are allowed to grow your own or to buy it for "medical" purposes. Theoretically it is taxed, LOL. In reality people just grow it. Colorado will be tougher because it's cold there and they'll need a greenhouse, or grow light, heated area.

If they put as high a tax on corn as they do on corn liquor, corn would be grown illegally and it isn't even a drug. Whiskey is harder to make and isn't for everyone. It's an art too like tobacco. There are the moonshine stills though for the determined.

It's easier to control good tobacco or whiskey because it's for experts. It needs to be done consistently on a large scale. Weed is a weed, even in all but high altitude or Northern US, and then they can have a nice basement with grow lights.

Your medical MJ stores refute your point ..... the people in areas with medical MJ that qualify to buy it could also qualify to grow their own but the stores are filled with people buying it because they prefer not to. Areas like Alaska that once allowed people to grow their own still had a flourishing bisness selling to people who don't care to grow their own. You are not completely wrong but just seem to underestimate the vast number of people who would rather just buy it than grow it. You also don't seem to realise how mass producing things by large corporations would change the price and make growing your own with lights indoors not much cheaper , but mostly it's just the fact that people are less intrested in farming thier own even when they can as evedenced already in places that have allowed it.

The historical facts do not support your view that when and where people are allowed to grow it everyone does , the facts show that even when it's legal to grow your own most people just prefer to buy it. It's also not as simple as dropping a seed in the ground and coming back 3 months later to get the top quality weed people want today , the major reason people prefer to buy it is it's not as simple as it sounds to grow top quality weed , lots of people try it and decide they are just not very good at it and stop , others just don't care to try. Once again evedenced by all those customers in medical stores or all those customers back in the day in Alaska.

You make it sound like everyone even has a spare basement in the first place let alone would want to grow weed in it. Or has a backyard to grow it in for that matter. Some would grow their own and some would not, your whole argument seems to be based on the mistaken idea that noone or few people would want to just buy it , once again all the evedence of what happens when you allow people to grow it refutes that. Growing profilerates in order to sell it to people who don't want to grow their own it doesn't proliferate in a manner where everyone grows their own , a relitively small number of people grow it to sell it to everyone else otherwise you wouldn't have a line at the stores. Places like Holland, Vancouver , Alaska and places where it's semi legal are all historical examples of what happens we don't even need to speculate about it. And they are all pretty much the same ..... a smaller number of people then one might think decide to take up growing it while the overwhelming number of people don't care to and prefer to just buy it from someone else.

[robblok]

Thats nonsense ......... MJ is taxed just fine in places that make it legal. It's like saying that since you can grow corn it's impossible for the feds to figure out how to tax it. The feds could easily just say that the tax is X percent of the tax the state is collecting. If it were legal and sold at 7-11 most people would not bother to grow it because the corporations would be able to sell it cheaper at 7-11 than you could grow your own. The feds can't tax it only because you can't tax an illegal product making it legal would solve that. Why do people think taxing a pack of weed cigs would be harder than a pack of normal cigs ? Or a bottle of soda ?

Nonsense. Hmmm. It is so much harder to know how, and to have the environment (climate) to grow, cure, and blend tobacco than it is to grow weed. If I planted weed in my yard it would do just fine. The states tax it, LOL? I'm in Oregon, USA where you are allowed to grow your own or to buy it for "medical" purposes. Theoretically it is taxed, LOL. In reality people just grow it. Colorado will be tougher because it's cold there and they'll need a greenhouse, or grow light, heated area.

If they put as high a tax on corn as they do on corn liquor, corn would be grown illegally and it isn't even a drug. Whiskey is harder to make and isn't for everyone. It's an art too like tobacco. There are the moonshine stills though for the determined.

It's easier to control good tobacco or whiskey because it's for experts. It needs to be done consistently on a large scale. Weed is a weed, even in all but high altitude or Northern US, and then they can have a nice basement with grow lights.

Your medical MJ stores refute your point ..... the people in areas with medical MJ that qualify to buy it could also qualify to grow their own but the stores are filled with people buying it because they prefer not to. Areas like Alaska that once allowed people to grow their own still had a flourishing bisness selling to people who don't care to grow their own. You are not completely wrong but just seem to underestimate the vast number of people who would rather just buy it than grow it. You also don't seem to realise how mass producing things by large corporations would change the price and make growing your own with lights indoors not much cheaper , but mostly it's just the fact that people are less intrested in farming thier own even when they can as evedenced already in places that have allowed it.

The historical facts do not support your view that when and where people are allowed to grow it everyone does , the facts show that even when it's legal to grow your own most people just prefer to buy it. It's also not as simple as dropping a seed in the ground and coming back 3 months later to get the top quality weed people want today , the major reason people prefer to buy it is it's not as simple as it sounds to grow top quality weed , lots of people try it and decide they are just not very good at it and stop , others just don't care to try. Once again evedenced by all those customers in medical stores or all those customers back in the day in Alaska.

You make it sound like everyone even has a spare basement in the first place let alone would want to grow weed in it. Or has a backyard to grow it in for that matter. Some would grow their own and some would not, your whole argument seems to be based on the mistaken idea that noone or few people would want to just buy it , once again all the evedence of what happens when you allow people to grow it refutes that. Growing profilerates in order to sell it to people who don't want to grow their own it doesn't proliferate in a manner where everyone grows their own , a relitively small number of people grow it to sell it to everyone else otherwise you wouldn't have a line at the stores. Places like Holland, Vancouver , Alaska and places where it's semi legal are all historical examples of what happens we don't even need to speculate about it. And they are all pretty much the same ..... a smaller number of people then one might think decide to take up growing it while the overwhelming number of people don't care to and prefer to just buy it from someone else.

For a while it was legal to grow up to 5 or 10 plants back in the Netherlands. Not everyone did that more people just bought their stuff at the coffee shops because its not expensive then and just legal to get. Also there are supposed to be many varieties and strength, just easier to buy. Now they tax it in Amsterdam and other places. So it is possible. But under pressure of the USA we been going more strict and some christian governments made it stricter too unfortunately.

[thaibeachlovers]

<but in no way can anybody claim the moral high ground >

I doubt anyone on here can claim not to have sinned or broken some pointless law, but breaking a law that can have serious consequences for one's future, as opposed to one that has no practical penalty, is just plain daft.

True, but one day when they come to the door and toss the cuffs on you for downloading illegal torrents, or catch you with the 4 disks of porn you just bought at Pantip, or knock on the door when you're going at it with a local hooker, or...or..., I'd like to think there will be a little compassion from us other sinners.

As far as I'm concerned, the guy didn't harm me at all, so I have no problem with his actions. That said, he chose to take a risk that I'm pretty sure he understood and it's time to accept the consequences.

It isn't about evil or poisons or moral turpitude (sp?) or despoiling youth- it's about a choice that looks poor in retrospect.

Kind of like when they send the bill for all those torrents... And then some TV wisenheimers will go on forever about how evil you were for stealing that IP from hard working people.

The key word in my post was "pointless" as in a pointless law. I doubt any farang has been prosecuted for "prostitution" in Thailand recently, but we all know that drugs carry a heavy penalty, and they DO enforce that law.

I have sympathy for any that get caught up in one of the usual scam arrests in LOS, but not for someone that knows the risks of using drugs in LOS and still goes ahead with it. It's not like something that one HAS to do, is it?

I don't know that stealing stuff on the internet is actually a victimless crime. Someone spent time and money to make something and then someone else comes and steals it- is that a non event just because it's in digital form rather than a physical object? If it wasn't punished, sooner than later, no one would put any copyright material on the net.

[tinfoilhat]

Whilst I have read all the posts in this topic, I haven't gone back and re-read them before typing this.

From what I remember, though, no one has said that alcohol and tobacco are not harmful. (But as one effect of cannabis use is both short and long term memory loss and as I smoked a lot of dope in my teens and twenties, it is possible that I have forgotten!)

Yet plenty have intimated by use of phrases such as 'it's only a little bit of weed' that they do not believe cannabis to be harmful.

As previously stated there is a plethora of medical evidence to show that cannabis is harmful to mental health; and I don't mean from hysterical anti drug groups.

For example Cannabis and mental health

...............a three year follow up of a Dutch cohort of 4045 people free of psychosis and 59 with a baseline diagnosis of psychotic disorder showed a strong association between use of cannabis and psychosis.¹⁰ Length of exposure to use of cannabis predicted the severity of the psychosis, which likewise was not explained by use of other drugs. Participants who showed psychotic symptoms at baseline and used cannabis had a worse outcome, which also implies an additive effect. In a New Zealand cohort, individuals who had used cannabis three times or more by age 15 or 18 were not more likely to have schizophreniform disorder at age 26 (p1212), although they showed an increase in “schizophrenia symptoms” (but not schizophrenia).¹¹ The meaning of “schizophrenia symptoms” requires clarification to interpret these results.

The evidence in relation to depression is growing. A 15 year follow up of an adult community sample of 1920 participants in the United States showed that use of cannabis increased the risk of major depression at follow up fourfold.⁷ Use of cannabis was specifically associated with an increase in suicidal ideation and anhedonia. Similar findings in an Australian study reported in this issue (p1195) show a dose-effect relation between the use of cannabis and anxiety or depression in a large cohort of 14-15 year olds followed for seven years.¹² This is reflected in higher rates of anxiety or depression according to the frequency with which cannabis was used. The link is stronger for young women than young men in this cohort, although sex differences have not been found in other studies.^6,7 Baseline depression did not predict later marijuana use in either study and therefore does not support the self medication hypothesis. The study in the New Zealand cohort did not find an association between cannabis use at age 15 and depressive disorder at age 26. The authors found, however, that young people who had used cannabis three times or more by age 18 were more likely to have a depressive disorder at age 26, even after use of other drugs was controlled for.

Whether cannabis is more or less harmful than alcohol is irrelevant. using that argument is like trying to convince someone that being run over by a car is better than being run over by a truck! Both are going to hurt; a lot!

Cannabis is harmful! Those trying to convince people that it isn't should remove their heads from the sand and read the evidence.

None of which is relevant to the OP.

This guy must have known cannabis, in any quantity, is illegal in Thailand and that Thailand has a reputation for being tough on illegal drugs; particularly foreigners and illegal drugs.

He took a chance, he got caught now he must accept his punishment; whatever that will be.

Before I am accused of hypocrisy again, I must add that my attitude would be the same if he had been caught with alcohol in a country where that is illegal; Saudi Arabia for example.

and the results of a parallel study showing the use of alcohol form 15 to 18?

i didnt think so.

[7by7]

No one is disputing the effects of alcohol, so I thought there was no need to link to anything about that; whereas there are people arguing that cannabis is harmless, so there is a need to show them that it isn't.

However, since you ask: Alcohol and your health.

It is widely accepted that cannabis can have some beneficial effects if used medicinally; in relieving the symptoms of MS for example. But that does not mean that their are no risks, and those who use it for medicinal purposes should be aware of those risks; as is the case with any other medicine.

For example; I take sodium valporate to control my epilepsy*. In each packet there is a leaflet listing all the possible side effects; including, ironically, depression and suicidal tendencies. My wife and family are aware of this and do keep an eye on me and will call for medical help if these side effects start to get severe.

The same would be the case for those using cannabis obtained by prescription; certainly in the UK.

But those using it socially are, for the most part as replies in this topic prove, either unaware of the risks or don't believe that they exist.

I am aware that the above could be used as an argument for legalizing cannabis. Maybe that is a good idea, combined with the sort of campaigns we see against smoking tobacco and over using alcohol.

* Interestingly, I did not have my first fit until I was in my 50s; so my neurologist does not think I was born with it but that it developed. When attempting to establish a cause one of the questions she asked was if I had ever smoked cannabis!

[payak]

we will never agree on this, everyone has vastly different views on drugs.

Does not matter what we think as it will not be us handling his case.

There's an old thai proverb, you hear it everyday, it goes like this,"not my problem" genius

[thaibeachlovers]

No one is disputing the effects of alcohol, so I thought there was no need to link to anything about that; whereas there are people arguing that cannabis is harmless, so there is a need to show them that it isn't.

However, since you ask: Alcohol and your health.

It is widely accepted that cannabis can have some beneficial effects if used medicinally; in relieving the symptoms of MS for example. But that does not mean that their are no risks, and those who use it for medicinal purposes should be aware of those risks; as is the case with any other medicine.

For example; I take sodium valporate to control my epilepsy*. In each packet there is a leaflet listing all the possible side effects; including, ironically, depression and suicidal tendencies. My wife and family are aware of this and do keep an eye on me and will call for medical help if these side effects start to get severe.

The same would be the case for those using cannabis obtained by prescription; certainly in the UK.

But those using it socially are, for the most part as replies in this topic prove, either unaware of the risks or don't believe that they exist.

I am aware that the above could be used as an argument for legalizing cannabis. Maybe that is a good idea, combined with the sort of campaigns we see against smoking tobacco and over using alcohol.

* Interestingly, I did not have my first fit until I was in my 50s; so my neurologist does not think I was born with it but that it developed. When attempting to establish a cause one of the questions she asked was if I had ever smoked cannabis!

Having known people that used weed a lot back in the 1980s I'd rather weed was legal than alcohol. Weed makes people docile and usually happy, while alcohol makes people mad, bad and dangerous.

[transam]

No one is disputing the effects of alcohol, so I thought there was no need to link to anything about that; whereas there are people arguing that cannabis is harmless, so there is a need to show them that it isn't.

However, since you ask: Alcohol and your health.

It is widely accepted that cannabis can have some beneficial effects if used medicinally; in relieving the symptoms of MS for example. But that does not mean that their are no risks, and those who use it for medicinal purposes should be aware of those risks; as is the case with any other medicine.

For example; I take sodium valporate to control my epilepsy*. In each packet there is a leaflet listing all the possible side effects; including, ironically, depression and suicidal tendencies. My wife and family are aware of this and do keep an eye on me and will call for medical help if these side effects start to get severe.

The same would be the case for those using cannabis obtained by prescription; certainly in the UK.

But those using it socially are, for the most part as replies in this topic prove, either unaware of the risks or don't believe that they exist.

I am aware that the above could be used as an argument for legalizing cannabis. Maybe that is a good idea, combined with the sort of campaigns we see against smoking tobacco and over using alcohol.

* Interestingly, I did not have my first fit until I was in my 50s; so my neurologist does not think I was born with it but that it developed. When attempting to establish a cause one of the questions she asked was if I had ever smoked cannabis!

Having known people that used weed a lot back in the 1980s I'd rather weed was legal than alcohol. Weed makes people docile and usually happy, while alcohol makes people mad, bad and dangerous.

I must be different then.

[7by7]

Having known people that used weed a lot back in the 1980s I'd rather weed was legal than alcohol. Weed makes people docile and usually happy, while alcohol makes people mad, bad and dangerous.

The immediate effect of cannabis may be as you say; but the long term effect can be very different!

Had you ever known anyone suffering from schizophrenia or the other mental disorders which can be brought on by cannabis use, you would know that.

[thaibeachlovers]

Having known people that used weed a lot back in the 1980s I'd rather weed was legal than alcohol. Weed makes people docile and usually happy, while alcohol makes people mad, bad and dangerous.

The immediate effect of cannabis may be as you say; but the long term effect can be very different!

Had you ever known anyone suffering from schizophrenia or the other mental disorders which can be brought on by cannabis use, you would know that.

I'm not disputing that weed can have undesirable side effects. I'd just rather have it than alcohol, which causes huge amounts of physical and mental destruction in many of the people that use it.

I have met lots of people that get violent on booze, but none on weed.

The best world would be one in which people didn't need any sort of personality altering drugs. It is possible to do without them.

[7by7]

I have met lots of people that get violent on booze, but none on weed.

I have met many people who simply go to sleep when drunk; I have met people who have been violent, mainly to themselves but sometimes to others, due to mental disorders brought on by cannabis use.

The best world would be one in which people didn't need any sort of personality altering drugs. It is possible to do without them.

Agree wholeheartedly.

[thaibeachlovers]

I have met lots of people that get violent on booze, but none on weed.

I have met many people who simply go to sleep when drunk; I have met people who have been violent, mainly to themselves but sometimes to others, due to mental disorders brought on by cannabis use.

The best world would be one in which people didn't need any sort of personality altering drugs. It is possible to do without them.

Agree wholeheartedly.

I gave up drinking alcohol because I get depressed when I'm drunk and I hate the taste, so I get no enjoyment from drinking the stuff. Never regretted giving it up.

Do you have any stats as to how many people become violent due to weed use, as compared to alcohol use? I'd be interested to know.

[7by7]

As far as i am aware, there are none available; but I'll see if I can find any.

Most people who drink alcohol do not get violent and aggressive; even when very drunk. However, there is a significant minority who do; that is universally accepted.

I have come across two articles on violence and cannabis; one from a website advocating the legalisation of cannabis, one from a site advocating it's continued prohibition. No point in linking to them as the stance of each is obvious!

Reading more reliable sources show that opinion is divided; but most agree that while cannabis use can cause aggressive behaviour in some individuals, it is far less common than among alcohol users.

This is, of course, in the short term. The long term effects have already been outlined.

Edited November 24, 2012 by 7by7

[meom]

The immediate effect of cannabis may be as you say; but the long term effect can be very different!

Had you ever known anyone suffering from schizophrenia or the other mental disorders which can be brought on by cannabis use, you would know that.

My understanding is that cannabis in itself does not cause the mental disorder.

in most cases the mental disorder was already there albeit latent and cannabis can cause the disorder which was already there to become more pronounced.

[7by7]

I'm not sure what point you are making, to be honest.

Use cannabis and a latent mental disorder becomes pronounced; don't use it and the disorder remains latent?

Sounds like a strong argument for abstention to me.

[elliss]

what about TV members contributing to help a fellow farang ,

think of the good press we will have in the thai community .

P.S . count me out ,

i have no sympathy for alcoholics or drugies .

give me the good old fashioned , sex tourist .

[meom]

I'm not sure what point you are making, to be honest.

Use cannabis and a latent mental disorder becomes pronounced; don't use it and the disorder remains latent?

Sounds like a strong argument for abstention to me.

Maybe I misunderstand your various posts but the way i read it is that you basically blame weed as the cause of schizophrenia and other mental disorders.

So my point is that this is not correct and that the people that become full blown schizophrenic after smoking weed would most probably have become schizophrenic anyway later in life without smoking weed since the disorder was already there.

[transam]

I'm not sure what point you are making, to be honest.

Use cannabis and a latent mental disorder becomes pronounced; don't use it and the disorder remains latent?

Sounds like a strong argument for abstention to me.

Maybe I misunderstand your various posts but the way i read it is that you basically blame weed as the cause of schizophrenia and other mental disorders.

So my point is that this is not correct and that the people that become full blown schizophrenic after smoking weed would most probably have become schizophrenic anyway later in life without smoking weed since the disorder was already there.

I have not read it that way.

NOW ME , have known many junk heads that really have gone nuts in later life. My chum is an original LSD guy and he knows what it did to him NOW.

[PomRakBKK]

Is this your friend? http://www.pattayaone.net/pattaya-news/66547/german-drug-dealing-suspect-arrested-pattaya-beach-road/

[Mario2008]

I'm not sure what point you are making, to be honest.

Use cannabis and a latent mental disorder becomes pronounced; don't use it and the disorder remains latent?

Sounds like a strong argument for abstention to me.

Maybe I misunderstand your various posts but the way i read it is that you basically blame weed as the cause of schizophrenia and other mental disorders.

So my point is that this is not correct and that the people that become full blown schizophrenic after smoking weed would most probably have become schizophrenic anyway later in life without smoking weed since the disorder was already there.

Some people have a stronger chance to develop a disorder such as schizofrenia than other. To develop it one often needs a trigger, such as use of drugs or a traumatic event.

It is always possible that another event would have happend that would trigger it, but never certain.

Also, nowadays a lot of weed is much stronger than 30 years a go. it it would be classified again today, some soft drugs would now be classified as hard drugs. Not only potatoes and rice are being engineerd.

[Grumbles]

What's the saying?

Don't want to do the time, then don't do the crime.

I think it will be jail followed by deportation and will never be allowed back in LOS.

No sympathy for your friend. Anyone caught with or use drugs are stupid.

Why is it people seem to lose their humanity on arrival in Thailand?I personally wouldn't use drugs here because of the consequences but I wouldn't wish 10 years in The Bangkok Hilton on anyone,that could be a death sentence in itself!

I've seen a documentary about Bang Klang prison and there was some 19 year old lad from Bury in England I think,who'd been sentenced to 99 years in prison for around 4,000 tablets of ecstasy.Even if they allow him back to England to serve his sentence he will do half that time,does he really deserve to lose most of his life for a moment of idiocy?

Have you never done anything stupid when you were 19?What if it was one of your children,or a family member,would you still have the same 'couldn't give a toss' attitude?

Words fail me sometimes,do you work for The British Embassy because if you don't maybe you should think of applying?You sound like just the sort of useless,inhuman and unsympathetic moron that would fit in perfectly there!

The point about the kid with 4000 ecstasy tabs is a bit different I think. It would be difficult to justify that as personal use. More like personal greed. If he had got away with it he wouldn't be giving the proceeds to charity now, would he.

Sure if you get busted with a bit of weed for personal use you could be deemed as unlucky, and hope for a bit of leniency.

If someone is trafficking drugs I would like to see them locked up & the keys thrown away. If that makes me harsh & inhuman, so be it. Because drug traffickers aren't exactly contributing anything to their fellow humans.

[meom]

Also, nowadays a lot of weed is much stronger than 30 years a go. it it would be classified again today, some soft drugs would now be classified as hard drugs. Not only potatoes and rice are being engineerd.

The Dutch are doing just that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15225270

[7by7]

I'm not sure what point you are making, to be honest.

Use cannabis and a latent mental disorder becomes pronounced; don't use it and the disorder remains latent?

Sounds like a strong argument for abstention to me.

Maybe I misunderstand your various posts but the way i read it is that you basically blame weed as the cause of schizophrenia and other mental disorders.

So my point is that this is not correct and that the people that become full blown schizophrenic after smoking weed would most probably have become schizophrenic anyway later in life without smoking weed since the disorder was already there.

Then I suggest that you read my posts again.

I am not saying that everyone with schzophrenia or other mental disorders has used cannabis.

I am not saying that using cannabis will definitely cause such disorders.

What I am saying, backed up by much medical research such as the paper I linked to, is that the chances of developing such disorders is significantly increased if you use cannabis, and the more you use it the greater the risk.

The research shows that this is the case whether you are predisposed to the condition or not; though obviously if you are predisposed then the risk is greater.

[tinfoilhat]

Having known people that used weed a lot back in the 1980s I'd rather weed was legal than alcohol. Weed makes people docile and usually happy, while alcohol makes people mad, bad and dangerous.

The immediate effect of cannabis may be as you say; but the long term effect can be very different!

Had you ever known anyone suffering from schizophrenia or the other mental disorders which can be brought on by cannabis use, you would know that.

it would seem to me that in cases like this weed is merely an exacerbating factor, not a curse.

and i have had the pleasure of seeing a drunk schizophrenic, not pretty, but no one seemed to believe the alcohol was the issue

[meom]

I'm not sure what point you are making, to be honest.

Use cannabis and a latent mental disorder becomes pronounced; don't use it and the disorder remains latent?

Sounds like a strong argument for abstention to me.

Maybe I misunderstand your various posts but the way i read it is that you basically blame weed as the cause of schizophrenia and other mental disorders.

So my point is that this is not correct and that the people that become full blown schizophrenic after smoking weed would most probably have become schizophrenic anyway later in life without smoking weed since the disorder was already there.

Then I suggest that you read my posts again.

I am not saying that everyone with schzophrenia or other mental disorders has used cannabis.

I am not saying that using cannabis will definitely cause such disorders.

What I am saying, backed up by much medical research such as the paper I linked to, is that the chances of developing such disorders is significantly increased if you use cannabis, and the more you use it the greater the risk.

The research shows that this is the case whether you are predisposed to the condition or not; though obviously if you are predisposed then the risk is greater.

OK fair enough.

There's all sorts of research and this one proposes slightly different.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22937266

[chrisrazz]

Drugs in Thailand carry a significant risk. Personally, I hope the bloke manages to get out of his predicament without too much pain.

As a MJ smoker for over 30 years I never seek it here in Thailand. I could say that my experimental nature led to my imbibing, then led to other more exciting and dangerous drugs, such as mushrooms, acid, speed and coke. It pretty much stops there, though I've dabbled with ecstasy and MDMA. I have an excellent memory, my mental physical health are great for my age. These days I just enjoy a beer or two. This is mostly due to the law and the fact that to find anything a little more exotic requires consorting with untrustworthy criminal elements, often organised crime.

This brings me to my point. The so called war on drugs, instigated by Ronald Reagan ( feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) has been an abject failure. It has placed illegal drug distribution into the hand of unscrupulous criminal syndicates, has cost the lives of many law enforcement officers and innocent bystanders, cost a fortune in terms of law enforcement, costs a fortune in terms of imprisonment of offenders yet there are more drugs, more new dangerous drugs available that are cheaper today than ever before. Nations such as north Korea have attempted to destabilise their enemies by the manufacture of methamphetamines and flooding the south. If drugs were regarded as a health issue as opposed to a legal issue, then perhaps these new designer drugs would be obsolete, jails would be full of real enemies of society and those with drug problems would be able to access real help. Addicts would be able to satisfy their habit as part of a treatment program without stigma. Former Seattle police chief Norm Stamper makes a compelling case against the war on drugs,

"Over the past 40 years, we’ve spent a trillion dollars prosecuting the drug war. We’ve jailed tens of millions of Americans for nonviolent offenses, ruined countless young lives, turned neighborhoods into armed battlegrounds, done major damage to the Bill of Rights, destabilized the political and economic policies of foreign countries, and tacitly granted commercial and regulatory monopolies to traffickers from Afghanistan to Jamaica, L.A. to New York. U.S. drug policy is the proximate cause of 37,000 deaths in Mexico alone since 2006.

Someday we’ll wise up. The only true solution to the horrific financial and human costs of the drug war is to end it—to legalize and regulate drugs.

According to Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron, drug legalization would save $77 billion a year. It would free up close to half the nation’s prison cells, reserving them for violent offenders. We would be able to invest substantially more time, money, and imagination in prevention, education, and drug treatment. And, we would make our communities much safer and healthier."

[7by7]

There's all sorts of research and this one proposes slightly different.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22937266

Interesting; but as the paper itself says in it's conclusion,

Cannabis use in the schizophrenia population has been shown to worsen the prognosis and increase the burden of the disorder. However, evidence exists for a subgroup of the population to suggest that cannabinoids have therapeutic effects on the negative and positive symptoms, as well as cognitive impairments. Although this evidence is not conclusive and requires further research and replication, a more comprehensive and broad-based neurochemical framework has been presented in this paper, offering an explanation for the potentially therapeutic effects of cannabinoids in addition to its adverse effects................

.................Clearly there are many questions that need to be addressed and the use of further randomised, double-blind studies is necessary to establish the effects of cannabis across the domains of cognition, mood, and mentation. However, given the prevalence of cannabis use and its integral role in the clinical manifestation of psychosis, this is an area for future research, and reconceptualising our neurochemical understanding is perhaps a useful first step. In this context, the consideration, appraisal, and rigorous testing of novel models are necessary, and are likely to advance our understanding.

It seems to me that the situation here is very similar to that in the 50s and 60s regarding the link between tobacco and cancer; laughed at or ignored by many then, but now acknowledged by all, even tobacco companies.

I suspect that in 40 to 50 years time even the most hardened cannabis user will accept that they are putting their mental health at risk, just as these days tobacco smokers are aware of the risks of smoking tobacco.

Drugs in Thailand carry a significant risk. Personally, I hope the bloke manages to get out of his predicament without too much pain.

As a MJ smoker for over 30 years I never seek it here in Thailand. I could say that my experimental nature led to my imbibing, then led to other more exciting and dangerous drugs, such as mushrooms, acid, speed and coke. It pretty much stops there, though I've dabbled with ecstasy and MDMA. I have an excellent memory, my mental physical health are great for my age. These days I just enjoy a beer or two. This is mostly due to the law and the fact that to find anything a little more exotic requires consorting with untrustworthy criminal elements, often organised crime.

This brings me to my point. The so called war on drugs, instigated by Ronald Reagan ( feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) has been an abject failure. It has placed illegal drug distribution into the hand of unscrupulous criminal syndicates.......................

The distribution of illegal drugs, both so-called 'hard' and 'soft' drugs, was in the control of criminal syndicates long before the 'war on drugs' was begun; by Nixon, I believe, not Reagan.

People may like to believe the difference between a pusher and a dealer expressed in the lyrics of Steppenwolf's 'The Pusher' but in reality they are very often the same breed and obtain their supplies from the same source (home growers excepted). That source being the criminal syndicates and cartels.

Arguing that legalising drugs would free up prison cells is a ridiculous one. The same argument could be used for abolishing all crimes!

Alcohol is legal in most countries; yet they all have people in prison due to alcohol related offences.

Ditto the financial argument. No money would be saved, in fact more would be spent on treating and rehabilitating drug addicts if drugs were freely available than is spent now for the simple reason that there would be more of them to treat.

Treating alcohol related conditions cost the NHS in the UK in the financial year 2006/7 £2.7 billion. That's the UK; how much more in the USA with it's much larger population?

Any money saved from not having to enforce drug laws would soon be swallowed up by increased health care costs in treating the increase in addicts; well, maybe not in a country where people are left to die if they don't have medical insurance.

Drugs don't suddenly become harmless just because they've been made legal; as tobacco and alcohol show.