Thailand's Meth Menace

[KhunSteven]

As long as drugs are illegal this sort of thing will continue to happen.

[thrilled]

Ya ba is A big problem in Thailand.But drugs are an epidemic all around the world.It just keeps getting worse year after year.I have no answer or A solution. Thailand has the death penalty for heroin.I don't see it working.

[BrianCR]

What a load of crap! They were paid 100,000 baht to deliver? No way, 5000 baht a piece and the Hi-So bitches that arranged it get away Scot free!

[Banzai99]

Whilst you have poverty , low wages, greed ,poor education, corruption, peer pressure , high dept levels ,in a society such as Thailand you will always get the idiots trying to make the easy money, in real terms, they just cannot see the big picture, only tunnel vision , money money money,

So what about the rampant drug trade in first world countries ?

[skorchio]

All 3 in their mid 20s. The kingpins they are not ..... it takes a long time to build a narcotics operation up to that size, all they have busted are the kids doing the running .....

[skorchio]

But they at least stopped it I guess!!!

[skorchio]

Scary article actually

[DiamondKing]

LEGALIZE IT, manage it, tax it, and treat it

JOB DONE.

Do what Portugal did, it is working great.

When there is a MASSIVE demand, as there is, people will seek it out no matter the consequence, look at prohibition the USA could never win and eventually legalized alcohol so why are they fighting the drug issue THEY CAN NEVER WIN THE WAR ON DRUGS because people want them.

TIME TO LEGALIZE ALL DRUGS

Edited May 14, 2013 by DiamondKing

[RigPig]

Education is the answer...........fat chance

[JimShortz]

Unfortunately, what DiamondKing says seems to be the basic truth...

The "war on drugs" is a sick joke... massive numbers of people killed, millions locked away, and yet drugs are more commonplace and freely available than ever before (and harder, more dangerous, more addictive drugs than ever before).

I don't have a great answer, but the current "drug prohibition" is indeed just as effective as alcohol "prohibition" was at cultivating violence and armed gangs, but almost completely ineffective in controlling the spread of drugs.

It's got to be time to face the truth... Legalise (in some form), control and educate. This at least has a chance of success. The money currently spent building and maintaining prisons, fighting gangs and all of the wars fuelled by "easy" drugs money can be spent more constructively. Surely!

Is there a choice? I am NOT in favour of widespread drug use, but that's what we have now anyway! time for a new approach, isn't it?

By the way, this is a widely held view amongst intelligent, considered, law enforcement people in the USA (if they can exist!). These people are not in favour of drug use, just taking a commonsense pragmatic approach to the issue, instead of the childish "drugs are bad, make them illegal" view, that simply doesn't consider the facts as they stand.

Take a look at "Law Enforcement Against Prohibition" at: http://www.leap.cc/about/why-legalize-drugs/

Drugs are scary, the current laws are too...

[JimShortz]

Just in case anyone is too lazy to click the link above, this is that page (I'm sure they won't mind):

Why Legalize Drugs?

We believe that drug prohibition is the true cause of much of the social and personal damage that has historically been attributed to drug use. It is prohibition that makes these drugs so valuable – while giving criminals a monopoly over their supply. Driven by the huge profits from this monopoly, criminal gangs bribe and kill each other, law enforcers, and children. Their trade is unregulated and they are, therefore, beyond our control.

History has shown that drug prohibition reduces neither use nor abuse. After a rapist is arrested, there are fewer rapes. After a drug dealer is arrested, however, neither the supply nor the demand for drugs is seriously changed. The arrest merely creates a job opening for an endless stream of drug entrepreneurs who will take huge risks for the sake of the enormous profits created by prohibition. Prohibition costs taxpayers tens of billions of dollars every year, yet 40 years and some 40 million arrests later, drugs are cheaper, more potent and far more widely used than at the beginning of this futile crusade.

We believe that by eliminating prohibition of all drugs for adults and establishing appropriate regulation and standards for distribution and use, law enforcement could focus more on crimes of violence, such as rape, aggravated assault, child abuse and murder, making our communities much safer. We believe that sending parents to prison for non-violent personal drug use destroys families. We believe that in a regulated and controlled environment, drugs will be safer for adult use and less accessible to our children. And we believe that by placing drug abuse in the hands of medical professionals instead of the criminal justice system, we will reduce rates of addiction and overdose deaths.

Also, take a look at some of the videos (from judges and law enforcement officers) on the homepage: http://www.leap.cc/

Enlightening to say the least!

[canman]

My 2 cents worth

The 'war on drugs' is a farce and simply not working.

There is a certain percentage of the population in each country who want to get high

There is a certain percentage of the above who will become addicted to the nastier drugs available

The addiction of the people above will rule their lives in most cases and they will turn to crime to feed their habit

Those above will usually either die prematurely or end up in jail all the while creating misery for those around them

There are legal drugs acceptable by society such as alcohol

Statistics are leaking out now showing that more people are killed by prescription drugs than illegal drugs (at least in some countries)

What is the point of continuing the drugs prohibition?

What is the point of spending billions of dollars fighting a war which cannot be won?

Why do we continue to enrich the drug lords and dealers with these failed drug laws?

Why do we ignore and punish (at great cost) that small segment of society addicted to these drugs?

Why don’t we legalise, control access and tax the drug supply?

Why not use funds wasted on the ‘war on drugs’ and incarceration for harm reduction and rehabilitation programs?

[simple1]

This article is saying that each pill cost about $10 US?? That seems unlikely.

I can't understand why this wretched class of drug (amphetamine family) is so widespread and apparently popular in Thailand. Thailand pot used to be among the world's best ("Thai stick") but the stuff mostly available here now is garbage, not worth the money or the extreme legal consequences.

Or so I've heard.

USD$10 per tablet is based upon retail street price in Thailand

[hyperdimension]

In the following chart we can see how amphetamine compares to other drugs in the dependence and physical harm that the drug may cause. I think the crystal form of methamphetamine would be closer to cocaine.

The data is from Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse

Edited May 15, 2013 by hyperdimension

[JeremyBowskill]

In the following chart we can see how amphetamine compares to other drugs in the dependence and physical harm that the drug may cause. I think the crystal form of methamphetamine would be closer to cocaine.

The data is from Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse

I think whoever made this chart didn't know their ar** from their elbow. There is so much wrong with it I wouldn't know where to start.

[Cats4ever]

Whilst you have poverty , low wages, greed ,poor education, corruption, peer pressure , high dept levels ,in a society such as Thailand you will always get the idiots trying to make the easy money, in real terms, they just cannot see the big picture, only tunnel vision , money money money, , the big picture is the Bangkok Hilton, this will determine where you will spend your free time if caught.

What motivates the people who do the same in the West? Maybe low wages, greed, poor education, corruption, peer pressure & high debt levels. Maybe the buzz of doing it? The war on drugs has a lot to answer for.

[Gsxrnz]

Hmmm.....I wonder what ratio of the seized drugs are "recirculated" by the BIB, to be seized yet again.

[hyperdimension]

In the following chart we can see how amphetamine compares to other drugs in the dependence and physical harm that the drug may cause. I think the crystal form of methamphetamine would be closer to cocaine.

The data is from Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse

I think whoever made this chart didn't know their ar** from their elbow. There is so much wrong with it I wouldn't know where to start.

What are you basing your view on? Can you provide some details of scientific studies?

[JeremyBowskill]

Firstly crystal methamphetamine and amphetamine are 2 completely different animals, and crystal methamphetamine isn't even on here. The rest is just too vague, there are multiple ways of using all the above drugs i.e snorting, bombing and injecting so its all just a bit vague. Someone who shoots heroin for example would be about where its listed but someone who chases it or snorts it would be in a far less dangerous position than someone who shots it. As for cocaine being listed where it is, its way off the mark unless you are using it in the rock form, ie crack. Also if you were to use weed in a vaporizer it would do you pretty much no physical harm. I have both worked as a drugs counselor in the UK and have also had a heroin addict for a brother for the last 15 years, so you might say my experience is more practical than scientific.

Edited May 15, 2013 by JeremyBowskill

[hyperdimension]

Firstly crystal methamphetamine and amphetamine are 2 completely different animals, and crystal methamphetamine isn't even on here. The rest is just too vague, there are multiple ways of using all the above drugs i.e snorting, bombing and injecting so its all just a bit vague. Someone who shoots heroin for example would be about where its listed but someone who chases it or snorts it would be in a far less dangerous position than someone who shots it. As for cocaine being listed where it is, its way off the mark unless you are using it in the rock form, ie crack. Also if you were to use weed in a vaporizer it would do you pretty much no physical harm. I have both worked as a drugs counselor in the UK and have also had a heroin addict for a brother for the last 15 years, so you might say my experience is more practical than scientific.

I agree that it would have been better if they distinguished between different forms of some of the drugs and the different routes of administration. The information is still useful though. Did you actually read the study to which I linked and from which the data came? The final table of results show a separate score for intravenous administration for each drug. The physical harm score for amphetamine via intravenous administration is 2.4, as opposed to the mean score of 1.81 shown in the chart.

As a drugs counselor, I'd assume that most of the time you met people who have problems, far more often than those who did not have any problem, as there'd be no reason for them to seek any help from you and they may not want to admit to using drugs due to social stigma and the law. This could skew your views about drugs in general.

Edited May 15, 2013 by hyperdimension

[JeremyBowskill]

Firstly crystal methamphetamine and amphetamine are 2 completely different animals, and crystal methamphetamine isn't even on here. The rest is just too vague, there are multiple ways of using all the above drugs i.e snorting, bombing and injecting so its all just a bit vague. Someone who shoots heroin for example would be about where its listed but someone who chases it or snorts it would be in a far less dangerous position than someone who shots it. As for cocaine being listed where it is, its way off the mark unless you are using it in the rock form, ie crack. Also if you were to use weed in a vaporizer it would do you pretty much no physical harm. I have both worked as a drugs counselor in the UK and have also had a heroin addict for a brother for the last 15 years, so you might say my experience is more practical than scientific.

I agree that it would have been better if they distinguished between different forms of some of the drugs and the different routes of administration. The information is still useful though. Did you actually read the study to which I linked and from which the data came? The final table of results show a separate score for intravenous administration for each drug. The physical harm score for amphetamine via intravenous administration is 2.4, as opposed to the mean score of 1.81 shown in the chart.

As a drugs counselor, I'd assume that most of the time you met people who have problems, far more often than those who did not have any problem, as there'd be no reason for them to seek any help from you and they may not want to admit to using drugs due to social stigma and the law. This could skew your views about drugs in general.

No I didn't read the study just took a glance at the chart and thought it showed only part of a picture. I thought missing the psychological damage drugs do was like missing half the issue. LSD for example may not be addictive but can wreck a persons mind in 1 hit if they are not of a strong nature to begin with, the same could be said for cannabis if over used for long periods, psychosis can follow even though the physical damage may be minimal. Actually most of my job was around education in young adults rather than dealing with bunt out junkies, so most of my cases were at the start of their careers so to speak.

[Shiver]

Hmmm.....I wonder what ratio of the seized drugs are "recirculated" by the BIB, to be seized yet again.

You just hit one of the nails right on the head.

Having lost both a business partner (farang) and personal relationship (Thai) to Meth, I have a deep hatred of the stuff, and I don't like having hate inside me. It's the most insideous(sp?) thing I've ever seen. Gently gently, gotcha, no going back. They'll promise you the moon and sky, but you're only talking to 50% of the person you knew, the other half is something very damaging to themselves and to all those associated. Avoid at all costs. I say this as someone who smokes legal cigarettes and over indulges in alcohol, but they're chalk and cheese.

I got to the point of keeping in my house Meth tests (from a friend in the business). Never got to use one of them, as they'll snake out of anything. Both of the above were very good people, fit, active, sociable, wonderful people to have around in my life. I paid heavily both emotionally and financially to be the 'do gooder'. If anyone reading this suspects the same, whether it be dirty yaa baa, or hi-so Ice, get them out of your life before they suck you into their world. There is no getting out of it when the 'authorities' are also the suppliers, and know who to target exactly, when and where.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Shiver

[hyperdimension]

No I didn't read the study just took a glance at the chart and thought it showed only part of a picture. I thought missing the psychological damage drugs do was like missing half the issue. LSD for example may not be addictive but can wreck a persons mind in 1 hit if they are not of a strong nature to begin with, the same could be said for cannabis if over used for long periods, psychosis can follow even though the physical damage may be minimal. Actually most of my job was around education in young adults rather than dealing with bunt out junkies, so most of my cases were at the start of their careers so to speak.

Yes, the chart only shows part of the picture, but that doesn't mean that it's complete nonsense and worthless. It's only one particular set of information. There are other sets of information if you look around. The study also covers social harm with scores for each drug. Two other studies that explore drug harms that I've mentioned in another thread are:

Drug harms in the UK a multicriteria decision analysis

Quantifying the RR of harm to self and others from substance misuse results from a survey of clinical experts across Scotland

So was it your job to basically teach your students "drugs are bad, mmkay?" I remember that all of the drug education that I was subjected to as a youngster were presented in ways that scared us, but with little factual basis (At that age we never asked for scientific factual proof, and teachers knew that). Only extremely negative examples and images were presented. The message was "just don't do drugs". The "educational" material wasn't too far different from "reefer madness" style. These days I now realize that it wasn't real drug education, as there was very little science in it, mostly just scare mongering. There were never examples of people enjoying themselves on drugs without any problem, which is closer to reality. The problem with such "don't do drugs" education is that when people do actually try drugs and enjoy it, they realize that it's nowhere near as bad as what they were taught, which can lead to a complete mistrust and dismissal of all the drug education that they had received. They may then go on to try other possibly harmful drugs in complete defiance of and disregard for such so-called "education".

Edited May 15, 2013 by hyperdimension

[JeremyBowskill]

No I didn't read the study just took a glance at the chart and thought it showed only part of a picture. I thought missing the psychological damage drugs do was like missing half the issue. LSD for example may not be addictive but can wreck a persons mind in 1 hit if they are not of a strong nature to begin with, the same could be said for cannabis if over used for long periods, psychosis can follow even though the physical damage may be minimal. Actually most of my job was around education in young adults rather than dealing with bunt out junkies, so most of my cases were at the start of their careers so to speak.

Yes, the chart only shows part of the picture, but that doesn't mean that it's complete nonsense and worthless. It's only one particular set of information. There are other sets of information if you look around. The study also covers social harm with scores for each drug. Two other studies that explore drug harms that I've mentioned in another thread are:

Drug harms in the UK a multicriteria decision analysis

Quantifying the RR of harm to self and others from substance misuse results from a survey of clinical experts across Scotland

So was it your job to basically teach your students "drugs are bad, mmkay?" I remember that all of the drug education that I was subjected to as a youngster were presented in ways that scared us, but with little factual basis (At that age we never asked for scientific factual proof, and teachers knew that). Only extremely negative examples and images were presented. The message was "just don't do drugs". The "educational" material wasn't too far different from "reefer madness" style. These days I now realize that it wasn't real drug education, as there was very little science in it, mostly just scare mongering. There were never examples of people enjoying themselves on drugs without any problem, which is closer to reality. The problem with such "don't do drugs" education is that when people do actually try drugs and enjoy it, they realize that it's nowhere near as bad as what they were taught, which can lead to a complete mistrust and dismissal of all the drug education that they had received.

No it was far from don't do it, that type of approach died a death in the UK in the 80's. It was more if you are going to do it (Which 70% aged between 16-30 were) then these are the facts and this is how to minimize the harm to yourselves. Never once have I said to anyone let alone a student drugs are bad, that would have completely the wrong effect. People and especially young people don't tent to like being told what to do, you can only offer advice. Nancy Regans "just say no" BS is a long time dead, much like Ronnie, god rest him.

Edited May 15, 2013 by JeremyBowskill

[hyperdimension]

Having lost both a business partner (farang) and personal relationship (Thai) to Meth, I have a deep hatred of the stuff, and I don't like having hate inside me. It's the most insideous(sp?) thing I've ever seen. Gently gently, gotcha, no going back. They'll promise you the moon and sky, but you're only talking to 50% of the person you knew, the other half is something very damaging to themselves and to all those associated. Avoid at all costs. I say this as someone who smokes legal cigarettes and over indulges in alcohol, but they're chalk and cheese.

I got to the point of keeping in my house Meth tests (from a friend in the business). Never got to use one of them, as they'll snake out of anything. Both of the above were very good people, fit, active, sociable, wonderful people to have around in my life. I paid heavily both emotionally and financially to be the 'do gooder'. If anyone reading this suspects the same, whether it be dirty yaa baa, or hi-so Ice, get them out of your life before they suck you into their world. There is no getting out of it when the 'authorities' are also the suppliers, and know who to target exactly, when and where.

Sorry to hear about the loss of your business partner and personal relationship. Your own experiences would certainly have shaped your personal views about the drug. Was it the crystal form (ice)?

It would be interesting to know what kind of drug education they had received before they had started taking methamphetamine. How much did they know about its harmfulness, particularly dependence? If after having studied all the scientific facts and statistics, would they have still started to take it and do it regularly?

[hyperdimension]

So was it your job to basically teach your students "drugs are bad, mmkay?" I remember that all of the drug education that I was subjected to as a youngster were presented in ways that scared us, but with little factual basis (At that age we never asked for scientific factual proof, and teachers knew that). Only extremely negative examples and images were presented. The message was "just don't do drugs". The "educational" material wasn't too far different from "reefer madness" style. These days I now realize that it wasn't real drug education, as there was very little science in it, mostly just scare mongering. There were never examples of people enjoying themselves on drugs without any problem, which is closer to reality. The problem with such "don't do drugs" education is that when people do actually try drugs and enjoy it, they realize that it's nowhere near as bad as what they were taught, which can lead to a complete mistrust and dismissal of all the drug education that they had received.

No it was far from don't do it, that type of approach died a death in the UK in the 80's. It was more if you are going to do it (Which 70% aged between 16-30 were) then these are the facts and this is how to minimize the harm to yourselves. Never once have I said to anyone let alone a student drugs are bad, that would have completely the wrong effect. People and especially young people don't tent to like being told what to do, you can only offer advice. Nancy Regans "just say no" BS is a long time dead, much like Ronnie, god rest him.

That's good to hear. I wonder how the drug education is in the schools here in Thailand. Is it still the archaic "just say no" baseless propaganda? I'm thinking so, but would like to hear from those who know.

Edited May 15, 2013 by hyperdimension

[JeremyBowskill]

So was it your job to basically teach your students "drugs are bad, mmkay?" I remember that all of the drug education that I was subjected to as a youngster were presented in ways that scared us, but with little factual basis (At that age we never asked for scientific factual proof, and teachers knew that). Only extremely negative examples and images were presented. The message was "just don't do drugs". The "educational" material wasn't too far different from "reefer madness" style. These days I now realize that it wasn't real drug education, as there was very little science in it, mostly just scare mongering. There were never examples of people enjoying themselves on drugs without any problem, which is closer to reality. The problem with such "don't do drugs" education is that when people do actually try drugs and enjoy it, they realize that it's nowhere near as bad as what they were taught, which can lead to a complete mistrust and dismissal of all the drug education that they had received.

No it was far from don't do it, that type of approach died a death in the UK in the 80's. It was more if you are going to do it (Which 70% aged between 16-30 were) then these are the facts and this is how to minimize the harm to yourselves. Never once have I said to anyone let alone a student drugs are bad, that would have completely the wrong effect. People and especially young people don't tent to like being told what to do, you can only offer advice. Nancy Regans "just say no" BS is a long time dead, much like Ronnie, god rest him.

That's good to hear. I wonder how the drug education is in the schools here in Thailand. Is it still the archaic "just say no" baseless propaganda? I'm thinking so, but would like to hear from those who know.

I doubt very much they have any such education, if you don't acknowledge a problem it doesn't exist in Thailand.

[osiboy]

Whilst you have poverty , low wages, greed ,poor education, corruption, peer pressure , high dept levels ,in a society such as Thailand you will always get the idiots trying to make the easy money, in real terms, they just cannot see the big picture, only tunnel vision , money money money, , the big picture is the Bangkok Hilton, this will determine where you will spend your free time if caught.

well , some valid points , whats the excuse in USA,UK,OZ,NZ Etc ? , maybe not so much meth but smack and dope big time

[osiboy]

Well most of the meth orginates from Burma and seems to be able to come over the border easily even though there are Thai military and police there who are suppose to stop it from coming over but somehow it still comes over I wonder why$$

i wonder why there are no sniffer dogs ?, easy solution ,maybe they are afraid of being eaten so far north !,.......the funniest experience for me as far as drugs are concerned was in Columbia, I was leaving there to fly to cuba with a mate and we were stopped & our luggage searched , after 5 mins of finding nothing they asked us to wait ,......a few seconds later a border guy appeared and started to sniff our bags , i laughed so much they got a bit shirty and told me '' no mass'' and to stop laughing , REALLY ! ...a sniffer boy .

[osiboy]

This article is saying that each pill cost about $10 US?? That seems unlikely.

I can't understand why this wretched class of drug (amphetamine family) is so widespread and apparently popular in Thailand. Thailand pot used to be among the world's best ("Thai stick") but the stuff mostly available here now is garbage, not worth the money or the extreme legal consequences.

Or so I've heard.

No offense , but that's nonsense Frank , i have seen it being bought here for 50b a tab , was a few years ago though , and thaistick in isaan can be bought for about 300b an ounce, rough cut , which looks a huge amount at first sight , this was about 8 yrs ago tho , but @ thai price is cheap as chips , i expect its x 2 that by now , but compared to the stuff thats being grown all over the UK ATM its nowhere near as strong , not that im using it anymore , gettin too old now , but having said that , it's still not as dangerous to your health as the booze ! but all is fine in moderation IMO