Samui: Indian pair face Thai drug smuggling charges

[Dr Strange]

Actually, most illegal drugs are significantly less harmful than alcohol.

Oh "actually" huh? Well, all I can say is, YOU're practically KILLIN' me! 5555555555555555555555555

He may be killing you, but he is correct.

[hawker9000]

Actually, most illegal drugs are significantly less harmful than alcohol.

Oh "actually" huh? Well, all I can say is, YOU're practically KILLIN' me! 5555555555555555555555555

He may be killing you, but he is correct.

Consider yourself included in the laugh-fest!

[hawker9000]

He may be killing you, but he is correct.

An excerpt from sarnia.com, Doctor:

"Nevertheless, a given dose of cocaine or crack is far more dangerous than a drink of alcohol. Alcohol has an addiction rate of 10 percent, whereas cocaine has an addiction rate as high as 75 percent.

And when cocaine is combined with marijuana, it can be deadly. According to a study in Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, an increase in heart rate due to cocaine was markedly enhanced if preceded by smoking marijuana. The dual use creates greater risk of overdose and more severe cardiovascular effects from the cocaine. An article in Schizophrenia Research found that up to 60 percent of schizophrenic patients used non-prescription psychoactive drugs.

By itself, marijuana is a dangerous drug as well. A joint of marijuana is far more carcinogenic than a cigarette. Microbiologist Tom Klein of the University of South Florida reports, "We've tried working with [marijuana smoke], and it's so toxic, you just get it near the immune system and it [the immune system] dies." Klein found that THC [tetrahydrocannabinol -- the active ingredient in marijuana] suppresses some immune system responses and enhances others.

A study in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology found that marijuana smoke is often contaminated by the fungus, Aspergillus. Another study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that cases of allergic sinus infection with the same fungus came from recreational use of contaminated marijuana.

A study in Drug and Alcohol Dependence found that cannabis [marijuana] users react very slowly in performing motor tasks and suffer disability in personal, social and vocational areas. They also indicate a higher score for neurotic and psychotic behavior.

A study in American Review of Respiratory Diseases found that marijuana smoke is as irritating as tobacco smoke; when used together, marijuana and tobacco cause the small oxygen-exchanging parts of the lung to shed cells that first become inflamed.

A 1995 study in The New England Journal of Medicine suggests that illicit drugs such as marijuana and cocaine can interfere with male sperm production. A study in Cancer found that the children of women who smoke marijuana are 11 times more likely to contract leukemia.

Mothers who smoke marijuana also contribute to low birth weight and developmental problems for their children and increase the risk of abnormalities similar to those caused by fetal alcohol syndrome by as much as 500 percent.

Kasi Sridhar, a professor at the University of Miami's Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Research Center, reports finding large numbers of marijuana smokers among younger cancer patients. While only 17 percent of the patients in his study were marijuana smokers, two-thirds of the patients younger than 45 smoked cannabis.

Since the 1970s there have been more than 10,500 scientific studies which demonstrate the adverse consequences of marijuana use. Many of these studies draw upon data collected when most of the marijuana available in the U.S. was far less potent than that available today. Indeed, drug czar Lee Brown says that marijuana on the streets today is up to 10 times more potent than a generation ago. This fact contributes to its addictive nature."

So "Strange", eh?

And all the above just deals with Legalization Myth 1 ("Illicit Drugs No Worse than Alcohol or Tobacco") of 8!!

Edited August 12, 2013 by hawker9000

[Dr Strange]

Yes, yes, you must be right. You can use google. I will just discount totally the fact that I have been working in the drug and alcohol field since 1988, the university degrees, the numerous training courses, conferences and professional meetings I have attended. Not to mention the hundreds of clients i have worked with on the front line. You're right. We're all wrong.

Oh wait...

We're not. You are. Here's a link to The Economist (the least liberal and most conservative link I could think of) which covers drug harms. One small quote; 'Alcohol is the most harmful drug in Britain, scoring 72 out of a possible 100, far more damaging than heroin (55) or crack cocaine (54).'

It's okay. No need to apologise. I know you wont anyway as there is probably the same level of stubbornness as there is lack of knowledge/understanding.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm

Edited August 12, 2013 by Dr Strange

[hawker9000]

Oh yes, the "I'm an expert -- I live in an ivory tower -- I know it all -- You're an xxxxxxxxxxxx if you don't accept MY data -- YOUR data is hopelessly skewed" approach. (IOW - The academic version of "mine is bigger than yours"; you know, for the intellectual wannabes.) This is where abusive and totally unresponsive bureaucracies come from. Self-styled "experts". You should've read the commentary that was included in the link you provided - or didn't you read past the part you "liked"? The critical weaknesses; It's all there. Hardly the rock solid, unassailable case you make it out to be. Misinformation is the heart of the case for drug legalization, and here's yet another perfect example. "Multi-criteria decision analysis". LOL Yes, very scientific. Not a study; just an arbitrary weighting by "selected experts" - much like yourself I imagine.

Save it for the Judge (and be glad it's not me).

"It's okay. No need to apologise. I know you wont anyway as there is probably the same level of stubbornness as there is lack of knowledge/understanding. " Please - go away & come back when you finish the 9th grade.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Rooo
Flame

[Rooo]

Let's keep it civil please.

[Dr Strange]

Oh yes, the "I'm an expert -- I live in an ivory tower -- I know it all -- You're an xxxxxxxxxxxx if you don't accept MY data -- YOUR data is hopelessly skewed" approach. (IOW - The academic version of "mine is bigger than yours"; you know, for the intellectual wannabes.) This is where abusive and totally unresponsive bureaucracies come from. Self-styled "experts". You should've read the commentary that was included in the link you provided - or didn't you read past the part you "liked"? The critical weaknesses; It's all there. Hardly the rock solid, unassailable case you make it out to be. Misinformation is the heart of the case for drug legalization, and here's yet another perfect example. "Multi-criteria decision analysis". LOL Yes, very scientific. Not a study; just an arbitrary weighting by "selected experts" - much like yourself I imagine.

Save it for the Judge (and be glad it's not me).

"It's okay. No need to apologise. I know you wont anyway as there is probably the same level of stubbornness as there is lack of knowledge/understanding. " Please - go away & come back when you finish the 9th grade.

No one is saying any of these substances are harmless. Far from it. The term here is 'relative harm'. (look it up). But you were stating as fact/opinion that alcohol is not as harmful as most illegal substances which is wrong, blinkered and basically stupid. I've read both sides. I've actually read these papers that you pluck from google (gold star for being able to do that by the way). I've seen the misery alcohol causes, methamphetamine causes, heroin causes etc etc. But for the world to continue with your preferred 'head in sand' approach to the realities of drug harms, and, more importantly, to ignore how those harms (both to users and to those around them, and to society) could be drastically reduced by regulation coupled with harm reduction and honest education is, to be honest, intrinsically retarded.

Yes, I am an expert in this field. No, I don't live in an ivory tower. I do not support across the board legalisation. What I advocate is REGULATION of SOME substances. The regulation/decriminalisation policy has been proven to work (evidence based practice?) in countries that have tried it. The policy of prescribing heroin to long term chronic users has been proven to work, Moving drug addiction to health rather than criminal spheres has been proven to work.

Whether you like it or not, and I know it's 'not', the world is changing its perspective on drugs and the 'war on drugs'. And again whether you like it or not; if you use alcohol, then not only are you a total hypocrite to criticise other drug uses, but you ARE using one of the most harmful substances out there. Now see instead of quoting non scientific websites (sarnia?? I mean, come on) and the odd scientific paper (the majority of 'anti' cannabis papers were published pre 1985 by the way), perhaps read both sides of the argument and think before committing thoughts to a forum on this subject.

Have a lovely night.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Dr Strange

[samuijimmy]

Me thinks it's time to close this topic!

[pokerspiv]

Oh yes, the "I'm an expert -- I live in an ivory tower -- I know it all -- You're an xxxxxxxxxxxx if you don't accept MY data -- YOUR data is hopelessly skewed" approach.

His link comes from The Economist, one of the world's best known and most respected newspapers. Your quote (unlinked, obviously) come from an unknown source found on what appears to be the web portal of a small local government municipality in California.

Also, you swear a lot. I bet people take your political opinions roooly roooly serious like.

[longtom]

Oh yes, the "I'm an expert -- I live in an ivory tower -- I know it all -- You're an xxxxxxxxxxxx if you don't accept MY data -- YOUR data is hopelessly skewed" approach. (IOW - The academic version of "mine is bigger than yours"; you know, for the intellectual wannabes.) This is where abusive and totally unresponsive bureaucracies come from. Self-styled "experts". You should've read the commentary that was included in the link you provided - or didn't you read past the part you "liked"? The critical weaknesses; It's all there. Hardly the rock solid, unassailable case you make it out to be. Misinformation is the heart of the case for drug legalization, and here's yet another perfect example. "Multi-criteria decision analysis". LOL Yes, very scientific. Not a study; just an arbitrary weighting by "selected experts" - much like yourself I imagine.

Save it for the Judge (and be glad it's not me).

"It's okay. No need to apologise. I know you wont anyway as there is probably the same level of stubbornness as there is lack of knowledge/understanding. " Please - go away & come back when you finish the 9th grade.

You wouldn't by chance have a scientific study about how many people died in e.g. Thailand from alcohol abuse (inlcluding all drunk murderers) and (non-ganja) smokers compared to the same under influence of marijuana?

Knowing there is no such study, I would guesstimate a ratio of about 100'000 to 1, and I'm being conservative here.

Any major objections?

[Tropicalevo]

Yes, yes, you must be right. You can use google. I will just discount totally the fact that I have been working in the drug and alcohol field since 1988, the university degrees, the numerous training courses, conferences and professional meetings I have attended. Not to mention the hundreds of clients i have worked with on the front line. You're right. We're all wrong.

Oh wait...

We're not. You are. Here's a link to The Economist (the least liberal and most conservative link I could think of) which covers drug harms. One small quote; 'Alcohol is the most harmful drug in Britain, scoring 72 out of a possible 100, far more damaging than heroin (55) or crack cocaine (54).'

It's okay. No need to apologise. I know you wont anyway as there is probably the same level of stubbornness as there is lack of knowledge/understanding.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm

Dr S - your Economist article quotes "16 measures of harm to the user and to wider society, such as damage to health, drug dependency, economic costs and crime."

Yes - statistically, alcohol is more dangerous to society - look at the number of users. Millions more drink alcohol than take illegal drugs! Alcohol will win every time. Statistically that is.

The article also quotes that alcohol is only " ranked fourth behind heroin, crack, and methamphetamine (crystal meth) for harm to the individual".

So please, stop comparing apples and fish!

Drinking booze is legal. Period.

Taking drugs kills you and is illegal.

Statiscally, drinking booze is safer than taking drugs. My personal fact finding mission tells me that I have been drinking alcohol for almost 50 years. I am still alive. Maybe because I have never taken illegal substances.

Get over it oh wise and learned person of education. You too are misquoting.

[Tropicalevo]

Oh yes, the "I'm an expert -- I live in an ivory tower -- I know it all -- You're an xxxxxxxxxxxx if you don't accept MY data -- YOUR data is hopelessly skewed" approach. (IOW - The academic version of "mine is bigger than yours"; you know, for the intellectual wannabes.) This is where abusive and totally unresponsive bureaucracies come from. Self-styled "experts". You should've read the commentary that was included in the link you provided - or didn't you read past the part you "liked"? The critical weaknesses; It's all there. Hardly the rock solid, unassailable case you make it out to be. Misinformation is the heart of the case for drug legalization, and here's yet another perfect example. "Multi-criteria decision analysis". LOL Yes, very scientific. Not a study; just an arbitrary weighting by "selected experts" - much like yourself I imagine.

Save it for the Judge (and be glad it's not me).

"It's okay. No need to apologise. I know you wont anyway as there is probably the same level of stubbornness as there is lack of knowledge/understanding. " Please - go away & come back when you finish the 9th grade.

You wouldn't by chance have a scientific study about how many people died in e.g. Thailand from alcohol abuse (inlcluding all drunk murderers) and (non-ganja) smokers compared to the same under influence of marijuana?

Knowing there is no such study, I would guesstimate a ratio of about 100'000 to 1, and I'm being conservative here.

Any major objections?

They were not smuggling marijuana.

Sorry - wrong thread

[Dr Strange]

Yes, yes, you must be right. You can use google. I will just discount totally the fact that I have been working in the drug and alcohol field since 1988, the university degrees, the numerous training courses, conferences and professional meetings I have attended. Not to mention the hundreds of clients i have worked with on the front line. You're right. We're all wrong.

Oh wait...

We're not. You are. Here's a link to The Economist (the least liberal and most conservative link I could think of) which covers drug harms. One small quote; 'Alcohol is the most harmful drug in Britain, scoring 72 out of a possible 100, far more damaging than heroin (55) or crack cocaine (54).'

It's okay. No need to apologise. I know you wont anyway as there is probably the same level of stubbornness as there is lack of knowledge/understanding.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm

Dr S - your Economist article quotes "16 measures of harm to the user and to wider society, such as damage to health, drug dependency, economic costs and crime."

Yes - statistically, alcohol is more dangerous to society - look at the number of users. Millions more drink alcohol than take illegal drugs! Alcohol will win every time. Statistically that is.

The article also quotes that alcohol is only " ranked fourth behind heroin, crack, and methamphetamine (crystal meth) for harm to the individual".

So please, stop comparing apples and fish!

Drinking booze is legal. Period.

Taking drugs kills you and is illegal.

Statiscally, drinking booze is safer than taking drugs. My personal fact finding mission tells me that I have been drinking alcohol for almost 50 years. I am still alive. Maybe because I have never taken illegal substances.

Get over it oh wise and learned person of education. You too are misquoting.

At no point did I say alcohol was more dangerous than all drugs, so show me where I misquoted. And go look at crime figures; more violent crimes and murders are committed under influence of alcohol than all other substances put together. I also used the term relative harms more than once. You CANNOT look at the effects of drugs (which includes alcohol and prescribed drugs, both legal, or in fact nicotine) without looking at all factors. Harm to self, harm to others, costs through crime (both in property loss and increased premiums), lost work days (that would be a definite alcohol win), cost to health services (alcohol/nicotine) , prison costs (be a closer one), police time, court time etc etc. If you want to look at the small picture then fine. But it's the bigger picture that counts.

Oh, and I did not really start learning till I left university. You learn more working in slums/ghettoes with real drug users and real alcoholics than in a hundred lectures or indeed, as with our earlier friend, from pressing search on google.

It's NOT comparing apples and fish. It's discussing drugs, legal and illegal. Alcohol is a drug. Nicotine is a drug. Heroin is a drug. So comparisons are not only fair, they're necessary.

And by saying "The article also quotes that alcohol is only " ranked fourth behind heroin, crack, and methamphetamine (crystal meth) for harm to the individual". you are actually helping my case. I said (several times) that I do not support regulation of all substances, and those three there are ones I would not be advocating for (other than prescribed heroin for long term addicts, where EVERY OTHER method of counselling/substitute medication/detox has failed. It is the system used by Switzerland and has been proven very, very effective.

So, surely the fact that so many things like MDAMA, cannabis and LSD are ranked as LESS harmful than alcohol means that we should have the choice whether to use them? Why not have them for sale in an off licence, with the same health warnings we give for alcohol and tobacco?

[Tropicalevo]

"And by saying "The article also quotes that alcohol is only " ranked fourth behind heroin, crack, and methamphetamine (crystal meth) for harm to the individual". you are actually helping my case. I said (several times) that I do not support regulation of all substances, and those three there are ones I would not be advocating for (other than prescribed heroin for long term addicts, where EVERY OTHER method of counselling/substitute medication/detox has failed. It is the system used by Switzerland and has been proven very, very effective.

So, surely the fact that so many things like MDAMA, cannabis and LSD are ranked as LESS harmful than alcohol means that we should have the choice whether to use them? Why not have them for sale in an off licence, with the same health warnings we give for alcohol and tobacco?"

"

So - the two Indians were smuggling methamphetamine (crystal meth) . "More dangerous than alcohol to the individual" according to your article.

Apples and fish.

I do ask myself, why do so many people use the stale argument about drugs v alcohol as an excuse to legalise drugs? To use your statistics, surely you should argue to ban alcohol. Or - do you like a drink now and again and you would like to legalise other options? This does not appear to be a logical discussion.

Of course, you do not mention that people who try illegal drugs such as "MDAMA, cannabis and LSD" ever upgrade to other more dangerous drugs. In the small circle of people that I know, all who have tried your 'lesser' drugs, have also tried some of the others. Most were lucky enough to 'pull back' before it became an issue. Some did not.

People who drink alcohol tend to stay there.

Again - back to the plot. Importing drugs into Thailand is illegal.

You can pontificate all you like, and you can quote all of your acedmic achievements (which I do admire) but importing (small amounts) of alcohol is not illegal.

The Indian guys should go to jail for a long time (unless they change the law). End of story. Crystal meth really fuxs up peoples heads and is totally illegal.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Tropicalevo

[Dr Strange]

"And by saying "The article also quotes that alcohol is only " ranked fourth behind heroin, crack, and methamphetamine (crystal meth) for harm to the individual". you are actually helping my case. I said (several times) that I do not support regulation of all substances, and those three there are ones I would not be advocating for (other than prescribed heroin for long term addicts, where EVERY OTHER method of counselling/substitute medication/detox has failed. It is the system used by Switzerland and has been proven very, very effective.

So, surely the fact that so many things like MDAMA, cannabis and LSD are ranked as LESS harmful than alcohol means that we should have the choice whether to use them? Why not have them for sale in an off licence, with the same health warnings we give for alcohol and tobacco?"

"

So - the two Indians were smuggling methamphetamine (crystal meth) . "More dangerous than alcohol to the individual" according to your article.

Apples and fish.

I do ask myself, why do so many people use the stale argument about drugs v alcohol as an excuse to legalise drugs? To use your statistics, surely you should argue to ban alcohol. Or - do you like a drink now and again and you would like to legalise other options? This does not appear to be a logical discussion.

Of course, you do not mention that people who try illegal drugs such as "MDAMA, cannabis and LSD" ever upgrade to other more dangerous drugs. In the small circle of people that I know, all who have tried your 'lesser' drugs, have also tried some of the others. Most were lucky enough to 'pull back' before it became an issue. Some did not.

People who drink alcohol tend to stay there.

Again - back to the plot. Importing drugs into Thailand is illegal.

You can pontificate all you like, and you can quote all of your acedmic achievements (which I do admire) but importing (small amounts) of alcohol is not illegal.

The Indian guys should go to jail for a long time (unless they change the law). End of story. Crystal meth really fuxs up peoples heads and is totally illegal.

Oh I agree with you totally that they should be jailed, though I would much rather see the kingpins caught than the mug couriers at the bottom of the ladder.

You seem to be focussing far more on my so called 'academic achievements' than I am. I mentioned University twice. Once when setting out my background (and thus competency to speak on this) and once to say I learned far more on the streets and in prisons than I did at Uni.

But couple of minor points before I head to bed.

a) The 'gateway' theory has long been shown to be more about illegality and thus the source of substances rather than the substances themselves. And on the other side of the coin, it is more widely accepted now that alcohol is the biggest 'gateway drug'. People will always go and try something else, whether a stronger alcohol or a stronger drug. Why education and harm reduction across the board are so important

Marijuana's legal status has nothing to do with effects or dangers or harms and more to do with the fact that hemp could have destroyed the fortunes of many industrialists with friends in congress.

c) Imo, methampehtamine is a worse drug than heroin. Plus amphetamine addictions are the most difficult to treat and the most psychologically damaging, so, no matter what else happens re regulation (and that tide IS a changing), I'd want to see meth and amphetamine kept illegal and (hopefully) eradicated (something that could be possible with freed revenues and resources)

Oh, and yes, I love a drink now and again. Doesn't mean I am not able to recognise that is is the 4th most dangerous drug to the individual and the most dangerous overall.

[pokerspiv]

Statiscally, drinking booze is safer than taking drugs. My personal fact finding mission tells me that I have been drinking alcohol for almost 50 years. I am still alive. Maybe because I have never taken illegal substances.

Get over it oh wise and learned person of education. You too are misquoting.

Drinking booze is safer for you, but much more dangerous for the people in your immediate vicinity. People don't get aggressive and bash others, or drive like maniacs and kill people after a joint or a dose of heroin.

In that respect, alcohol is by far the most harmful recreational drug known to man.

As for methamphetamine - nobody would ever take it if drugs were legal. It's a substitute good for Cocaine (which is harder to produce and find because it has to be grown in a certain climate, therefore making it too expensive for the average consumer). Kind of like eating polony/bologna because you can't afford real ham.

Drinking booze is legal. Period.

Taking drugs kills you and is illegal.

Taking drugs doesn't "kill you" any more than booze does. The difference here is that booze is legal and regulated, which means there are far fewer cases of overdose and adulteration with booze. During the alcohol prohibition era, deaths from dodgy booze were common. They are still common in places like Bali where high taxes on booze leads to illegal stills producing methanol which kills tourist. 5 Australians died last year in Bali from drinking dodgy booze.

Also, the fact that something is illegal doesn't mean that it's wrong.

Being gay was illegal in most countries up until 40 years ago.

Sometimes laws are just wrong. And this is one of those times.

Edited August 13, 2013 by pokerspiv

[limbos]

Not only in Bali and Indonesia in general are there problems with 'moonshine' What about the unexplained deaths of some people on Pee Pee recently. Two sister a.o. come to mind and this suspicion has been mentioned a few times.