Thai editorial: Politicians STILL HIGH on damaging drug laws

[webfact]

EDITORIAL
Politicians STILL HIGH on damaging drug laws

REGARDLESS OF WHAT OUR SELF-SERVING LEADERS SAY, THE SO-CALLED WARS ON DRUGS HAVE BEEN A DISASTER

BANGKOK: -- Laws to deal with drugs offences drew international attention in recent weeks as rights groups, governments and family members called on President Joko Widodo to pardon a group of drug traffickers sentenced to death in Indonesia.

But at the centre of debate was not Indonesia's drug problem, as Joko claimed. Instead, much of the attention focused on Indonesia's domestic politics, where capital punishment has become a tool used by politicians to shore up their power.

Leaders in Thailand have tried the same trick. Thaksin Shinawatra, shortly after he came to power in 2001, sought to enhance his popularity by vowing that drug traffickers would be executed every month. But he quickly learned the cost of such brashness, facing a barrage of protest from the international community.

Citizens the world over - including the majority in Thailand and Indonesia - support these tough measures mainly because they believe that stiff penalties are necessary to deter drug traffickers.

In reality, however, study after study has shown that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent.

In Thailand the street value of methamphetamines (known as ya ba) has risen sharply in recent years, driven in part by politicians' eagerness to make their name via harsh crackdowns on the trade.

But as the price goes up, so does the rate of production. Ya ba - "crazy medicine" - can now be purchased just about anywhere, despite sharing the same legal category as heroin.

A recent seminar in Bangkok saw academics join civic organisations in calling for the current drug laws to be amended. Among the reasons they cited were the overcrowding in Thai prisons.

Associate Professor Sungsidh Piriya-rangsan, dean of Rangsit University's College of Social Innovation, said at the conference that more than 90 per cent of drug convicts

should not be in jail at all. He said they are in prison only because the law stipulates that even those caught with a small amount of drugs must be convicted of trafficking.

Thailand ranks highest in Southeast Asia and fourth in the world when it comes to the number of women jailed for drugs offences, he pointed out. In some cases, innocent women are arrested just because they happen to be accompanying their drug-dealing boyfriends when the police arrived.

"Some women have also agreed to confess to crimes they did not commit, for the sake of a loved one," Sungsidh said.

According to Thai law, possession of a mere 15 milligrams of methamphetamine represents "intent to sell". In other words, in the eyes of the law, there is no distinction between a user and a trafficker.

Politicians like to back such harsh drug laws to enhance their standing among voters and within their own parties. But in this case, self-serving political strategy must give way to a more critical and holistic attitude if we want effective measures to combat the damage done by the trade in narcotics.

In many countries, what was illegal yesterday is legal today. In the United States, the legalisation and taxation of marijuana has saved a number of counties and districts from bankruptcy.

At the Bangkok conference, former Office of the Narcotics Control Board deputy secretary-general Pittaya Jinawat pointed out that the herbal intoxicant kratom (Mitragyna speciosa) is in fact less dangerous to health than alcohol or cigarettes, "but it is legally recognised as an illicit drug".

Pittaya joined others in calling for an end to the so-called war on drugs, saying the extreme measures are not working. He added that the many of the convicted drug offenders in Thai prisons are actually victims of the trade, while the real kingpins remain untouched by the law.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Politicians-STILL-HIGH-on-damaging-drug-laws-30259568.html


-- The Nation 2015-05-08

[Dannyboy666]

Well at Least they are talking about the Faiure of the War on Drugs...

[EnzoRippo]

Clever view. But the article is so unusual that he's not signed. Maybe to write smart pieces like that is punishable.

[sscsamui]

I belive... That methamphetamines (known as ya ba) are a Very dangerous drug and should be dealt with Harshly and seriously. On the other hand small mount of Ganja are way to stiff and should be relaxed and should embrace the medical benefits. The more available and and with out the fear of arrest for small amounts of Ganja people would not be using methamphetamines (ya ba) as much and crime would Drop.

Just my thoughts

[trogers]

I belive... That methamphetamines (known as ya ba) are a Very dangerous drug and should be dealt with Harshly and seriously. On the other hand small mount of Ganja are way to stiff and should be relaxed and should embrace the medical benefits. The more available and and with out the fear of arrest for small amounts of Ganja people would not be using methamphetamines (ya ba) as much and crime would Drop.

Just my thoughts

Drug addiction only starts with hard drugs?

[bobbin]

Google "addiction" and you will have your answer...

And note the comment "what was illegal yesterday is legal today..."

As the world turns.

[trogers]

Google "addiction" and you will have your answer...

And note the comment "what was illegal yesterday is legal today..."

As the world turns.

I am waiting the argument for pro-drug to lead to making incest legal.

[Dannyboy666]

Google "addiction" and you will have your answer...

And note the comment "what was illegal yesterday is legal today..."

As the world turns.

I am waiting the argument for pro-drug to lead to making incest legal.

. Warning Knuclehead Alert. Cave Dweller Alert, Still caring your Club , I see Edited May 8, 2015 by Dannyboy666

[greenchair]

I belive... That methamphetamines (known as ya ba) are a Very dangerous drug and should be dealt with Harshly and seriously. On the other hand small mount of Ganja are way to stiff and should be relaxed and should embrace the medical benefits. The more available and and with out the fear of arrest for small amounts of Ganja people would not be using methamphetamines (ya ba) as much and crime would Drop.

Just my thoughts

Drug addiction only starts with hard drugs?

Drug addiction of any kind is merely a symptom, not a cause.

The cause of drug addiction started long before the person ever picked up the first drug. This is especially true in regards to hard drug users.

[does]

There is no solution to the drug problem. Trying to mitigate the damage is the only way.

Make drugs available on prescription at extremely low prices (to kill the illegal trade) and offer counseling to users. Some EU countries have used a similar approach. Drug users should be seen as patients, not as criminals.

Edited May 8, 2015 by does

[trogers]

I belive... That methamphetamines (known as ya ba) are a Very dangerous drug and should be dealt with Harshly and seriously. On the other hand small mount of Ganja are way to stiff and should be relaxed and should embrace the medical benefits. The more available and and with out the fear of arrest for small amounts of Ganja people would not be using methamphetamines (ya ba) as much and crime would Drop.

Just my thoughts

Drug addiction only starts with hard drugs?

Drug addiction of any kind is merely a symptom, not a cause.

The cause of drug addiction started long before the person ever picked up the first drug. This is especially true in regards to hard drug users.

Chicken and egg?

[rametindallas]

Since elements of the police and military are reaping huge fortunes off the illegal importation, transportation, distribution, and from protection rackets that feed off drug dealers, I don't see the law being relaxed. No law has ever stopped someone who wants drugs from taking drugs, though. The US has spent trillions of Dollars to eradicate illicit drugs from the culture and today they are cheaper, more pure/strong, and more available than before the effort began. The US locks up more persons, per capita, than any other modern country and spent more money than anyone else and yet, drugs are still here. Not all users are abusers and not all users are addicts, and criminalization leads to high prices leading to theft/muggings to supply habits and keep an army of extra police, lawyers, judges, courts, etc. employed in an un-winnable effort. the theft and burglary raise insurance rates and lead to criminal gangs which get into other criminal enterprises and so on. How much proof does a thinking person need to know that criminalizing drugs is more harmful to society the taking a tenth the money spent on enforcement and spending is on the few who have problem drug habits. I would make it free and hope the worst abusers took themselves out of the gene pool through overdose. I believe in Darwin's Natural Selection. It is cheaper to give all drug users free drugs because you would take the corruption incentive out of law enforcement, take the need to steal out of the need for drugs equation, take the income from the drug gangs, and with the money left over after firing half the police force, government lawyers, judges, closing down drug courts, more than half the prisons, etc. you could finance all your needed schools and hospitals. However, since drug prohibition is a huge industry, employing millions (at taxpayer's expense) it is unlikely to change.

Edited May 8, 2015 by rametindallas

[trogers]

Since elements of the police and military are reaping huge fortunes off the illegal importation, transportation, distribution, and from protection rackets that feed off drug dealers, I don't see the law being relaxed. No law has ever stopped someone who wants drugs from taking drugs, though. The US has spent trillions of Dollars to eradicate illicit drugs from the culture and today they are cheaper, more pure/strong, and more available than before the effort began. The US locks up more persons, per capita, than any other modern country and spent more money than anyone else and yet, drugs are still here. Not all users are abusers and not all users are addicts, and criminalization leads to high prices leading to theft/muggings to supply habits and keep an army of extra police, lawyers, judges, courts, etc. employed in an un-winnable effort. the theft and burglary raise insurance rates and lead to criminal gangs which get into other criminal enterprises and so on. How much proof does a thinking person need to know that criminalizing drugs is more harmful to society the taking a tenth the money spent on enforcement and spending is on the few who have problem drug habits. I would make it free and hope the worst abusers took themselves out of the gene pool through overdose. I believe in Darwin's Natural Selection. It is cheaper to give all drug users free drugs because you would take the corruption incentive out of law enforcement, take the need to steal out of the need for drugs equation, take the income from the drug gangs, and with the money left over after firing half the police force, government lawyers, judges, closing down drug courts, more than half the prisons, etc. you could finance all your needed schools and hospitals. However, since drug prohibition is a huge industry, employing millions (at taxpayer's expense) it is unlikely to change.

No law has stop murders if people want to murder either. So make it legal?

[rametindallas]

Since elements of the police and military are reaping huge fortunes off the illegal importation, transportation, distribution, and from protection rackets that feed off drug dealers, I don't see the law being relaxed. No law has ever stopped someone who wants drugs from taking drugs, though. The US has spent trillions of Dollars to eradicate illicit drugs from the culture and today they are cheaper, more pure/strong, and more available than before the effort began. The US locks up more persons, per capita, than any other modern country and spent more money than anyone else and yet, drugs are still here. Not all users are abusers and not all users are addicts, and criminalization leads to high prices leading to theft/muggings to supply habits and keep an army of extra police, lawyers, judges, courts, etc. employed in an un-winnable effort. the theft and burglary raise insurance rates and lead to criminal gangs which get into other criminal enterprises and so on. How much proof does a thinking person need to know that criminalizing drugs is more harmful to society the taking a tenth the money spent on enforcement and spending is on the few who have problem drug habits. I would make it free and hope the worst abusers took themselves out of the gene pool through overdose. I believe in Darwin's Natural Selection. It is cheaper to give all drug users free drugs because you would take the corruption incentive out of law enforcement, take the need to steal out of the need for drugs equation, take the income from the drug gangs, and with the money left over after firing half the police force, government lawyers, judges, closing down drug courts, more than half the prisons, etc. you could finance all your needed schools and hospitals. However, since drug prohibition is a huge industry, employing millions (at taxpayer's expense) it is unlikely to change.

No law has stop murders if people want to murder either. So make it legal?

Are you seriously equating someone getting high with murder? Really? Is that the best analogy you can offer?

Edited May 8, 2015 by rametindallas

[Dannyboy666]

Since elements of the police and military are reaping huge fortunes off the illegal importation, transportation, distribution, and from protection rackets that feed off drug dealers, I don't see the law being relaxed. No law has ever stopped someone who wants drugs from taking drugs, though. The US has spent trillions of Dollars to eradicate illicit drugs from the culture and today they are cheaper, more pure/strong, and more available than before the effort began. The US locks up more persons, per capita, than any other modern country and spent more money than anyone else and yet, drugs are still here. Not all users are abusers and not all users are addicts, and criminalization leads to high prices leading to theft/muggings to supply habits and keep an army of extra police, lawyers, judges, courts, etc. employed in an un-winnable effort. the theft and burglary raise insurance rates and lead to criminal gangs which get into other criminal enterprises and so on. How much proof does a thinking person need to know that criminalizing drugs is more harmful to society the taking a tenth the money spent on enforcement and spending is on the few who have problem drug habits. I would make it free and hope the worst abusers took themselves out of the gene pool through overdose. I believe in Darwin's Natural Selection. It is cheaper to give all drug users free drugs because you would take the corruption incentive out of law enforcement, take the need to steal out of the need for drugs equation, take the income from the drug gangs, and with the money left over after firing half the police force, government lawyers, judges, closing down drug courts, more than half the prisons, etc. you could finance all your needed schools and hospitals. However, since drug prohibition is a huge industry, employing millions (at taxpayer's expense) it is unlikely to change.

No law has stop murders if people want to murder either. So make it legal?

. My god...what can I say.

[FangFerang]

The War on Drugs is highly profitable for every government. The USA D.A.R.E. program has lobbyists, makes campaign contributions, and has shown itself to be totally ineffective.

Holland had the right idea -- they legalized everything. After an initial spike in usage, drug use went down to the lowest level ever.

Filling prisons with drug users is stupid, a tragic waste of lives, and a nazi-style control freak daydream....

[trogers]

Since elements of the police and military are reaping huge fortunes off the illegal importation, transportation, distribution, and from protection rackets that feed off drug dealers, I don't see the law being relaxed. No law has ever stopped someone who wants drugs from taking drugs, though. The US has spent trillions of Dollars to eradicate illicit drugs from the culture and today they are cheaper, more pure/strong, and more available than before the effort began. The US locks up more persons, per capita, than any other modern country and spent more money than anyone else and yet, drugs are still here. Not all users are abusers and not all users are addicts, and criminalization leads to high prices leading to theft/muggings to supply habits and keep an army of extra police, lawyers, judges, courts, etc. employed in an un-winnable effort. the theft and burglary raise insurance rates and lead to criminal gangs which get into other criminal enterprises and so on. How much proof does a thinking person need to know that criminalizing drugs is more harmful to society the taking a tenth the money spent on enforcement and spending is on the few who have problem drug habits. I would make it free and hope the worst abusers took themselves out of the gene pool through overdose. I believe in Darwin's Natural Selection. It is cheaper to give all drug users free drugs because you would take the corruption incentive out of law enforcement, take the need to steal out of the need for drugs equation, take the income from the drug gangs, and with the money left over after firing half the police force, government lawyers, judges, closing down drug courts, more than half the prisons, etc. you could finance all your needed schools and hospitals. However, since drug prohibition is a huge industry, employing millions (at taxpayer's expense) it is unlikely to change.

No law has stop murders if people want to murder either. So make it legal?

. My god...what can I say.

How are laws evolved? They are the reflection of the morals in a society. Can be as simple as to why society needs driving licences?

[rametindallas]

Since elements of the police and military are reaping huge fortunes off the illegal importation, transportation, distribution, and from protection rackets that feed off drug dealers, I don't see the law being relaxed. No law has ever stopped someone who wants drugs from taking drugs, though. The US has spent trillions of Dollars to eradicate illicit drugs from the culture and today they are cheaper, more pure/strong, and more available than before the effort began. The US locks up more persons, per capita, than any other modern country and spent more money than anyone else and yet, drugs are still here. Not all users are abusers and not all users are addicts, and criminalization leads to high prices leading to theft/muggings to supply habits and keep an army of extra police, lawyers, judges, courts, etc. employed in an un-winnable effort. the theft and burglary raise insurance rates and lead to criminal gangs which get into other criminal enterprises and so on. How much proof does a thinking person need to know that criminalizing drugs is more harmful to society the taking a tenth the money spent on enforcement and spending is on the few who have problem drug habits. I would make it free and hope the worst abusers took themselves out of the gene pool through overdose. I believe in Darwin's Natural Selection. It is cheaper to give all drug users free drugs because you would take the corruption incentive out of law enforcement, take the need to steal out of the need for drugs equation, take the income from the drug gangs, and with the money left over after firing half the police force, government lawyers, judges, closing down drug courts, more than half the prisons, etc. you could finance all your needed schools and hospitals. However, since drug prohibition is a huge industry, employing millions (at taxpayer's expense) it is unlikely to change.

No law has stop murders if people want to murder either. So make it legal?

. My god...what can I say.

How are laws evolved? They are the reflection of the morals in a society. Can be as simple as to why society needs driving licences?

Get your head out of the clouds. Laws are made by lawmakers who are influenced by campaign donations from interest groups; not the public's will. In California alone, the Prison Guard Union spends more than $8 million dollars a year lobbying politicians.

The Top Five Special Interest Groups Lobbying To Keep Marijuana Illegal http://www.republicreport.org/2012/marijuana-lobby-illegal/ No citizens groups are lobbying to keep up the prohibition; only groups that stand to lose: Police, Private Prison Corporations, Pharmaceutical Corporations, Alcohol and Beer Companies, and Prison Guard Unions.

[trogers]

Since elements of the police and military are reaping huge fortunes off the illegal importation, transportation, distribution, and from protection rackets that feed off drug dealers, I don't see the law being relaxed. No law has ever stopped someone who wants drugs from taking drugs, though. The US has spent trillions of Dollars to eradicate illicit drugs from the culture and today they are cheaper, more pure/strong, and more available than before the effort began. The US locks up more persons, per capita, than any other modern country and spent more money than anyone else and yet, drugs are still here. Not all users are abusers and not all users are addicts, and criminalization leads to high prices leading to theft/muggings to supply habits and keep an army of extra police, lawyers, judges, courts, etc. employed in an un-winnable effort. the theft and burglary raise insurance rates and lead to criminal gangs which get into other criminal enterprises and so on. How much proof does a thinking person need to know that criminalizing drugs is more harmful to society the taking a tenth the money spent on enforcement and spending is on the few who have problem drug habits. I would make it free and hope the worst abusers took themselves out of the gene pool through overdose. I believe in Darwin's Natural Selection. It is cheaper to give all drug users free drugs because you would take the corruption incentive out of law enforcement, take the need to steal out of the need for drugs equation, take the income from the drug gangs, and with the money left over after firing half the police force, government lawyers, judges, closing down drug courts, more than half the prisons, etc. you could finance all your needed schools and hospitals. However, since drug prohibition is a huge industry, employing millions (at taxpayer's expense) it is unlikely to change.

No law has stop murders if people want to murder either. So make it legal?

. My god...what can I say.

How are laws evolved? They are the reflection of the morals in a society. Can be as simple as to why society needs driving licences?

Get your head out of the clouds. Laws are made by lawmakers who are influenced by campaign donations from interest groups; not the public's will. In California alone, the Prison Guard Union spends more than $8 million dollars a year lobbying politicians.

The Top Five Special Interest Groups Lobbying To Keep Marijuana Illegal http://www.republicreport.org/2012/marijuana-lobby-illegal/ No citizens groups are lobbying to keep up the prohibition; only groups that stand to lose: Police, Private Prison Corporations, Pharmaceutical Corporations, Alcohol and Beer Companies, and Prison Guard Unions.

And the world came into existence in 2000. You don't like reading history?

[Chao Lao Beach]

Life is not fun when a Yaba crack head is annoying you. At least the cops don't take their crap eithier.

[trogers]

Since elements of the police and military are reaping huge fortunes off the illegal importation, transportation, distribution, and from protection rackets that feed off drug dealers, I don't see the law being relaxed. No law has ever stopped someone who wants drugs from taking drugs, though. The US has spent trillions of Dollars to eradicate illicit drugs from the culture and today they are cheaper, more pure/strong, and more available than before the effort began. The US locks up more persons, per capita, than any other modern country and spent more money than anyone else and yet, drugs are still here. Not all users are abusers and not all users are addicts, and criminalization leads to high prices leading to theft/muggings to supply habits and keep an army of extra police, lawyers, judges, courts, etc. employed in an un-winnable effort. the theft and burglary raise insurance rates and lead to criminal gangs which get into other criminal enterprises and so on. How much proof does a thinking person need to know that criminalizing drugs is more harmful to society the taking a tenth the money spent on enforcement and spending is on the few who have problem drug habits. I would make it free and hope the worst abusers took themselves out of the gene pool through overdose. I believe in Darwin's Natural Selection. It is cheaper to give all drug users free drugs because you would take the corruption incentive out of law enforcement, take the need to steal out of the need for drugs equation, take the income from the drug gangs, and with the money left over after firing half the police force, government lawyers, judges, closing down drug courts, more than half the prisons, etc. you could finance all your needed schools and hospitals. However, since drug prohibition is a huge industry, employing millions (at taxpayer's expense) it is unlikely to change.

No law has stop murders if people want to murder either. So make it legal?

. My god...what can I say.

How are laws evolved? They are the reflection of the morals in a society. Can be as simple as to why society needs driving licences?

Get your head out of the clouds. Laws are made by lawmakers who are influenced by campaign donations from interest groups; not the public's will. In California alone, the Prison Guard Union spends more than $8 million dollars a year lobbying politicians.

The Top Five Special Interest Groups Lobbying To Keep Marijuana Illegal http://www.republicreport.org/2012/marijuana-lobby-illegal/ No citizens groups are lobbying to keep up the prohibition; only groups that stand to lose: Police, Private Prison Corporations, Pharmaceutical Corporations, Alcohol and Beer Companies, and Prison Guard Unions.

And the world came into existence in 2000. You don't like reading history?

Look up the history on the Opium War. It is about big business trying to hook a society on drugs.

[Rykbanlor]

I think we are all aware of the Opium scourge of the 18th century and the British hands in it.

But Trogers, what we are all NOT aware of is exactly what you are clattering on about with your off the wall posts.

[Rykbanlor]

The one point where I disagree is that they are trying to state that Metha-amphetamine should not be as harshly classed as Heroin, but they are wrong there.

Weed yes, Kratom yes, but looking at the destruction left in the wake of Yaba or meth, they are really barking up the wrong tree by suggesting it should not be in the same class as Heroin (this I think i read in an earlier article).

It almost seemed like they were saying the ubiquitous presence of Yaba alone means it shouldn't be in the same class as Heroin or Cocaine. <deleted>?

[trogers]

I think we are all aware of the Opium scourge of the 18th century and the British hands in it.

But Trogers, what we are all NOT aware of is exactly what you are clattering on about with your off the wall posts.

I am saying "Don't open the Pandora Box!", trying to lessen the impact of weeds and such (lesser evils). Once addiction kicks in full scale, an avalanche follows.

Lottery distribution here is controlled by the big boys, and so would the distribution of drugs, if legalised.

And the big boys look at money in the till, and not the scourge to society. Hard drugs would definitely follow.

[Rykbanlor]

Everything else is controlled by the big boys anyway. Even now I am sure there are plenty of influnetial figures benefiting in some way.

[rametindallas]

Life is not fun when a Yaba crack head is annoying you. At least the cops don't take their crap eithier.

What is it they actually do that annoys you? I'm curious because, personally, I've never been able to tell is someone is using ya ba but I have been annoyed by many who have had too much alcohol to drink.

I once saw a Thai with eight mobile phones in the cheap seats at the Muay Thai stadium at Racchadamnoen Klang and he was talking on at least three or four at the same time and sweating profusely. I thought maybe he was on some kind of amphetamine but maybe he was nervous because he was gambling for high stakes and the A/C doesn't work that well in the cheap seats. In any case, he didn't annoy me.

BTW, I looked this up.

Signs of Yaba Use http://www.thecabinchiangmai.com/archive/signs_of_a_yaba_user__the_crazy_medicine#.VU138qkXSHs Apparently, unless you know them well, it is difficult to spot a ya ba user.

[rametindallas]

What are the best and worst countries to live in if you're a drug user?

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/13/worlds_best_drug_laws_salpart/