Thai Justice Minister Paiboon: No legalization of narcotic drugs

[hyperdimension]

there should be zero tolerance to drugs.

Please update your knowledge about drugs so that we can have some informed discussion or debate. Here are some good reports and resources to start with:

Taking a New Line on Drugs by The U.K.'s Royal Society for Public Health

Taking Control: Pathways to Drug Policies That Work by The Global Commission on Drug Policy

Safety First: A Reality-Based Approach to Teens and Drugs by Drug Policy Alliance

Open Democracy

Edited June 24, 2016 by hyperdimension

[hyperdimension]

junkies

What is your definition of a "junkie"?

[Matt96]

there should be zero tolerance to drugs.

Please update your knowledge about drugs so that we can have some informed discussion or debate. Here are some good reports and resources to start with:

Taking a New Line on Drugs by The U.K.'s Royal Society for Public Health

Taking Control: Pathways to Drug Policies That Work by The Global Commission on Drug Policy

Safety First: A Reality-Based Approach to Teens and Drugs by Drug Policy Alliance

Open Democracy

dear sir! these are not scientific sources of information, just a pro-leftist propaganda. in UK or US you can take whatever "new line" you wish. but it absolutely does not mean that the whole world should follow you. in your White Man arrogance you truly believe that other countries just waiting for you to tell them how they should live and what approach to use to solve there problems.

what an impudence...

Asian countries has their own approach. and this approach leaded Singapore, for example, to the best in the whole World solution of a drug problem.

I mean what an arrogance a person should have to make an internet site in English, telling stories about leftist "activists" from european left-liberal point of view and call it "free thinking of the world"!

don't try to impose your leftist values to the whole world. other nations have their won values. they don't need yours.

why do leftists like to call themselves " global" " international" "world's" without asking world's opinion?

[Matt96]

junkies

What is your definition of a "junkie"?

A person hopelessly addicted to a controlled substance

A person who is consumed by an addiction. Aspects of their life suffer as he/she satisfies the addiction.

[2fishin2]

This is what "legal" drugs are capable of in the hands of abusers. Hyper quit trolling your illegal drug opinion. You are doing nothing but trolling.

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/misuse-of-prescription-opioids-has-more-than-doubled-in-the-us-in-the-past-decade/

[hyperdimension]

Here are more Thai news articles over the past week that offer further information on this significant paradigm shift of drug policy in Thailand:

People must help fight drug problem: Paiboon

Thailand to look at decriminalising ‘meth’ based on UN opinion

Let’s kick the ‘war on drugs’ habit

Meeting mulls decriminalising meth

There are also some good opinion articles in The Bangkok Post, such as those titled:

Talking about sex, meth and other 'taboos'

National drug policy: Time for a rethink

Time we shook off meth's criminal stigma

Yes to drug policy mend

The reactions to all of these have been quite mixed, but most informed opinion is in support of the Justice Minister's views. It appears that those who are against are simply expressing a knee-jerk reaction because after decades of a zero-tolerance "drugs are evil" approach and never any discussion or publicly-expressed opinions about alternative softer approaches, this public announcement of a radically different approach is so sudden and shocking to the general public. That's what happens when you indoctrinate the masses with scare-mongering propaganda for 20 years. The ones who are most shocked are those who haven't been paying attention to the drug policy shifts in other countries in recent years. It's going to take some time for the masses to realize that many illegal drugs actually aren't as bad as has been strongly portrayed over the last 20-or-so years. But at least this time science and statistics can back up the statements. Even the prime minister has not quickly shot the ideas down. The Justice Minister has even suggested Thai society to voice their ideas and opinions.

Just to correct some technical details, I've found that many articles wrongly state the date of the UNGASS 2016 event. The news article of this thread says it was last year, another says it was last week. It was actually held 2 months ago from 19 to 21 April 2016. Also, special sessions are not necessarily held annually as was mentioned in one of the articles (otherwise such events wouldn't be called "special sessions"). The last special session on drugs was in 1998. At the time of UNGASS 2016 I wondered why there was such a media blackout of such an important event, one that had the potential to transform drug policy worldwide. Maybe the media were too scared to present alternative views. Now after the Justice Minister's public statements, the support from them in the form of opinion articles is finally coming out.

Edited June 24, 2016 by hyperdimension

[dhream]

there should be zero tolerance to drugs.

Please update your knowledge about drugs so that we can have some informed discussion or debate. Here are some good reports and resources to start with:

Taking a New Line on Drugs by The U.K.'s Royal Society for Public Health

Taking Control: Pathways to Drug Policies That Work by The Global Commission on Drug Policy

Safety First: A Reality-Based Approach to Teens and Drugs by Drug Policy Alliance

Open Democracy

dear sir! these are not scientific sources of information, just a pro-leftist propaganda. in UK or US you can take whatever "new line" you wish. but it absolutely does not mean that the whole world should follow you. in your White Man arrogance you truly believe that other countries just waiting for you to tell them how they should live and what approach to use to solve there problems.

what an impudence...

Asian countries has their own approach. and this approach leaded Singapore, for example, to the best in the whole World solution of a drug problem.

I mean what an arrogance a person should have to make an internet site in English, telling stories about leftist "activists" from european left-liberal point of view and call it "free thinking of the world"!

don't try to impose your leftist values to the whole world. other nations have their won values. they don't need yours.

why do leftists like to call themselves " global" " international" "world's" without asking world's opinion?

Singapore is a sealed city state. It's the modern day equivalent of a fortress city. It's easy to police in that regard. BUT they still have a problem.

You seem to posit there are no drugs in Singapore.

A high flying lawyer and his Singaporean wife once laughingly told me they can get anything they want with a phone call.

Sorry to burst your fantasy bubble.

You're attacking pro legal ideas as a political and racist issue. Because your prohibition argument has run out of steam.

We pro legalize people say: quit the moral panic and follow Portugal. Portugal not Singapore. Has the world's best response to drug problems.

But you keep hanging! I hope your children never fall into drugs under such a regime. They're dead either way. How smart is that?

Edited June 24, 2016 by dhream

[dhream]

It is a shame that Singapore is still stubbornly following the outdated scare-mongering propaganda approach, and they've been doubling down in their efforts.

thereby this approach Singapore has less heroine users per thousand than any other country in the world (about 200 people for 5million population. even Saudi Arabia has more) it's absolutely worth executing of a few drug pushers.

there should be zero tolerance to drugs. and if some farang junkies are not OK with that - why don't they go back to their wonderful homelands to indulge there passion for drugs?

no one needs junkies neither in Thailand nor in Singapore. accept it or leave it.

The 'junkies' which include millions of functional drug takers in your Asian utopia, are overwhelmingly your own people. As are your dealers.

You're displaying a lot of anger and bigotry. Why? Have a desire to be the next dictator on the world stage?

Drug war is a global failure. If you can't see that then you're doomed to deal with a wave of unintended consequences. The most obvious being meth. You simply can't hang and jail your way out of this problem. No more than your racist rants advance your weak argument.

[2fishin2]

Tell ya what Im done arguing with people who say doing drugs "was fun". What a complete waste of time. This thread is not about people pushing their own personal opinions about legalizing drugs....read the title boys.

[Jai Dee]

Off-topic and flame posts have been removed from this thread.

[hyperdimension]

Im done arguing with people who say doing drugs "was fun".

Have you ever enjoyed consuming ethanol ("alcohol"), e.g. having a beer with friends? Or are you one of the few who say "no" to any form of ethanol, even in social situations in which everyone else chooses to consume the drug?

This thread is not about people pushing their own personal opinions about legalizing drugs....read the title boys.

The content is about the Justice Minister's plan to take a step into decriminalization of methamphetamine. So our comments in this thread about what we think of that are very relevant.

[dhream]

junkies

What is your definition of a "junkie"?

A person hopelessly addicted to a controlled substance

A person who is consumed by an addiction. Aspects of their life suffer as he/she satisfies the addiction.

Beer is controlled.

Alcoholics are treated.

Drugs are not controlled in any sense other than 'legally'. They're out of control. And prohibition creates massive societal dysfunction and wasted resources. And it's based on hysteria and myth.

Drug addicts are criminalised.

Alcohol is a drug. A very dangerous addictive drug. Road carnage. Beaten up families. Brawling youths.

Yet football heroes sponsor it.

Why?

Drugs are drugs. Ban them all. (Impossible dream) Or find a manageable 'beer' solution everyone can work with.

Edited June 24, 2016 by dhream

[Jai Dee]

More flames and baiting posts have been removed.

Any further baiting and bickering will result in posting suspensions.

Be warned.

[dhream]

Tell ya what Im done arguing with people who say doing drugs "was fun". What a complete waste of time. This thread is not about people pushing their own personal opinions about legalizing drugs....read the title boys.

The fact is that millions do get 'fun' from drugs. Including the drug called alcohol.

What I personally experienced has a direct bearing on the argument. Because it demonstrates that not every user is a menace or even a burden to society. Like millions. I grew out of my youthful hi jinx.

It does get tedious to be vilified and belittled when one has valuable insight to add to bring this problem into perspective.

We all agree it's a problem.

The prohibition experiment has not withstood the 45 year test of time.

It is time for a new approach.

Arguing othrwise is costing lives and treasure. We have proof of concept in Portugal. Why is it being ignored?

I'm done here. Thanks for the debate.

[Matt96]

It is a shame that Singapore is still stubbornly following the outdated scare-mongering propaganda approach, and they've been doubling down in their efforts.

thereby this approach Singapore has less heroine users per thousand than any other country in the world (about 200 people for 5million population. even Saudi Arabia has more) it's absolutely worth executing of a few drug pushers.

there should be zero tolerance to drugs. and if some farang junkies are not OK with that - why don't they go back to their wonderful homelands to indulge there passion for drugs?

no one needs junkies neither in Thailand nor in Singapore. accept it or leave it.

The 'junkies' which include millions of functional drug takers in your Asian utopia, are overwhelmingly your own people. As are your dealers.

You're displaying a lot of anger and bigotry. Why? Have a desire to be the next dictator on the world stage?

Drug war is a global failure. If you can't see that then you're doomed to deal with a wave of unintended consequences. The most obvious being meth. You simply can't hang and jail your way out of this problem. No more than your racist rants advance your weak argument.

"The 'junkies' which include millions of functional drug takers in your Asian utopia, are overwhelmingly your own people. As are your dealers." they are more animals then humans. like rats in that famous biological experiment when they pushed a button connected with their pleasure center in brain until die

and if junkies just chose to die - no problem. but they try to push new people in their narcotic chasm. that's why they must be eliminated form a society.

[Matt96]

Im done arguing with people who say doing drugs "was fun".

Have you ever enjoyed consuming ethanol ("alcohol"), e.g. having a beer with friends? Or are you one of the few who say "no" to any form of ethanol, even in social situations in which everyone else chooses to consume the drug?

this question is not for me but I want to answer. I never drink alcohol, don't smoke, dont drink coffee, tea or any other mind-altering substances. because Lord Buddha taught us so.

[hyperdimension]

they are more animals then humans.

Humans are all animals. You might be in denial of such a scientific fact though.

but they try to push new people in their narcotic chasm. that's why they must be eliminated form a society.

Where is the evidence that "they try to push new people in their narcotic chasm"? Which drug culture are you talking about? Are you aware that different drugs have different cultures? e.g. Electronic dance music culture with their MDMA consumption is very different from the cannabis culture.

[hyperdimension]

Im done arguing with people who say doing drugs "was fun".

Have you ever enjoyed consuming ethanol ("alcohol"), e.g. having a beer with friends? Or are you one of the few who say "no" to any form of ethanol, even in social situations in which everyone else chooses to consume the drug?

this question is not for me but I want to answer. I never drink alcohol, don't smoke, dont drink coffee, tea or any other mind-altering substances. because Lord Buddha taught us so.

OK so you are a puritan and feel that it is wrong to consume mind-altering substances for pleasure.

Do you wish that everyone else would be as puritanical as you are? Would you want all mind-altering substances, including coffee, to be made illegal?

[Matt96]

OK so you are a puritan and feel that it is wrong to consume mind-altering substances for pleasure.

Do you wish that everyone else would be as puritanical as you are? Would you want all mind-altering substances, including coffee, to be made illegal?

absolutely yes. I wish all mind-altering substances are prohibited. And I will fight for this same as you fight for "legalize".

because humans are humans because they fight for what they feel is right.

but I don't go to your country to change it's policy. do you understand the difference?

[hyperdimension]

"Humans are all animals. You might be in denial of such a scientific fact though." humans have intelligence. they can choose what is good for them instead of what gives pleasure.

Non-human animals have intelligence too, and they can choose what is good for them too. How do you think animals in the wild have survived for millions of years up to this day?

Actually, pleasure seeking activity is linked with survival of species. Just one example is sexual activity. Another is taste of food.

"Which drug culture are you talking about"

1)junkies run out of money very quickly. to bu drugs they start to sell it. to sell - they need more users

2) if more of their friends are taking the drug they feel less miserable. that's why they try to hook all people they know

Are you aware that not all consumers of illegal drugs are "junkies"?

[Matt96]

"Humans are all animals. You might be in denial of such a scientific fact though." humans have intelligence. they can choose what is good for them instead of what gives pleasure.

Non-human animals have intelligence too, and they can choose what is good for them too. How do you think animals in the wild have survived for millions of years up to this day?

Actually, pleasure seeking activity is linked with survival of species. Just one example is sexual activity. Another is taste of food.

"Which drug culture are you talking about"

1)junkies run out of money very quickly. to bu drugs they start to sell it. to sell - they need more users

2) if more of their friends are taking the drug they feel less miserable. that's why they try to hook all people they know

Are you aware that not all consumers of illegal drugs are "junkies"?

animals choose not by intelligence, but by instincts. but humans made so complicated environment so instinct give them wrong answers. that's why people who do what instincts tell them - always lose.

nature made pleasure as a reward for useful activity (for DNA spreading) - sex, eating, defecating etc. but drug users hijack this system to get a stronger pleasure. but brain self-regulates - if it feels that the stimulation of pleasure receptors is too strong - it makes them less sensitive. that's why drug users soon lose an ability to get pleasure by natural way - and become hooked. like rats with electric brain stimulation.

real conscious humans can ignore the urge to feel pleasure - and do what is good for long perspective. drug users -those who hijacked their pleasure system - can't. that's why they are not humans anymore. and should be treated accordingly.

"Are you aware that not all consumers of illegal drugs are "junkies"?" all of them are on different steps on the way to addiction. strong type of psych can last longer. but the end is the same.

[Matt96]

OK so you are a puritan and feel that it is wrong to consume mind-altering substances for pleasure.

Do you wish that everyone else would be as puritanical as you are? Would you want all mind-altering substances, including coffee, to be made illegal?

absolutely yes. I wish all mind-altering substances are prohibited. And I will fight for this same as you fight for "legalize".

So basically even if something causes no harm, if it is psychoactive, you would prefer that it was illegal. Is that correct?

How about music? Music or sounds can affect the way people think and feel. It was even proposed in UAE that "binaural beats" be banned: UAE call to ban hypnotic music as illegal 'digital drug'. Would you agree with such a ban? I'd like to know what you think.

but I don't go to your country to change it's policy. do you understand the difference?

Nobody is doing such a thing. It is the Justice Minister himself who had looked outside Thailand and, from the knowledge and wisdom that he has gained, has decided to make changes in Thailand, in particular this first step towards decriminalization by removing methamphetamine from the same category as the one heroin is in.

"So basically even if something causes no harm, if it is psychoactive, you would prefer that it was illegal. Is that correct?" what a blatant manipulation! so where is the proof that there is a drug that causes no harm? even your praph shows which drugs causes more harm and wich causes less.

there is no drug in the universe which causes no harm, and you know this.

and if it causes harm - it should be eliminated without regard on either addicted animals agree for that or not.

I don't know much about so called "digital drugs". it seems to me it's just a marketing trick. but if it really causes addiction - they should be banned also.

"It is the Justice Minister himself who had looked outside Thailand and," I personally think it was his mistake. he is just a victim of westrn left-liberal propaganda. but anyway he is not going to legalize any drug. he made it very clear.

can you answer a simple question - are you in Thailand now or not?

[Matt96]

please give me any scientific research which shows that drugs are harmless.

I never made that claim. Different drugs have different levels (and kinds) of harm. It's misinformed people like yourself that like to lump all illegal drugs together in one "extremely harmful" category, whilst thinking that alcohol and tobacco are OK because they are legal. Is this the way that you think? It is is a very wrong way of thinking, because many of the illegal drugs didn't become illegal because of the harm that they cause, and ethanol didn't become legal (after prohibition) because authorities deemed it harmless.

Here is one scientific report published in The Lancet that quantifies the relative harms of a number of recreational drugs (from which the chart in my earlier message was derived): Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis

There was another similar scientific study that was conducted more recently in the European Union and published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology in 2015 called "European rating of drug harms". I have a copy of the actual paper but I can no longer find a working freely-downloadable link to it. But here is a chart that has been derived from the results, which is similar to the results of the previous study:

I would say that alcohol and cigarettes should be banned same as other drugs. it was a big mistake to keep alcohol legalized

You will find that many people around the world will disagree with you, because they currently enjoy consuming ethanol and would be against any attempt to make it illegal. A lot of the arguments that they state for why ethanol should remain legal would be the same reasons for why many of the illegal drugs should become legal and regulated.

"despite the fact that they had consumed a drug that is far less harmful than ethanol," what a blatant lie! are you a lobbyist of pharmaceutical corporations, who are eager to poison youth with ecstasy legally?

It seems as if you have heard such a statement for the first time. It is not a lie. Just have a look at the charts above and in the earlier post. Are you disputing results of scientific research? What do you know about MDMA / "ecstasy"

"You will find that many people around the world will disagree with you, because they currently enjoy consuming ethanol and would be against any attempt to make it illegal." same as rats from the experiment would disagree with the idea to turn off the pleasure button.

how it's possible to determine the harm of a drug? some repercussions of drug usage show up after decades, some - in next generations, some - in brain - and human instruments are too imperfect to register small alterations and damages in human brain.

modern science does not even know for sure how brain works! and you dare to say that you know exactly all effects of consuming of mind-altering substances?!

this is not even funny...

Edited June 24, 2016 by Matt96

[Moonmoon]

Good statement made by Paiboon

[Moonmoon]

Just FYI i am singaporean n i dont believe in death penalty for drug related offences

Drugs like alcohol like gambling r addictive n when abused or consume in a way where the user only focus on the addiction n only live to feed the addiction is very harmful to himself

, his family n his social circle.

I have friends who r very well to do n hiso in thailand n most of them parties with drugs now n then. Whats the difference between them n junki addicts?

They know how to work hard n play hard. They know the importance of making money n having enjoyments in moderation. They r not addicts.

That said, i wish authorities see all forms of addiction as a health problem n provide relevant help to them. Gambling addiction destroys a family as well with the gambler putting himself in debt faster than a drug addict and a gambler will also try all sorts of ways n illegal means to get more money to feed his addiction. Yet theres no laws criminalising gambling in singapore n there r casinos.

There should be no death penalty for drug for drug smugglers instead focus on harsher punishments for rapr n pedophiles

[hyperdimension]

"The 19-year-old was young and made a mistake, as young people tend to do." and if a 19 years old come to the department store and shoot 30 people - would you say the same?

No. Shooting 30 people is not the same kind of crime as merely carrying some heroin, as his heroin was unlikely to be causing 30 deaths. Do you think couriers deserve a death penalty? They are simply delivering something that other people want.

I have compassion for his potential victims. culprit does not deserve compassion, only punishment. but leftists like you will always defend murderers, rapists and terrorists. that's why people hate left liberals like yourself.

Is a courier really the culprit that deserves a death penalty?

Since you follow Lord Buddha's teachings, what does he say about hate? Is it the kind of emotion that you should feel as a devout Buddhist?

Singapore is a very good harmonious society.

That's what you think. But the reality is that it is a police state with little freedom of speech. Singaporeans cannot freely vent their opinions for fear of being targeted and put away in some way, e.g. defamation.

"I've tried the cannabis cookies in Amsterdam before and it was very tasty and relaxing" only mentally disturbed neurotic people need substances to relax. healthy people can find relaxation within their own minds.

Tell that to the millions of people who enjoy relaxing with some beer or wine. We may not need to take such substances in order to relax as you've implied, but we choose to do so because we enjoy it. If you don't like to consume substances that is fine, but it should also be fine for us to consume whatever we choose for whatever reason if there is little or no risk to harm others.

[hyperdimension]

"So basically even if something causes no harm, if it is psychoactive, you would prefer that it was illegal. Is that correct?" what a blatant manipulation! so where is the proof that there is a drug that causes no harm? even your praph shows which drugs causes more harm and wich causes less.

I asked "if something causes no harm". I wasn't referring just to drugs in particular. It's just a question so that I can learn more about what you think.

If you had the power to change drug laws, and you were forced to make at least 3 drugs legal whilst all others illegal, which ones would they be?

I don't know much about so called "digital drugs". it seems to me it's just a marketing trick. but if it really causes addiction - they should be banned also.

What if it's not addictive, but can alter the mind?

If it's addiction that you don't like, there are many things that can be addictive. Some people love donuts, or chocolate, maybe to the point of feeling addicted to it. Should donuts and chocolate therefore be made illegal?

[hyperdimension]

"You will find that many people around the world will disagree with you, because they currently enjoy consuming ethanol and would be against any attempt to make it illegal." same as rats from the experiment would disagree with the idea to turn off the pleasure button.

So you would deny the millions of people around the world the freedom to drink a beer, or even coffee. Your views are even more extreme than Singapore's, though at least you are consistent in that you would make all mind-altering drugs illegal, whereas Singapore is not consistent because ethanol and tobacco are legal, with ethanol even openly celebrated in an annual multi-day festival, whilst other drugs are strictly forbidden.

how it's possible to determine the harm of a drug? some repercussions of drug usage show up after decades, some - in next generations, some - in brain - and human instruments are too imperfect to register small alterations and damages in human brain.

modern science does not even know for sure how brain works! and you dare to say that you know exactly all effects of consuming of mind-altering substances?!

I never said that I "know exactly all effects of consuming of mind-altering substances". Research and statistics allow us to learn more about drugs. It would be wrong to think of all drugs as equally harmful. Wouldn't you agree that caffeine is generally less harmful than ethanol?

[Moonmoon]

i agree with most of what hyperdimension says.

having tough laws like death penalty is not a SOLUTION. it is a deterrent.

A SOLUTION is when you have solve the problem. Like a solution to a Math Problem.

What I want to say is to have more compassion towards to humans when they err. Study and apply more humane ways to reform and improve a society. There are other successful examples in the world in other countries to follow.

We are intelligent beings. We dont need a cane behind our buttocks all the time to remind us what is right or wrong.

Singapore though is really a great country in alot of ways still can improve in others as well.

[Matt96]

"So basically even if something causes no harm, if it is psychoactive, you would prefer that it was illegal. Is that correct?" what a blatant manipulation! so where is the proof that there is a drug that causes no harm? even your praph shows which drugs causes more harm and wich causes less.

I asked "if something causes no harm". I wasn't referring just to drugs in particular. It's just a question so that I can learn more about what you think.

If you had the power to change drug laws, and you were forced to make at least 3 drugs legal whilst all others illegal, which ones would they be?

I don't know much about so called "digital drugs". it seems to me it's just a marketing trick. but if it really causes addiction - they should be banned also.

What if it's not addictive, but can alter the mind?

If it's addiction that you don't like, there are many things that can be addictive. Some people love donuts, or chocolate, maybe to the point of feeling addicted to it. Should donuts and chocolate therefore be made illegal?

"I asked "if something causes no harm". I wasn't referring just to drugs in particular" oh yeah? and what we are talking about? sweet cookies? even they cause harm. classic manipulation.

"If you had the power to change drug laws, and you were forced to make at least 3 drugs legal whilst all others illegal, which ones would they be?"

this is an incorrect question. all drugs cause harm. but IF there is no choice - I wold take an option to keep legal drugs legal. not because they are less harmful. but because consuming them is traditional. and changing traditions is hard.

as you see, I answered your question and you didn't answer mine - are you in Thailand now or not? don't you think it's a little bit unfair?

"What if it's not addictive, but can alter the mind?" it's not possible. to cause pleasure (and so called "digital drugs" cause pleasure, according to description) you have to stimulate receptors in brain. because of this artificial stimulation they become less sensitive. and this cause addiction.

sugar stimulates pleasure centers by natural way. because these receptors was made to give the reward for an animal for finding sweet food. pure sugar is harmful because its very rare in nature. that's why the amount of sugar in food should be controlled.