Thailand’s Novel Approach to Drugs Could Offer Lesson to Neighbors

[webfact]

Thailand’s Novel Approach to Drugs Could Offer Lesson to Neighbors

A commentary by Philip Bowring

 

Police officers investigate the body of an alleged drug dealer, his face covered with packing tape and a placard reading "I'm a pusher," on a street in Manila, the Philippines, July 8, 2016.

 

BANGKOK: -- Forward thinking is not what one has come to expect from the conservative military regime running Thailand for the past two years. But a government which otherwise likes to suppresses dissent and emphasize the need for law and order, has proposed what for southeast Asia is a novel answer to what is seen as a major problem: drugs. It also provides a welcome contrast to the extra-judicial slaughter of alleged drug dealers unleashed in the Philippines by newly-elected President Rodrigo Duterte.

 

Thai Justice Minister Paiboon Kumchaya announced last month that his ministry was consulting with relevant agencies a proposal to exclude Ya Ba from the list of illegal narcotics. Ya Ba is the colloquial term for the pills which are by far the most widely used illegal drug in the kingdom. They are methamphetamine usually mixed with caffeine and occasionally other substances. They are the Thai equivalent of the Philippines’ most ubiquitous illegal narcotic colloquially known as Shabu, a methamphetamine in pill, crystal or powder form which can be ingested, inhaled or injected. So far some 400 alleged shabu sellers and users have been gunned down by anonymous assailants since Duterte took office at the end of June – and the toll mounts daily.

 

Myanmar, Laos and even isolated North Korea are all grappling with problems associated with production, use or smuggling of methamphetamines.

 

Thailand however appears to have learned a lesson – also brutally. Paiboon noted that decades of waging war against narcotics had been a failure. Usage had actually increased. In the case of Ya Ba, ending its illegal status would encourage addicts to come forward for treatment.

 

He claimed medical evidence showed Ya Ba to be less harmful than alcohol and tobacco – both readily available, socially accepted substances. (Western doctors in Hongkong once made the same point about opium being less of a public health hazard  than alcohol).

 

Thailand learned from former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s effort in 2003 to wipe out drugs via extra-judicial killing of those allegedly engaged in their promotion and sale. More than 2,000 people are believed to have perished in this brutal exercise. Though Ya Ba prices soared and thousands of users volunteered for treatment, the impact was short lived. Those killed were almost all small time vendors. No big fish were caught and cross-border trade in narcotics was barely interrupted. Some users turned from Ya Ba to other substances. Before very long, drug use was back to where it had been before the blood-letting.

 

The death penalty is used, though not extra-judicially, against drug vendors in other southeast Asian countries including Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. In the case of Indonesia it has been revived by President Widodo, drawing much foreign criticism, if mainly because several of the victims have been foreigners. Indonesia and Malaysia have also made efforts to increase treatment of addicts with compulsory treatment. They also enable the supply of needles to those using intravenous drugs in an effort to reduce the spread of HIV via needle-sharing.

 

However there may well be a danger that the whole drug issue is being exaggerated, that the efforts should be focused on rehabilitating confirmed addicts, especially of heroin. rather than a vain attempt to wipe out usage.

 

For instance, Widodo quoted a figure of 4.5 million users which amounts to almost 3% of the adult population. However, of those only 1 million are classed as addicts and addicts include anyone using drugs more than 49 times a year. Once a week is a broad definition of addict. The other 3.5 million so called users include 1.6 million who have once used a drug.

 

Nor is it clear whether the drug situation has deteriorated significantly. Shabu has been widely available in the Philippines for at least two decades and any increase may simply be a reflection of the rise in the urban population with ready access to it. There is nothing new about young people getting “high” at parties whether using alcohol or illegal substances. Indeed the parents now cheering Duterte’s cynical onslaught may well have been occasional users too in their youth. The death toll to date suggests that it is the poor whether vendors or users who are mainly being killed, not the better off.

 

Keeping drugs out of archipelagic countries with vast coastlines would be almost impossible even if the police and other law enforcers were all clean – which they are not.

 

Nor do most laws draw much if any distinction   between types of drugs – such as between opium and marijuana and heroin. Illegality also results in varying levels of strength and composition in shabu and Ya Ba. These variations are seen as responsible for many drug-related deaths. The illegality of shabu and similar substances also leads to much petty theft by users to support the habit.

 

As it is, in much of Southeast Asia, anti-drug campaigns have filled the prisons – half of the prison population in Malaysia for example – without suppressing either demand or supply. Prisons are no place for rehabilitation, particularly as drugs often circulate there too.

 

Meanwhile the people who make the big money from the trade, those who control the cross border shipments and the factories making pills and powders, are rarely ever caught. Even less often are their profits not successfully laundered via legal trade or through casinos.

 

In open societies, the selective drug war cannot be won. Sensible policies focus on mitigating the drug impact on health and on other crimes.  President Duterte needs not only to abide by the nation’s laws, but to learn some lessons from Thaksin and Thailand of what not to do. He could start by inviting Paiboon to advise its ASEAN neighbor.

 

Philip Bowring, former editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review, is a freelance columnist based in Hong Kong. He is a consultant editor to the Asian Sentinel and a regular commentator on Asia for The International Herald Tribune.

 

Source:  http://www.rfa.org/english/commentaries/perspective/thailand-drugs-08082016143719.html?

 

-- Radio Free Asia 2016-08-09

Copyright © 1998-2016, RFA. Used with the permission of Radio Free Asia, 2025 M St. NW, Suite 300, Washington DC 20036. RFA content may not be used in a manner which would give the appearance of any endorsement of any product or support of any issue or political position. Please read the full text of our Terms of Use

[taichiplanet]

not such a novel approach as other countries have done similar, but still a good idea. The current approach (last 50 years or so) of making drugs illegal hasn't worked world wide. At least legalising drugs you can ensure quality, tax it and have good education and medical facilities. Will also take the load off the police and court systems from lessening associated crimes, and get rid of the powerful drug cartels/mafia. That's the theory anyway!

[canuckamuck]

Thailand never goes after the big players, so nothing can ever change. Legalising the drugs will seem like a win to some, but it is really an acceptance of defeat.

[z42]

37 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Thailand never goes after the big players, so nothing can ever change. Legalising the drugs will seem like a win to some, but it is really an acceptance of defeat.

It was an unwinnable task my friend.

 

But seriously they haven't actually changed anything, and while possession can still count as a positive piss test Thailand is among the worst abusers of drug law enforcement on the planet.

 

Far too many influential people will curb decriminalization as it will hugely affect their rackets, and the good publicity the cops get when they haui in some hilltribe / ethnic minority / dirt poor Thai mule with hundreds of 1000's of pills they were transporting to some other distribution centre.

The current system works just fine for any current / future administration while the big fish are remaining completely untouchable

[casualbiker]

I don't think they will legalise yaba but they will lower it's drug classification so that carrying small amounts isn't a prison term sentence. Large amounts would still be dealing.

[digibum]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

Thailand never goes after the big players, so nothing can ever change. Legalising the drugs will seem like a win to some, but it is really an acceptance of defeat.

 

The entire idea that someone can tell you what you can and can't willingly put in your body seems completely at odds with freedom.  Especially when you're more than welcome to get a doctor to prescribe you drugs that are far more harmful and addictive.  Who is to say yaba is bad but oxycontin is good?  

 

The war on drugs has failed because it never had a chance of winning.  

 

I will caveat what I'm saying by making it clear that I don't think anyone should do yaba.  But if they do, why should the government care?  Going all the way back to the prohibition of alcohol in the US, if history has taught us anything, it's that laws don't stop people from doing drugs (alcohol being a drug).  And for all the arguments one can make about ruined lives and/or the costs to society, does incarcerating people really save them?  Is running jails and law enforcement efforts to catch drug users/dealers really less expensive than providing people medical treatment?  

 

 

[chrisinth]

Some of the problems that i see:

 

Specifically targeting one drug to legalize, in this case YaBa, what happens to the other drug groups in the legal sense? If people were drug tested in say, a nightclub, one is shown positive for jaba and one positive for ganga, what happens?

 

How addictive is yaba? And by legalizing it will this diminish or increase addict numbers. IMO of all the drugs to attempt to legalize, using yaba as an example is really grabbing the tiger by the tail.

 

By legalizing yaba, will this change the type of tourist in a significant way that visit the country? If a tourist or group of tourists are visiting SE Asia and are drug culture orientated, will they now choose the risk free option of visiting a country where anti-drug laws are relaxed? 

 

I still find it extremely difficult to believe they would start with a synthetic methamphetamine to try to legalize, and that they actually believe the figures of users/addicts from their polls.................. 

[tuanku]

12 minutes ago, chrisinth said:

Some of the problems that i see:

 

Specifically targeting one drug to legalize, in this case YaBa, what happens to the other drug groups in the legal sense? If people were drug tested in say, a nightclub, one is shown positive for jaba and one positive for ganga, what happens?

 

How addictive is yaba? And by legalizing it will this diminish or increase addict numbers. IMO of all the drugs to attempt to legalize, using yaba as an example is really grabbing the tiger by the tail.

 

By legalizing yaba, will this change the type of tourist in a significant way that visit the country? If a tourist or group of tourists are visiting SE Asia and are drug culture orientated, will they now choose the risk free option of visiting a country where anti-drug laws are relaxed? 

 

I still find it extremely difficult to believe they would start with a synthetic methamphetamine to try to legalize, and that they actually believe the figures of users/addicts from their polls.................. 

Choosing Yaba makes sense as it is the most commonly used drug and would result in a great reduction in the number of prisoners in Thai prisons which would have beneficial effects on the society as well as releasing funds for drug education and treatment of addiction. It was previously (in the 60s) legally sold in Thailand. Presumably the plan is to decriminalise its use while still continuing to punish illegal production and large scale distribution. This will work if legal yaba (the contents and sale of which can be controlled) is made available, in the same way that alcohol is managed. No-one can say it is not dangerous, and crystal meth would presumably still be outside the law. 

It is addictive (more to some than others) and if abused leads to serious health issues (as does alcohol). One has to hope that if it were legalised, effective education of both adults and children about the risks and dangers will be targeted, although there is no corresponding program of education about alcohol as far as I know.

Two other candidates for legalisation would be marijuana and kratom. Both of these are relatively benign and widely used. This would free up law enforcement and the prison system to tackle more destructive drugs such as crystal meth and heroin, and to go after large scale illegal producers and traffickers, as they would no longer be bogged down with the low level users and small scale pushers.

Of course there are serious vested interests involved in illegal drugs and these may well have the political clout to block any such advances in drug policies.

 

[The Old Bull]

The American model of prosecuting the sellers of banned substances has been proven to not work. If you take away the money used on enforcement and use it for education you will have better results. There will be a few hard core stoners that will not stop but with better education the young will not start. The idea of the wicked pusher is bullshit , customers come to dealers not vise versa.

[digibum]

1 hour ago, The Old Bull said:

The American model of prosecuting the sellers of banned substances has been proven to not work. If you take away the money used on enforcement and use it for education you will have better results. There will be a few hard core stoners that will not stop but with better education the young will not start. The idea of the wicked pusher is bullshit , customers come to dealers not vise versa.

 

Actually, it's more basic than that.  There are a certain percentage of people who are prone to addiction.  So, legalizing something like marijuana doesn't suddenly create tons of weed addicted people.  

 

Obviously some drugs have highly addictive qualities.  Opioids, cocaine, meth, etc.  But most criminal prosecutions are for possession or distribution.  In other words, one can be a functioning heroin addict.  There are recreational cocaine users.  

 

Most people get arrested not for what they do under the influence of the drug but for possessing it.  

 

I don't mean to imply that every drug user is responsible.  Many will kill themselves and that's unfortunate.  Many will commit crimes to fund their addiction.  

 

But how many prescription drugs can I get hooked on by telling my doctor I feel moody, or depressed, or I have trouble concentrating?  

 

There are adderall addicts,  oxycontin addicts, xanax addicts, etc, etc.  But that's cool because those drugs are all being administered under the care of a physician.  

 

It's poor people who do street drugs because they can't afford to see a doctor and without insurance they can't afford the prescription.  

[The Deerhunter]

It all sounds like a good idea with the exception that Yaba addicts/users are not necessarily the ones mostly placed in danger by the use of the drug.  A bus driver taking Yaba to stay awake could kill a whole busload of people plus more depending on what he hits.  Yaba (Ice, P, Meth. Chrystal) etc etc as it is known overseas is notorious for it's affect on temper and causing uncontrollable rage, frequently resulting in fatal attacks.  It is particularly dangerous if the person is driving any vehicle when they feel "offended' causing assault by vehicle, or has access to a firearm, knife, machette, club etc.  Personally I would decriminalize and regulate marijuana and opiates before methamphetamines, based on the behaviour of the user.  Pot users are usually only dangerous to a pizza or a plate of fried rice. Opiate users tend to chill out and sleep a lot if they can get their drugs but can get very anxious and desperate if they need a fix and can't afford or find one.  Cocaine and its derivatives, alcohol and methamphetamines are all more likely to be primarily anti-social than pot or opiates. 

[gemguy]

"Good Grief Batman...Finally a Justice minister that is talking some sense"

"Hmmm......Something is not right here Robin....we need to investigate"

 

Cheers

[Briggsy]

All these sensible farangs making their very sensible points but....

 

The real translation of this announcement is, "You liquor cartel motherf***$£rs, you concession-holding, licence-to-print-money, ungrateful billionaire b**&ards, call that a bung! I hold the power to slash your profits in my hand. You better up your bribe budget pronto or I'll pull the trigger!"

[gemguy]

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 8:03 AM, digibum said:

 

The entire idea that someone can tell you what you can and can't willingly put in your body seems completely at odds with freedom.  Especially when you're more than welcome to get a doctor to prescribe you drugs that are far more harmful and addictive.  Who is to say yaba is bad but oxycontin is good?

 

The war on drugs has failed because it never had a chance of winning.

 

I will caveat what I'm saying by making it clear that I don't think anyone should do yaba.  But if they do, why should the government care?  Going all the way back to the prohibition of alcohol in the US, if history has taught us anything, it's that laws don't stop people from doing drugs (alcohol being a drug).  And for all the arguments one can make about ruined lives and/or the costs to society, does incarcerating people really save them?  Is running jails and law enforcement efforts to catch drug users/dealers really less expensive than providing people medical treatment?

 

 

Good points ...but

** You said: Who is to say yaba is bad but oxycontin is good?

Like all recreational drugs, regardless of their good or bad points, everyone, including the governments and law enforcement entities far more so, have to recognize the purpose and the use of the drug(s) especially if you argue or imply all the drugs are the same...which they are not.

Even if the presently illegal drugs where to be legalized they still have to be recognized as recreational drugs and therefore acknowledged as recreational drugs for the sole purpose of getting  stoned on ( lets say intoxicated ) and therefor the sole purpose being the fun and the thrills to be obtained from the consumption of the recreational drugs.

Meantime, the Pharmaceutical companies do not specifically and or deliberately manufacture their medicines( Drugs, if you want to call them that ) for recreational purposes, rather they are formulated and supplied for medicinal purpose and sold only for that reason.

So, there is a distinct difference relative to the purpose and use of recreational drugs as compared to medicinal drugs and it is important to separate the uses and purposes of each kind of drug and how they are supplied and by whom.

Unfortunately many of those legal pharmaceutical drugs ( medicines )  are addictive while the prescription users get high on their medicines ( drugs )

I agree that the drugs should be legalized because we would then stop criminalizing people who do consume the drugs and focus on the suppliers of the drugs and handle those people or supply chain entities accordingly while knowing that there will always be a huge market for the recreational drugs while governments and law enforcement entities will never be able to eliminate the suppliers and or the users...never.

But bear in mind...if all the presently deemed illegal recreational drugs were to be legalized for supply and consumption there would still be plenty of black market suppliers capitalizing on the huge and lucrative markets while illegally selling and illegally competing with the legitimate companies....just like the black market that presently exists for the legal pharmaceuticals market.

 

But still.....A different approach is long over due while the Thai Minister is thinking logically and sensibly...but, he is fighting a very steep, up hill battle.

 

Cheers

 

 

Edited August 13, 2016 by gemguy

[Winniedapu]

"Thailand’s Novel Approach to Drugs Could Offer Lesson to Neighbors"

 

What? Other countries should get the army to do the smuggling? Really?

 

Winnie

[digibum]

4 hours ago, gemguy said:

Good points ...but

** You said: Who is to say yaba is bad but oxycontin is good?

Like all recreational drugs, regardless of their good or bad points, everyone, including the governments and law enforcement entities far more so, have to recognize the purpose and the use of the drug(s) especially if you argue or imply all the drugs are the same...which they are not.

Even if the presently illegal drugs where to be legalized they still have to be recognized as recreational drugs and therefore acknowledged as recreational drugs for the sole purpose of getting  stoned on ( lets say intoxicated ) and therefor the sole purpose being the fun and the thrills to be obtained from the consumption of the recreational drugs.

Meantime, the Pharmaceutical companies do not specifically and or deliberately manufacture their medicines( Drugs, if you want to call them that ) for recreational purposes, rather they are formulated and supplied for medicinal purpose and sold only for that reason.

So, there is a distinct difference relative to the purpose and use of recreational drugs as compared to medicinal drugs and it is important to separate the uses and purposes of each kind of drug and how they are supplied and by whom.

Unfortunately many of those legal pharmaceutical drugs ( medicines )  are addictive while the prescription users get high on their medicines ( drugs )

I agree that the drugs should be legalized because we would then stop criminalizing people who do consume the drugs and focus on the suppliers of the drugs and handle those people or supply chain entities accordingly while knowing that there will always be a huge market for the recreational drugs while governments and law enforcement entities will never be able to eliminate the suppliers and or the users...never.

But bear in mind...if all the presently deemed illegal recreational drugs were to be legalized for supply and consumption there would still be plenty of black market suppliers capitalizing on the huge and lucrative markets while illegally selling and illegally competing with the legitimate companies....just like the black market that presently exists for the legal pharmaceuticals market.

 

But still.....A different approach is long over due while the Thai Minister is thinking logically and sensibly...but, he is fighting a very steep, up hill battle.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

Not sure I agree.  You go to some great lengths to make some pretty simple points but I think you're operating under some false assumptions.  

 

There is a black market for prescription drugs because it's illegal to buy them without a prescription.  For instance, there's really no black market for weed in Colorado or Washington State in the US because weed is legal for recreational use.  Why would anybody go and buy weed from some sketchy dude when they can walk into a shop that sells weed and have some assurance that the weed they're buying is of an agreed upon quality?  

 

Similarly, in states in the US that have made it legal strictly for medicinal purposes (not for recreational purposes) the amount of drug dealers for marijuana has dropped considerably.   Many have applied for licenses to become legitimate marijuana merchants.  Others got out of the business or switched to other drugs because the additional competition drove prices to the point where the profit margins did not warrant the legal risks being taken.  

 

And both recreational and medical marijuana states have put a huge hit on Mexican cartels as demand has dropped dramatically as legal sources of weed became available in those states that legalized it.  Again, the Mexican cartels have no quality assurance, involve risk of arrest, etc.  Legit suppliers of marijuana to the legal shops have to be state licensed and meet all sorts of health and safety criteria.   Why wouldn't you buy from a shop where you have some assurance that what you're buying is legit?  

 

I've lived in states where weed is legal for medicinal purposes and I've had a medical marijuana license.  It's almost freaky to walk into a shop and see rows and rows of weed.  You pick strains, THC content, type of high you're looking for, etc, etc.  And they have "bud masters" (sort of like a brew master) who can advise you on selection.  

 

Oh, and many of the places deliver once you've visited their dispensary and they've seen your prescription.  

 

Why in the world would I buy weed from Johnny the Weed Dealer? 

 

Right now the big dilemma in the US is that weed possession is still a federal crime.  The big tobacco and drug companies would love to get into the weed business but since they already walk on thin ice at the federal level they don't want to take the risks involved in getting into the weed business.  

 

Another fallout of this gap between state and federal laws is that legitimate marijuana companies, completely legal in the state in which they operate, cannot open a bank account because the banks have to follow federal laws which prevent them from doing business with people who are involved in the drug trade.  

 

If they legalized yaba usage in Thailand, at least a few of the drug companies making knockoff pharmaceuticals like fake viagra would be all of it.  They would be pumping the stuff out and you would be able to buy it in the local pharmacy which completely eliminates the need for shady suppliers who manufacture yaba of unknown quality.  They can manufacture on a scale that would drive down prices such that existing drug dealers would not be able to compete.  

 

 

[gemguy]

13 hours ago, digibum said:

 

Not sure I agree.  You go to some great lengths to make some pretty simple points but I think you're operating under some false assumptions.

 

There is a black market for prescription drugs because it's illegal to buy them without a prescription.  For instance, there's really no black market for weed in Colorado or Washington State in the US because weed is legal for recreational use.  Why would anybody go and buy weed from some sketchy dude when they can walk into a shop that sells weed and have some assurance that the weed they're buying is of an agreed upon quality?

 

Similarly, in states in the US that have made it legal strictly for medicinal purposes (not for recreational purposes) the amount of drug dealers for marijuana has dropped considerably.   Many have applied for licenses to become legitimate marijuana merchants.  Others got out of the business or switched to other drugs because the additional competition drove prices to the point where the profit margins did not warrant the legal risks being taken.

 

And both recreational and medical marijuana states have put a huge hit on Mexican cartels as demand has dropped dramatically as legal sources of weed became available in those states that legalized it.  Again, the Mexican cartels have no quality assurance, involve risk of arrest, etc.  Legit suppliers of marijuana to the legal shops have to be state licensed and meet all sorts of health and safety criteria.   Why wouldn't you buy from a shop where you have some assurance that what you're buying is legit?

 

I've lived in states where weed is legal for medicinal purposes and I've had a medical marijuana license.  It's almost freaky to walk into a shop and see rows and rows of weed.  You pick strains, THC content, type of high you're looking for, etc, etc.  And they have "bud masters" (sort of like a brew master) who can advise you on selection.

 

Oh, and many of the places deliver once you've visited their dispensary and they've seen your prescription.

 

Why in the world would I buy weed from Johnny the Weed Dealer?

 

Right now the big dilemma in the US is that weed possession is still a federal crime.  The big tobacco and drug companies would love to get into the weed business but since they already walk on thin ice at the federal level they don't want to take the risks involved in getting into the weed business.

 

Another fallout of this gap between state and federal laws is that legitimate marijuana companies, completely legal in the state in which they operate, cannot open a bank account because the banks have to follow federal laws which prevent them from doing business with people who are involved in the drug trade.

 

If they legalized yaba usage in Thailand, at least a few of the drug companies making knockoff pharmaceuticals like fake viagra would be all of it.  They would be pumping the stuff out and you would be able to buy it in the local pharmacy which completely eliminates the need for shady suppliers who manufacture yaba of unknown quality.  They can manufacture on a scale that would drive down prices such that existing drug dealers would not be able to compete.

 

 

13 hours ago, digibum said:

 

Not sure I agree.  You go to some great lengths to make some pretty simple points but I think you're operating under some false assumptions.

 

There is a black market for prescription drugs because it's illegal to buy them without a prescription.  For instance, there's really no black market for weed in Colorado or Washington State in the US because weed is legal for recreational use.  Why would anybody go and buy weed from some sketchy dude when they can walk into a shop that sells weed and have some assurance that the weed they're buying is of an agreed upon quality?

 

Similarly, in states in the US that have made it legal strictly for medicinal purposes (not for recreational purposes) the amount of drug dealers for marijuana has dropped considerably.   Many have applied for licenses to become legitimate marijuana merchants.  Others got out of the business or switched to other drugs because the additional competition drove prices to the point where the profit margins did not warrant the legal risks being taken.

 

And both recreational and medical marijuana states have put a huge hit on Mexican cartels as demand has dropped dramatically as legal sources of weed became available in those states that legalized it.  Again, the Mexican cartels have no quality assurance, involve risk of arrest, etc.  Legit suppliers of marijuana to the legal shops have to be state licensed and meet all sorts of health and safety criteria.   Why wouldn't you buy from a shop where you have some assurance that what you're buying is legit?

 

I've lived in states where weed is legal for medicinal purposes and I've had a medical marijuana license.  It's almost freaky to walk into a shop and see rows and rows of weed.  You pick strains, THC content, type of high you're looking for, etc, etc.  And they have "bud masters" (sort of like a brew master) who can advise you on selection.

 

Oh, and many of the places deliver once you've visited their dispensary and they've seen your prescription.

 

Why in the world would I buy weed from Johnny the Weed Dealer?

 

Right now the big dilemma in the US is that weed possession is still a federal crime.  The big tobacco and drug companies would love to get into the weed business but since they already walk on thin ice at the federal level they don't want to take the risks involved in getting into the weed business.

 

Another fallout of this gap between state and federal laws is that legitimate marijuana companies, completely legal in the state in which they operate, cannot open a bank account because the banks have to follow federal laws which prevent them from doing business with people who are involved in the drug trade.

 

If they legalized yaba usage in Thailand, at least a few of the drug companies making knockoff pharmaceuticals like fake viagra would be all of it.  They would be pumping the stuff out and you would be able to buy it in the local pharmacy which completely eliminates the need for shady suppliers who manufacture yaba of unknown quality.  They can manufacture on a scale that would drive down prices such that existing drug dealers would not be able to compete.

 

 

Not sure I agree with you also.

Fisrt of all I am not against legalization...rather I am all for it ...but there is far more to it than most people comprehend...but.... the drugs should be made legal.

The arguments for legalization of drugs and in particular marijuana always and I mean always, only, as in only, defend the good points and good aspects of legalized drug supply and use and or the drug itself.

Naturally that is what pro drug consumption advocates would always say or argue anyhow while they will never say anything negative at all, nothing at all, about any of the negative ramifications of widespread drug use while they always, as in always, ignore and or omit any of the many and varied social problems associated with widespread recreational drug use...even if totally legal.

You said:

There is a black market for prescription drugs because it's illegal to buy them without a prescription.  For instance, there's really no black market for weed in Colorado or Washington State in the US because weed is legal for recreational use.  Why would anybody go and buy weed from some sketchy dude when they can walk into a shop that sells weed and have some assurance that the weed they're buying is of an agreed upon quality?

 

There is a growing black market and their will continue to be and here are some of the reasons.....while some being obvious while some they are beginning to learn about.

1: All the users of marijuana under the legal age of consumption are still criminalized for their illegal consumption of marijuana because they are under the legal age limit.

Colorado State is 21

Washington state is 21

And the rest of the legal states are 21 also ( correct me if I am wrong )

When those laws were passed those laws did not stop all the many users under 21 from continuing to consume ..so in effect still illegal and still regular customers of the illegal suppliers while remaining a lucrative and profitable percent of the marijuana consumers to be capitalized on by the Sketchy Dude types of drug dealers who still remain while none of them have closed up shop.

The underage percent of users in the now legal states represents at least 10 to 15 % of the marijuana consumers.

Where do you think they obtain their marijuana from??...while any source of supply is deemed illegal including if their parents give it to them or indirectly provide it to them or the legal outlets knowingly allow the underage users to obtain their marijuana indirectly from their legal shops...the black market remains and will be sustained.

2: The users of marijuana never have ( as in Never) worried at all about their sources of marijuana and any "sketchy dude"  or "Jonny the weed dealer aspects"  of where it came from and or who supplies it while illegal sources and sketchy characters have always been a significant aspect and one of the hall mark features of drug suppliers and drug users who sustain the drug consumption.

That being the case, then what makes you believe the users of marijuana would actually care??... at all ...where their marijuana comes from because the whole drug consumption affair on their part for the last 70 years has always been nefarious in many aspects while the users never questioned or recognized any complicity on their part in all that is entailed in obtaining and or consuming their illegally obtained marijuana...from said to be "Sketchy Dude" type sources.

Also the quality of the marijuana purchased for the last 70 years from Sketchy sources was just fine long before the now legal suppliers simply continue to supply what they supplied before...but legally  which is good and the way it should be anyhow.

No one ever died from "bad" marijuana and one of the strongest pro Pot arguments about why it is safe to use and should be legalized, etc etc....so, in effect, no one really cared or cares where they get their supply of marijuana from and never worried about the quality of their marijuana and or from who and how it was supplied.

There is very little change in those aspects while all the states where it still remains illegal to supply or consume, the consumers do not care at all where it comes from as long as their marijuana is readily available while they obviously continue to feign innocence concerning any complicity at all on their part relevant to any serious or heinous crimes perpetrated and committed by their source suppliers.

That being the case, the consumer will continue to buy the drug from whoever they want and or who ever is more convenient and who ever suppliers it cheaper.....and  regardless of the laws as Marijuana users have a  70 year history of defying the laws and or refusing to comply with the laws

3: The "cheaper supplier" aspects is the main reason the why the Black Market will flourish as the retail prices of legal marijuana are ( not ) crashing down overall and not reflecting the real costs and marginal profits obtained, the same or similar to many other consumer items, while you can reasonably expect the prices to rise in the future with increased state taxes and increased legal operating costs and necessary profits to sustain their legal enterprises...or possibly future intervention where the suppliers and the government entities collude to maintain higher prices...supposedly for the benefit of all...including the supposed safety of the consumers...lol

The illegal suppliers ( as in Sketchy drug dealing Dudes ) will always be there trafficking their various types of illegal recreational drugs and they will gladly supply the public with the same quality of marijuana ( same as before ) for half the price to get the business.

They can easily do that  by way of dealing in illegally grown or illegally smuggled marijuana while a notable percent of the marijuana consumers,  growing tired of the high and ever increasing prices will turn to their illegal sources for their full time supply or occasional supply while the drug related laws will not stop them from buying illegal source marijuana....as the laws never stopped them before.

4: There is now a problem with interstate drug trafficking where several states that are legalized are being sued by the surrounding states that see a marked increase in marijuana trafficking activities and illegal black market activities related to Marijuana....coming from the legal states.

5: There is a marked increase in the amount of users being arrested and prosecuted for operating their motor vehicles while stoned while the users still defiantly ignore those laws....so expect all the more harsher penalties to be enforced concerning the consumption of marijuana and the illegal operation of motor vehicles while stone, or lets say intoxicated on marijuana while driving...as in Drugging and driving...and the new lucrative money making source of police revenues.

There is more but I will digress for now, but meantime a person has to read the relevant information on both sides of the argument while accepting the good the bad and the ugly aspects of legal drug supply and consumption

 

Concerning Yaa Baa, You said at the end of your post:  They can manufacture on a scale that would drive down prices such that existing drug dealers would not be able to compete.

 

This is the only realistic way to drive the drug cartels and illegal traffickers and small time drug dealers out of business and keep them out of business.

You can be assured, as in assured, there will be a growing black market supply of illegal marijuana as long as the prices of legal retail priced marijuana is sustained or seen to be increasing for what ever reasons in the future...and there could be any number of reasons as we do not see alcohol and cigarette prices decreasing  rather they are always increasing....and for the record

If you look at the data for the prices of marijuana sold in Colorado, for example, in legal marijuana outlets you will see the prices have more or less stabilized and have actually come down from several years ago...but, the point is: The cost of illegally cultivated marijuana, inside or outside the USA, is still a fraction of the prices that the same goods are sold for at legal retail prices.

That being the case, the illegal drug cultivators can still supply for much cheaper and still have a great profit margin and still supply to where ever the drug remains illegal while the supply to legal states, by way of black markets, will be less profitable but considered subsidized, so to speak, and still very lucrative...but not as much profit margin

If the legal retail consumer prices remain where they are then there will remain the illegal suppliers by way of a black market.

 

It gets complicated...but decriminalization first and then legal to consume later and then finally legal suppliers to be regulated and policed is the way it seems to be developing...but not without many remaining social contentions and problems needing to be addressed.

 

Better not to get involved and do not participate in recreational drug consumption is the best argument..lol

 

Cheers

 

 

 

[digibum]

9 hours ago, gemguy said:

The underage percent of users in the now legal states represents at least 10 to 15 % of the marijuana consumers.

Where do you think they obtain their marijuana from??...while any source of supply is deemed illegal including if their parents give it to them or indirectly provide it to them or the legal outlets knowingly allow the underage users to obtain their marijuana indirectly from their legal shops...the black market remains and will be sustained.

 

Perhaps we have two different definitions of a black market.  I perceive it to be a much bigger enterprise.  For instance, the legal drinking age in those states is 21 as well.  Do we talk about a beer black market?  No, since beer is legal for those over 21 and there are no Mexican cartels importing beers to sell to kids on prom night, we generally don't call it a black market.  

 

Could it be considered a black market?  Sure, I guess.  But, personally, I don't lump it into that category.  

 

Quote

That being the case, the consumer will continue to buy the drug from whoever they want and or who ever is more convenient and who ever suppliers it cheaper.....and  regardless of the laws as Marijuana users have a  70 year history of defying the laws and or refusing to comply with the laws

 

Obviously people had no choice during the period where marijuana was illegal so the only comparison to be made is what happened when it became legal in Colorado and Washington State in the US.  

 

And like I said, unless you've had the pleasure of buying completely legal marijuana I don't think you can make a comparison.  I would 100% buy legal weed over illegal weed.  Not even a close call.   

 

That's why I think a lot of your argument here is a false argument.  People didn't care about quality because you had no other options.  People dealt with Johnny Dealer because they had no other option.  

 

Once you give people that option, the choice is clear.  Marijuana dealers have all but gone out of business.  They can't match the quality or convenience.  

 

In terms of price, I guess technically it's possible, but I highly doubt illegal marijuana imported into the US could ever match the price of marijuana grown in the US.  Even given the differences in labor costs, once you tack on transportation and inevitable losses at the border, legally grown weed has a clear price advantage.  

 

Also, you have to factor in all of the middlemen between importer, to wholesaler, to street dealer.  Legal weed also has a supply chain but it tends to be more direct from grower to retailer.  

 

But even if it didn't, what could the price differential even be?  Weed is pretty cheap.  Regardless of your source, the price per gram would be so negligible that most people would still prefer to purchase from a state licensed supplier than deal with Johnny Drug Dealer to save $2.  

 

And to even further invalidate your point, nearly every state that allows medical marijuana allows people with a medical condition to grow their own.  You can buy seeds in any medical marijuana dispensary and simply grow your own weed if you so wish.  

 

 

Quote

They can easily do that  by way of dealing in illegally grown or illegally smuggled marijuana while a notable percent of the marijuana consumers,  growing tired of the high and ever increasing prices will turn to their illegal sources for their full time supply or occasional supply while the drug related laws will not stop them from buying illegal source marijuana....as the laws never stopped them before.

 

I really, really disagree where.  Under almost no circumstances could imported, illegal weed be sold for half the cost.  You're making up your numbers so as to be able to make your point.  Now if you said, 10% or 20% cheaper, then we could have a discussion but if your claim is that someone can grow weed in Central or South America, transport it all the way to the US, paying bribes, inflated transport costs (because it's an illegal product), get it across the border and eat the cost of X% of their shipments being seized, distributing it to a wholesaler, and into the hands of street level dealer for the same price as someone who grows it locally and sells directly to the dispensary, then there's no point in discussing this any further since you're not basing your argument in reality.  

 

 

Quote

4: There is now a problem with interstate drug trafficking where several states that are legalized are being sued by the surrounding states that see a marked increase in marijuana trafficking activities and illegal black market activities related to Marijuana....coming from the legal states.

 

 

Why is that a problem?  I mean, yes, I understand the concern of the surrounding states but this problem is no different from places where fireworks are available in State A but banned in State B so kids in State B go across state lines and purchase fireworks in State A.  It's not like it's a new problem for states.  And suing those states has seldom, if ever, resulted in State A being forced to solve State B's problem.  It's been that way with alcohol as well.  Before states standardized drinking ages, kids used to cross the border to a 18+ state if they lived in a 21+ state.  

 

 

Quote

5: There is a marked increase in the amount of users being arrested and prosecuted for operating their motor vehicles while stoned while the users still defiantly ignore those laws....so expect all the more harsher penalties to be enforced concerning the consumption of marijuana and the illegal operation of motor vehicles while stone, or lets say intoxicated on marijuana while driving...as in Drugging and driving...and the new lucrative money making source of police revenues.

There is more but I will digress for now, but meantime a person has to read the relevant information on both sides of the argument while accepting the good the bad and the ugly aspects of legal drug supply and consumption

 

 

I'm not in the mood to research a point you brought up and failed to provide any statistics for but while driving while under the influence of marijuana arrests have increased, if memory serves me, only around 10% of all DUI cases involve only marijuana.  Even police say that this can be reduced significantly with better education since marijuana has only been legal for about 2 years now and many drivers are unaware that they can be arrested for driving high.  

 

 

Quote

 

Concerning Yaa Baa, You said at the end of your post:  They can manufacture on a scale that would drive down prices such that existing drug dealers would not be able to compete.

 

This is the only realistic way to drive the drug cartels and illegal traffickers and small time drug dealers out of business and keep them out of business.

 

Uh, duh?  I think this has been the argument of pro-legalization folks for 50 years or so.  

 

Quote

You can be assured, as in assured, there will be a growing black market supply of illegal marijuana as long as the prices of legal retail priced marijuana is sustained or seen to be increasing for what ever reasons in the future...and there could be any number of reasons as we do not see alcohol and cigarette prices decreasing  rather they are always increasing....and for the record

 

You sort of invalidate your point, don't you?  Cigarette and alcohol prices have been increasing, mostly due to sin taxes as lawmakers see this as an easy source of revenue while they can also claim that they are doing good for society.  

 

But where is the black market for booze and cigarettes that you say is assured, as in assured will happen if the price of weed stays high (no pun intended)?  

 

The reason you are wrong is because you assume everyone is as price driven as you are.  Me, I just want to smoke some dope.  I don't care if Johnny Drug Dealer can get me some questionable quality dope for $5 a half-ounce cheaper.  

 

If, and this is a big if, a black market did develop it would most likely be the result of legal US based marijuana growers selling out the back door or illegal US based marijuana growers selling directly to the public without obtaining proper licenses or paying taxes.  

 

And ultimately, I'm not that convinced that given a choice that enough people would opt to save a few bucks by dealing with sketchy drug dealers when they can buy totally legit weed at 10 different locations just on their route to and from work.  

 

Quote

If you look at the data for the prices of marijuana sold in Colorado, for example, in legal marijuana outlets you will see the prices have more or less stabilized and have actually come down from several years ago...but, the point is: The cost of illegally cultivated marijuana, inside or outside the USA, is still a fraction of the prices that the same goods are sold for at legal retail prices.

 

That's not entirely true and it's not as simple as you make it out to be.  

 

For instance, in parts of Colorado, black market weed is more expensive than legal weed.  Even in parts of Colorado where the prices are higher, it ranges from 2% - 10% higher.  

 

In other states, the price differentials are higher but that is usually a case of:

 

1)  Marijuana is only legal for medicinal purposes and not for recreational use - meaning some people are forced to buy from the black market

 

2)  Due to #1 above, there doesn't exist a robust competitive market in smaller rural areas

 

3)  There is an abundant source of illegal weed (think northern California) close by.  

 

4)  Continued legal concerns that have kept many bigger investors out of the market which slows down progress in growing techniques, supply chain improvements, and efficiencies in retail sales channels.  Also lumped into this group is the fact that growers and retailers have to do all-cash business because they cannot open bank accounts which adds to their overhead as they have to create their own "banks" (i.e. warehouses to hold cash with armed guards).  

 

5)  And this is the most important part because it deals with almost all of the points above, the market is still in its infancy.  Legal weed for recreational use has only been around 2 years.  It's still fragmented and inefficient.  If Walmart could sell weed in their pharmacy, prices would drop like a rock because then you would have major agricultural interests improving the farming techniques, you would have Walmart expertise addressing supply chain and distribution issues, etc.  

 

 

Quote

Better not to get involved and do not participate in recreational drug consumption is the best argument..lol

 

This pretty much sums up why your entire post is BS.  

 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2016 by digibum

[Strangebrew]

Girlfriend said" I think to muck" so I think if it were legal and taxed maybe treatment could be funded to help a lot of people. Well at least this knucklehead thinks so.

[gemguy]

6 hours ago, digibum said:

 

Perhaps we have two different definitions of a black market.  I perceive it to be a much bigger enterprise.  For instance, the legal drinking age in those states is 21 as well.  Do we talk about a beer black market?  No, since beer is legal for those over 21 and there are no Mexican cartels importing beers to sell to kids on prom night, we generally don't call it a black market.

 

Could it be considered a black market?  Sure, I guess.  But, personally, I don't lump it into that category.

 

 

Obviously people had no choice during the period where marijuana was illegal so the only comparison to be made is what happened when it became legal in Colorado and Washington State in the US.

 

And like I said, unless you've had the pleasure of buying completely legal marijuana I don't think you can make a comparison.  I would 100% buy legal weed over illegal weed.  Not even a close call.  

 

That's why I think a lot of your argument here is a false argument.  People didn't care about quality because you had no other options.  People dealt with Johnny Dealer because they had no other option.

 

Once you give people that option, the choice is clear.  Marijuana dealers have all but gone out of business.  They can't match the quality or convenience.

 

In terms of price, I guess technically it's possible, but I highly doubt illegal marijuana imported into the US could ever match the price of marijuana grown in the US.  Even given the differences in labor costs, once you tack on transportation and inevitable losses at the border, legally grown weed has a clear price advantage.

 

Also, you have to factor in all of the middlemen between importer, to wholesaler, to street dealer.  Legal weed also has a supply chain but it tends to be more direct from grower to retailer.

 

But even if it didn't, what could the price differential even be?  Weed is pretty cheap.  Regardless of your source, the price per gram would be so negligible that most people would still prefer to purchase from a state licensed supplier than deal with Johnny Drug Dealer to save $2.

 

And to even further invalidate your point, nearly every state that allows medical marijuana allows people with a medical condition to grow their own.  You can buy seeds in any medical marijuana dispensary and simply grow your own weed if you so wish.

 

 

 

I really, really disagree where.  Under almost no circumstances could imported, illegal weed be sold for half the cost.  You're making up your numbers so as to be able to make your point.  Now if you said, 10% or 20% cheaper, then we could have a discussion but if your claim is that someone can grow weed in Central or South America, transport it all the way to the US, paying bribes, inflated transport costs (because it's an illegal product), get it across the border and eat the cost of X% of their shipments being seized, distributing it to a wholesaler, and into the hands of street level dealer for the same price as someone who grows it locally and sells directly to the dispensary, then there's no point in discussing this any further since you're not basing your argument in reality.

 

 

 

Why is that a problem?  I mean, yes, I understand the concern of the surrounding states but this problem is no different from places where fireworks are available in State A but banned in State B so kids in State B go across state lines and purchase fireworks in State A.  It's not like it's a new problem for states.  And suing those states has seldom, if ever, resulted in State A being forced to solve State B's problem.  It's been that way with alcohol as well.  Before states standardized drinking ages, kids used to cross the border to a 18+ state if they lived in a 21+ state.

 

 

 

I'm not in the mood to research a point you brought up and failed to provide any statistics for but while driving while under the influence of marijuana arrests have increased, if memory serves me, only around 10% of all DUI cases involve only marijuana.  Even police say that this can be reduced significantly with better education since marijuana has only been legal for about 2 years now and many drivers are unaware that they can be arrested for driving high.

 

 

 

Uh, duh?  I think this has been the argument of pro-legalization folks for 50 years or so.

 

 

You sort of invalidate your point, don't you?  Cigarette and alcohol prices have been increasing, mostly due to sin taxes as lawmakers see this as an easy source of revenue while they can also claim that they are doing good for society.

 

But where is the black market for booze and cigarettes that you say is assured, as in assured will happen if the price of weed stays high (no pun intended)?

 

The reason you are wrong is because you assume everyone is as price driven as you are.  Me, I just want to smoke some dope.  I don't care if Johnny Drug Dealer can get me some questionable quality dope for $5 a half-ounce cheaper.

 

If, and this is a big if, a black market did develop it would most likely be the result of legal US based marijuana growers selling out the back door or illegal US based marijuana growers selling directly to the public without obtaining proper licenses or paying taxes.

 

And ultimately, I'm not that convinced that given a choice that enough people would opt to save a few bucks by dealing with sketchy drug dealers when they can buy totally legit weed at 10 different locations just on their route to and from work.

 

 

That's not entirely true and it's not as simple as you make it out to be.

 

For instance, in parts of Colorado, black market weed is more expensive than legal weed.  Even in parts of Colorado where the prices are higher, it ranges from 2% - 10% higher.

 

In other states, the price differentials are higher but that is usually a case of:

 

1)  Marijuana is only legal for medicinal purposes and not for recreational use - meaning some people are forced to buy from the black market

 

2)  Due to #1 above, there doesn't exist a robust competitive market in smaller rural areas

 

3)  There is an abundant source of illegal weed (think northern California) close by.

 

4)  Continued legal concerns that have kept many bigger investors out of the market which slows down progress in growing techniques, supply chain improvements, and efficiencies in retail sales channels.  Also lumped into this group is the fact that growers and retailers have to do all-cash business because they cannot open bank accounts which adds to their overhead as they have to create their own "banks" (i.e. warehouses to hold cash with armed guards).

 

5)  And this is the most important part because it deals with almost all of the points above, the market is still in its infancy.  Legal weed for recreational use has only been around 2 years.  It's still fragmented and inefficient.  If Walmart could sell weed in their pharmacy, prices would drop like a rock because then you would have major agricultural interests improving the farming techniques, you would have Walmart expertise addressing supply chain and distribution issues, etc.

 

 

 

This pretty much sums up why your entire post is BS.

 

 

 

Well ...you are wrong in many of your points while the points that you are correct about is common knowledge anyhow while I already know all about those points long ago.

I am talking about the other half of the story...the one that the pro pot advocates always refute and never acknowledge and always belligerently argue do not exist while only talking about the good points of marijuana.....same as your post proves.

Meantime  you can look up the information that I posted on the internet any time and there are a good number of websites that point out the ramifications that have actually developed rather than your opinions and beliefs about what is happening concerning legal marijuana and ALL that is entailed...not just the good points that you and others always go on about while never including any of the negative aspects.

You would make a good pro pot representative because your argument is one sided as is every hard core pro pot advocate while ignoring any of the ramifications or negative aspects that do actually exist and have to be addressed by someone...but not you...rather other people. 

You naturally assume that I just dreamed up what I posted as the basis of your counter argument.

Meantime, like I said in my previous retort, the pro pot advocates ( you would be one of them obviously ) always refuse, as in always refuse, to acknowledge and or accept any of the negative aspects and or negative ramifications of wide spread pot use.

Rather than include them as part of the facts and everything entailed concerning marijuana you point out and argue "only" the positive aspects, as if by doing so the existing negative aspects and ramifications will just magically disappear all because you argued them into oblivion and  religiously argue the pro pot advocates mantra.

Like I said before, I am pro legalization for a number of logical reasons but I do not live in a dream world believing that the drug is problem free and do not argue that the problems that do already exist and or the ones evolving are just other peoples beliefs or opinions...as seen by you and the basis of your counter arguments.

 

I know all about the good points and all about what is developing ...but unlike most others I include all the relevant and important data and that includes the negative aspects and social ramifications of the drugs wide spread use and availability.

 

You on the on the other hand just blindly defend the drug and every aspect about the drug citing only the positive aspects of the drug and its use...... as seen in your posts.

Your reaction to anything negative said about pot and its use as a recreational drug is as predictable as the sun rising every morning proving you do not digest ALL the relevant information rather you just hand pick the positive information and adamantly defend the drug and its use.

 

I suggest you gain a far more balanced view on the subject of marijuana and ( ALL that is entailed )...rather than a pro pot sales pitch that follows the pro pot advocates mantra as seen in your retorts on the subject of marijuana as a recreational use drug for the sole purpose of intoxication..... and separate from marijuana as a medical use product.

 

Good luck in your search for information to obtain a more balanced understanding and view point about Marijuana and all that is entailed .

 

Cheers

 

 

[ramrod711]

Thailand learned from former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s effort in 2003 to wipe out drugs via extra-judicial killing of those allegedly engaged in their promotion and sale. More than 2,000 people are believed to have perished in this brutal exercise

 

Closer to 3,000 but who's counting. Once you deliberately kill more than a dozen it's all mass murder.

[digibum]

2 hours ago, gemguy said:

Good luck in your search for information to obtain a more balanced understanding and view point about Marijuana and all that is entailed .

 

I already have a very balanced view.  I was responding to points that you made not writing a dissertation on the pros and cons of marijuana legalization.  

 

You claim to be pro legalization

 

Quote

Like I said before, I am pro legalization for a number of logical reasons

 

but then conclude your original post with

 

Quote

Better not to get involved and do not participate in recreational drug consumption is the best argument..lol

 

This is what really is wrong with much of what you have written.  You say that you're pro legalization but that it's better to not get involved in recreational drug consumption.  

 

You make claims that don't even make sense logically and cite no evidence or proof and then when I point out how what you're saying flies in the face of common sense, you call me a spokesman for the pro-pot lobby.  

 

Bottom line is that legalization does not solve all problems.  Nobody has every claimed that it would.  Yes, people are going to drive high.  Yes, compliance with state laws and paying taxes on income puts pricing pressures on legal weed.  Yes, yes, yes.  

 

But are the problems as severe as you make them out to be?  In most cases not even close.  People drive high.  Even the Colorado department of transportation, while citing that 10% - 12% of all DUIs involve marijuana, have said that it's unclear whether marijuana has increased the total number of DUIs or simply replaced marijuana for alcohol.  Since they didn't keep stats pre-legalization they don't know and they themselves say it's too early to draw any conclusions . . . though you felt more than ready to jump.  

 

Does legal weed *sometimes* cost more than illegal weed?  Yes.  But only by 10% or so in those instances where it is more expensive.  And even then, you've got a lot of issues related to startup costs and immature production and distribution channels that nearly everyone agrees will put downward pressure on pricing.  And if large, experienced growers like the tobacco companies got involved, costs drop dramatically.  

 

But that's not opinion or spin.  That's just fact.  Anybody who knows anything about business or has taken an economics class can tell you that.  

 

However, this thread is about Thailand's efforts to legalize yaba.  While it would be better if Thais didn't have a problem with the drug, surely turning manufacturing over to a professional lab would improve quality and lower costs.  Additionally, not incarcerating large segments of the population for non-violent offenses like drug possession doesn't just make sense economically but it's the most humane option.  

 

Again, I'm not pro-yaba or anything.  I've never touched it.  Never had a desire to touch it.  And I won't be touching it when I'm in Thailand.  

 

To me it just seems insane to say that alcohol, a drug that causes all sorts of societal ills can be purchased freely at 7-11 but someone who may be a recreational yaba user, having broken no other laws or caused any ill effect on society, gets a 5 year jail sentence.  

 

If history has demonstrated anything, it's that increasing the penalties for using drugs (whether it be weed, yaba, or alcohol) does not impact demand enough to see that as a viable option.  So, instead of fighting a war you cannot win, put the resources to use in ways that actually benefit society.  

 

If anything, that's what i'm an advocate for.  I'm pro-not-fighting-wars-you-can't-win.  

 

BTW, I live somewhere where medical marijuana is legal and I haven't smoked weed in over 3 years.  I've had a medical marijuana card and used it before but not in the last 3 years.  So, my position isn't influenced by my desire to smoke weed.  I just know what weed was like when it was strictly illegal and what it's like since legalization and there's no doubt the current situation is much better.  

 

 

[gemguy]

9 hours ago, digibum said:

 

I already have a very balanced view.  I was responding to points that you made not writing a dissertation on the pros and cons of marijuana legalization.

 

You claim to be pro legalization

 

 

but then conclude your original post with

 

 

This is what really is wrong with much of what you have written.  You say that you're pro legalization but that it's better to not get involved in recreational drug consumption.

 

You make claims that don't even make sense logically and cite no evidence or proof and then when I point out how what you're saying flies in the face of common sense, you call me a spokesman for the pro-pot lobby.

 

Bottom line is that legalization does not solve all problems.  Nobody has every claimed that it would.  Yes, people are going to drive high.  Yes, compliance with state laws and paying taxes on income puts pricing pressures on legal weed.  Yes, yes, yes.

 

But are the problems as severe as you make them out to be?  In most cases not even close.  People drive high.  Even the Colorado department of transportation, while citing that 10% - 12% of all DUIs involve marijuana, have said that it's unclear whether marijuana has increased the total number of DUIs or simply replaced marijuana for alcohol.  Since they didn't keep stats pre-legalization they don't know and they themselves say it's too early to draw any conclusions . . . though you felt more than ready to jump.

 

Does legal weed *sometimes* cost more than illegal weed?  Yes.  But only by 10% or so in those instances where it is more expensive.  And even then, you've got a lot of issues related to startup costs and immature production and distribution channels that nearly everyone agrees will put downward pressure on pricing.  And if large, experienced growers like the tobacco companies got involved, costs drop dramatically.

 

But that's not opinion or spin.  That's just fact.  Anybody who knows anything about business or has taken an economics class can tell you that.

 

However, this thread is about Thailand's efforts to legalize yaba.  While it would be better if Thais didn't have a problem with the drug, surely turning manufacturing over to a professional lab would improve quality and lower costs.  Additionally, not incarcerating large segments of the population for non-violent offenses like drug possession doesn't just make sense economically but it's the most humane option.

 

Again, I'm not pro-yaba or anything.  I've never touched it.  Never had a desire to touch it.  And I won't be touching it when I'm in Thailand.

 

To me it just seems insane to say that alcohol, a drug that causes all sorts of societal ills can be purchased freely at 7-11 but someone who may be a recreational yaba user, having broken no other laws or caused any ill effect on society, gets a 5 year jail sentence.

 

If history has demonstrated anything, it's that increasing the penalties for using drugs (whether it be weed, yaba, or alcohol) does not impact demand enough to see that as a viable option.  So, instead of fighting a war you cannot win, put the resources to use in ways that actually benefit society.

 

If anything, that's what i'm an advocate for.  I'm pro-not-fighting-wars-you-can't-win.

 

BTW, I live somewhere where medical marijuana is legal and I haven't smoked weed in over 3 years.  I've had a medical marijuana card and used it before but not in the last 3 years.  So, my position isn't influenced by my desire to smoke weed.  I just know what weed was like when it was strictly illegal and what it's like since legalization and there's no doubt the current situation is much better.

 

 

Yes I am pro legalization...but I do not consume any recreational drugs or alcohol or cigarettes.

It should not be confusing or even thought to be contradictory to be pro legalization concerning marijuana but at the same time advocate to everyone that they should not partake in the consumption of said  intoxicants.

Let them be legal the same way that alcohol is legal while the majority of people do not consume alcohol while cigarettes are legal but most people do not smoke cigarettes.

Prohibiting them is now well proven to create all the more problems that can be eliminated by way of legalizing them and regulating them as that is the logical and sensible way to go about it.

But......there is so much more to it than just the legal aspects of recreational drug  supply and the consumption of the recreational drugs for the sole purpose of getting high on.

 

I have been following the drug related events and the evolution of the drug consumption scene and drug consumption culture for 40 plus years now while I did participate in the drug consumption culture for around 10 years ( back when I was Young, Dumb and full of Cum ) ...so.......like many before me I can say: Been there ..done that ...but I moved on and I know I am way better off for abstaining.

I say:  Let the others test the waters and we will see the results from a safe vantage point as there are plenty of fools out there that will dive right in without hesitation.

 

I did not post what I did post by way of "My Opinion" rather the internet and the same sources of information easily found on the internet also include a lot info about the negative ramifications and social contention and social problems presently existing  concerning the widespread use of recreational drugs...including marijuana and the associated problems and ramifications.

I have already read about the positive aspects and the numerous benefits of marijuana and its legalization to the point of ad nuasuem...so now.....I like to also read about the relevant data that talks about and or focuses on the many problems and social ramifications associated with wide spread recreational use drug consumption and the ever growing drug consumption culture.

I predict in 10 years from now.....certainly 20 years from now a lot of people will be wishing it was the way it was before while there will be plenty of new rules and regulations and laws attached to the legal supply chain and consumer consumption of marijuana while plenty of people will still be arrested for violations of the laws....but not near as many incarcerated in Jail.

Meantime there will be new and unforeseen ramifications caused by all the drug consumption going on ..so Yah...I do not advocate you get involved with recreational use drugs ..at all...just stay away from them.

 

I do not participate any longer and not because I think the drugs are that bad ( many being worse than others of course ) rather I witnessed too many people turning weird and going wild and crazy like and addicted on any number of drugs that were easily available including marijuana while commonly combined with Alcohol and Cocaine and MDA and Barbiturates and Speed and Mescaline and LSD and Magic Mushrooms and then the King of all recreation drugs....Heroin.

Although marijuana is the least problematic of all the recreational drugs I clearly remember meeting too many weirdo Pot Heads that were involved in too many shady activities and nefarious dealings and criminal activities and they came with an attitude that was clearly going to bring them trouble and I did not want to be around them when trouble came.

It was not the drugs rather the people I was involved with and or continually meeting and in effect subjecting myself to while participating in the whole party hardy, recreational drug consumption culture while marijuana is a big part of that drug consumption culture as you can not simply separate the Marijuana from the other drugs...as marijuana is all part of the drug consumption culture and comes with plenty of problems and ramifications that do not fade away because the drug is now legalized.

Just too many other factors involved and needing to be addressed while the wide spread use of the drug will always remain a contentious social issue amongst the majority of people who do not take drugs...none at all....and they have the right to be concerned and oppose the use of the drugs if they see any problems at all being created  that effect them negatively that otherwise would not exist if the drugs were not being consumed by that percentage of people that insist on taking the drugs...no matter what the implications and ramifications.

 

Meantime Thailand does not have a drug problem near as bad as North America has so Thailand may have a chance at addressing the problems associated with recreational drug consumption before it really gets out of hand while legalizing the drugs is one way to find out if it is better than keeping them illegal and having to enforce the laws in that manner and in effect criminalizing the users.

But there will still be plenty of problems to deal with and needing to be addressed no matter which approach is taken as the recreational drugs are problematic by nature ...but easily masked by all the fun and thrills to be had while consuming them.

 

Cheers

Edited August 15, 2016 by gemguy

[anotheruser]

Makes sense to me. Of all the drugs one could possibly legalize yaba is the ideal candidate. If they really want this to work they should raise the penalties for users of Marijuana as we all know this is the gateway drug. 

[gemguy]

6 hours ago, anotheruser said:

Makes sense to me. Of all the drugs one could possibly legalize yaba is the ideal candidate. If they really want this to work they should raise the penalties for users of Marijuana as we all know this is the gateway drug.

That is what they say about Marijuana while many adamantly argue that is not the case.

OK......then change the delivery method  of what is meant to be understood by saying this:

If you are involved in the drug consumption culture and marijuana is the drug that you use to get on high then you are commonly exposing yourself to many of the other recreational drugs that are readily available to a person while involved in the drug consumption social circles.

So...commonly:  "One thing leads to another" ( The Gateway Theory )  as often does occur where drug users  will try another drug and often enough it is a drug that is an addictive drug while the users become addicted faster than they imagined.

All in good fun of course and looking for excitement and thrills to be found during ones drug consumption career while many of them will tell you that being involved in marijuana consumption and associating themselves with other users who are also using other recreational drugs in effect was the basis of how they became addicted to Speed or Crack or Heroin.

Had they just stayed with Alcohol and associated with people that do not consume recreational drugs then there is a much higher probability that they never would have experimented with other recreational drugs...but marijuana was the first recreational drug they were involved with which lead hem to associating with other people that consume a variety of other drugs.

So..."One thing leads to another" is a better way of explaining the meaning of the gateway theory ....but both ways of explaining it are very similar while the Gateway statement is just a generalization that does have a degree of validity when people use that expression.

Cheers

[anotheruser]

9 hours ago, gemguy said:

That is what they say about Marijuana while many adamantly argue that is not the case.

OK......then change the delivery method  of what is meant to be understood by saying this:

If you are involved in the drug consumption culture and marijuana is the drug that you use to get on high then you are commonly exposing yourself to many of the other recreational drugs that are readily available to a person while involved in the drug consumption social circles.

So...commonly:  "One thing leads to another" ( The Gateway Theory )  as often does occur where drug users  will try another drug and often enough it is a drug that is an addictive drug while the users become addicted faster than they imagined.

All in good fun of course and looking for excitement and thrills to be found during ones drug consumption career while many of them will tell you that being involved in marijuana consumption and associating themselves with other users who are also using other recreational drugs in effect was the basis of how they became addicted to Speed or Crack or Heroin.

Had they just stayed with Alcohol and associated with people that do not consume recreational drugs then there is a much higher probability that they never would have experimented with other recreational drugs...but marijuana was the first recreational drug they were involved with which lead hem to associating with other people that consume a variety of other drugs.

So..."One thing leads to another" is a better way of explaining the meaning of the gateway theory ....but both ways of explaining it are very similar while the Gateway statement is just a generalization that does have a degree of validity when people use that expression.

Cheers

 

It was a joke. I was trying to highlight just how illogical making yaba the legal drug of the country would be.