Regime moves to ease drug laws starting with meth, marijuana

[teatree]

4 hours ago, little mary sunshine said:

Hope that anyone committing a crime

that tests positive for drugs gets an

automatic 1 year prison sentence, and

the same for driving a car, motorbike or

truck under the influence.

If being ignorant was a crime you would be serving a life sentence right now.

[boomerangutang]

22 hours ago, surangw said:

we're sure if its  leagalized   Thais will use  it in moderation, right ?

 

There will always be ding dongs who abuse things.  Recreational drug abuse should be dealt with by social workers, not criminalized.  Regime is on the right course.

 

We all (should) know that pot is essentially harmless.   Meth (which I call speed) is not harmless, but most times it's used it doesn't harm anyone, not even the person using it.  The same can't be said for alcohol.    When uninformed people think about meth, they think of absolute worst-case-scenarios (yes, I've seen the awful photos).  If you want to base your knowledge on substances on worst case, then take a look at car/bus wrecks (usually alcohol), or dangerously obese people (usually sugar and/or trans-fats), or people with non-functioning livers (usually alcohol), or people with gum and lung diseases (usually cigs).   Should we put all abusers of those above-mentioned things in prison?   No.

 

 

[zd1]

Well after reading the comments on this thread I can see that there are some rational people and some for want of a better word complete idiots.

PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK

The world is changing, people are seeing the light.

Marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use, it is no more harmful than alcohol and arguably a damn sight better.

Meth is an altogether different animal the rise in the use of meth worldwide in the last 20 years is phenomenal, it is highly addictive and dangerous to the user of this there is no argument. Meth is a manufactured drug which in my opinion was probably manufactured as a substitute for cocaine.

Every hard core drug addict is a potential one person crime wave, prohibition doesn't affect the amount of willing users but it does push them users into a life of crime to support their addictions, the crimes i'm talking about are the muggings and  burglerys which can become fatal to the victims of these crimes if weapons are used.

Legalise the lot, have places which will sell or even give it away to the users and there will be a sharp decline in the crimes that get committed by the users to obtain their fix, the money spent on the war against drugs will easily be able to pay for this and also to educate these users and try to get them of these dangerous drugs.

As quite a lot of people have pointed out Portugal is a very good example of forward thinking in this and the amount of drug users there has actually decreased they can also point this out as fact as they monitor this as it is out in the open. Countries which prohibit drugs have actually no idea how many drug addicts there are as they only know about the ones they catch and not the millions they don't.

 

[PeeJay1959]

So weed is harmless. I have seen the phsycosis

 

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/problemsdisorders/cannabis.aspx

[Chicog]

On 8/30/2016 at 2:57 PM, Chookie said:

The cops will be very very unhappy with this. 2 major revenue streams about to dry up.

 

Chook

Why, where does it say they have to stop selling it?

 

[dhream]

 

Just to clarify, are you accusing Dr Somyot Kittimankong of being a drug abuser?

Don't feed the troll, Shawn [emoji13]

Sent from my SM-J200GU using Tapatalk

[Slip]

7 minutes ago, PeeJay1959 said:

So weed is harmless. I have seen the phsycosis

 

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/problemsdisorders/cannabis.aspx

 

Quote

 A US organisation, marijuana-anonymous.org, defines the problems of cannabis as follows:

 

“If cannabis controls our lives and our thinking, and if our desires centre around marijuana - scoring it, dealing it, and finding ways to stay high so that we lose interest in all else.”

So that is the UK Royal College of Psychiatrists promoting a faith-based system of recovery?  The sooner that is stopped the better.  I am gob-smacked.  I might even write a strongly worded letter.

Actually that whole article is biased and uses woolly pseudo-science.  I am stunned.

 

[zd1]

12 minutes ago, PeeJay1959 said:

So weed is harmless. I have seen the phsycosis

 

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/problemsdisorders/cannabis.aspx

I didn't say marijuana was harmless what in fact I said was that  it is no more harmful than alcohol and arguably a damn sight better.

I'm not going to bother to post links to the harmful effects of alcohol you can just google them for yourself.

I agree with you that in some cases some types of high thc content weed can cause physcosis especially in younger users, but do you think it is a good idea to keep this illegal and not know about these people who get physcotic episodes until it is to late or do you think it would be better to monitor these individuals to limit this happening or even educate them on the dangers.

[Wilsonandson]

So weed is harmless. I have seen the phsycosis

 

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/problemsdisorders/cannabis.aspx

Yes, I have seen this before also. Not all people will benifet from full legalization. Alcohol also doesn't suit some people.
For me I wouldn't want to use cannabis because I'm over weight and don't want the munchies. But a person who is in terrible pain and wants to try cannabis to help. Well why shouldn't that be legalized. In the U.K I have smoked cannabis whilst at uni and it was much easier going to lectures slightly stoned than with a flaming hangover after a night on the p1ss.

[Shawn0000]

51 minutes ago, Slip said:

 I was trying to establish Mary's boundaries on this.  She said that anyone intoxicated who committed a crime should be imprisoned for a year.  I'm sure there are plenty of prescribed drugs out there that have a seriously intoxicating effect.  I wondered whether Mary would include those who were involuntarily intoxicated in her minimum one-year sentencing.

 

 

Sorry, I butted in there as it did appear at that point that you were making a crazy comment, I have read your previous comments and it is just Mary making those.

[Shawn0000]

 

15 minutes ago, dhream said:

Don't feed the troll, Shawn

Sent from my SM-J200GU using Tapatalk
 

 

More of a poisoning attempt than a feeding, but i will stop anyhow.

[Slip]

No problem Shawn.  I have been thinking about it in a broader way as a result of my conversations with Mary.  What about someone who is genuinely psychotic who fails to take his drugs- also imprisonable?  Off topic I know.

 

[Rob13]

On 8/30/2016 at 8:33 PM, taichiplanet said:

Don't get too excited though as it medical use only, not recreational.

 

 

Medical meth use.

 

lol

[dhream]

So weed is harmless. I have seen the phsycosis

 

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/problemsdisorders/cannabis.aspx

No drug is harmless. Lets include caffeine and sugar as drugs, they answer the profile of 'abuse' as well as any opiate.
The argument is and always has been, that treating all drugs on an equal footing as alcohol and tobacco would allow for sensible harm reduction, decriminalisation of addicts, which does society no favours in the long run (prison is a university for crime, turning Lebowski tokers into hardened recidivists). Decriminalisation lets governments control who how and when the population use, rather than gangs. Just like beer.
To get there you have to accept most of what you think you know about hard-core drugs is sensationalised.
If drugs are so awful, why do so many people use? Why is the trade value in the billions and yet addicts are barely visible?
With the size of the seizures, our streets should be littered with diseased addicts, yet they aren't. So there's a disconnect between demand, use, and what we all accept as gutter 'junkies' or drunken bums if you will.
The demand is growing, yet hopeless addicts in relative terms, are not presenting in corresponding numbers.
So why?
Because the harm or (abuse) potential versus the responsible usage by silent majority is completely at odds with the moral panic.
Every country that has relaxed drug prohibition has seen the good far outweigh the bad, and yet the tired myths persist like bad religion.
Even the press wording used to describe drug stories is hackneyed and perpetuates 1920s Chicago thinking.
We need to move on.
It's totally manageable if we, not the crims, are prepared to man up and bloody well MANAGE it.



Sent from my SM-J200GU using Tapatalk

[Shawn0000]

14 minutes ago, Slip said:

No problem Shawn.  I have been thinking about it in a broader way as a result of my conversations with Mary.  What about someone who is genuinely psychotic who fails to take his drugs- also imprisonable?  Off topic I know.

 

 

Only about 50% of sufferers of acute mental illness fully adhere to their medicine regime, psychosis makes people make poor decisions, that is the nature of the disease, if they stop taking their medicine it could mean its not working and jailing the producers of quack medicines might be more appropriate.

[zd1]

6 minutes ago, dhream said:

No drug is harmless. Lets include caffeine and sugar as drugs, they answer the profile of 'abuse' as well as any opiate.
The argument is and always has been, that treating all drugs on an equal footing as alcohol and tobacco would allow for sensible harm reduction, decriminalisation of addicts, which does society no favours in the long run (prison is a university for crime, turning Lebowski tokers into hardened recidivists). Decriminalisation lets governments control who how and when the population use, rather than gangs. Just like beer.
To get there you have to accept most of what you think you know about hard-core drugs is sensationalised.
If drugs are so awful, why do so many people use? Why is the trade value in the billions and yet addicts are barely visible?
With the size of the seizures, our streets should be littered with diseased addicts, yet they aren't. So there's a disconnect between demand, use, and what we all accept as gutter 'junkies' or drunken bums if you will.
The demand is growing, yet hopeless addicts in relative terms, are not presenting in corresponding numbers.
So why?
Because the harm or (abuse) potential versus the responsible usage by silent majority is completely at odds with the moral panic.
Every country that has relaxed drug prohibition has seen the good far outweigh the bad, and yet the tired myths persist like bad religion.
Even the press wording used to describe drug stories is hackneyed and perpetuates 1920s Chicago thinking.
We need to move on.
It's totally manageable if we, not the crims, are prepared to man up and bloody well MANAGE it.



Sent from my SM-J200GU using Tapatalk
 

Couldn't have put it better myself, totally agree.

[dhream]

 

 

Medical meth use.

 

lol

According to one guy here modern airforce's feed their pilots meth.
I think that qualifies as medicinal.

Also I think he may be referring to the WW2 Luftwaffe and Soviet flyers who would have absolutely needed it in the desperate skies of those times.

Drones now do a much better job of tweaked up air aces, but what would I know? [emoji12] I'm just a 'high junkie' as far as some nincompoops here are concerned...

Sent from my SM-J200GU using Tapatalk

[little mary sunshine]

1 hour ago, dhream said:

The world is changing sunshine!
Only dullards cling to broken solutions.
Whether you approve or not, regardless of your infantile insults that all progressive drug campaigners and psychonauts with more brains in their fingernail than your entire head, are 'junkies' You just read like a muddled and frightened troll.
Go away and teach sunday school to girl guides or something.

Sent from my SM-J200GU using Tapatalk
 

Yes, the world is changing...more and more criminals looking

for money for their drugs, more and more junkies on the streets,

such pathetic losers!!   But life goes on:. Some will sit in a sad,

paramoid haze of weed, others of us will golf, travel,enjoy concerts

and good conversation.....The "Haves" and the "Have Nothings" but

drugs.....

 

[little mary sunshine]

1 hour ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Just to clarify, are you accusing Dr Somyot Kittimankong of being a drug abuser?

Don't know the Dr.  Don't know if he is or isn't!

[little mary sunshine]

1 hour ago, Slip said:

 I was trying to establish Mary's boundaries on this.  She said that anyone intoxicated who committed a crime should be imprisoned for a year.  I'm sure there are plenty of prescribed drugs out there that have a seriously intoxicating effect.  I wondered whether Mary would include those who were involuntarily intoxicated in her minimum one-year sentencing.

 

"involuntarily intoxicated". Makes no sense... You took the meds,

that's voluntary!!  If you become intoxicated with the meds, anyone

with an I Q above 58 would stop taking the meds and see their Dr.

Edited August 31, 2016 by little mary sunshine

[Slip]

1 minute ago, little mary sunshine said:

"involuntarily intoxicated". Makes no sense... You took the meds,

that's voluntary!!  If you become intoxicated with the meds, anyone

with an I Q above 58 would stop taking the meds and see their Dr.

 

Apologies- my meaning was that they were prescribed by an authorised source but precluded the ability to function at full capacity.

 

[little mary sunshine]

1 hour ago, teatree said:

If being ignorant was a crime you would be serving a life sentence right now.

Could be a typical druggies reply!

[little mary sunshine]

59 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

 

More of a poisoning attempt than a feeding, but i will stop anyhow.

Attempting to enlighten a pot head of the dangers of weed

is like trying to feed hay to a dead horse....useless waste of energy.

[Shawn0000]

7 minutes ago, little mary sunshine said:

"involuntarily intoxicated". Makes no sense... You took the meds,

that's voluntary!!  If you become intoxicated with the meds, anyone

with an I Q above 58 would stop taking the meds and see their Dr.

 

You seem to have little grasp on the consequences of intoxication, ironic that you think intoxication is likely to result in crime but you also think that anyone intoxicated would take themselves to a doctor sharpish, surely in your fantasy land there would be a crime spree all the way to the doctors, I would say an ambulance would be better but then maybe they would nick it?

[zd1]

23 minutes ago, little mary sunshine said:

Yes, the world is changing...more and more criminals looking

for money for their drugs, more and more junkies on the streets,

such pathetic losers!!   But life goes on:. Some will sit in a sad,

paramoid haze of weed, others of us will golf, travel,enjoy concerts

and good conversation.....The "Haves" and the "Have Nothings" but

drugs.....

 

Do you not understand that by decriminalisation or legalisation would not be putting more criminals looking for money on the streets and would not incourage more junkies, look at Portugal it has done this and the results are there for all to see, it has in fact lowered the amount of junkies and street crime.

Are you a troll or worse still do you actually believe your arguments, they seem nonsensical to a normal person.

Having read some of your other posts good conversation with you would probably be impossible.

Edited August 31, 2016 by zd1

[dhream]

actually its been pretty extensively researched and they came to slightly different conclusions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphetamine

You should have tried minute quantities of LSD to solve problems... now it's important to distinguish this is not your average 'touch the face of god' trip.
But LSD in researched doses does open the human mind to incredible problem solving potential.
Of course, all stifled by the
control freak and disgraced criminal Nixon and his cohorts in boring suits.


Sent from my SM-J200GU using Tapatalk

[dhream]

actually its been pretty extensively researched and they came to slightly different conclusions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphetamine

You should have tried minute quantities of LSD to solve problems... now it's important to distinguish this is not your average 'touch the face of god' trip.
But LSD in researched doses does open the human mind to incredible problem solving potential.
Of course, all stifled by the
control freak and disgraced criminal Nixon and his cohorts in boring suits.


Sent from my SM-J200GU using Tapatalk

[kaorop]

On 30/8/2016 at 8:23 PM, anotheruser said:

What are the medicinal uses of meth? What a weird way to do this... starting with meth.

ahad use amphetamine based drugs

and weight loss drugs

not meth obviously but derivatives

[dhream]

Yes, the world is changing...more and more criminals looking

for money for their drugs, more and more junkies on the streets,

such pathetic losers!!   But life goes on:. Some will sit in a sad,

paramoid haze of weed, others of us will golf, travel,enjoy concerts

and good conversation.....The "Haves" and the "Have Nothings" but

drugs.....

 

Somebody confirm the truth -as gently as possible to this person- that:
1. Their concert performers and half the audience are usually high. Particularly if it's Classical.
After all, young Rockers are the classical concert lovers of the future!
2. Travellers visit Amsterdam to get stoned THEN *absorb* the glory of the Rijksmuseum, and;
3. Golfers need to find a far cheaper less time consuming drug!

Bless you Mary, your sobriety is so sincere.

Sent from my SM-J200GU using Tapatalk

[damo]

It would be a interesting social experiment if data was accurately and transparently reported. 

 

Declines alone could potentially be measured in, alcohol sales, road fatalities, violent crimes, drug dealing. Could be a great opportunity to move to a more modern society.

 

Don't know about the Meth though thats a bit far fetched.