Thailand's War on Drugs

[vinapu]

 

- drunk drinving (on a LEGAL drug, mind you!) is already illegal and obviouly will and must remain illegal, irrespective of the intoxicating substance

 

- there will be no more "drug-related crime" if everything is legalized

 

 

while I'm all for legalization I think what Christian  meant is that drunk dangling on the tree will not be able to drive and cause harm for obvious reason 

 

as for second paragraph I have my doubts , after all there's no consolation if an addict stabbing somebody in a rage was taking legal or illegal crack

 

benefit of legalization would be easiness of control of production and usage

[KhorTose]

And what about others who will be affected? Second hand smoke, traffic accidents from drunk driving, drug-related crime and finally costs for medical treatment?

This actually sounds like a good question, if you ignore the fact that the implication is that all drug users are drug addicts. I have no idea where Christian got this, but I think that the fact that he see hundreds of people drinking, and only a tiny percentage of these drinkers become drunk drivers might have impacted his awareness, but I guess not.  People use drugs, some even Heroin, and never ever get into trouble.  People who get into trouble with drugs-like getting a DUI--are considered addicts, and they are often everyday mothers and fathers with jobs.  They do not need to be killed--as you suggested--but need drug counseling.  By the way, I am using alcohol as an example as it is the most commonly abused drug by far, with far more abusers then all of the other drugs combined.

      So if we legalize all drug usage--like Portugal did--does that mean that we will not get hundreds of drug addicts driving on the road? Well based on Portugal and America's experiences in Vietnam, I would say absolutely not.  Portugal experienced no increase, and actually had a decrease in Heroin usage, so actually less heroin users who might drive were out there.  Second, I know from direct observation and dozens of studies that at one time 66% of American soldiers were using marijuana in Vietnam and 50% had used opiates, with 25% of those opiate users showing signs of addiction (tolerance and withdrawal).  Well, most of them came home (sadly not all), and in the end only 2% of these users stayed addicted--exactly the same percentage as we find in the general population of user addicts in America.  User does NOT equal addict. Users who can't pay bills, take care of family , break the law to support their habit, or drive in such a way to get into a wreck or get the attention of the law; these people are addicts and they need help.  Maybe I am too compassionate, but I believe in treating them, and not shooting, them.

     Christian, I know you are smart, and I love your blog, but I am astonished that an intelligent European like you could have such backward and truly uninformed beliefs about drugs and drugs addicts. I have always admired Europeans, as I have found  them to be, in general, far more progressive and less dogmatic then our large population of bible-thumping ignorant rednecks who have inflicted this expensive, stupid and futile "war on Drugs" on the American population.  I am really wondering if you have a personal story to tell us about why you have such draconian views of drugs.  I would really like to hear this story if you are willing to share.

[ChristianPFC]

A civilized discussion with educated people, a rare thing on the gay forums!

 

Under the rule of Christian I, I would be a lonely person as all my friends would have been executed. 

 

After seizing power, I would grant a transition period where everyone affected has time to abjure drug use. After that, there would be re-education camps for those who didn't use the transition period. Everyone would come out clean of these re-education camps. And only for the most recalcitrant, there would be death sentence.

 

But this is moot, I would rather like to hear how those who are for legalizing drugs would prevents accidents by drug users.

 

 

- second hand smoke is already being regulated in many many countries (no smoking in restaurants etc), and its not an issue with any other drug except pot

 

- drunk drinving (on a LEGAL drug, mind you!) is already illegal and obviouly will and must remain illegal, irrespective of the intoxicating substance

 

- there will be no more "drug-related crime" if everything is legalized

 

Laws to reduce second hand smoke to not work. Only recently I was in the disco of Farose 2 sauna, ample smoking in there. I remember my time in Paris: restaurants are non-smoking inside and smoking outside. Smokers would smoke outside, non-smokers would be forced to go inside to avoid the smoke (not that I went to that many restaurants in Paris, but I clearly remember). And how to protect children from their smoking parents in their own homes?

 

Laws against drunk driving to not work. A large part of traffic accidents is from drunk driving.

 

Here I agree. Recreational drugs can be produced cheaply, the high prices for illegal drugs are only because they are illegal. If legalized, they would be affordable to everyone. Drug-related crime would indeed disappear, but accidents by people under influence would increase.

 

This actually sounds like a good question, if you ignore the fact that the implication is that all drug users are drug addicts. I have no idea where Christian got this, but I think that the fact that he see hundreds of people drinking, and only a tiny percentage of these drinkers become drunk drivers might have impacted his awareness, but I guess not.

 

99 people can use alcohol reasonably, but 1 causes an accident while driving drunk. How do you balance the enjoyment of 99 to the damage (death and injury) caused by 1?

 

Christian, I know you are smart, and I love your blog, but I am astonished that an intelligent European like you could have such backward and truly uninformed beliefs about drugs and drugs addicts. I have always admired Europeans, as I have found  them to be, in general, far more progressive and less dogmatic then our large population of bible-thumping ignorant rednecks who have inflicted this expensive, stupid and futile "war on Drugs" on the American population.

 

If you disagree with my suggestions, let me know why and show different solutions than mine, and I might change my opinion. I admit that prohibition did not work and the war on drugs does not work. The questions is: abort or increase efforts? Those in power might just want to keep the current status (illegal drug use with all side effects versus leagalizing or abolishing drug use).

 

I am really wondering if you have a personal story to tell us about why you have such draconian views of drugs.  I would really like to hear this story if you are willing to share.

 

Not a story, but two deaths in my family that support my anti-drug position. My grandfather died of lung cancer after being a heavy smoker for decades. (There is no proof that these are related, but statistics say that smokers get lung cancer more often than non-smokers.) My uncle died in a swimming accident under influence of alcohol. (My remaining uncle jokes the problem was the swimming, not the alcohol. If he had sat in his chair or laid on his bed while drunk, like all the years before, nothing would have happened).

[Guest Promsak]

And only for the most recalcitrant, there would be death sentence.

 

I said it before and I'll say it again --- ye gods!

Aren't we lucky on this board to have  "educated people" like this poster who believes in the death penalty.

Somehow doesn't surprise me.

[witty]

There should be no restrictions whatsoever. Let there be total freedom. This will be the ultimate test of the survival of the fittest.

The world's population is ever growing, so by losing a small percentage in a process of attrition is justifiable to keep population growth in check.

Those who abuse themselves beyond help will be just ones who are not up to the survival tests.

[Alexx]

I also don't see the need to attempt to protect members of a society against all dangers coming from other members, not least because it would be futile anyway. People will always get hurt thanks to what other people do to them, by accident or otherwise.

 

Christian, following the logic you've applied, you will need to ban kitchen knives as well: 99 people buy it to cut the usual kitchen fare, one deranged one buys it to chop up her husband. What's the solution here?

[vinapu]

 one deranged one buys it to chop up her husband. What's the solution here?

bury him

[vinapu]

 

Aren't we lucky on this board to have  "educated people" like this poster who believes in the death penalty.

 

ever since  one tenured University professor told me seriously that universal health care is pure communism I see clear difference between being educated and being wise.

 

And most likely for every one educated who is for death penalty it will be few uneducated who are against it so it somehow levels off.

 

Would we discount opinion against death penalty voiced by somebody with grade 6 education only ? I don't think so 

[steveboy]

ever since  one tenured University professor told me seriously that universal health care is pure communism I see clear difference between being educated and being wise.

 

You have very wise eyes.  The same can be said about so many conservative republicans with college degrees in the US...

[KhorTose]

Christian--I am on the east coast of USA right now.  I am sorry, but cannot reply at this time, but many good answers already.  Thank you though for replying.

[Guest ryanasia]

- second hand smoke is already being regulated in many many countries (no smoking in restaurants etc), and its not an issue with any other drug except pot

 

- drunk drinving (on a LEGAL drug, mind you!) is already illegal and obviouly will and must remain illegal, irrespective of the intoxicating substance

 

- there will be no more "drug-related crime" if everything is legalized

 

- the cost for medical treatment is a non-issue once drugs are legalized, because the gazillions of dollars being spent on the pointless and lost "war on drugs" will be saved and can be diverted to health care instead. Besides, these health costs already are already there because drugs ARE being (and have been for millennia and will always be) widely used, legal or not (lost "war on drugs" and all...).

 

- and: now there are many drug related deaths that are not linked to the use of drugs (like overdoses etc), but a result of that stupid war on drugs. A death is a death, and a human being is a human being, right? So in terms of human loss, legalizing will reduce that sharply.

 

Totally agree with Michael, why should using drugs be illegal in the first place? The distribution may an should be regulated (like it already is for all legal drugs, be it recreational drugs like alcohol or tobacco or prescription drugs), but that has nothing to do with the legality of consumption. 

 

There will be no drug related crime if it is legalized? That is just wishful thinking. Will it be reduced probably? People seem to be so opinionated on both sides of the argument that neither side makes plausible arguments or sense at times. 

[a447a]

One thing's for sure - if they legalise drugs the criminals will just move on to something else. They still need their steady income.

 

A different problem will just be created.

[bkkguy]

One thing's for sure - if they legalise drugs the criminals will just move on to something else. They still need their steady income.

 

A different problem will just be created.

 

but what is your point?

 

surely you are not suggesting this is justification for doing nothing about the social consequences of the abject failure of the war on drugs in Thailand and most  other countries?

 

given the choice between governments and societies playing "wack-a-mole" with new criminal activities as they develop or sitting on their hands and doing nothing about the current problems with drugs, corruption, etc, because the criminals "need their steady income" I know which side I would come down on!

 

bkkguy

[Alexx]

One thing's for sure - if they legalise drugs the criminals will just move on to something else. They still need their steady income.

Interesting point that cannot be dismissed outright, I think. What about the small time drug peddlers who overcrowd Thailand's prisons nowadays, indeed. It's safe to assume that most are too dumb and/or lazy to do any kind of regular work, so once no drug peddlers are needed anymore, what will they do instead?

[kokopelli]

Maybe it all depends on what "legalizing" drugs means? Decriminalizing the use of drugs  by an individual is one thing but I believe there should be penalties for production, selling and smuggling of drugs. Fact is drug use has serious effects on the users and their friends and associates plus many lead a user to engage in risky behavior to support their habit. 

[Alexx]

Personally, I would decriminalize using drugs AND ensure there's a legal supply chain. The latter would effectively drive criminal drug peddlers out of the market. The reasons I would do that are safety/consistency/quality and stamping out corruption along the now illegal supply chain.

[kokopelli]

Well, a legal supply chain brings new meaning to the words Drug Store. Walk in and buy some heroin, cocaine, meth, etc? That is not likely to happen. I just don't see how dangerous/hard drugs will be sold openly.  Although, in a sense, that is now true for cigs, alcohol and marijuana.

[Alexx]

Exactly, alcohol in particular is extremely dangerous, but it's perfectly legal (in most countries) to buy it in large quantities. What would happen if the same stores were allowed to stock cocaine as well? In my opinion, not that much! It's not really the illegality that currently keeps most people away from hard drugs. They simply know better.

[bucknaway]

If I were ruler, I'd allow smoking in a business. If the owner is willing to invest the time, money and effort and risk it all. They should be able to decide if they want to serve smokers or not.

 

Employees will know that if they work there thy may be around smokers. If they don't want that then they can tell the employer to pound sand and leave.

[steveboy]

If I were ruler, I'd allow smoking in a business. If the owner is willing to invest the time, money and effort and risk it all. They should be able to decide if they want to serve smokers or not.

 

Employees will know that if they work there thy may be around smokers. If they don't want that then they can tell the employer to pound sand and leave.

 

The ban on smoking on most public places has been a blessing for ex-smokers like me.  Now I can go for months without getting one molecule of tobacco smoke through my nose.  And it's not that it would tempt me, but gross me out.

 

I don't think smokers have been victimized at all.  Neither have the stores who had to prohibit smoking, because it happened to all of them.   Maybe a few generations of prohibitions can reduce smoking to insignificant levels.  It is such a dumb vice...

[bucknaway]

I use to smoke to many years ago.  I am just saying that if you wanted to open a bar or venue to cater to smokers, you should be able to do so since you are risking your own money on the hope that you will be profitable.

 

But I don't have that type of power so.....  

[Guest Chicago]

To further the debate and discussion of the consequences of drugs ............. some advocate strict enforcement of the illegality of drugs and its effects on a society vs. the legalization of drugs.

 

It is not a simple answer of personal rights and responsibilities but also how an individual's rights impacts the rights of the society as a whole.  Whatever ones position, I think all can agree that drugs have a costs which drains the resources of an individual and of the society.

 

Indonesia, like some other countries, have chosen their own irreversible solution.  See >>>>>

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/28/asia/indonesia-drug-executions/index.html

 

 

[a447a]

but what is your point?

People sometimes mention the connection between drugs and criminal organisations, suggesting that somehow the link will go away if they are taken out of the supply chain. Well, it will, but the problems associated with the criminals will still be there . They won't go away. The bikies will soon find something else to get their teeth into.

 

I wasn't commenting on whether or not drugs should be legalised.

 

The argument for legalising drugs on the basis that they are still available despite all government efforts to crack down on users and their suppliers seems a little thin. Law enforcement agencies have not been able to prevent burglaries either. Does that mean they should also be legalised?? Where do you draw the line?

 

Drug use is sometimes referred to as a victimless crime. But in reality, it isn't. Taxpayers' money is used to care for them when they overdose, are unable to work, get ill, etc. They are also forced to pay for their rehabilitation, the costs of keeping them in prison, etc.

 

Having said that, as an ex-smoker I cannot complain about the use of my own taxpayer money to look after them.

[Alexx]

Insurance schemes always seem to be unfair in that regard. If you're a responsible driver, you pay for the accidents of those who aren't. If you practice safe sex, you pay for the HIV infections of notorious barebackers. That list is endless. Mechanisms to attempt to mitigate that exist (e.g. higher car insurance premiums for drivers who previously caused an accident, or higher health insurance premiums for smokers), so maybe there is a way to charge drug users as a group for the cost they cause. Oh, and there's tax. Smokers and drinkers are already taxed for their vices. If other drugs were legalized, I don't see why they shouldn't be taxed as well.

[ChristianPFC]

Christian, following the logic you've applied, you will need to ban kitchen knives as well: 99 people buy it to cut the usual kitchen fare, one deranged one buys it to chop up her husband. What's the solution here?

 

This question brings us closer to the reasons for my total rejection of drugs.

 

I use knives to cut things and accept the risks associated with knives.

I ride cars and buses and accept the risk of accidents (even without drunk driving and speeding, there would be accidents).

 

But my experiences with drugs (getting drunk once and being around smokers or drunks) are entirely in the negative to neutral range.

 

Second hand smoke ranges from just annoying to tearing eyes (when there are important reasons to stay in an area with smokers, like gay disco).

 

When I was around 18, I once got drunk. My brain remained clear, but I had physical problems (unable to walk straight). When other people are drunk, it's at best mildly amusing or entertaining, but mostly annoying.

 

I occasionally observe glue sniffers, rather saddening and the smell is disgusting.

 

That leads to the question: if someone provided me with a positive experience with drugs, would I change my mind? But there will be no experience at all, I wouldn't take anything because it's illegal and because I'm a chemist (I wouldn't take in substances that laymen tempered with, and I wouldn't take clean substances because if I liked it, I could make it myself*, produce more than my own consumption, and get down a slippery slope).

 

*True only for some substances. Morphine derived drugs cannot be produced economically in the laboratory, the only viable source is poppy. Precursors for stuff than can be made in the laboratory are restricted in sale and use.