Exclusive: Meth 'disaster' for region as seizures surge in Thailand

[Bullie]

46 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Without exception they started on alcohol, or does that not fit your agenda?

Without exception they drank water too. What is the point you are trying to make?

Also, I know quite a vew speed addicts (I'm vrom Amsterdam) that never have, or ever will touch alcohol.

[Kieran00001]

2 minutes ago, Bullie said:

My suggestion to you: Try some Yaba. Then you will know the divverence between alcohol and this substance.

Until then I suggest you ruzip about the matter.

 

Someone taking yaba for the first time will see themselves making better judgements than someone not taking it, unlike alcohol, it is not until the sleep deprivation takes its toll on the brain that things go haywire and that is not something that affects the casual user, the drug is actually quite safe if not abused, they would not have used it in the airforce and NASA for so long if it immediately turned every user into a crazed killer.

[Bullie]

38 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

"As with marijuana, they are still open to decriminalizing amphetamines for recreational use, Mana Siripithayawat, a director at the Office of Narcotics Control Board said."

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/crimecourtscalamity/2017/10/20/thailands-drug-decriminalization-edges-forward-little-fanfare/

They are reverring to kratom, a mild stimulant that never should have been vorbidden in the virst place. As var as amphetemines are concerned they are talking about medical use.

[Kieran00001]

1 minute ago, Bullie said:

Without exception they drank water too. What is the point you are trying to make?

Also, I know quite a vew speed addicts (I'm vrom Amsterdam) that never have, or ever will touch alcohol.

 

Water is not an intoxicant.  I believe you were tying to establish a link between using one intoxicant and going on to use another, you claimed skunk was a catalyst for amphetamine use while neglecting that the same people had also used alcohol and so by your own logic that may have been the catalyst rather than the skunk.

[Kieran00001]

1 minute ago, Bullie said:

They are reverring to kratom, a mild stimulant that never should have been vorbidden in the virst place. As var as amphetemines are concerned they are talking about medical use.

 

Which part of "decriminalizing amphetamines for recreational use" did you not understand?

[Odysseus123]

3 minutes ago, Bullie said:

Without exception they drank water too. What is the point you are trying to make?

Also, I know quite a vew speed addicts (I'm vrom Amsterdam) that never have, or ever will touch alcohol.

Yes indeed..

 

Often that is part of the boast.

 

"I smoke 20 cones a day..and drop some "Ice"-but I don't drink alcohol."

[ozmeldo]

Quite simple. Give Myanmar six months to take down the northern mafia armies and then invade. Definitely a threat to national security.

[Bullie]

6 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Someone taking yaba for the first time will see themselves making better judgements than someone not taking it, unlike alcohol, it is not until the sleep deprivation takes its toll on the brain that things go haywire and that is not something that affects the casual user, the drug is actually quite safe if not abused, they would not have used it in the airforce and NASA for so long if it immediately turned every user into a crazed killer.

There is a big divverence between controlled usage vor a specivic purpose and a meth addiction. I have used it myselv several times vor recreational purposes and it was very hard not to start using more. Having a regular job and responsabilities saved me at the time. It is extremely addictive, is my point.

[dick dasterdly]

I've never taken these type of drugs in my life, but have 2 brothers with serious drug addictions ☹️.

 

Even so, I've never informed myself on the difference between 'crack'/'meth' and the like - as I prefer not to know anything more about these appalling drugs.  I know enough about the appalling consequences from talking to one brother who is desperately trying to get off 'crack' nowadays ☹️.

 

Hard drugs have destroyed 2 of my brothers' lives - and so I think it's time to legalise 'soft' drugs (and let's be honest, alcohol is far less soft than marijuana) and concentrate on the drugs that ruin lives/cause aggression etc.

 

And before anyone says that I like marijuana and so am promoting it's 'cause' - I had one 'drag' as a youngster, and it didn't affect me - and have never been in a situation to try it again.

[Bluespunk]

4 hours ago, canopy said:

Astonishing considering the population is 70 million. I know nothing of the stuff but if everyone is using it maybe it's time to legalize instead of throw more money at the futile effort of seizures.

 

I'm in favour of legalising most drugs, but meth...I just don't see it. 

 

This is from a relatively neutral site with regards using meth, even they seem to be a little dubious 

 

https://waaids.com/item/875-using-meth-safely.html

[Bluespunk]

24 minutes ago, ozmeldo said:

Quite simple. Give Myanmar six months to take down the northern mafia armies and then invade. Definitely a threat to national security.

You think that's a simple solution...wow

[Kieran00001]

22 minutes ago, ozmeldo said:

Quite simple. Give Myanmar six months to take down the northern mafia armies and then invade. Definitely a threat to national security.

 

The Shan State Army are not a mafia, they are the army of the Shan state which is a state with a legitimate claim to sovereignty.  They have been fighting to try to force Myanmar honor their 1947 Panglong Agreement of independence for Shan since 1958, it is not about to end in 2019 for Thailand's sake.

[ozmeldo]

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

You think that's a simple solution...wow

Absolutely. I have zero tolerance for meth and even less than that for ice. Look what Duarte is doing in Philippines to stave it off and still it grows unabated. I'd occupy those two states and burn every opium field and meth factory and publicly hang anyone involved over 16 years of age. Boom, done.

[Kieran00001]

28 minutes ago, Bullie said:

There is a big divverence between controlled usage vor a specivic purpose and a meth addiction. I have used it myselv several times vor recreational purposes and it was very hard not to start using more. Having a regular job and responsabilities saved me at the time. It is extremely addictive, is my point.

 

Studies have shown that 3% of amphetamine users become regular users, unlike tobaccos 50%, so clearly it is not all that 'extremely' addictive after all.

[ozmeldo]

2 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The Shan State Army are not a mafia, they are the army of the Shan state which is a state with a legitimate claim to sovereignty.  They have been fighting to try to force Myanmar honor their 1947 Panglong Agreement of independence for Shan since 1958, it is not about to end in 2019 for Thailand's sake.

Shan army is just mafia. You can't manufacturer methamphetamine for sale on a global scale and claim to be self righteous protectors ofvthe realm. It's purely for money.

[JAG]

2 hours ago, canopy said:

A lot of things cause people to kill others. Alcohol. Way too many innocent people are killed on the road and elsewhere by it every year. Should it be banned? Where is your story about the 2 old ladies run over by a drunk? Why is there a double standard?

 

It is not a "double standard" to refer to the matter of two old ladies being beaten to death by relatives seeking money to fund "ya baa", as a reason not to decriminalise it. It is a perfectly valid comment, in the context of that debate.

 

If Farma were to have said that being killed by a drunk driver was somehow less of a tragedy, more acceptable, that would have been an example of "double standards" being deployed. He didn't say that.

 

Personally, I am opposed to the legalisation of such addictive drugs (but then I have a teenage daughter), but I acknowledge that there are valid arguments for such legalisation. Having considered these arguments, I have formed the opinion that the benefits would be outweighed by the damage which it would do, so I am against legalisation.

 

Now, before everyone queues up to demand answers and accuse me of double standards; yes I do drink alcohol (but not to excess, and not before driving), and I used to smoke - packed it in 20 or so years ago. Both these habits, while possibly (certainly in the case of smoking) not good for my health are not dangerous to others, nor are they responsible for breaking society or the savage violent death of old ladies

[ozmeldo]

8 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Studies have shown that 3% of amphetamine users become regular users, unlike tobaccos 50%, so clearly it is not all that 'extremely' addictive after all.

Insane. The man openly admits to his personal struggle with methamphetamine addiction and  you cite some random bullshit you may have read somewhere, sometime - or not

 

Meth is absolutely savage not only for individual, but the whole of society.

[ozmeldo]

For what its worth I'm quite ok with decriminalization and legalization of natural substances for which i would personally include distilled alcohol. All substances save for alcohol, private consumption including alcohol.

 

Death for possession and sale of synthesized drugs.

 

Give a little, take a little.

[Bluespunk]

24 minutes ago, ozmeldo said:

Absolutely. I have zero tolerance for meth and even less than that for ice. Look what Duarte is doing in Philippines to stave it off and still it grows unabated. I'd occupy those two states and burn every opium field and meth factory and publicly hang anyone involved over 16 years of age. Boom, done.

duarte is a psychopath and should be locked up for life.

 

The rest of your post expresses equally disturbing views.

[dick dasterdly]

2 hours ago, canopy said:

A lot of things cause people to kill others. Alcohol. Way too many innocent people are killed on the road and elsewhere by it every year. Should it be banned? Where is your story about the 2 old ladies run over by a drunk? Why is there a double standard?

 

 

5 minutes ago, JAG said:

It is not a "double standard" to refer to the matter of two old ladies being beaten to death by relatives seeking money to fund "ya baa", as a reason not to decriminalise it. It is a perfectly valid comment, in the context of that debate.

 

If Farma were to have said that being killed by a drunk driver was somehow less of a tragedy, more acceptable, that would have been an example of "double standards" being deployed. He didn't say that.

 

Personally, I am opposed to the legalisation of such addictive drugs (but then I have a teenage daughter), but I acknowledge that there are valid arguments for such legalisation. Having considered these arguments, I have formed the opinion that the benefits would be outweighed by the damage which it would do, so I am against legalisation.

 

Now, before everyone queues up to demand answers and accuse me of double standards, yes I do drink alcohol (but not to excess, and not before driving), and I used to smoke - packed it in 20 or so years ago. Both these habits, while possibly (certainly in the case of smoking) not good for my health are not dangerous to others, nor are they responsible for breaking society or the savage violent death of old ladies

I agree with both of you, but have little doubt that alcohol causes more deaths.

[Kieran00001]

Just now, ozmeldo said:

Absolutely. I have zero tolerance for meth and even less than that for ice. Look what Duarte is doing in Philippines to stave it off and still it grows unabated. I'd occupy those two states and burn every opium field and meth factory and publicly hang anyone involved over 16 years of age. Boom, done.

 

Public hanging of those providing funding for a political movement that the people support might not have the affect you imagine.  Myanmar has been trying to occupy those states for the past 70 years, it is not going well for them, what makes you imagine that you could just walz in an occupy them?

[faraday]

7 minutes ago, ozmeldo said:

For what its worth I'm quite ok with decriminalization and legalization of natural substances for which i would personally include distilled alcohol. All substances save for alcohol, private consumption including alcohol.

 

Death for possession and sale of synthesized drugs.

 

Give a little, take a little.

Coca & Opium poppies are natural substances.....

[Kieran00001]

3 minutes ago, ozmeldo said:

For what its worth I'm quite ok with decriminalization and legalization of natural substances for which i would personally include distilled alcohol. All substances save for alcohol, private consumption including alcohol.

 

Death for possession and sale of synthesized drugs.

 

Give a little, take a little.

 

So opium is OK, as is its naturally made derivative heroin, but possession of tramadol should receive the death sentence, clearly you've thought this one through past your personal need for alcohol.

[Dumbastheycome]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Contradictory to what?  In my opinion all drugs should be decriminalized for possession and the only crime should be making money from them, fill the jails with the businessmen and officials who have profited from the drug industry rather than their victims.

I can agree  up to a point. But Meth is a social endangerment due to the well known behaviours it causes. The other narcotics and opiates are not the same other than the profiteering and violence involved Because they are illicit.

It would be interesting to see outcome if all recreational chemicals/drugs  were decriminalized if only too see what would  surface as the  "drug of choice".

I dislike the  word "legalize" with regard to this  varied  topic because that only means to put it in the control and furthering of profiteering.

If people  were allowed  to grow/produce their own the  profiteering  would  be eliminated along with most of the  real criminality of extorsion, violence, .......

 

 

[ParadiseLost]

How about putting the "Cobra Gold" farce to some good effect? There must be a plentiful supply of napalm and agent orange left over from the last farce ...bombs away!

 

I have always wondered why medical science cannot come up with a solution: vaccination, or even something way more drastic - genetic engineer an antibody that fights methamphetamine?

 

In my very humble opinion legalising it would free the vast sums of money spent fighting it, billions far better spent on research.

 

Idiots who want to try such shit don't care if it is legal or not. Natural attrition of the stupid sped up can't be such a bad thing for humanity.

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, mok199 said:

With a minimum wage of peanuts and little chance for a better future addictions run wild....PEOPLE NEED A DIGNIFIED WAGE...

Yep. so they can buy some more meth

[Kieran00001]

3 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

I can agree  up to a point. But Meth is a social endangerment due to the well known behaviours it causes. The other narcotics and opiates are not the same other than the profiteering and violence involved Because they are illicit.

It would be interesting to see outcome if all recreational chemicals/drugs  were decriminalized if only too see what would  surface as the  "drug of choice".

I dislike the  word "legalize" with regard to this  varied  topic because that only means to put it in the control and furthering of profiteering.

If people  were allowed  to grow/produce their own the  profiteering  would  be eliminated along with most of the  real criminality of extorsion, violence, .......

 

 

 

We already have the results from the decriminalize all drugs experiment, Portugal did it years ago and has seen the greatest success in combating drug issues in the EU as a result.

[mauGR1]

14 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

I agree with both of you, but have little doubt that alcohol causes more deaths.

Agree, difficult to say which addiction is worse, alcohol or meth.

Perhaps a solution could be to de-criminalize drugs, but add extra punishment if crimes are committed under the influence.

[Kieran00001]

4 minutes ago, ParadiseLost said:

How about putting the "Cobra Gold" farce to some good effect? There must be a plentiful supply of napalm and agent orange left over from the last farce ...bombs away!

 

I have always wondered why medical science cannot come up with a solution: vaccination, or even something way more drastic - genetic engineer an antibody that fights methamphetamine?

 

In my very humble opinion legalising it would free the vast sums of money spent fighting it, billions far better spent on research.

 

Idiots who want to try such shit don't care if it is legal or not. Natural attrition of the stupid sped up can't be such a bad thing for humanity.

 

I believe they are a little intimidated to bomb them these days since China provided them with missiles and the like. 

 

How about addressing the cause rather than the symptom?  How about respecting their legal claim to sovereignty? 

[ParadiseLost]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Agree, difficult to say which addiction is worse, alcohol or meth.

Perhaps a solution could be to de-criminalize drugs, but add extra punishment if crimes are committed under the influence.

Perhaps also remove punishment for family members sorting out the problem in-house? Today if a parent beats a thieving child, or an abused wife stabs her yabba crazed husband, they are in a lot of trouble. This serves to encourage addicts to abuse those around them with impunity. The law should start at home.