Booming regional meth industry – Thailand, Myanmar, China and Laos

[webfact]

Booming regional meth industry – Thailand, Myanmar, China and Laos

 

By The Thaiger

 

A UN Office of Drugs and Crime report released last week states that the methamphetamine trade is now worth between US$30-61 billion per year in East and South East Asia, Australia, New Zealand and Bangladesh.

 

That figure is up from US$15 billion a year, nearly a decade ago, the last time the UNODC estimated the value of the methamphetamine trade in the region.

 

Better enforcement, co-operation with neighbouring governments, increased manpower, more sophisticated surveillance and increased numbers of seizures have happened whilst the trade in meth has blossomed in the region.

 

Methamphetamine pills (aka. yaba in Thailand) are now being sold at highly discounted prices, and the well publicised massive seizures and interceptions do little to dent the operations of highly sophisticated and tech-savvy drug traffickers. Even the crystal methamphetamine (ice) from the region is feeding demand as far away as New Zealand.

 

Experts say the boom in South East Asia’s methamphetamine industry is the result of a series of regional and political factors, which have seen Myanmar’s lawless Shan State emerge as the regional meth factory.

 

The Shan State is in Myanmar’s north-east and borders Thailand, Laos and China.

 

From the 1970s to the 1990s, Myanmar’s lawless Shan State warlords, militias and rebel groups typically sold opium and heroin, but subsequently shifted to synthetic drugs after realising how much easier they were to produce and more profitable they could be.

 

Lax enforcement in Shan State, coupled with porous borders, enabled methamphetamine producers to easily import the chemicals needed to make meth. Poorly enforced money laundering controls then allowed kingpins to easily clean their millions and flourish.

 

At the same time significant investment has been made in new highways and bridges in an out of Myanmar, Thailand, China, Laos, Bangladesh and Vietnam. This has provided a boom in movement of products like food and clothing. And drugs. In the ‘Law of Unintended Consequences’, China’s Belt & Road strategy to open up trade routes throughout Asia, has inadvertently made trafficking drugs a lot easier.

 

 

Routinely, seizures of truckloads of 1-5 million meth pills are intercepted then paraded by Thai police. But the biggest drug haul was in 2018 when authorities seized a record-breaking 120 tonnes of crystal meth and methamphetamine pills coming out of the Golden Triangle. More than half of the busts took place in Thailand, where authorities confiscated more than 515 million meth pills.

 

Now, Laos and Malaysia are also reporting record-breaking busts. In the first eight months of 2018 Chinese authorities reported a 22x increase in crystal methamphetamine seizures in Yunnan province, alone, compared with just three years before.

 

The UNODC report also states that organised crime groups are not only moving “staggering” amounts of meth to meet demand, they are also trying to increase that demand by flooding the region with cheap product. That’s led methamphetamine pill prices to hit historic lows. The flood also creates greater need and a myriad of social problems.

 

Pills are reportedly selling for less than US$1 (30 baht), even lower than the going price two decades ago.

 

At the start of this year Thai authorities began an “intensification campaign” along Thailand’s northern border with Myanmar. That’s where the main route south begins through Thailand. But those efforts, and the vast amounts of international investment to open new routes in and around the region, has just sent enterprising traffickers to use new routes, too numerous for effective enforcement.

 

John  Coyne, a former Australian Federal Police official says the capacity for cashed-up and smart producers to simply ramp up production is allowing meth producers “to write off large seizures as a cost of doing business.”

 

“There needs to be a distinct rethink on what we do.”

 

Source: https://thethaiger.com/hot-news/crime/south-east-asias-booming-meth-industry-thailand-myanmar-china-and-laos

 

 

-- © Copyright The Thaiger 2019-07-22

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[pegman]

Little wonder the generals in Burma don't want to give up control. The drug trade has been very lucrative for them. 

[nickstav]

Cannot win the war on drugs. Too much money involved. People want it, somebody will supply it. Catch that supplier and a new one pops up overnight. The Aussie cop is right, getting a shipment seized is just the cost of doing business.

[mok199]

Just look for the old people with the red teeth....no wait!!!!

[Oziex1]

Bomb them back to the stone age. Shouldn't take long. 

If ever there was a case for Military intervention this has got to be it. Forget the normal protocols just do it. It happens when oil is involved. 

[FarFlungFalang]

28 minutes ago, Oziex1 said:

Bomb them back to the stone age. Shouldn't take long. 

If ever there was a case for Military intervention this has got to be it. Forget the normal protocols just do it. It happens when oil is involved. 

Nah just legalise it then the government can get the money although those in government around here are probably getting a bulk of the money anyway and if they legalised it the price would drop and they would get less money that's why it isn't legal.

    So who do you propose to do the bombing?The US? The Regional governments who are running the business?You?Are you going bomb them into the stone age?They are already in the stone age!

   Is it at all possible that you could use that thing between your ears to express something that remotely resembles intelligence?

[DLock]

38 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

Nah just legalise it then the government can get the money although those in government around here are probably getting a bulk of the money anyway and if they legalised it the price would drop and they would get less money that's why it isn't legal.

    So who do you propose to do the bombing?The US? The Regional governments who are running the business?You?Are you going bomb them into the stone age?They are already in the stone age!

   Is it at all possible that you could use that thing between your ears to express something that remotely resembles intelligence?

 

Irony.

 

You want to "legalize" meth? You do understand the effects that meth has on people right?

 

Perhaps you meant decriminalize, but anyone that would want meth "legal" is not very bright.

 

[worgeordie]

China should be doing more to stop the export of chemicals

used in the production of Meth,as thats where they are all

coming from.

regards worgeordie

[FarFlungFalang]

30 minutes ago, DLock said:

 

Irony.

 

You want to "legalize" meth? You do understand the effects that meth has on people right?

 

Perhaps you meant decriminalize, but anyone that would want meth "legal" is not very bright.

 

If you take my suggestion of legalising meth (decriminalise if you prefer) in context as a better option than bombing people back to the stone age then tell me I'm not very bright (being bright is not one of my strongest attributes).The difference between legalising and decriminalising in this sense is negligible.

   Having to deal with my stepson's going in and out of gaol and the Ubon mental hospital for the past ten years(He was just readmitted a week ago) and dealing with mental illness complicated by the use of meth (yah bah) including threatening me with machete in each hand,I'm pretty sure I have some understand of the effects meth has on people.

[DLock]

8 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

If you take my suggestion of legalising meth (decriminalise if you prefer) in context as a better option than bombing people back to the stone age then tell me I'm not very bright (being bright is not one of my strongest attributes).The difference between legalising and decriminalising in this sense is negligible.

   Having to deal with my stepson's going in and out of gaol and the Ubon mental hospital for the past ten years(He was just readmitted a week ago) and dealing with mental illness complicated by the use of meth (yah bah) including threatening me with machete in each hand,I'm pretty sure I have some understand of the effects meth has on people.

You are confused. I never mentioned bombing anyone.

 

So your stepson's conditioned is made worse by meth, and you claim to understand the effects it has on people, and you still want to legalize it?

 

Legalise and Decriminalise and not even close to the same thing. Google it.

 

How do you think your debate is going so far for you?

[wombat]

18 minutes ago, DLock said:

You are confused. I never mentioned bombing anyone.

 

So your stepson's conditioned is made worse by meth, and you claim to understand the effects it has on people, and you still want to legalize it?

 

Legalise and Decriminalise and not even close to the same thing. Google it.

 

How do you think your debate is going so far for you?

Please read Portugal's success with the Decriminalize thing.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjb7v_bvcfjAhVCNI8KHdauBSUQFjACegQIBBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fnews%2F2017%2Fdec%2F05%2Fportugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it&usg=AOvVaw24YxfNLL8_yL7Xn3D7M5W-

[FarFlungFalang]

12 minutes ago, DLock said:

You are confused. I never mentioned bombing anyone.

 

So your stepson's conditioned is made worse by meth, and you claim to understand the effects it has on people, and you still want to legalize it?

 

Legalise and Decriminalise and not even close to the same thing. Google it.

 

How do you think your debate is going so far for you?

 

2 hours ago, Oziex1 said:

Bomb them back to the stone age. Shouldn't take long. 

If ever there was a case for Military intervention this has got to be it. Forget the normal protocols just do it. It happens when oil is involved. 

Here is the post I was replying to I know you never mentioned bombing anyone the guy in the post I was replying to mentioned bombing.You try and say I'm confused if all you like but it is plain for anyone to see that you are the confused.

    I don't need to google legalise and decriminalise When comparing the two in relation to bombing people back to the stone age I would take either one I really am in no way preferential to either option.

    I personally think my debate is going much better than your feeble attempt appearing to be intelligent.

[Oziex1]

1 minute ago, FarFlungFalang said:

 

Here is the post I was replying to I know you never mentioned bombing anyone the guy in the post I was replying to mentioned bombing.You try and say I'm confused if all you like but it is plain for anyone to see that you are the confused.

    I don't need to google legalise and decriminalise When comparing the two in relation to bombing people back to the stone age I would take either one I really am in no way preferential to either option.

    I personally think my debate is going much better than your feeble attempt appearing to be intelligent.

In spite of my post I certainly hope we don't resort to aerial bombing of these countries, I'm just so frustrated by ineffective law enforcement.

The movement of this contraband continues on a huge scale with the assistance of the corrupt officials from all countries including the Western countries.

A new strategy is required.

[geoffbezoz]

2 hours ago, Oziex1 said:

Bomb them back to the stone age. Shouldn't take long. 

If ever there was a case for Military intervention this has got to be it. Forget the normal protocols just do it. It happens when oil is involved. 

Who do you suggest would have such a distaste for human life that thousands , if not millions of civilians would be killed due to collateral damage if this came to pass ? Who indeed would have the air power to undertake it ? In fact is there a country that has a track record of bombing the crap out of South East Asian countries, to no avail, that would even contemplate it again ?  But Thailand, Myanmar, China and Laos, the subject of the OP are not the only countries involved/profiting/condoning/facilitating the drugs trade. What about Afghanistan ? That has had the shit bombed out of it firstly by the Soviets then the US and opium production has now reached record levels. What about South American Countries Columbia for instance ?

 

Perhaps you consider bombing and killing half the entire world is a good idea perhaps ?

[Oziex1]

1 minute ago, geoffbezoz said:

Who do you suggest would have such a distaste for human life that thousands , if not millions of civilians would be killed due to collateral damage if this came to pass ? Who indeed would have the air power to undertake it ? In fact is there a country that has a track record of bombing the crap out of South East Asian coutries, to no avail, that would even contemplate it again ?  But Thailand, Myanmar, China and Laos, the subject of the OP are not the only countries involved/profiting/condoning/facilitating the drugs trade. What about Afghanisatsn ? That has had the shit bombed out of it firstly by the Soviets then the US and opium production has now reached record levels. What about South American Countries Columbia for instance ?

 

Perhaps you consider bombing and killing half the entire world is a good idea perhaps ?

You can take it as a metaphor for the urgent need for extreme action that is clearly required. 

 

[FarFlungFalang]

15 minutes ago, Oziex1 said:

In spite of my post I certainly hope we don't resort to aerial bombing of these countries, I'm just so frustrated by ineffective law enforcement.

The movement of this contraband continues on a huge scale with the assistance of the corrupt officials from all countries including the Western countries.

A new strategy is required.

Hey I realised that straight away (well ok after a few minutes) and was just jousting but then someone came in and got all serious and wanted a debate so I obliged.

  So no worries.

[geoffbezoz]

16 minutes ago, Oziex1 said:

You can take it as a metaphor for the urgent need for extreme action that is clearly required. 

 

Well OK but there may well be other issues at play as options. Personally I have the most utter disdain for suppliers/dealers/facilitators of the drugs trade and as I have stated in many other posts they are no more than merchants of death.

 

I have however been questioned on my viewpoint and one reply that I always remember is "is the drugs trade an evil or a necessity" ? 

 

The writer of that comment was merely putting forward the argument that as a species we are over populating the world.  Accepting that in most cases drug taking initially was entirely voluntary then therefore perhaps it should not be discouraged as you and I suggest, rather encouraged as it will ultimately act as a processor of voluntary euthanasia for millions upon millions eventually.

 

[FarFlungFalang]

12 minutes ago, Oziex1 said:

You can take it as a metaphor for the urgent need for extreme action that is clearly required. 

 

 

28 minutes ago, wombat said:

Please read Portugal's success with the Decriminalize thing.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjb7v_bvcfjAhVCNI8KHdauBSUQFjACegQIBBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fnews%2F2017%2Fdec%2F05%2Fportugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it&usg=AOvVaw24YxfNLL8_yL7Xn3D7M5W-

I like Portugal's approach the best but one can see from the article how much effort and dedication is required by people and society to have a positive outcome as shown in Portugal's success.

[Blue bruce]

U.S. president Ronald Reagan declared the War on Drugs in the early 80's. See how that has worked out. The war on drugs will never be won

[DLock]

1 hour ago, FarFlungFalang said:

 

Here is the post I was replying to I know you never mentioned bombing anyone the guy in the post I was replying to mentioned bombing.You try and say I'm confused if all you like but it is plain for anyone to see that you are the confused.

    I don't need to google legalise and decriminalise When comparing the two in relation to bombing people back to the stone age I would take either one I really am in no way preferential to either option.

    I personally think my debate is going much better than your feeble attempt appearing to be intelligent.

 

No, you failed at "legalize meth" and went downhill from there.

 

Your position is irrecoverable.

 

Sorry. 

[FarFlungFalang]

8 minutes ago, DLock said:

 

No, you failed at "legalize meth" and went downhill from there.

 

Your position is irrecoverable.

 

Sorry. 

Ok I accept that you think my position is irrecoverable so I would like to pose a question to you if I may.Given the option of legalising meth or bombing a country back to the stone age which option would you choose?Please take into consideration that many who have nothing to do with the meth problem will die in the bombing option I'm keen to see which option you choose or if you try and avoid choosing an option all together.

[BritManToo]

I'd legalise all recreational drugs and sell them at a price all could afford, just allow those who want to use them to excess remove themselves from the human gene pool. The war on drugs is a total disaster that just encourages crime, violence and criminal gangs.

 

Remove the profit, and remove the crime from the streets.

[DLock]

1 hour ago, FarFlungFalang said:

Ok I accept that you think my position is irrecoverable so I would like to pose a question to you if I may.Given the option of legalising meth or bombing a country back to the stone age which option would you choose?Please take into consideration that many who have nothing to do with the meth problem will die in the bombing option I'm keen to see which option you choose or if you try and avoid choosing an option all together.

Neither option makes any sense.

 

I am not in favor of legalizing most drugs, and certainly not meth, however, I believe that decriminalizing drugs so that addicts can get the help and support they need, rather than being persecuted and simply being put in prison is a better option.

 

There are some good examples in Holland and Portugal that, so far, have shown mostly positive results.

 

You're a smart guy, you don't want meth any more available than it already is, and for the ones already addicted, better if we get those people help.

[connda]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

A UN Office of Drugs and Crime report released last week states that the methamphetamine trade is now worth between US$30-61 billion per year in East and South East Asia, Australia, New Zealand and Bangladesh.

 

That figure is up from US$15 billion a year, nearly a decade ago, the last time the UNODC estimated the value of the methamphetamine trade in the region.

So - what does this prove???  It proves that The War on Drugs does not work.  And it never will.

It's wayyyyyyy past time for a paradigm shift.  Netflix "Narcos" makes for interesting TV viewing, but it also show exactly how futile The War on Drugs actually is.  And it's not just evil Cartel members manufacturing and trafficking, but it's also complicit government officials and businesses who also profit from the increasingly lucrative drug trade. 

What's needed?  A new model.  Look to Portugal for instance. It is constructed on the pillars of Decriminalization (stop throwing users into prison), Treatment, Education. Social Reintegration.  Then throw the entire weight of law enforcement into the identification and eradication of manufacturing faculties as well as destroying the profit incentive instead of wasting time, money, and resources busting end-users - especially for nonsensical busts for plants like kratom which is widely legal outside of Thailand. 
Legalize kratom, no strings attached.  Legalize and regulate the use of marijuana and mushrooms.  Then focus on destroying the supply-chain for methamphetamine.  And let all prisoners who are currently in jail for using drugs out of jail so that they can reintegrate back into Thai society. This would just about empty Thai prisons.  The cost saving could be funneled into education and medical care.  Offer medical interventions for those addicts who need help. 

This isn't rocket science.  Stop doing what doesn't work.  Start doing something that does.

[connda]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

“There needs to be a distinct rethink on what we do.”

No kidding!  Tell us something we all don't know.  What you've been doing does not work. 

Try something that does work:

Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: A Health-Centered Approach
https://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA_Fact_Sheet_Portugal_Decriminalization_Feb2015.pdf

[JulesMad]

5 hours ago, DLock said:

Perhaps you meant decriminalize, but anyone that would want meth "legal" is not very bright.

Anyone that would want meth is not very bright, is more accurate. Legal or illegal, the addict WILL get it... Legal would be better; use the money to educate the poor bastard!

[connda]

6 hours ago, Oziex1 said:

Bomb them back to the stone age. Shouldn't take long. 

If ever there was a case for Military intervention this has got to be it. Forget the normal protocols just do it. It happens when oil is involved. 

The US/NATO military apparatus is complicit.  Under the Taliban opium poppy production was almost eradicated prior to the US invasion.   Once the US/NATO alliance came in to 'liberate' Afghanistan, opium poppy production is back to record levels.  Kudos - great job.

 

So don't think for a second that Western military intervention will accomplish anything expect to make the problem worse.  There is way too much money to be made by all parties - there are no "good guys", there are only parties with common interests in the illicit trade.

 

[FarFlungFalang]

54 minutes ago, DLock said:

Neither option makes any sense.

 

I am not in favor of legalizing most drugs, and certainly not meth, however, I believe that decriminalizing drugs so that addicts can get the help and support they need, rather than being persecuted and simply being put in prison is a better option.

 

There are some good examples in Holland and Portugal that, so far, have shown mostly positive results.

 

You're a smart guy, you don't want meth any more available than it already is, and for the ones already addicted, better if we get those people help.

Excellent and dare I say intelligent post but I think you overstepped the mark calling me smart but that is for others to judge I would put myself somewhere above not so bright and and below not particularly clever. 

     Meth is one of the few drugs I have not tried and from what I've heard it's a bit like alcohol in the it seems to amplify ones emotions which makes it unpleasant if the emotions being amplified are anger and aggression.So I'm totally in favour of any method that works in reducing the negative effects of people using it.

Cheers! And thanks for the enjoyable debate and if I was scoring I would call it a draw but if you want claim a victory I'd be happy with that also. 

[boonrawdcnx]

Bomb them back to the stone age. Shouldn't take long. 
If ever there was a case for Military intervention this has got to be it. Forget the normal protocols just do it. It happens when oil is involved. 

??? Why? You think anybody has an interest in stopping the trade?
Burma’s boom is built on drug money and a lot of the drug money is re invested in Thailand and other countries. The US is the worst drug abusing country in the world - when it comes legal and illegal drugs worth hundreds of billions - that money is laundered and spent somewhere.
We are talking 50-60 billion dollars here in the area alone - roughly 10% of Thailands GDP! Almost as much as tourism and the profit margin is much much higher in the drug trade!

Nobody has an interest in stopping the trade here - the opposite is the case - certain high ranking people in this country have been actively involved in the drug trade since ages.
It was an open secret what certain soldiers where guarding in a compound surrounded by high walls in a quite Soi near Taphae Gate in Chiang Mai in the 80’s.
A certain general had to stand down becoming PM of this country after a coup - according to the Americans he was refused a visa to the US because apparently he was heavily involved in the drug trade.
There is too much money to be made. In these corrupt countries anything and everybody has a price - I mean they sell their children if the price is right!


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[DrTuner]

Just in case somebody is interested, here's a speech by The Executive Director of UNODC, Antonio Maria Costa on the matter (it's from 2008 but still valid):

 

https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/free-drugs-or-drugs-free.html

 

UNODC is fairly on the ball with the issue. Governments aren't.