Re: "Double-faced drugs policy", (Editorial, Nov 20).
The obstacles to reforming Thailand's failing drug policy of decades, the failure of which is continually being proven by the tediously regular seizures of massive amounts of harmful drugs, is that the current policy greatly enriches three highly influential groups: mafia scum, corrupt officials paid by mafia scum, and drug policy enforcement officers. These three groups demand a level of respect that trumps all evidence of the harm their favoured policy inflicts on every other group in Thai society. These groups are thriving thanks to the monopoly that Thailand's rule of law has for decades bestowed upon the mafia scum and their allies in the lucrative illegal drug industries.
The high financial and social costs are apparent in the persistently high rates of drug use and addiction, in increased crime rates, in life-destroying criminal records for personal acts that harm no one, and of course in the massive boost to corruption allied with enormous financial costs draining the public budget -- public funds that could more usefully be diverted to health, to education, to rehabilitation and to other uses that actually reduce drug-related harm.
Isn't it time the law stopped actively supporting mafia scum and instead worked to reduce that harm that illegal drugs are doing to Thai society by following where the evidence leads? Such evidence as presented in before-and-after statistics consistently shows how to reduce drug-related harm inflicted on society.
It's interesting to draw comparison with America's move to legalise alcohol following its costly prohibition experiment, which rewarded the American mafia, and more recently with the the move to legalise marijuana, or the impressive social benefits of Portugal's decriminalisation of all personal drugs in 2001.
Not only is there no shortage of evidence suggesting what the practical approach to reducing drug harm on society is, but there is a compelling moral argument that the state may not justly interfere in the personal decisions of adults in situations where these do not directly harm others.
Unlike murder, rape, theft and fraud, for example, getting paralytically drunk on alcohol, or high on ya ba (speed pills), does not usually harm anyone beside the user. And if the user is an adult, they are entitled to harm themselves, no matter how stupid that might be.
It is not the law's business to criminalise personal stupidity by forcing all to abstain because a few recklessly harm themselves: if it were, the sale and use of chocolate cake must also be made an imprisonable offence, thereby inviting the mafia and corrupt to also take over that rich market.
Felix Qui
Freedom an illusion
Re: "Freedom to protest", (PostBag, Nov 19).
I cannot agree with Eric Bahrt that the US is significantly different from other countries in terms of freedom. Unfortunately, there is basically no exception and freedom of speech or protest is suppressed in almost all countries -- maybe not in some parts of Europe -- as soon as they threaten the fundamental interests of the ruling elite.
Julian Assange is a case in point. For publishing the documents given to him by whistle-blowers, he faces charges in a US court. As the charges have been filed under seal, we can assume that was done to facilitate his extradition from Europe. He now faces a long sentence and even possibly execution.
Curiously, no one is condemning the court's decision -- not human rights defenders, reporters groups or international mass media -- unlike what happened when CNN's White House correspondent Jim Acosta was temporarily stripped of his press pass.
Guena
Terror remembered
Re: "Uighur refugees deserve freedom", (Opinion, Nov 20).
It is unfortunate that Omet Kanat failed to inform readers of the fate of the two Chinese Uighur suspects in the August 2015 Erawan shrine bombing (20 dead, over 100 wounded). He was perhaps hoping that we would have forgotten about this terrorist attack on the city. He was mistaken.
Baffled Reader
Contact: Bangkok Post Building
136 Na Ranong Road Klong Toey, Bangkok 10110
fax: +02 6164000 Email: [email protected]
All letter writers must provide full name and address.
All published correspondence is subject to editing at our discretion.
