Re: "Meth madness", (PostBag, June 4).
Martin R is surely sincere in his belief that nothing could be "more ludicrous and irresponsible nonsense" than a letter such as Observer's (PostBag, June 2) that "supports the legalising of methamphetamine". However, sincerity of belief is a poor substitute for evidence or sound reasoning, both of which solidly support Observer's call to legalise methamphetamine use.
Tellingly, Martin R does not dispute that current drug policy enriches mafia scum, handing a monopoly on the sale of these highly popular drugs to the mafia. This same policy is a sure enticement to corruption of the law enforcement industry.
The same was seen in the US experiment with alcohol prohibition from 1920 to 1933. That costly US experiment gave the mafia there its solid foundation as the US legal system and politics was corrupted by the profits that inevitably followed criminalising a popular drug. It can hardly come as a surprise that law enforcement tends to favour the status quo that puts so much easy wealth in their way merely for looking the other way whilst staging the odd seizure for public relations to keep parents and sincere Martin Rs in awe.
But it's not only that current policy richly rewards the mafia and corrupt officials, it also wastes enormous resources that could otherwise be spent on programmes that actually reduce drug harm to society, including: education, health treatment, rehabilitation and research. And then there are the enormous financial costs of keeping people in prison who have not actually harmed anyone by using their drug of choice, whilst also condemning them to a criminal record that is harmful, and breaking up a family in the process. Again, the current law actively worsens drug harm to users and to society.
Having declined to rebut the solid arguments for legalisation, Martin R then makes the common and doubtless also sincerely believed statement that "Comparison with the effects on one's health of cigarettes and a few beers or whiskeys just does not stack up". This popular belief among alcohol users fails the test of evidence in two ways. First, the harm to users from their chosen drugs is consistently rated by experts with alcohol at the top, in the company of heroin, crack cocaine and methamphetamine (no one is so silly as to think meth is harmless).
When it comes to harm to society and to others, alcohol is easily the winner, far surpassing even meth, as Thailand's road toll, domestic abuse, rape and other statistics reliably attest. Of course, most alcohol users do not commit rape or get into fights after a glass or two, but even fewer meth users do those things.
Finally, as the evidence strongly shows, for example in the before and after statistics for Portugal, which decriminalised the personal use of all drugs almost 20 years ago, the harm to society is greatly reduced when the personal habits of adults are not criminalised except where they actually harm or directly threaten to harm others. Personal conviction is a wonderful thing, but it's sensible to base it solidly on facts rather than guesses based on limited and biased self-reporting.
Felix Qui
Parlour games
Re: "Industrial defence", (PostBag, June 2).
What a magnanimous gesture by IRPC to spread their emissions around a large area, rather than concentrate them at their plant, so that more people can get the benefit of the pollution.
It's obviously cheaper to flare their flue gas than instal technology such as scrubbers or gas recycling.
Bernie Hodges
Songkhla
A monk's promise
Re: "Suthep breaks promise to exit politics", (BP, June 4).
What a surprise! A man you can trust to keep his word.
Remember, he was a monk in the past and we all know we can't trust monks.
Mr P
Contact: Bangkok Post Building
136 Na Ranong Road Klong Toey, Bangkok 10110
fax: +02 6164000 Email:
All letter writers must provide full name and address.
All published correspondence is subject to editing at our discretion.
