OPINION

Revamp drug policy

Re: "Drug reform still pending", (Editorial, May 10).

The efforts of former minister of justice Paiboon Koomchaya to radically reform Thailand's long-failing drug laws were a chance for the current government to do something of value that would not only correct a policy that has for decades been proved an expensive abject failure, but which would have seriously hit major sources of corruption fuelled by current drug policy. It appears the current set of military politicians would prefer to keep the lines of corruption open and flowing. Decriminalising drugs not only hits corruption, but it would be a serious blow to mafia gangs now allegedly profiting from the drug trade by possibly working with corrupt officials.

Collateral benefits of decriminalisation include: massive savings of the financial and human resources now uselessly wasted on the "drug war"; increased tax revenue, which could be used to provide rehabilitation and education programmes; reduced crime since addicts would not need so much to support their habits; improved health outcomes as help could more easily be obtained; and far less crowded prisons as less Thai youth would be lumbered with harmful arrest records and prison sentences for nothing more than seeking some pleasure.

Nor is there any reason to think that decriminalisation would increase drug use: The evidence for this from cases that compare drug use before and after, or after and before, decriminalisation consistently show no strong correlation between the legal status of a drug and the prevalence of use.

Worth Googling here are the before-and-after experiences of prohibition in the US in the early 20th century (a boon to US mafia), the marijuana experiences of Amsterdam and US states, the opium experience of 19th century China, drug use in Portugal since it decriminalised all personal drug use in 2001, and of course, the regular massive seizures and persistent rates of drug use throughout Thai society which show that criminalising the sale and use of ya ba and other highly popular drugs has not led to any demonstrable reduction in the use of those drugs by Thais.

With only benefits for society and harm reduction, it is hard to understand why any set of politicians would oppose decriminalising drug use.

After so many lives lost in Thailand's deep South, a Big C superstore has recently been blown up in Pattani. Now we will surely hear about new government measures to resolve the situation, a crackdown no doubt, more troops perhaps. But expect no real change.

Anyone interested in developing a better understanding of the conflict in the South should read Dr Sascha Helbardt's seminal book, Deciphering Southern Thailand's Violence. It dispels many misconceptions as to the organisation and goals of the separatists and provides deep insights into the presumed intractability of the problem. Highly recommended!

Furthermore, not one letter about this shocking act of terrorism is to be found in PostBag. Why not?

Re: "The walls are closing in on Thai journos", (Opinion, May 12).

Congratulations for the straightforward, simple article by Paritta Wangkiat who echoes the feelings and sentiments that I regularly hear from my son and his friends. When truth is a crime and facts illegal this country has descended into a place of fear. The old, retired farang who constantly inform us that "at least the violence has stopped" are totally missing the point.

Disappearances, detentions and massive prison sentences for telling it just like it is can never be acceptable if you are young, optimistic and hopeful. The introduction of "laws" to enforce this nonsense is more than any young person should have to take.

Re: "Making street food sense", (Editorial, May 12).

What makes Thai food unique is its variety. From the North, Northeast and all the way to the South, Thai street food provides one of the best culinary experiences. Thai street food is a unique experience when you compare it to the food culture in Malaysia, Singapore or elsewhere in Asia.

In Singapore, Japan and South Korea, the food is largely served in a very sterile or sanitised environment. In Western countries, street food services are highly regulated. In some ways, such efforts fail to provide an organic cultural experience. Maybe, some precautions are necessary to avoid contamination of the street food, but serving food in designated food courts does not make it more hygienic or palatable.

Especially to a traveller, it does not add to the unique cultural experience and exuberance that comes with occasional stops to taste mouthwatering food while seeing the world passing by. Such passing moments are what makes travelling a gourmet experience. Hats off to the finest undecorated street chefs, who in a matter of minutes are able to give a unique Thai spin and create some of the finest dishes in the world. Thai street food culture is unique and it should be preserved at any cost.

Re: "Making street food sense", (Editorial, May 12).

Once again it appears that the government is incapable of joined-up thinking when it comes to any area it points its shotgun.

Street food will now be reinstated in tourist areas and made pretty. No thought is given to the fact that the vast majority of vendors' customers in Bangkok are ordinary Thais who rely on a local street food vendor for their meals as many live in rooms without adequate cooking facilities.

However, our leaders' desire to serve tourists requirements does not extend to a farang wanting a cold beer with their lunch if they sit down after 2pm.

Why does this government insist on meddling with how ordinary people want to live their lives?

Re: "Seminar con scammed B2 billion", (BP, May 10).

It is a huge pyramid scheme that involved two firms luring about 40,000 people across the country into investing money in seminar packages by promising them a 7% return every week, resulting in total losses believed to have reached 2 billion baht.

This case raises important questions: How can a huge return of 364% per annum (a 7% return per week multiplied by 52 weeks) be generated by seminar packages? Can just attending seminars on real estate generate such a huge return on investment for members?

In addition, it was found the seminar investment was made to invest in foreign exchange (forex) which has risky returns. How could forex investments guarantee this huge return?

High returns mean a high risk. It is fraud that tricks victims into investing by the firms' narrators and persuaders. But trust is not a guarantee that they will get their money back. Before investing in any scheme, risk evaluation is a must. Trust no one -- and there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Re: "After North Korea, don't forget Iran", (Opinion, May 8).

Shmuel Levin has made the usual case for aggression against Iran. North Korea is the big bad bogeyman now of course, with huge amounts of column inches dedicated to the dangers of such a "rogue state".

Both China and North Korea have made numerous offers of a compromise with regard to the nuclear tests. It's quite simple: "USA and South Korea resist from giant provocative military drills including warships and B52 bombers (all nuclear armed I must add) and the easing of sanctions for an end to the nuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula". The US has consistently rejected this and it's never relayed in the media.

Now to Mr Levin's real concern, Iran. "Rogue" Iran has not started a war or invaded a foreign country in more than 300 years. Israel on the other hand has invaded Lebanon, Gaza and bombed Syria in the last 11 years alone!

There is no proof that the Assad regime was behind the chemical attacks in Syria; the regime is winning the war for heaven's sake.

Hezbollah, the terrorist organisation as Mr Levin contends, didn't even exist before Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, and only existed after that to end Israeli occupation of that country. Hezbollah is now a democratic force in Lebanon with many social functions including health and education.

There is however a rogue state with constantly expanding borders in the Middle East that also boasts an illegal nuclear arsenal. Hmm, I wonder, could you enlighten us Mr Levin?

Re: "A gay old time", (PostBag, May 10).

It is not clear which country Norman Sr was referring to when he stated as a fact there was no discrimination against gays (as far as he can remember) when he was young.

If, as I suspect, Norman was brought up in the UK, then his memory must be failing him as there was, and still is massive discrimination against homosexuals there. While camp entertainers such as Liberace, Frankie Howerd and Larry Grayson were tolerated on TV, in daily life homosexuals were not.

And, in fact, there were numerous laws generously applied by the police to persecute homosexuals in those days. It was also government policy to ban homosexuals from many branches of public service as they were deemed to be undesirable and security risks. It was not until 1967 that laws in Britain were relaxed somewhat. But to say there was no discrimination, whether in the UK or elsewhere, in the "good old days" indicates dear Norman was living in a fantasy world.

Re: "Skills for the future", (Asia Focus, May 8).

As a member of the original IRPC Technological College (IRPCT) team that helped stitch the PTT-Myanmar scholarship programme together, I was delighted to see the recognition given to it by Nareerat Wiriyapong. Following the success of the initial Myanmar programme, IRPCT now has vocational students from Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. This is in pursuit of its mission of not only being a leading vocational college in Thailand, but of being one of the leading technical colleges in Southeast Asia.

Perhaps in the future it will have students from other Asean countries.

For years we have read about the government, educational institutions and private enterprises talking about the opportunities offered by the Asean Economic Community, but rather than just talk about it, PTT and IRPCT got off their butts and did something about it. This is an example of entrepreneurship at its very best.

All credit to student activist Netiwit Chotiphatphaisal for having the courage to engage in a war of words with the prime minister of a self-appointed regime. Protest against a democratically elected, but corrupt and autocratic former government, is justified. Is protest against curtailing freedom of expression, and hampering good governance in the future, by enshrining military control in a constitution, any less justified?

Re: "Monks' health at heart of new proposal", (BP, May 12).

It is interesting to read that there is a sudden concern for the health of monks in Thailand. It is also interesting that proposals to improve monks' health will be submitted to the Supreme Patriarch.

I doubt if that revered monk has gone without a hardy meal in decades. I also doubt that he is really aware of present conditions in today's monkhood. The patriarch and members of the Sangha Council are way past their prime, most doddering, living out their lives in luxury and comfort.

Re: "Islam 'incompatible'", (PostBag, May 11).

Jason Jellison, Islam is no more incompatible with the modern world than other religions such as Judaism and Christianity. Fundamentalists in any of these religions are a problem. Take for example the US where right-wing Christians, in the guise of the GOP, are lying, cheating, trying to oppress the poor.

As for the Muslims invading France: They are called refugees. Hats off to France and to much of Europe. Of course this will cause problems. But at least much of Europe has a conscience.