News
Why Thailand is Moving Closer to Decriminalizing Methamphetamine’s
..The war on drugs is futile. So why not just decriminalize meth?
It’s not a sentiment you’d expect from senior officials in any authoritarian country — let alone from a strait-laced army general, draped in medals, who came to power in a coup.
But Thailand’s top law enforcement officer is now pursuing this radical notion with vigor.
He’s talking openly about a potential new diktat, issued by military rulers, that would allow citizens to smoke meth without fearing prison.
“The world has lost the war on drugs,” said Thailand’s Justice Minister Paiboon Khumchaya, according to Reuters. “Not only Thailand.”
These are startling statements in a country that, as it stands, still executes drug traffickers.
The Thai government’s drug policy is quite harsh. After all, in recent decades, the nation’s police have largely mimicked the zealous drug war mindset propagated by the United States.
Yet now, seemingly out of nowhere, this typically rigid junta is spouting soft views on narcotics — namely meth — that fall somewhere to the left of many Colorado stoners.
“This is unprecedented,” says Pascal Tanguay, a Bangkok-based associate with the International Drug Policy Consortium. “They’ve actually been talking about different models from decriminalization to full-fledged legalization.”
Talks to decriminalize meth may seem premature for a country that still locks people up for smoking low-grade pot.
But in Thailand (and much of Southeast Asia) meth is far more popular than pot. It’s cheap, potent and enjoyed by rich and poor alike.
More than 90 percent of all drug arrests in Thailand involve meth: either little pink meth pills, cut with caffeine, or high-purity baggies of crystal meth.
.
The meth supply in Thailand is seemingly unstoppable. Just as the United States borders cartel-run zones in Mexico, Thailand also abuts lawless terrain.
The hills just across its border, in Myanmar, are run like fiefdoms by narco-militias.
Many of these armed syndicates operate with tacit permission from Myanmar’s military. In other words, the drug labs next door to Thailand have total impunity to churn out meth — and there’s not much anyone, even a military junta, can do to stop them.
In Thailand, as in the U.S., meth users are often depicted as crazed, homicidal zombies — a view cultivated in part by the Thai state, which launched a vicious drug war last decade that left an estimated 2,500-plus dead.
“Right now, Thai people see drug users as essentially evil people that need to be punished,” Tanguay says.
“But in reality, we just don’t see the drug-crazed junkie here,” he says. “We see students using it to study. Or truck drivers using it to stay awake. We see people who harvest rubber, at three in the morning, using it to stay alert in the forest.”
.
Many Thais are indeed using meth without exhibiting the worst symptoms. In Bangkok, dealers on motorbikes will deliver baggies filled with crystal meth for about $70. The substance resembles finely crushed glass and, if smoked, offers a blast of supreme confidence — supercharging the ego and lending an exhilarating vibe to mundane chores.
“You get an inner energy that wipes away fatigue,” says Wut, a Bangkok taxi driver in his 30s. He frequently smokes meth between passenger pickups.
But if he goes days without sleep, he says, the vigor sours into twitchy paranoia. “By day three, I hear weird voices in the distance,” he says. “I have this indistinct feeling that I’m being monitored or stalked. I’ll think everyone I pass is plotting against me.”
Under the current prohibition model, Tanguay says, Thailand’s government “has essentially given carte blanche to organized crime. [Criminals] set prices and control quality.”
But legalization, he says, would enable the government to oversee the manufacture of cleaner meth, cooked up in a regulated facility instead of a dirty jungle lab. The drug could be meted out to adult users in set amounts per week or month.
It could also be heavily taxed, of course, and ideally the proceeds would fund treatment centers — which users like Wut could visit if their habit spiraled out of control.
General Paiboon Koomchaya, reportedly said that the world had lost the war on drugs and that he was proposing to take methamphetamine off Thailand’s list of dangerous narcotics.
.
However, after seriously discussing the legalization option, junta officials indicate that leaping to this model straightaway could be too jarring.
They’ve hinted at a more palatable scenario: a Portugal-style system in which small-time meth users skirt prison. Serious traffickers, however, are still hunted down and jailed. Thai authorities are also discussing decriminalizing marijuana and kratom, a leafy herbal stimulant.
From the junta’s perspective, the most compelling reason to decriminalize meth involves badly clogged prisons.
Thailand’s per capita incarceration rate is worse than China’s and on par with Russia’s — though not quite as bad as in the U.S., a world leader in locking up civilians for drug offenses.
Some Thai cells are currently so packed that inmates must sleep while spooning with strangers on dirty floors. Many are non-violent drug offenders — so decriminalization would help flush them out of the system.
Activists have long badgered Thai officials about bad prison conditions without much success. But in recent years a Thai princess, Bajrakitiyabha Mahidol, has taken up the plight of prisoners as a personal cause.
In Thailand, royally backed initiatives are highly influential among elite lawmakers and treated as sacrosanct. The princess-led campaign — called “Kamlangjai,” which means moral support — urges Thai society to feel compassion for inmates, particularly pregnant women, and for “those who have made mistakes.”
This, Tanguay says, has helped to “trigger a furious rethink” of crime policy.
If Thailand actually decriminalizes meth, it would be veering away from the hardline anti-drug stance pushed by the U.S., its most powerful patron.
This would also produce an unexpected outcome: strict authoritarian rulers appearing more merciful toward addicts than Washington policymakers, who have a habit of lecturing Thailand (and other nations) on human rights.
Moreover, other junior partners in America’s drug war could potentially feel emboldened to take the decriminalization route — though they would likely risk losing U.S. anti-narcotics funding.
But, for now, it’s unclear whether or not this decriminalization push will amount to anything more than “politicians making nifty promises that never turn into anything real,” Tanguay says. “But this is a level of openness that has never happened before.”
Meanwhile, The Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) has reported that it will begin to support the government policy for drug addicts on November 1, 2016
Public Health Permanent Secretary Sophon Mekthon said that the ministry has developed treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts to turn them into patients.
The Public Health will ensure that the screening, treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts adhere to the same standards and focus on preventive mechanisms as those applied under To Be Number One and Phuen Jai Wai Roon center projects.
The Public Health plans to set up drug patient screening centers in general hospitals, community hospitals and those under care of the Department of Medical Services and the Department of Mental Health. Drug addicts are to be treated as patients so that Thailand will have similar success in handling the drug issue as in other countries.
This article, by Patrick Winn, originally appeared at GlobalPost.
Based in Bangkok, Patrick Winn produces written and video dispatches on Thailand and Burma for Global Post.
Winn’s work has also appeared in The Christian Science Monitor, The Village Voice, USA Today and other outlets. He previously covered military affairs for Gannett in Washington D.C.
A recent report indicates that since Trudeau’s announcement of his gun buyback program four years ago, almost none of the banned firearms have been surrendered.
The federal government plans to purchase 2,063 firearm models from retailers following the enactment of Bill C-21, which amends various Acts and introduces certain consequential changes related to firearms. It was granted royal assent on December 15 of last year.
This ban immediately criminalized the actions of federally-licensed firearms owners regarding the purchase, sale, transportation, importation, exportation, or use of hundreds of thousands of rifles and shotguns that were previously legal.
The gun ban focused on what it termed ‘assault-style weapons,’ which are, in reality, traditional semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have enjoyed popularity among hunters and sport shooters for over a century.
In May 2020, the federal government enacted an Order-in-Council that prohibited 1,500 types of “assault-style” firearms and outlined specific components of the newly banned firearms. Property owners must adhere to the law by October 2023.
Trudeau’s Buyback Hasn’t Happened
“In the announcement regarding the ban, the prime minister stated that the government would seize the prohibited firearms, assuring that their lawful owners would be ‘grandfathered’ or compensated fairly.” “That hasn’t happened,” criminologist Gary Mauser told Rebel News.
Mauser projected expenses ranging from $2.6 billion to $6.7 billion. The figure reflects the compensation costs amounting to $756 million, as outlined by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO).
“The projected expenses for gathering the illegal firearms are estimated to range from $1.6 billion to $7 billion.” “This range estimate increases to between $2.647 billion and $7 billion when compensation costs to owners are factored in,” Mauser stated.
Figures requested by Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs concerning firearms prohibited due to the May 1, 2020 Order In Council reveal that $72 million has been allocated to the firearm “buyback” program, yet not a single firearm has been confiscated to date.
In a recent revelation, Public Safety Canada disclosed that the federal government allocated a staggering $41,094,556, as prompted by an order paper question from Conservative Senator Don Plett last September, yet yielded no tangible outcomes.
An internal memo from late 2019 revealed that the Liberals projected their politically motivated harassment would incur a cost of $1.8 billion.
Enforcement efforts Questioned
By December 2023, estimates from TheGunBlog.ca indicate that the Liberals and RCMP had incurred or were responsible for approximately $30 million in personnel expenses related to the enforcement efforts. The union representing the police service previously stated that the effort to confiscate firearms is a “misdirected effort” aimed at ensuring public safety.
“This action diverts crucial personnel, resources, and funding from tackling the more pressing and escalating issue of criminal use of illegal firearms,” stated the National Police Federation (NPF).
The Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association (CSAAA), representing firearms retailers, has stated it will have “zero involvement” in the confiscation of these firearms. Even Canada Post held back from providing assistance due to safety concerns.
The consultant previously assessed that retailers are sitting on almost $1 billion worth of inventory that cannot be sold or returned to suppliers because of the Order-In-Council.
“Despite the ongoing confusion surrounding the ban, after four years, we ought to be able to address one crucial question.” Has the prohibition enhanced safety for Canadians? Mauser asks.
Illegally Obtained Firearms are the Problem
Statistics Canada reports a 10% increase in firearm-related violent crime between 2020 and 2022, rising from 12,614 incidents to 13,937 incidents. In that timeframe, the incidence of firearm-related violent crime increased from 33.7 incidents per 100,000 population in 2021 to 36.7 incidents the subsequent year.
“This marks the highest rate documented since the collection of comparable data began in 2009,” the criminologist explains.
Supplementary DataData indicates that firearm homicides have risen since 2020. “The issue lies not with lawfully-held firearms,” Mauser stated.
Firearms that have been banned under the Order-in-Council continue to be securely stored in the safes of their lawful owners. The individuals underwent a thorough vetting process by the RCMP and are subject to nightly monitoring to ensure there are no infractions that could pose a risk to public safety.
“The firearms involved in homicides were seldom legally owned weapons wielded by their rightful owners,” Mauser continues. The number of offenses linked to organized crime has surged from 4,810 in 2016 to a staggering 13,056 in 2020.
“If those in power … aim to diminish crime and enhance public safety, they ought to implement strategies that effectively focus on offenders and utilize our limited tax resources judiciously to reach these objectives,” he stated.
Related News:
Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau
Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau
Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.
According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.
Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.
The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.
Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.
Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.
To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.
Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.
On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.
In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.
Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.
Pixa Bay
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.
TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.
When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.
And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.
Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.
A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.
Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.
But today, it feels more like reality.
Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.
SOURCE | CNN
(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.
The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.
Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.
This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.
In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.
The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.
This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.
The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.
In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.
According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.
Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.
The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.
For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.
Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.
As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.
As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.
The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.
SOURCE: AP
SEE ALSO:
Could Last-Minute Surprises Derail Kamala Harris’ Campaign? “Nostradamus” Explains the US Poll.
-
News3 years agoLet’s Know About Ultra High Net Worth Individual
-
Entertainment1 year ago
Mabelle Prior: The Voice of Hope, Resilience, and Diversity Inspiring Generations
-
Health3 years agoHow Much Ivermectin Should You Take?
-
Tech2 years agoTop Forex Brokers of 2023: Reviews and Analysis for Successful Trading
-
Lifestyles2 years agoAries Soulmate Signs
-
Health2 years agoCan I Buy Ivermectin Without A Prescription in the USA?
-
Movies2 years agoWhat Should I Do If Disney Plus Keeps Logging Me Out of TV?
-
Learning2 years agoVirtual Numbers: What Are They For?