Drugs or alcohol?

re: "Drug-fueled horrors" and "Reality check" (BP, PostBag, September 27, 2023) 

Dear editor,

In my letters to PostBag to which both Richard Bryant (Drug-fueled horrors) and Christian Reeve (Reality check) respond, an original concluding sentence was: "At the very least, there needs to be more public discussion about what could justify criminalizing some recreational drug use whilst legally blessing the use of other, more socially harmful drugs by adults." I thank the writers for contributing their personal perspectives to this discussion.

In both cases, their evidence is entirely personal anecdote and observation of news reports. As such, they are excellent examples of the problematic nature of such observations and reports. Whilst I do not doubt that they honestly report what they believe they observe, such personal accounts are both extremely limited and inherently, albeit unconsciously, biased, so typically do not reliably represent reality. 

Let me begin by conceding that the claim that alcohol is the most socially harmful drug in popular recreational use is based mainly on research regarding the situation in developed Western countries. Two useful pieces of the published research are: 1) "Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis" (Nutt et al., 2010 The Lancet) and 2) "The Australian drug harms ranking study" (Bonomo et al., 2019, Journal of Psychopharmacology). Both of these are available for free public access. The Australian study is particularly useful. Australians like our beer, wine and other alcohol-laced drinks. The experts, therefore, specifically address the obvious concern, writing in their Results section that: "Overall, alcohol was the most harmful drug when harm to users and harm to others was combined. A supplementary analysis took into consideration the prevalence of each substance in Australia. Alcohol was again ranked the most harmful substance overall." Needless to say, this evidence-based conclusion does not go down well with many of my compatriots. 

The situation in Thailand could well be different. I have not been able to find the necessary statistics to say with absolute confidence one way or the other. But what is known suggests that Thailand is not in fact so different to the UK or Australia when it comes to drug harms to society.

As a telling example, it was reported when the Democrat Party's infamous Prinn Panichpakdee's long career of sexual abuse finally came to public light last year that he had been in the habit of plying his victims with alcohol to make them more readily available to his lusts. He typically did this over a meal at a classy restaurant with a few glasses of wine. I am sure that Mr. Panichpakdee saw himself as a responsible social drinker. His mates in the Democrat Party certainly observed nothing to raise any concern worth mentioning to anyone regarding Mr Panichpakdee's social use of alcohol on such occasions.  

We do, however, have some solid statistics for one area where alcohol appears to be the hands down winner in causing harm to others in Thai society: road deaths. Let me quote from a recent, 2023, World Health Organization report that says nothing surprising to anyone who has lived in Thailand for a few years: "Similarly, drunk driving causes 5,529 deaths annually, or roughly 28% of all traffic deaths" (WHO, 2023, "A New Year's resolution 'for life').  

If either Mr Reeve or Mr Bryant has a statistic that shows any such annually repeated drug-fueled horror for cannabis, ya ba, or any other drug in popular recreational use in Thailand, I would very much welcome them to bring it our notice as a valuable contribution to the discussion. 

 Felix Qui 

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on October 2, 2023, under the title "Drugs or alcohol?" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2655831/current-charter-a-no

Drug war harm

re: "The fight against drugs" (BP, Editorial, September 19, 2023) 

Dear editor,

Whilst the Post is right to warn against any repeat of the horror that former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra unleashed in his infamous "war on drugs", it should not be forgot how truly popular that slaughter was. It was egged on by the morally deluded from all walks of life and all levels of society. Those behind that killing of thousands have never been brought to justice, nor have those whose public support enabled the executions and disappearances even been called out for their complicity as justice demands. 

Sadly, the Post's editorial responding to PM Srettha Thavisin's promise to "make the fight against narcotics part of the national agenda" (September 19) betrays exactly the same sort of blunted moral thinking that led not only to Thaksin's publicly lauded killing spree but to many other abuses equally committed in the name of law and allegedly noble ideals over the decades and today. 

Society would perhaps be better did the underlying conditions that foster recreational drug use not exist, although since that state of perfect abstinence would also be extremely abnormal in the history of human societies, it would require substantial analysis of the pros and cons before we rashly assume that our consistently drug-loving ancestors were so totally wrong about the joys of drugs: opium, alcohol, ganja, mushrooms, and all the rest of nature's bliss-bestowing bounty.

The Post's mistake that betrays the shallow, simplistic thinking required to naïvely describe PM Srettha's promise as "good news" is the failure to ask when and why it is ever justified for the state to force the personal likes and dislikes of some, even a majority, on an entire nation. No one disputes that drugs are harmful. They are all harmful to their users to varying degrees, from heroin and yaa baa, through alcohol, to the relatively harmless such as cannabis and Ecstasy. But in a society that values liberty and respects human rights, adults have the right to do things that harm themselves, even to the extreme of drinking whisky and fine wine until blotto. 

The only reason to criminalize an act is that it directly harms or threatens to harm others. The use of drugs does not meet this condition. Someone enjoying a glass of wine with dinner is no more a threat to another than is someone shooting heroin and nodding off, or someone gulping down ya ba on party night at the local club. True, many people do harm others under the influence of drugs, alcohol being by far the worst for this. This is why policies that encourage more constructive, informed, regulated, and safe drug use are to be applauded. 

It is salutary to note that since the effective legalization of cannabis over a year ago for both medical and recreational use that Thai society has not in fact collapsed, or even stumbled noticeably. For this constructive progress against the social problems caused by illegal drugs, Bhumjai Thai's sensible and right policy of legalizing that drug for sale and use by adults is to be commended.

If that same regulatory approach is held to work acceptably well even for the more socially harmful drug alcohol, rational people who value justice that respects the rights of others will also support the legalization with due regulation of all other drugs in popular recreational use.

Of course, such a sane, morally informed drug policy will be anathema to those who traditionally prosper from the long failing policy of irrationally discriminatory criminalization of some popular drugs: criminal gangs and their loyal aids in law enforcement with a Ferrari in the garage. Would anyone really want to inflict such a blow to this font of lucrative traditional corruption in the police and elsewhere? 

At the very least, there needs to be more public discussion about what could justify criminalizing some recreational drug use whilst legally blessing the use of other, more socially harmful drugs by adults. 

 Felix Qui

 

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on September 23, 2023, under the title "Drug war harm" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2651633/tax-rule-needs-clarity

Pick a just policy

re: "PM Srettha vows to eliminate speed pills" (BP, September 17, 2023) 

Dear editor,

How thrilling to hear that new Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin's "government will eliminate the abuse of methamphetamine pills within its tenure." Two of his flagship policies now copy the renowned of two former prime ministers. Under his watch as prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra also famously eradicated illegal drugs, and Prayut Chan-o-cha with equal righteousness reformed the Royal Thai Police with the blessing of all. Thaksin and Prayut having set the crown on their new-found relationship as best mates with that most gracious pardon signed off on on September 1, it is only fitting that the new government should adopt their well-remembered policy promises. The known historical record sets a memorable standard for PM Srettha to match.

That said, it must be conceded that whatever qualms decent people might have about its role in forming PM Srettha's well-cobbled government, coalition partner Bhumjai Thai does have a proven solution to solving illegal drug problems. Legalizing cannabis really did pretty much end that illegal drug problem literally at a pen stroke. It is also the just policy, recognizing that adults have a right to engage in reckless behaviour that directly harms only themselves. But if that sensible approach to solving illegal drug problems is to be followed, the same legal regulations must also be applied to that socially most harmful drug of them all, alcohol. 

Of course, when drug users go on to commit other crimes, such as domestic abuse, which is so often fueled by alcohol, fatal traffic accidents when under the influence, fights driven by drunken rage, and rape driven by alcohol induced lust, those auxiliary crimes must still be strictly punished. The right of adults to seriously harm themselves by reckless drug use does not extend to directly harming others absent their consent as participants in the high fun. 

 Felix Qui 

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on September 20, 2023, under the title "Pick a just policy" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2649995/murder-cover-up-

re: "Legalizing Marijuana Is a Big Mistake"

re: "Legalizing Marijuana Is a Big Mistake" (The New York Times, May 17, 2023)

Although he does not mention that popular drug that is far more harmful to both users and society than marijuana is, Mr Douthat is presumably aware that that is the case. The silence is odd. Anyone who opposes marijuana legalization on the grounds that it is personally degrading will logically be a rabid abolitionist when it comes to the more toxic and degrading alcohol. 

As for the argument that cops "simply substitute some other pretext when the law changes, leaving arrest rates basically unchanged," what this shows is that more laws need to be amended or revoked to prevent such racialized abuse by police. 

But Mr Douthat's founding premise is hazy unto murk. He appears to think that if X is known to cause some harm to some adult users, that is a sufficient reason to ban it for all. There goes not only alcohol and parachuting, but cars and swimming pools. The degradation is seeping in everywhere. 

 

_______________________________

The above comment was submitted by Felix Qui to The New York Times article.

It is published there at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/17/opinion/marijuana-legalization-disaster.html#commentsContainer&permid=125154054:125154054 

Ignoring liquor's ills

re: "Singapore hangs prisoner over 1kg of cannabis" (BP, April 26, 2023) 

Dear editor,

A foundational principle of justice is that the law treat like acts alike. This entails that Singapore's law also require the execution of alcohol dealers, for alcohol is also a drug, one that is in fact more harmful to users and to society than cannabis. Basic justice requires, therefore, that Singapore make its criminal law consistent by criminalizing with the imposition of a death penalty the possession, use, production and trafficking of alcohol. Either that, or decriminalize the use, possession, production and sale of other equally or less harmful drugs, which is all of them.

It is unjust to treat one drug differently to others merely because it happens to be popular in society. That is crude prejudice, which is never a justifying reason for state interference in personal liberty. 

 Felix Qui 

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on April 28, 2023, under the title "Ignoring liquor's ills" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2559001/prawits-watch-saga

Cruel execution

re: "Branson urges Singapore to halt execution of cannabis convict" (BP, April 24, 2023) 

Dear editor,

Sir Richard Branson's call to Singapore to halt the execution of a man duly convicted of the charge of trafficking over a kilogram of cannabis is doubtless well intentioned. However, by making that call conditional on the fact that the man might be innocent of the charge, Sir Richard obscures what is really wrong with Singapore's imminent killing of a person not known to have harmed anyone. 

It is always possible that any verdict returned by a fair court after a fair trial is wrong. Mistakes happen, and there is no concatenation of facts that can not also be explained by a different, however exceedingly unlikely, account. That truth is not relevant in this case.

Even if Tangaraju Suppiah is in fact guilty as charged, executing him is a vile injustice. Injustice is not magically made just by passing  a law that supports whatever prejudices lurk behind the injustice thereby blessed by law. That Singapore is a sovereign nation that has the legal right to make whatever law it wishes is not being disputed. 

It does not, nevertheless, follow that any law is just merely because it is a properly made law. Singapore could tomorrow pass a law to start imprisoning gay men or to execute those who sell unhealthy sugary drinks to children; that would be its legal right, but those laws would also be morally repugnant to decent society.

Singapore should halt the execution because the law with which it accords should not exist. Imprisoning adults who do not directly harm anyone but merely do what some segment of society, even a large majority, personally dislike, which dislike is the only reason for the law behind the proposed killing, is unjust. To execute people who have not harmed or threatened to harm any other is a moral abomination unbecoming a nation that would see itself as civil, civilized, educated, and decent. 

This, not that there is some finite possibility that he is innocent, is the reason Singapore should stop the execution. It should then look to amend its antiquated drug laws to better comport with good morals. 

 Felix Qui 

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on April 26, 2023, under the title "Cruel execution" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2557374/nacc-must-comply

Nod to Helen Clark

re: "Reforms 'can't end' with legalised cannabis" (BP, April 18, 2023) 

Dear editor,

It was a welcome corrective to traditional thinking of six decades to see the Bangkok Post's "Reforms 'can't end' with legalised cannabis" on the front page for a few hours. Former New Zealand prime minister and current member of the International Commission Against the Death Penalty, Helen Clark is correct on all counts. The 60-year-old punitive approach to recreational use of drugs has been an abject failure that has not reduced drug use, except in places like Singapore, where moral decency is rejected in favour of extreme force, including judicial killing in accord with law made up for that purpose, to impose the shining totalitarian vision of some, albeit perhaps a majority, on an entire society. Singapore resembles too perfectly the fabled city state of Omelas described in writer Ursula K. Le Guin's short story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas". In that moral horror story, all looks light, cheerful, healthy and perfectly happy; that glowing happiness is dependent on the abuse of an innocent child locked away in a dark place, an evil that all know of but of which none speak. 

Ms Clark is right that not only have the last six decades of drug wars indefensibly killed thousands of drug users, but they have not reduced the natural human urge of thousands of years to use drugs for fun. The populist drug wars have, however, very effectively debased the public morals of societies practicing such morally indefensible abuse of individuals. Ms Clark is right to praise Thailand's recent decriminalization of cannabis, and to insist that it needs to go further in the pursuit of good morals for society. 

The drug wars and their killings, their overcrowded prisons, their massive economic, social and moral costs to society, are premised on the notion, shared by communist and right-wing authoritarian ideologies alike, that human beings are not born to be free, but to serve as productive units for self-serving groups wielding political power. 

The lame excuses that drugs must be suppressed to "protect society" or to "protect children" are false claims. That such claims are not truly believed even by the parents and populist politicians who promote them is proved by the fact that they do not apply their reasoning with any attempt at consistency. The facts are that whilst all drugs, cannabis, alcohol, yaba, heroin, cigarettes or whatever, are harmful to the user, as Ms Clark sensibly admits, when it comes to harms to society, the drug that is far and away the most harmful is alcohol, as concluded in such studies as those of Professor David Nutt et al. ("Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis" The Lancet, 2010, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61462-6 ) and Associate Professor Yvonne Bonomo et al. ("The Australian drug harms ranking study", 2019, Journal of Psychopharmacology, DOI 10.1177/0269881119841569  ). Since alcohol is the single most harmful drug to non-users and society generally, were the advocates of prohibition sincere in their principles, they would be calling for the imprisonment and execution of the alcohol barons, those wealthy executives of famous businesses producing and peddling that very popular recreational drug to the great harm of society. Were they consistent in their professed moral convictions, the anti-drug advocates would be demanding that the law imprison those in possession of the drug alcohol to further uselessly, harmfully, swell the grossly overcrowded prisons. They conspicuously are not. 

Those pushing the 60-year tradition of suppressing some popular drugs whilst allowing free rein to a more harmful drug might think themselves acting for the good of society or the family, but they are wrong. Their confused, delusive, irrational and morally corrupt vision is the path towards Omelas, founded on an unspeakably vile truth lurking at the dark heart of their ideal society. 

 Felix Qui 

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on April 22, 2023, under the title "Nod to Helen Clark" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2554676/handout-pros

Just fix pot laws

re: "Weed bounty may go to pot" (BP, Editorial, March 7, 2023) 

Dear editor,

The Bangkok Post is correct that the botched reform of laws relating to cannabis use needs to be corrected. It is misguided to accept that cannabis should be legal only for medical use. What Bhumjaithai now needs to do is press for full legalization of cannabis for use by adults, with no distinction between medical and recreational use. There is not now and never has been any good reason why cannabis should not be legally regulated exactly like the far more harmful drug alcohol. 

It must be admitted that there is no doubt that some children do indeed access and consume alcohol, and parents should certainly be concerned about their children sneaking hits of whisky, wine or beer, but that is not a just reason for the state to criminalize that drug for recreational use by adults. No more is similar parental concern a just reason to criminalize cannabis. The concerned parents, many of whom are likely alcohol users themselves, need to stop throwing tantrums worthy of Chuwit Kamolwisut, get informed, and set a more mature example to their children of sound reasoning supporting impartial justice. 

 Felix Qui  

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on MonthDate, 2023, under the title "Just fix pot laws" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2522781/just-fix-pot-laws

Drug war déjà vu

re: "Pheu Thai vows to rid Buri Ram of illegal drugs" (BP, March 5, 2023) 

Dear editor,

Pheu Thai's promise made by the daughter of Thaksin Shinawatra at a major campaign rally in Buriram to "transform this northeastern province by ridding it of all kinds of illegal drugs" inevitably recalls the horror of her father's morally repugnant war on drugs in 2003, which saw more than 2,000 Thais killed under circumstances that have never been adequately clarified, let alone seen justice done. 

There is precisely one way to justly rid a province or any other jurisdiction of illegal drugs: remove them from the list of illegal drugs; there will then be no illegal drug problem. That would be just. It would also be practical. It would also reduce drug harms to society, which has never appeared the goal of Thaksin or any like minded politician riding the wave of populist unreason fuelled by blind prejudice whipped up by political players to serve only their own dubious agendas. 

In addition to justly respecting individual rights of adults, there are several very practical benefits to such a just drug policy. 1) It removes the trade from criminal gangs, surely good for society as well as consumers. 2) It eradicates a major source of corruption in the Royal Thai Police and related bodies, which eradication most hopefully deem a welcome boon to society. 3) It allows tax to be collected on a thriving industry, which state income can then be spent on drug awareness and recovery programs. 4) It makes treatment easier by removing the threat of legal punishment for an awful personal and family problem, which is again surely to be welcome. 5) It saves a fortune on policing, court cases, and prisons, which budget funds can also then be diverted to rehabilitation, health care and education. 6) It allows police to focus on preventing murder, rape, theft, fraud and like crimes with actual victims, unlike most drug use which typically involves no such victims. The millions of drug users in Thailand are plainly not all slitting throats or even jay walking on a regular basis. 7) It ensures the quality of the product since when consumers buy from legally regulated businesses, they can file police complaints in case of tainted goods or other criminal behaviour by the seller, thus saving lives. 8) Nor should it be ignored that the evidence from around the world contradicts the unfounded popular belief that legalization greatly increases drug use. The use of alcohol, for example, did not surge in the US when, to the great distress of the mafia and their loyal retainers in US law enforcement, the prohibition era was ended in 1933. The legalization of cannabis for recreational use around the world in recent years tells a similar story of the relative inelasticity of recreational drug use with respect to legal status, a reality further confirmed by Portugal's long running decriminalization of all personal drug use. 

What, in contrast, are reasons to maintain a status quo that has utterly failed to reduce drug use or harms to society for many decades? The regular massive seizures reported in this newspaper attest only to the abject failure of current policy to reduce drug use despite having been repeated for many decades with only net negative consequences for Thai society and citizens for those same decades of costly failure. 

If Pheu Thai were proposing to eliminate illegal drugs by duly reforming a policy that is a solidly proven failure, it would deserve praise. If it merely seeks to repeat with variations one of the most shameful populist episodes of Thaksin's time as PM, it deserves only disdain at best. 

 Felix Qui  

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on March 7, 2023, under the title "Drug war déjà vu" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2521941/drug-war-d%C3%A9j%C3%A0-vu

For freedom's sake

re: "5 parties pledge to not support vapes" (BP, February 24, 2023) 

Dear editor,

The five parties, Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP), the Democrat Party (of course), Chartthaipattana Party, the Pheu Thai Party, and the Thai Liberal Party (really?), are to be commended for publicly exposing their strong stance against the notion that adults be permitted to decide for themselves how best to enjoy their own lives, in this case with regard to vaping, something that all five parties oppose for uniformly bad reasons. 

Of course, this opposition to accepting the right of adults to the liberty to choose what risks to take in their pursuit of a meaningful life collaterally also supports the status quo that generates such lucrative extra income streams for members of the Royal Thai Police. Unjust law does tend to do that, at least since the US gave their Mafia a major boost by prohibiting alcohol back in 1920. Thai criminal gangs and their loyal employees in law enforcement are no less slow than their American counterparts in the 1920s at spotting a gift horse when morally challenged politicians indulging popular prejudices hand them the reins to riches. 

Yes, e-cigarettes are almost certainly harmful. So is living in Chiangmai's filthy air. So, too, is pigging out on sugary drinks or biking on the streets of Bangkok. Alcohol and tobacco might not be more harmful to users than e-cigarettes, but even if e-cigarettes were proven to be (they have not been) a significantly greater health risk than regular cigarettes, that could not be a sufficient reason to ban them for use by adults. Living in a free nation where individual liberty is respected does entail accepting that some adults will do things that are unhealthy for themselves, such as drink alcohol, which is harmful in any quantity. If those campaigning against vaping are sincere, they will also propose banning alcohol on exactly the same health grounds and to protect children who might, horror of horrors, otherwise get their hands on whisky or champagne.  The Thai mafia eagerly awaits such a promising new business opportunity. 

 Felix Qui 

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on March 4, 2023, under the title "For freedom's sake" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2520204/rise-above-the-folly

Review vape ban

re: "Actress' vaping case sparks debate" (BP, February 3, 2023) 

Dear editor,

Dr Prakit Vathesatogkit, executive secretary of the Action on Smoking and Health Foundation is doubtless sincere in his convictions. He is also wrong in his conclusion that Thailand is "on the right track by banning e-cigarettes." Digital Economy and Society (DES) Minister Chaiwut Thanakamanusorn is right that vaping should be legalized for adults.

That there are very likely or most certainly health risks to vaping, or any other product that they enjoy using, is not a sufficient reason to ban it for adults. It should be fully legal for adults and regulated the same way alcohol, cigarettes and the host of other unhealthy lifestyle choices are regulated. 

Such legalization would be a serious hit to the income streams of those esteemed members of the Royal Thai Police about whom we have read so much in recent weeks, as usual. It is not, however, obvious that such a reduction in incitement to extortion and other corruption is so terribly undesirable a collateral outcome of just law.  

 Felix Qui 

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on February 7, 2023, under the title "Review vape ban" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2499781/review-vape-ban

A penchant for sugar

re: "Society's poisons" (BP, PostBag, January 18, 2023) 

Dear editor,

Joynandan Haldar, thank you for clarifying areas where I appear to have failed to write clearly. Allow me to correct my previous failure. Like the issue of sugary foods I also brought up and which you ignore in your response to my argument, alcohol was also relevant. It and unhealthy, sugary foods help illustrate the distracting irrelevance of your asking readers whether they would want their own children to be visiting casinos or smoking cannabis. That sort of populist question is no sound argument either for or against anything.  

I do not cheer for alcohol, cigarettes, or any other popular drugs as you falsely claim. Nor do I cheer for or have any desire to visit casinos. I do, however, cheer for just law.  Whilst I am glad to hear that neither you nor any one else in your family use alcohol, cannabis or cigarettes, you did not mention whether you also also abstain from unhealthy sugary foods. Your right to choose to enjoy such things or not according to your personal likes and dislikes should be respected by the law. Lest this be misunderstood, I think just law also requires due regulation of their availability to children.

However, just law is not made by merely following the personal likes and resulting choices of either you or me, or even of a large majority's personal prejudices. This is why a strong constitution prevents majorities making popular law that violates basic principles of individual liberty and autonomy. This also makes my, your and our families' choices regarding drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes or cannabis, visiting casinos or otherwise gambling, and consuming vast amounts of high-sugar foods irrelevant to just law. All normal adults should have their right to decide for themselves how they enjoy their own life equally and impartially respected by the law, and that includes a legal right to indulge in things that other adults might think, often with very good reason, to be foolish, unproductive and even unhealthy. Just law does not treat people merely as productive units of the economy or a means to some other end of society. 

However poisonous they might directly be to me, and thus indirectly to society, I continue to cheer for and to hold that the wonderfully sugary pastries and cakes in which I occasionally indulge should not be criminalized merely because they can be unhealthy. Please also leave butter alone. 

 Felix Qui 

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on January 21, 2023, under the title "A penchant for sugar" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2487644/labour-laws-outdated

Alcohol way worse!

re: "Pot comparisons" (BP, PostBag, January 13, 2023) 

Dear editor,

When he asks Boonlue Prasertsopha and his party: "will you and Khun Anutin and the rest of your party allow your kids to play in casinos and enjoy cannabis and whatnot?" Joynandan Haldar sounds every bit the concerned parent.

But that smelly old red herring is as deceitful today as it has always been. This dishonesty can be seen if we slightly change the question: Joynandan Haldar, will you and those who follow your reasoning allow your kids to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, and feast to their hearts' content on sugary foods of zero to negative nutritional value? I sincerely hope you do not allow your children to drink alcohol, smoke, or eat whatever sugar-enriched foods they want. It's called being a responsible parent. Being such a parent does not, however, entail that you must support criminalizing alcohol for recreational use by adults, nor does it follow that you must support banning sugary drinks and chocolate Easter eggs. 

Most parents, I hope most adults, realize that what might be appropriate for adults is not necessarily so for children. That parents enjoy a glass or two of wine at a family dinner is not incompatible with them denying their children at the very same table that particular adult pleasure. 

It is reasonable to have legal controls against selling alcohol to children. It is equally reasonable to have similar regulations on the sale of cannabis products to children. And that is as far as the law may justly go. Neither Mr. Haldar nor anyone else has presented a single good reason why adults should not be allowed to enjoy cannabis recreationally, or to have a bit of fun at a local or international casino, which reason does not apply with at least equal force to enjoying a beer after work or a glass of champagne with a celebratory meal. 

The Bhumjaithai Party was right to legalize cannabis. They should go further and respect the right of adults to decide for themselves whether to also use it recreationally or not. Their error was to not promptly have similar laws in place to regulate the drug's use similarly to the laws that regulate recreational use of the more harmful drug alcohol.  

 Felix Qui 

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on January 14, 2023, under the title "Alcohol way worse!" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2482347/not-ready-for-dystopia

A practical solution

re: "Mafia pull alive and well" (BP, Editorial, December 5, 2022) 

Dear editor,

The Bangkok Post is right to be concerned about the scale of criminal gang operations in Thailand by foreigners attracted by the profits to be made. It is perhaps sobering to reflect that such foreign business successes are likely dwarfed by the more smoothly running local Thai mafia gangs and loyal officials also eagerly raking in the billions to be had. It might, therefore, be more constructive to ask what it is that contributes to making Thailand a hub of such gang-led criminal activity. I would suggest that the major answer is Thai law. 

In 1920, the US criminalized alcohol. The result was not that millions of law abiding citizens, or at least citizens who saw themselves as being generally law-abiding, upstanding members of their community suddenly stopped drinking. Well, they did, but not for very long. After an initial, dramatic drop in 1921, alcohol consumption by generally law-abiding, upstanding members of their community, now all officially criminals, rapidly returned to their pre-Prohibition drug drinking habits. In 1919, per capita alcohol consumption in the US was just under 0.8 gallons/person. In 1921, this plunged to a little over 0.2 gallons/person. In 1922, it soared to actually exceed the pre-Prohibition level of 1919 (Clark Warburton, The Economic Results of Prohibition. Columbia University Press, 1932, pp. 23–26, 72).

Of course, what America's experiment with criminalizing the sale and use of alcohol proved was that decent people often strongly demand what those misled by good intentions righteously deem bad for everyone. When denied the opportunity to legally purchase regulated, safe products from legal, responsible business people, the good citizens of the US turned in their masses to the mafia gangs, enabling those criminal institutions to get a solid footing in American law enforcement, judiciary and government — not exactly all that righteous. 

The recent Thai saga of Tuhao, or Chaiyanat Kornchayanant as he is known, illustrates exactly the same phenomena. Millions of Thai and Chinese customers, who not only think of themselves as being decent, law-abiding people who want a bit of fun, and whose bit of fun in almost all cases does not harm anyone save themselves, are eager customers for the likes of foreigners such as Tuhao, and even more so for the Joe Ferraris and others in the Royal Thai Police and other Royal Thai law enforcement bodies serving the local criminal gangs who are getting rich beyond their official salaries' dreams. As reported, Tuhao naturally appears to have all the requisite law enforcement and political connections to ensure high profits.

No business person, Thai or foreign, legal or criminal, ever got rich by selling a product for which there was no demand. The most practical partial solution to the corruption as usual in the Royal Thai Police and elsewhere, which no one who supports the regressive status quo over progressive reform will ever tackle, irrespective of incredible promises, is to at least decriminalize all those activities so beloved of the Thai people that they are staunch customers irrespective of legality. If those inherently unjust laws were reformed, that would immediately put a major dent in the income streams of foreign and local criminal gangs and corrupt Thai officials, which is perhaps the reason those groups so oppose sane law. Such reform of obviously failing law would also greatly reduce the harms to society caused by having the sex industry, the drug industry, the gambling industry and so on run not by regulated, tax-paying business people who could be held to account, but by criminal gangs and corrupt officials getting rich at great cost to Thai society. 

 Felix Qui 

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on December 8, 2022, under the title "A practical solution" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2455577/just-fine-in-theory

Cannabis sensibility

re: "Champions of pot plot pro-bill rally" (BP, November 19, 2022) 

Dear editor,

Other than objecting on principle to free citizens choosing how to live their own lives without directly harming others, or an even more principled objection to adults having fun at all, what is wrong with recreational use of cannabis that does not apply with at least equal force to recreational use of alcohol? 

Those in favour of freedom, of personal liberties, should support the legalization of cannabis for sale and use by consenting adults, with due safeguards against underage or other inappropriate use. Those safeguards need be no more than now obtain for both alcohol and cigarettes, both of whose recreational uses are more harmful to society and, especially for alcohol, pose a greater threat to the underaged than does fully legal recreational use of cannabis. 

Some of the hysteria around this very sensible policy change, albeit botched in execution, of the current Thai government is reminiscent of the addled thinking of drug damaged brains. Might some perhaps have been at the alcohol too much in their youth?  

 Felix Qui 

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on November 21, 2022, under the title "Cannabis sensibility" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2442345/cannabis-sensibility

What a cop out

re: "Drunk doctor avoids jail time for fatal road crash" (BP, November 8, 2022) 

Dear editor,

The facts as reported in the case of the doctor, who happens collaterally to hold the rank of captain in that gloriously uniformed institution the Royal Thai Police, getting off with zero prison time after killing two people and injuring another whilst driving under the influence of his preferred drug of addiction might appear to reasonable people to confirm what observant people have suspected for many decades: namely, that those deemed "good people" by bad people are not to be treated like common people. 

 Felix Qui 

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on November 11, 2022, under the title "What a cop out" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2435259/financial-injustice

re: "How to Talk to Kids About Drugs in the Age of Fentanyl"

re: "How to Talk to Kids About Drugs in the Age of Fentanyl" (The New York Times, November 9, 2022)

We want to protect children. We also want to protect adults. But adult persons have a right to decide for themselves how to balance advantages and disadvantages: some will opt to skip the high sugar desserts, others will value the present enjoyment and pig out. 

That we know something is unhealthy is a good reason to be concerned. It cannot be a sufficient reason to criminalize its use by or sale to adults. 

Legalize all the drugs so that quality can be regulated and sold by respectable businesses. At least then adults and reckless teenagers will have a fair chance of knowing exactly what they are ingesting and the real risks.  

_______________________________

The above comment was submitted by Felix Qui to The New York Times article.

It is published there at https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/08/opinion/fentanyl-teens.html#commentsContainer&permid=121387215:121387215

Double gibberish

re: "Recreational use 'doubles' since delisting" (BP, October 31, 2022) 

Dear editor,

"Recreational use 'doubles' since delisting", the Bangkok Post's lead article for most of Monday, front and centre on the website's homepage, certainly catches the reader's attention. It is also a shameful piece of alleged journalism. Admittedly, the Post is not an academic journal. Nonetheless, if such a claim is to be made as that "the number of people aged under 20 who use cannabis recreationally has doubled since the plant was formally decriminalised this year," then at the very least, the before and after numbers must be cited. Did the number allegedly double from one to two? Or was it from 100 to 200? Perhaps 10,000 to 20,000? One million to two million? Without those numbers, the claim is worthless.

Equally important is to explain the research behind those statistics. As far as this piece of reporting goes, it might just be numbers made up by someone at the Centre of Addiction Studies making a more or less educated guess to push an agenda that the Bangkok Post apparently favours. Did the statistics come from polls? From records of hospital admissions acting as proxy for the number of users? Did they come from arrest records? Did they come from the same or different methodologies? Again, without this information being given, the Post's loudly touted headline "Recreational use 'doubles' since delisting" is at best garbage, and possibly deceitful. 

 Felix Qui 

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on November 2, 2022, under the title "Double gibberish" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2427890/partially-understood

Drug falsehoods

re: "Lessons to learn from nursery tragedy" (BP, October 10, 2022) 

Dear editor,

The lesson to be learned from Veera Prateepchaikul's "Lessons to learn from nursery tragedy" is that some go to great lengths of to push comforting, populist assumptions over an evidence-based, critically reasoned response to a tragedy. Veera's opening sentence proclaims the dead horses he's going to flog for a few paragraphs: "Narcotic drugs, methamphetamines in particular, and guns, when they are mixed together, are a dangerous chemistry for violence -- much worse than the combination of alcohol and guns."

Yes, the killer used guns. But Veera overlooks (I am sure he is not ignorant of the fact) that the killer also used knives to kill. And yet there is no discussion of the need to ban or at least strictly control knife ownership. The rampaging killer was not simply a "gunman" as Veera labels him, but also a knife man.

The more serious misunderstandings Veera assumes are his incorrect ideas about drugs and drug harms to society. His claim that "methamphetamines ... are a dangerous chemistry for violence" is true. But when he goes on to repeat the common false belief that  they are "much worse than the combination of alcohol and guns" he flatly contradicts expert opinion, which is that of all drugs in popular use, alcohol is far and away the most harmful to society and others. This is the conclusion reached, for example, by Nutt et al. writing in the Lancet in "Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis" (2010, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61462-6) and Bonomo et al. reporting in the Journal of Psychopharmacology in "The Australian drug harms ranking study" (2019, DOI 10.1177/0269881119841569). Veera's sole support for his outrageous claim is to point out that "from time to time, we hear reports of a man who turns into a monster when high on methamphetamines." He offers no solid statistical support for his claim, which is likely popularly shared, for the very good reason that no such exists. False beliefs, however sincerely and widely believed on pure faith, do tend to lack actual supporting evidence. 

Veera is certainly right that drug use, especially methamphetamine use, is a serious problem in Thailand. Alcohol use is, however, an even more serious drug problem in Thailand, relevant to which are these summary sentences from the results section of Bonomo et al.: "Overall, alcohol was the most harmful drug when harm to users and harm to others was combined. A supplementary analysis took into consideration the prevalence of each substance in Australia. Alcohol was again ranked the most harmful substance overall." It is not merely that alcohol is the more harmful drug to society because it is more widely used, but that for equal numbers of users, alcohol is the more harmful. But then, if instead of focusing on the rare reports that fit his preconceptions of demented yaa baa users holding their own family at gun point (more likely knife point, as I recall such reports), Veera considered for a moment, he would realize that it is alcohol that is the drug implicated in a high percentage of traffic deaths and in domestic abuse and sexual assault. The Democrat Party's former golden boy Prinn Panichpakdi plied himself and alleged victims not with yaa baa but with alcohol to fuel his lusts.

Yes, Thailand needs to take a hard look at the failing drug policies of many, many decades. A healthy start would be to look honestly at the evidence and form drug policy that reflects reality. Portugal, which decriminalized all personal drug use in 2001, now offers more than 20 years of valuable statistics on what happens when reason not inherited prejudice based on wild assumptions is used to plan a national drug policy whose aim is not appeasing popular prejudice but in fact the reduction of drug harms to society consistent with respect for human rights. 

 Felix Qui 

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on October 15, 2022, under the title "Drug falsehoods" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2414990/losing-our-standing

Dope changes needed

re: "Lack of rules hits farmers" (BP, September 23, 2022) 

Dear editor,

Bhumjaithai appears to have had the right idea, but lacked the guts, or competence, or both, to do it right. Cannabis should be legalized for recreational use by adults. It should be treated like cigarettes and the far more harmful drug alcohol, but not to the extent of giving monopolies to rich drug-dealing families intent on getting richer by having a monopoly on their lucrative drug dealing. Let small farmers also grow the crop to meet the clear demand from adult Thai consumers. 

Stop the lame, dishonest pretence that the cannabis shops that have sprouted up around Bangkok, including in my area, Silom Road, not Khaosan Road, are selling marijuana solely for medical purposes. They are not, nor need they be. Enjoying life without harming others is a good thing, in fact, a very good thing. Let the eager farmers profitably provide what many people enjoy without inflicting on society the violence and fractured thinking that so often accompanies alcohol use. 

 Felix Qui 

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on September 25, 2022, under the title "Dope changes needed" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2399806/election-fever