USERS DON'T DESERVE A LIFE BEHIND BARS

One of the foremost tasks of the high-powered committee set up by Prime
Minister Thaksin Shinawatra during last month's national drug conference in
Chiang Rai was to change the emphasis in the narcotics law so that drug
addicts and those who support their habits by selling small amounts of
drugs are treated as having a medical condition rather than as criminals
and must undergo compulsory rehabilitation at an army camp.

The objective of this noble endeavour is to separate the addicts and minor
pushers from the real traffickers, to give them a chance to turn a new leaf
rather than spend time behind bars and possibly become hardened criminals.
The treatment of addicts as patients also will go a long way towards
helping relieve the overcrowding of our prisons. The latest figures from
the Corrections Department show that 65% of inmates are drug offenders,
most of them methamphetamine users.

The committee, headed by Interior Minister Purachai Piemsomboon, should
have no problem with the idea of treating addicts, in particular
methamphetamine users, as patients. The hurdle will be in redefining the
term "trafficking" - and already the committee members are divided.

The present law defines anyone in possession of 50 grammes of
methamphetamines, or 25 speed tablets, as a trafficker. Some panellists
would like this changed to 50 tablets so more small-time drug peddlers
receive rehabilitation rather than incarceration. Others are happy with the
ways things are. They feel any relaxation of the limit will encourage the
big traffickers to set up broader networks of minor dealers. Things are
still up in the air as we go to press, and so the widely celebrated reforms
have yet to materialise.

Perhaps the Purachai panel should take a look at a recent research paper
prepared by Natthi Jitsawang, deputy director-general of the Corrections
Department, and Sumonthip Jailek, a criminologist. The study conducted
among 120 minor pushers serving time in nine different prisons should
provide valuable "fruit for thought" to nourish the committee members in
their search for an acceptable solution.

The highlights of the findings include: 60% of drug offenders are now
guests of the state for possessing between one and 100 speed pills (30.8%
possessed between 11 and 50 speed tablets, and 25% between 51 and 100
tablets, meaning the biggest share had only a very few); 34.2% of the minor
drug peddlers were no older than 25 years; 73% of the minor pushers claimed
they were persuaded by their peers to take drugs and later sell them to
support their habit.

The study found that most drug traders who also use, big and small, prefer
to target students because they are easy prey and most can afford to
support a habit. Youths are vulnerable to the temptation of becoming
dealers and sell the drugs to their fellow students.

While the fight to stem the flow of drugs crossing the border from Burma
might look overwhelming due to the lack of co-operation from Rangoon, the
battle at home to reduce the demand through both compulsory and voluntary
rehabilitation programmes is realisable.

With 2.7 million Thais having experimented with drugs at least once and
300,000 now considered addicts, Thailand clearly is in the grip of a drug
epidemic. This poses a daunting challenge to all of us, but especially Mr
Purachai and the other members of his committee. Amending laws is already a
drawn out process, and so the committee cannot afford to spend too much
time haggling over such things as how many pills in the pocket make a man
or woman a drug trafficker. Drug addicts have been treated as criminals for
far too long and forced to languish in jail when they could have been
provided with a more sensible alternative which helped them live life as a
contributing member of society.