No laughing matter
Between 2006 and 2012 in the UK there were 17 fatalities from people inhaling nitrous oxide; known colloquially as laughing gas, noz or hippie crack.
The rising number of deaths related to recreational use of the drug has sparked debate in Britain, as well as increased attention from the authorities.
The nitrous oxide trend has now traveled to Taiwan.
According to media reports, in Taoyuan alone within just six months three people have died from taking the gas. Since nitrous oxide is often pumped into a balloon before being inhaled, in Taiwan it is often called chui qiqiu (吹氣球, blowing up a balloon).
The gas is not yet classified as an illegal narcotic in Taiwan and many people believe that it provides a quick high, while also being non-addictive and non-harmful. While users can have rapid onset of hallucinogenic effects, most important of all, it is cheap. As such, it has become quite popular across a wide variety of entertainment venues.
Whenever I raise the dangers of using recreational drugs with my students, I always make a particular point of warning them not to take nitrous oxide. I tell them that while nitrous oxide is not classified as a drug, it is easy to inhale too large a quantity, which can starve the body of oxygen and have fatal consequences.
However, after I have said this, students always respond: “Then why not just ensure that you inhale only a small amount?”
I tell them that although nitrous oxide is not an illegal narcotic, under the Social Order Maintenance Act (社會秩序維護法), the police are still able to fine users.
The government has done a good job of increasing education around the dangers of drug use, but perhaps because nitrous oxide is not classified as an illegal narcotic, it is often omitted from anti-drugs education.
The government must do more to educate the public on the dangers of using nitrous oxide to prevent more young Taiwanese dying due to ignorance over its lethal danger.
Laughing gas is no laughing matter.
Chen Hung-hui
New Taipei City
Bullies have no defense
The problem of teachers bullying students is symptomatic of an education system that values test results over mental health (“Foundation urges action on bullying by teachers,” Nov. 26, page 2).
As a veteran educator, I can empathize with an individual teacher who loses self-control at the end of a long day and snaps at a student. However, these moments should be seen as personal failings on the part of the teacher. They should be opportunities for self-reflection and professional growth.
Far more concerning is the reaction of the administration, which defended the teachers in question, saying they were “being diligent in managing the class.”
Perhaps it is possible to construct a Machiavellian argument that mistreating a student is justified if it brings about greater academic success, but such abuses actually harm academic performance rather than foster it. Research shows that anxiety hinders brain function; therefore, nervous students cannot learn effectively. Parents and teachers who punish underperforming students, physically or emotionally, are actually contributing to the student’s underperformance.
A teacher who is truly “diligent in managing the class” is one who creates a classroom environment that is conducive to learning — one where students are relaxed and focused on learning.
As a society, we must stop accepting the mistreatment of children in the name of education.
If we acknowledge that this sort of behavior does not fulfill the goal of spawning greater academic success, then we must see it for what it really is — child abuse.
Charlie Taylor
Taitung
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS