Indonesian Drug Executions

[rigsby]

Drugs aren't hard to get, no. But my point is, by decriminalising them, it makes them look safer. so those who haven't experimented with them, would inevitably feel easier about trying some, especially if peer pressure is present. That in itself, isn't a problem, as long as it's done in a controlled environment. Unfortunately, you rarely find a controlled environment to take recreational drugs, as your behaviour & surroundings become a potential hazard/danger.

This is as simple as it gets... Drugs change people. Simple. Each drug, affects each individual differently. But it 100% changes them, whilst in their system. I'll be tempted to exclude weed from this, but sniff, MDMA, Smack, Crack & LSD are all potential dangers. I've seen first hand, the most placid of people, toot up & turn into savages. I've seen small disagreements/accidents turn into bloodshed. I've seen people rack up debts in the blink of an eye, just because their brain is saying "more, need more". I know people who've had panic/anxiety attacks for days after, which is interspersed with depression & self-loathing.

And it's all down to a stupid chemical, which has been induced voluntarily.

Sounds just like alcohol to me.

Of course the 130+ MP's who are in some way connected to the Drinks industry will always allow their paymasters to get away with murder, and I do mean murder. Whilst sending out the anti-drugs message.

We live in a country that allows Tobacco sales and supermarkets to sell alcohol at less than cost price but its illegal to smoke weed

In the last 25yrs more people have died in police custody than from ecstasy. I have had the odd night in the cells and have had the odd night at a rave. One was far more fun and as it turns out far safer but I'll leave you to guess which was which. :winking:

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Drugs aren't hard to get, no. But my point is, by decriminalising them, it makes them look safer. so those who haven't experimented with them, would inevitably feel easier about trying some, especially if peer pressure is present. That in itself, isn't a problem, as long as it's done in a controlled environment. Unfortunately, you rarely find a controlled environment to take recreational drugs, as your behaviour & surroundings become a potential hazard/danger.

This is as simple as it gets... Drugs change people. Simple. Each drug, affects each individual differently. But it 100% changes them, whilst in their system. I'll be tempted to exclude weed from this, but sniff, MDMA, Smack, Crack & LSD are all potential dangers. I've seen first hand, the most placid of people, toot up & turn into savages. I've seen small disagreements/accidents turn into bloodshed. I've seen people rack up debts in the blink of an eye, just because their brain is saying "more, need more". I know people who've had panic/anxiety attacks for days after, which is interspersed with depression & self-loathing.

And it's all down to a stupid chemical, which has been induced voluntarily.

The argument for legalisation isn't an argument for taking drugs.

When the US abolished alcohol prohibition people didn't all become alcoholics; when Colorado legalised marijuana things carried on as before; when Portugal decriminalised things got better.

It's an argument for diverting funds currently wasted on losing the war on drugs into drug education, into rehabilitating addicts, into protecting public health.

Prohibition doesn't work. It's not an effective deterrent. It also causes a huge amount of harm and has fuelled criminal enterprises. It's been the biggest public policy disaster ever.

 

[steveo]

Will it stop the unwinnable war in drug trafficking?

No.

Legalise the lot.

I was of that opinion too M K but was chatting to someone about it and he said if you legalise drugs where does that leave the kids of the users? He has a point.

The other argument is that the druggies are going to use them anyway and possibly buy them at the expense of food and stuff for their kids.

 

[MK Shrimper]

I was of that opinion too M K but was chatting to someone about it and he said if you legalise drugs where does that leave the kids of the users? He has a point.

The other argument is that the druggies are going to use them anyway and possibly buy them at the expense of food and stuff for their kids.

It's a truly terrible thing, but there are addicts out there already having kids. Just because it's illegal doesn't stop them reproducing.

If heroin is prescribed free on the NHS, then users wouldn't have to steal & rob to satisfy their habit. Treat addiction as an illness rather than a crime and the amount of money that would save would fund itself, not to mention removing organised crime gangs out of the picture.

I've known of alcoholics who'd spend any penny they had on a bottle of cheap vodka than provide for their kid, so where's the difference? One drug is legal and taxable by the government and the other isn't.

 

[mrsblue]

Drug dealer buys his bag of coke,he/she then proceeds to add baking powder, talc ,rat poison ,arsenic and any other crap he can find to increase his/hers profit.

Dealer sells potential death sentence gear,police ,mob handed raid the dealer's home/squat/pad/den,police charge dealer and they appear in court,prison may await them,upon their release we can start the cycle all over again.

How much does the above cost the taxpayer?,10k,50k,100k,250k..madness.

 

[Jam_Man]

It's a truly terrible thing, but there are addicts out there already having kids. Just because it's illegal doesn't stop them reproducing.

If heroin is prescribed free on the NHS, then users wouldn't have to steal & rob to satisfy their habit. Treat addiction as an illness rather than a crime and the amount of money that would save would fund itself, not to mention removing organised crime gangs out of the picture.

I've known of alcoholics who'd spend any penny they had on a bottle of cheap vodka than provide for their kid, so where's the difference? One drug is legal and taxable by the government and the other isn't.

Right so the rest of us have to pay more in taxes to fund the NHS to pay for free heroin ?

As for the legalisaton others are discussing, de-criminalising drugs is one thing, making them into an industry where the likes of crack and heroin are manafactured legitimately is something else. We will never be in a position where you can buy hard drugs over the counter that have been made in a factory, thats a ridiculous idea.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Right so the rest of us have to pay more in taxes to fund the NHS to pay for free heroin ?

De-criminalising drugs is one thing, making them into an industry where the likes of crack and heroin are manafactured legitimately is something else.

No not at all. By stopping throwing money in the black hole of an unwinnable battle, the savings would be immense.

Crack & heroin will always be manufactured - if was dealt with by a Government and treated as an illness rather than a crime.

 

[Jam_Man]

No not at all. By stopping throwing money in the black hole of an unwinnable battle, the savings would be immense.

Crack & heroin will always be manufactured - if was dealt with by a Government and treated as an illness rather than a crime.

Theres a difference in easing up fighting the drug war and punishing users to actually turning it into a legalised business.

Anyone who thinks heroin should be available to buy legally has been taking too much of the stuff already.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Anyone who thinks heroin should be available to buy legally has been taking too much of the stuff already.

I didn't say buy, I said give it to addicts free - hand in hand with treatment to get off the stuff. No need to rob little old ladies or break into houses.

 

[Jam_Man]

I didn't say buy, I said give it to addicts free - hand in hand with treatment to get off the stuff. No need to rob little old ladies or break into houses.

No, that comment was more in reply to general posting on here .

Even so, dont addicts get given free methadone ?

Should alcoholics get free booze ?

I get your point though, a lot of crime is caused by drugs, but Im not sure giving free drugs to every one who would turn to crime is the answer though. Surely the idea would be to get them off the drugs rather than just feed a habit indefinitely as it would never stop.

Ive known two alcoholics in my time and a few people with issues with cocaine. Certainly the answer was never to give any of them more of what they wanted.

 

[londonblue]

If you choose to be a drug trafficker and you choose to traffic them to these areas of Asia then your choices are the things that put you in front of that firing squad or on that gurney. It's their laws. If your found and proven to have broken them then you should fully expect the punishments that go with breaking those laws.

However, the question is did she choose to traffic drugs? If someone tells you to traffic drugs or they'll kill you, or a family member (for example) what would you do? Would you allow them to kill you, or take the risk of trafficking in the hope of getting away with it and not dying? Even if the chances of getting caught and being executed is 90%, it's still better than 100%

For clarity, I'm not saying that is the case here, but you need to be careful when you say "choose".

 

[rigsby]

However, the question is did she choose to traffic drugs? If someone tells you to traffic drugs or they'll kill you, or a family member (for example) what would you do? Would you allow them to kill you, or take the risk of trafficking in the hope of getting away with it and not dying? Even if the chances of getting caught and being executed is 90%, it's still better than 100%

For clarity, I'm not saying that is the case here, but you need to be careful when you say "choose".

Sir, the dog eat my homework.... comes to mind

 

[mrsblue]

However, the question is did she choose to traffic drugs? If someone tells you to traffic drugs or they'll kill you, or a family member (for example) what would you do? Would you allow them to kill you, or take the risk of trafficking in the hope of getting away with it and not dying? Even if the chances of getting caught and being executed is 90%, it's still better than 100%

For clarity, I'm not saying that is the case here, but you need to be careful when you say "choose".

Wasnt me guv'nor honest.

Daft old bird took the chance whether conned or otherwise but still doesn't deserve the death penalty.

 

[londonblue]

Wasnt me guv'nor honest.

Daft old bird took the chance whether conned or otherwise but still doesn't deserve the death penalty.

As I said:

For clarity, I'm not saying that is the case here

I'm making a general point in response to this:

If you choose to be a drug trafficker

It's important to be careful about the wording. Whether someone truly chooses is completely different to if someone was threatened if they didn't.

 

[rigsby]

As I said:



I'm making a general point in response to this:



It's important to be careful about the wording. Whether someone truly chooses is completely different to if someone was threatened if they didn't.

You mean like an SS death camp guard

 

[GBJ]

In fairness GBJ I have seen those things too, brought upon by Alcohol. Which sort of shows that neither legalisation nor prohibition work to a degree.

Hard drugs are far worse than booze, for both an individual & the innocent people. That's mentally & physically.

The upside for legislation often mentioned is that if legal the drugs will be able to be produced cheaper and purer (not purity of the drug, but the lack of possibly toxic contamination) the price could then be sett by taxing it to a level which would discourage the black market as well as not being too cheap.
This would provide revenue which would assist , if not pay for, the treatment for the abusers , which is currently coming from somewhere else.

"Toxic contamination" means nothing to a fiend. All that is, is a filler substance that a dealer adds, to bump up the wrap, such as brick dust or baking soda. If the shops are selling A gram of "purer, healthier" sniff for £30, but on "the black market" (cringe) it's only £20, it's a no brainer, where a fiend's going. I know where I'd go.


If they were legal, and distributed in shops, the first thing the government would do is slap a massive tax bill on them. You can currently get certain drugs cheaper, than a box of fags. Why the assumption drugs would be cheaper for users (than they are now) if they were legal? They wouldnt be. And therein, the "black market" (more cringe) survives, because you'll always get someone, wanting to undercut the competition & people wanting to save money.

Basically , like Alcohol or fags, you cant stop them doing it , so tax them so that any cost to society of the habit, is met by the users.

How much do we already spend on drug abuse cases? Half a Billion a year? That's half a billion pounds spent on an illegal past time. How much does that number increase, with legalisation? And then what, the medical bill rises, so add more tax on to the product? Sorry Tesco, keep your £60 a wrap, Extra Value Cocaine, Mr.X down the pub is knocking out almost the same product for £30.

Personally , I can see any reasons why all Drugs , and that include tobacco and Alcohol, cannot be treated in the same way, whether that's Illegal or legal , I am not sure, but the disparity in legislation seems wrong

Hard drugs are far more addictive, dangerous & mind altering than booze. They are two different animals altogether. Legslising a deadly product, isn't the answer.

Sounds just like alcohol to me.

See above ^

We live in a country that allows Tobacco sales and supermarkets to sell alcohol at less than cost price but its illegal to smoke weed


In the last 25yrs more people have died in police custody than from ecstasy. I have had the odd night in the cells and have had the odd night at a rave. One was far more fun and as it turns out far safer but I'll leave you to guess which was which.

I'm not necessarily bothered by weed. I'm talking about hard drugs, such as sniff, smack, crack, LSD etc.

The argument for legalisation isn't an argument for taking drugs.

But can't you see, that by legalising them, or even talking about legalising them, it gives false pretences to the general public about the safety of taking drugs?

Prohibition doesn't work. It's not an effective deterrent. It also causes a huge amount of harm and has fuelled criminal enterprises. It's been the biggest public policy disaster ever.

For years, most world governments have warned about the dangers of drug use. To back track now, would be like them same governments saying, "well actually, they're not that bad & we can't fight it anymore, so go nuts & give us some more of your money", which is grossly misleading.

Right so the rest of us have to pay more in taxes to fund the NHS to pay for free heroin ?


As for the legalisaton others are discussing, de-criminalising drugs is one thing, making them into an industry where the likes of crack and heroin are manafactured legitimately is something else. We will never be in a position where you can buy hard drugs over the counter that have been made in a factory, thats a ridiculous idea.

Exactly. The full scale of manufacture & sale of Class A drugs would be bedlam

 

[londonblue]

You mean like an SS death camp guard

No nothing like it. I'm saying what if someone is threatened with death if they don't do something. That means it isn't a "free" choice. That is nothing like someone doing something when they can ask for a transfer with no repercussions.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Hard drugs are far worse than booze, for both an individual & the innocent people. That's mentally & physically.

Are they ****. I've seen, first hand, the evils of alcohol. People who have died in their 40s due to 20 years of alcoholism.

2013 statistics from the ONS:

2,955 drug poisoning deaths (involving both legal and illegal drugs) were registered in 2013 in England and Wales (2,032 male and 923 female deaths).

There were 8,416 alcohol-related deaths registered in the UK, an age standardised rate of 14.0 deaths per 100,000 population. A small increase of 49 deaths compared to 2012 did not change the overall rate.

Does that include people innocently killed by drunk drivers? I doubt it. The drug deaths also include people who have overdosed on aspirins and alike.

Not to mention poor sods beaten to a pulp/glassed etc due to some idiot unable to hold their drink.

No disrespect GBJ, but people far more qualified than you or I see alcohol as the worst drug in society - yet you can pop into your local cornershop and buy a £5 bottle of vodka.

 

[GBJ]

Are they ****. I've seen, first hand, the evils of alcohol. People who have died in their 40s due to 20 years of alcoholism.

Yeah, I'm not saying an alcohol addiction is any less worse than a drug addiction. They're both addictions & unfortunately some people, once gripped by it, find it almost impossible to get away from. Same as gambling. A pal of mine lives and breathes to feed the blackjack machines, in the bookies. But we're not necessarily talking about addictions, I'm talking about the actual product.

Lets be honest, those without an addiction, drinking a few pints of Fosters after work, is nowhere near as bad as if they sniffed up an eighth in one sitting. Or smashed back a quarter of MDMA. Or shot up an entire block of smack. You haven't got to be an addict to do any of those things. I can safely enjoy a few liquid refreshments after work, without turning into a different person. You cannot do that with class A drugs & you of all people, having done it yourself, like me, should know that as soon as those chemicals enter your system, you are almost powerless to their control over your actions & well being

 

[GBJ]

2013 statistics from the ONS:

2,955 drug poisoning deaths (involving both legal and illegal drugs) were registered in 2013 in England and Wales (2,032 male and 923 female deaths).

There were 8,416 alcohol-related deaths registered in the UK, an age standardised rate of 14.0 deaths per 100,000 population. A small increase of 49 deaths compared to 2012 did not change the overall rate.

Does that include people innocently killed by drunk drivers? I doubt it. The drug deaths also include people who have overdosed on aspirins and alike.

Not to mention poor sods beaten to a pulp/glassed etc due to some idiot unable to hold their drink.

No disrespect GBJ, but people far more qualified than you or I see alcohol as the worst drug in society - yet you can pop into your local cornershop and buy a £5 bottle of vodka.

And you don't think, if drugs were legal, the death rates in those statistics wouldn't increase? Drugs are currently illegal & that is the statistics! Those statistics certainly would not lower, if all of a sudden, smack & coke were legal.

And from those figures, does it take into account the actual amount of people drinking/doing drugs & take that into comparison? So, how many people drink alcohol, per year, in the UK? I don't know, 20 million? 30 million? And 8k have died in alcohol related deaths. Now how many people use drugs in the UK? Again, I'm not sure, but it's a **** load less than 20 or 30 million. Maybe 2-3 million?

Again, I'm not saying alcohol is harmless, far from it. I've seen myself what it does & how it can change people. But just because we've got one dangerous, poisonous product* in shops & supermarkets, it doesn't mean other dangerous, poisonous products should be introduced aswell.

*FWIW, I'm calling beer poisonous, but I still love it.