Boycott Singapore

Actually, it was 14 ounces of Heroin.

25 is not a baby.

25 is a full grown adult, responsible for his or her actions.

He was found guilty, he paid the price.
 
The people who purchase drugs are presumably grown adults, each responsible for his own actions. The onus to use or abuse a recreational drug falls on them.
 
Eric_425 said:
What is dope? Is that just weed? If that's all, I would've been upset too. If it were heavy drugs, I'd understand a harder sentence. But marijiuana? That's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

he was carrying a large amount of nice pure heroin., not just your average college student stash. his momma loved her little baby, but i'm sure the person who'd just been burgled by a junkie, and the junkies mother who then had to pick up her son's body from the morgue after he overdosed are not quite so appreciative of the slimeball. he got what he deserved.
 
Ah- I believe burglary is rightfully a crime, and murder should indeed be a crime.

Someone who takes too much happy juice/powder/pills does it themselves. If someone else force it on them/slips it into their food or drink, then the action is murder or attempted murder, and therefore should indeed be punishable, but should the "slimeball" who sells alcohol- which many more people in the US use to destroy themselves- or even tobacco "get what they deserve"!? :barf:

John
 
Singapore killed one drug mule. The dealer he worked for kills thousands, on the installment plan.

Many people are unhappy with the death penalty itself. This man was not the best poster child for that campaign.

Truly mitigating cicumstances would have included at least information leading to the capture and disemboweling of the dealer.

No, death is not the answer. So, don't do the crime if you can't afford the clear and unambiguous penalty. Singapore has been very fair in its application of the law.
 
Regardless of one's view of the justice or injustice of the death penalty, sellng drugs in a nation which has informed the residents the consequences of is a decision you make at your own risk.



munk
 
Spectre said:
Ah- I believe burglary is rightfully a crime, and murder should indeed be a crime.

Someone who takes too much happy juice/powder/pills does it themselves. If someone else force it on them/slips it into their food or drink, then the action is murder or attempted murder, and therefore should indeed be punishable, but should the "slimeball" who sells alcohol- which many more people in the US use to destroy themselves- or even tobacco "get what they deserve"!? :barf:

John
Click to expand...

last time i looked, selling alcohol was legal (unless you live in saudi), and did not carry the death penalty (even in saudi) . when it does, i'll say hang 'em if he continues to break the law knowing it's consequences.

many weak minded people are tricked into getting hooked on heroin & crack then fiorced into theft or prostitution to pay for it, the drug lords should all be at the end of a barrett .50.

not anywhere near with alchohol, tho there i 'd say hang the drunk drivers who choose to drive & kill under it's influence.
 
Perhaps the greatest crime is being wishy-washy.

If drugs were legalised the profit motive would be cut out from under the drug kingpins, and addicting another person to manipulate or sexually abuse them wouldn't be as effective because the "victim" would not be dependent on one criminal supplier.

If a nation is serious about a "war on drugs," as Singapore is, they can effectively minimize the harm to their citizens.

If a nation like the US uses it's laws just to drive the price of drugs higher and maintain the profitability of the purportedly "illegal" trade, the citizens suffer from the resulting crime, addiction, and manipulation of addicts. Only the druglords and the polititians are winners under such a dishonest and "wishy-washy" system.
 
Good point, Howard.

The point I was making, is that alcohol, though legal over 21 in the US, has been used to hurt many more people, and has been involved in many more deaths, than heroin. It's always the *person* who chooses to use or abuse a drug, and the person is ultimately responsible, whether the drug is legal or not. (Incidentally, I'll be OVERJOYED to compare with you stats on ALL illegal drug usage stats in the US implication in crimes other than simple possession or intent to sell, when compared to those statistics when the substance is alcohol. Your claim is a red herring; yeah, it sounds damaging, but the facts don't support it. All my life, I've seen winos and drunkards, and the proportion is many times that of the obvious [illegal] drug users.)

many weak minded people are tricked into getting hooked on heroin & crack
Click to expand...

Okay, see, this is where we explosively part ways. You're using the elitist approach, but if you mentally back up a step, and consider your basic ideas about "protecting" poor dumb bastards from their own stupidity, you can readily see how this same "logic" can quickly lead to restrictions on firearms, vehicles, and yes, Virginia, even knives.

It's for the children...:barf: :mad:

The arrogance of claiming to know what's best for any other person is incalculable, so I'm just going to hope you haven't actually fully considered the implications of your stance.

John
 
Just a point of information. Is heroin addictive %100 of the time? I don't know the answer, but it may make a difference in the debate.

Maybe not.

I occasionally have a beer or a glass of wine out at dinner. I don't keep it at home, because I am low on the self control thing, and I just don't want to take a chance. I don't keep potato chips in the house too often either.

I have never smoked anything; same reasons as above. I know myself. I don't know what this stuff may do to me. I probably would have a hard time giving it up. I am having a hard time giving up diet pepsi.

I would have a very hard time giving up sex!;)

You all and I are glad I am not in charge...

Insufficient wisdom.

Tom
 
Nothing is addictive 100% of the time. Some personalities are more addictive than others. But heroin is bad news because most people won't try it: the ones who do are generally desperate and addictive types, the most vulnerable to getting hooked.

That said, I have known people who used cocaine and heroin and methamphetamines as if they were alcohol: occasionally, recreationally. I wouldn't chance it myself. But I can't believe one hit makes an addict.

By the way, the man who was hanged wasn't selling, and certainly not selling in Singapore. He knew better. He was "only" transporting it from Thailand to Australia, and unfortunately had to change planes in Singapore. That's how he fell under their jurisdiction.
 
Although I generally agree with Spectre's argumentation, I must say that if you know the consequences and still decide to take the risk, nobody should be sorry. Trying to smuggle *anything* in or out or through an airport these days doesn't seem like a very smart decision, even more so when it can get you killed.

Keno
 
Singapore may have gotten the wrong brother, or -- it runs in the family?


NGUYEN Tuong Van's brother, Nguyen Khoa, repeatedly slashed a teenager with a samurai sword, seriously wounding the 17-year-old's arm, buttock, ankle and left knee.

Khoa was sentenced to three years in jail for the 1998 attack, which resulted in the victim requiring plastic surgery. But County Court judge Meryl Sexton suspended the jail term because Khoa's "personal situation ... (had) become so traumatic because of (his) brother's situation".

Details of Khoa's conviction can be published today for the first time after Judge Sexton yesterday lifted a publication restriction imposed to avoid jeopardising Van's plea for clemency.
Click to expand...

Read the whole story. Incredible. Not only was he the real bad actor in the family, he led his brother into getting himself killed. And the court, bless its politically correct heart, lets him off easy because of the personal stress his irresponsibility has brought on everyone involved! :rolleyes:
 
Captured! By Robots :grumpy:

[moderator edit - A link to pictures of a simulated disembowelment/hanging is not in good taste in this thread, where some forumites have obviously been disturbed by the recent events. I removed the link. - Howard Wallace]
 
In the past, such links were acceptable provided there was a warning before hand and people entered into the link on their own.

Be that as it may, this subject is being dealt with in a admirable way. A link to gratuitious violence is not in keeping with the high standards of your own discussion. But you guys are free to laugh and/or debate.

ON serious subjects like this, opinion is often deeply held. I personally prefer there to be no implications of ignorance, lack of wisdom, how cute your girlfriend is, which ride at Disneyland is best.....Oh, Oh Well, I'll stick to the Subject at hand: let's not put anyone down for their beliefs.

I think Booze is pretty terrible stuff, and that in the great human rights experiment/effort that America and other democracies represent, people must decide for themselves what to do.

The State has no business in reccomending which calibre you should shoot yourself with should you decide to do that.


munk
 
munk said:
In the past, such links were acceptable provided there was a warning before hand and people entered into the link on their own.
Click to expand...

Very well.

The link I removed was http://www.capturedbyrobots.com/ . It features a poorly photoshoped picture of a simulated hanging and disembowelment. I suggest you not go there if the image will be disturbing to you in the context of this discusion.

We would probably all just chuckle at it if it came up in a thread on poor use of PhotoShop.
 
It just so happens I very much believe Howard's opinion that this link is not appropriate or the equal to the writing in this thread.



munk
 
Almost forgot to say;

Rusty would wipe these links out in a second if there was no warning, and also if they went to sites bordering on illegality or just plain immoral and horrible events or statements. Bill let Rusty do the dirty work, but he approved of Rusty's sometimes iron hand.


munk
 
Here in the US, we have just executed our 1000th. person since the resumption of executions in 1977.

From statistical evidence, we know with certainty that some of the people who we put to death were innocent of the crime for which they were executed.

But we still have the death penalty, and many, if not most people in the US approve of the use of the death penalty.

The difference between our death penalty and the death penalty for some drug related offences in Singapore is that our death penalty occurs after the administration of justice.

In Singapore the death penalty for some drug related offences is mandatory, which means that justice cannot be rendered.

The meaning of justice is that a law or regulation is administered in a fair and reasonable way.

In Singapore the law is administered, but justice is not, thus Singapore cannot be considered to be a just country.

In the case of Van Nguyen, the Australian who was executed for drug smuggling in Singapore, the judge presiding over his case had no alternative but to hand down the death penalty.

The Singapore government has the duty to govern Singapore in accordance with the wishes of the majority of its citizens, and the majority of people in Singapore approve of the death penalty for drug related offences.

Singapore introduced the death penalty, along with some other South East Asian countries, under pressure from the US at the cessation of the Vietnam war. We were concerned that our people returning from Vietnam would bring drugs with them and we wanted to take whatever measures we could to discourage this. However, world opinion on the death penalty has changed during the last 30 years, and Singapore, along with some other countries, including our own, is now seen by the rest of the world as unjust and barbaric.

Whether Singapore, the USA, and other countries which still have the death penalty are right, and the rest of the world is wrong, I do not wish to debate, however, I will remark that where a death penalty is able to be handed down from the bench, that penalty should only be given after the administration justice, that is , a judgement made in accordance with the law and in a fair and reasonable way.
At the present time, Singapore law precludes the administration of justice.

I am absolutely certain that if most people who currently favour execution as a punishment for crime were to have close first hand experience of the administration of this punishment, most particularly where death is caused by hanging, as in Singapore, they would not agree that this practice had any place in a just, or a Christian , society.

I do not condemn the murder of Van Nguyen by the Singapore government because Van Nguyen acted in stupid manner.

Equally I do not approve of his death because of his attempt to smuggle heroin. We know that heroin of itself does not damage the user. An over dose of heroin will kill, long term use in moderation will have effects comparable to long term use of any other drug of addiction, the great danger with heroin is its social impact because of control of the trade by criminal elements.

I condemn the murder of Van Nguyen by the Singapore government because under Singapore law, justice cannot be administered.

Thus I endorse Danny`s suggestion that those of us who value justice should boycott Singapore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top