Can anyone confirm what I have heard in passing other places? He was snuggling drugs to help pay his brother’s debts. I heard that the reason his brother racked up so much debt was because:
His brother had thousands of dollars in legal bills racked up to defend him on drug charges :smack:
Yes. His brother was a scumbag by all accounts. That has nothing to do with Van’s character who loved him as his twin.
You can read about it in this Sydney Morning Herald article
(if link has gone to registration by the time you click on it, enter ‘gdope’ as both username and password)
That is my understanding.
Khoa, (his twin brother) had been in much strife over the years due to a heroin addiction, and had in fact done some time in prison (here) himself.
I read a brief biography of the family a couple of days ago, and it seems that Van had adopted the role of the ‘man of the house’ as per Vietnamese customs. It was his task to try to keep his younger twin out of trouble, and raising the money to help pay his legal bills was indeed part of that.
Ah, seems that TLD has beaten me to it. :smack:
And yeah, that was the article I read too.
o man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend’s were.
Each man’s death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
Of course, that should read ‘No man is an island’.
I’m really not sure myself actually. As you pointed out, I didn’t know Van and had absolutely no personal involvement in the case whatsoever.
I guess the only thing I can suggest is that whenever I thought about it (which has been constantly over the past days and weeks) I would try to imagine how he would be feeling, knowing that his death was imminent. To know that while you are living and breathing now, in a few days or hours or minutes, you will cease to exist. If it had been me, I would have been living in a state of constant intense fear yet unable to do anything to alleviate the dread of what was to happen. Just thinking about it, imagining myself in his shoes got my adrenaline going too and perhaps that biochemical reaction left me feeling ill.
And now I feel nothing at all.
I won’t criticize you for this because I feel a little the same way even though I have drawn an opposite conclusion. I am just mystified that people put so much energy into this type of thing. It seems to be some kind of bizarre fixation for some that transcends both reason and practicality.
I guess it is like a high stakes reality show that frightens many people and makes them very aware of mortality which is a frightening thing. They become involved in it themselves as they follow the news and the game has a shocking finale.
However, there were thousands of people killed today doing stupid things. Many of them weren’t doing anything immoral and they couldn’t see the consequences as clearly as this man should have. I don’t know their names but you might know one if it struck your area today. It will happen tomorrow too. why does this guy and others like him draw so much emotion when they are one of the few that had direct control over their own death.
You’re right of course. But, I dunno… this sort of case is different because the kid sniffing glue, or shooting smack, or car surfing or whatever doesn’t really think it will happen to them. Indeed Van Nguyen doubtless thought he’d get away with smuggling heroin too. The difference here is that whilst they are all stupid things to do, any death involved is not premeditated. Foolish not to consider it is a strong possibility? Sure. But young men are young men and they think they are invincible. The shocking part of this is where the death doesn’t (directly at least) occur as a result of stupidity, but rather as a result of cold, thought-out legislation that was drawn up by law-abiding, mature adults. Especially galling, as mentioned a lot already in this thread, is the mandatory nature of the thing.
Mr Nguyen’s life is worth no more than that of Joe Public hit by a car, or any of the kids who’ll die today in Africa, or a cancer sufferer… But there is, especially coming from a non-DP country, something a bit chilling about the quietly planned nature of this particular death: “Our country provides hospitals, doctors, safety regulations etc to preserve life. However, we had decided that we’re going to kill you. Here is the date and time. Have a nice day.”
Minor point if you don’t mind: Vietnamese generally don’t go by their middle names, especially in the case of a male whose middle name is likely to be Van, as that means “male.” So, if you’re going to imply some familiarity with the recently executed criminal, perhaps you should use his personal name, not his gender.
Monty, beg to differ, but Mr Nguyen referred to *himself * as Van. I was not implying a familiarity or otherwise.
BTW, I’m personally opposed to the death penalty. I don’t think it’s the best idea on the planet. I’m also opposed to drug smuggling.
Thanks, kambuckta. That’s interesting because, as I said above, that’s not a general thing with the Vietnamese. Perhaps it’s because of where he grew up and Van is a lot more “Australian” than Trong?
I can’t begin to imagine how the brother must be feeling. The guilt must be unbelivable…
Some of those Vietnamese names are absolute doozies aren’t they? 
Yeah, I suspect that when Van was in school, the other kids might have had a couple of problems pronouncing Truong. It should have been ok when he was little and living in Richmond (a suburb of Melbourne with a predominantly Vietnamese population) but when he moved to the outer burbs, he probably decided it was easier to adopt the name Van than re-educate the ignorant masses.
Lower prices reduce the harm; they don’t eliminate it entirely. Obviously, many people can’t afford $800 a month, but almost nobody can afford $10,000 a month. Less money needed by desperate addicts means less money stolen by desperate addicts.
What kind of question is that? Who makes the drugs we have now? Who is currently manufacturing a drug (fentanyl) that’s at least an order of magnitude stronger than heroin?
If current pharmaceutical companies ignored easy profits by refusing to produce drugs for addicts (HA!), I’m sure other businesses (properly regulated, of course) would step in to fill the void.
To companies with employees that will pay taxes on their wages, rather than the untaxable wallets of those you despise.
No. We don’t do it with alcoholics and heavy tobacco smokers, do we? Again, the point of all of this is not to somehow realize the pie-in-the-sky goal of completely eliminating criminal actions related to addiction, but to actually be realistic about the situation and try to reduce those harms.
Obviously, parts of this thread have veered off into semi-related hijacks. He’s advocating the benefits of legalization from the perspective of the health of the users. So far you’ve directly contributed to that hijack, but now that you come up against something that isn’t arguable by any stretch of the imagination, you dodge it by basically saying, “Whoah! Hold on guys! We’d better get back to the OP!”
Nice one…
Can you wrap your head around the fact that there wouldn’t be dealers and traffickers if a well-implemented legalize-and-moderately-tax plan were adopted? Wouldn’t it be nice to see the illegal earnings of Colombia’s FARC rebel army cut by 75%? The argument cuts to the root of the topic.
If they made every drug legal tomorrow, would you grab for the nearest crack pipe? I’m know I wouldn’t, and I doubt that most other casual drinkers would, either. When heroin was available OTC, did we wind up with a nation of junkies? When it was criminalized, did speakeasy opium dens pop up on every corner? Of course not.
Alcohol just happens to be the drug of choice for a far higher percentage of the population than any other. Look at a place like Holland, for example: marijuana is decriminalized and has usage rates comparable to our own, yet alcohol taxes are higher than those of the U.S., and somehow they manage to drink even more than we do!
Got a cite for the assertion that those drugs snare addicts in faster than alcohol? (Anecdotally, it took me a hell of a lot less than a few months to get addicted to nice-and-legal nicotine.)
Yeah, it could be worse, though. He could’ve been named Phuc.
And I could’ve spelled his actual first name correctly above.
What he said. I’d be sad to hear some random stranger got run over by a bus. I’d be horrified to hear the bus driver gunned it and purposeully ran the guy down. It’s not the fact that this guy is dead that’s so awful, it’s that it was as a result of deliberate human action with the intent of killing him that makes me sick.
There is a disconnect in our reasoning here. I am not criticizing, merely observing. Your example shows that people see this in a fundamentally different way than others. The bus driver ran down an innocent person who had no knowledge and little control over the situation.
Our hero:
It is the conscious choice versus forced situation, guilty versus innocent thing that makes this as clear as night and day in my mind. Others don’t see that and I don’t understand why all people and situations are lumped into the same category in your minds.
It is almost a quasi-religious belief that is taken as faith by some of you. I am agnostic. I believe that humans are just one more animal albeit one with more understanding to understand the consequences of their actions than other animals. People develop guidelines for when dogs and other animals need to be put down to minimize danger to others. We don’t pick them out at random to do it. That would be ridiculous. The aggressive ones and the ones that have shown poor behavior patterns are put down. Humans are the same way. We don’t just put people down for every crime and we don’t do it without reason. Some we send them to live in a protected environment and others we destroy. The guidelines are movable but at no point should we create a deity in ourselves that we don’t recognize the practical benefits of using every choice just as a matter of radical humanistic indoctrination.
The death penalty is repulsive to some people because they don’t like to think about our own mortality and the death penalty makes us play that scenario in our minds very vividly even while thousands of innocent others are dropping down around us.
Everyone will die. That includes you, your parents, and your children. For some of them, it will early, painful, and may be because of one of these people that may warrant the death penalty.
Everyone gets the death penalty - this is just the early out program for those who have forfeited the rest of there short time on earth through actions that have damaged that of other people.
I guess I’m anti-progress, anti-rule of law, and anti-prosperity.
What happened to this loyal-to-his-family young man makes me feel nothing but contempt and dread for the government of Singapore. Fuck 'em.
I don’t give a shit about drug abuse, drug dealing deaths, crime, all those happy bullshit statistics.
A man died because he wanted to help his brother.
Fuck Singapore.
Goddam fascists.