I believe I responded to every single one of your concerns about such a plan back on page 5, and you ignored my post entirely (including the call for a cite on a dubious statement you made).
I have to say this:
is excellent.
Very well said.
While Australians do not have the death penalty, they once did.
And I would also like to note that Australian’s were, in fact, supportive of the death penalty for the Bali bombers who killed like 88 Aussies. Apparently it’s only acceptable when they feel so, not when others feel so.
I think the hypocrisy comes in where Singapore kills people for smuggling drugs while supporting Burma, which is one of the largest producers of heroin in the world.
That’s a hypocritical policy (especially if it’s known for sure that Singapore cash goes to support the supply of drugs directly), but the law against drug traffickers in Singapore itself remains the same, no matter who you are.
Although they haven’t had cause to try a Burmese drug lord buddy of theirs yet for possession in the airport. That’d be an interesting test case.
Singapore government insisting that investment in Mynamar is “above-board” and that Dr. Chee, while having the course to start a proper inquiry, didn’t:
So you’ve noticed that some people called for the deaths of the Bali bombers, and that some people don’t want Mr. Nguyen to be killed, and you’re assuming that these groups are made up of the same people, the entire population of Australia? Pretty dumb.
Some Australians supported the death penalty for the Bali bombers. Mostly friends and relatives of those injured or killed in the bombings. Yep, we used to have the death penalty, so did a lot of countries. And now we don’t, and calls to re-introduce it always fall flat.
Although more than 50% of Australians felt that the guy in Singapore would just have to deal with the consequences of his actions (others felt that our govt should do something to stop it), only 12% currently support the death penalty (from a Morgan poll last week).
Put down your brush, it’s too wide.
What Stringy said. And well said too if I might add!! 
This country is divided over the appropriate penalty for Van Nguyen, AND for all of the other fuckwits who have been detained in various other Asian countries for drug offences. Your ignorant assertions that Australians purport this or that are just wicked displays of your ignorance.
It is only vaguely related but the most recent Bagdad hostages include a Candian citizen who is also a NZ resident. NZ is falling over itself to show the NZ connection. This is a man whose life is in major jeopardy! Does it mattter where he is from? Does it matter who speaks for him? Should he be there in the first place?
Small countries need to show more backbone and hope their news reporters settle down more!
Hear-bloody-hear!
Doesn’t seem particularly coherent in its choice of Singapore as a subject - what if you go to some other country that has capital punishment and someone incriminates you by fabricating some other evidence of capital crime. Death for you. This could happen to you in America.
Yes it could. The Death penalty could NOT happen to you in Australia though.
Perhaps when you have the death penalty you envisage it’s use in other places? Australia, NZ and Britain are death penalty free…perhaps that makes it hard to envisage the death penalty? (though Aussies should be getting used to it!). Singapore has been a scary place since I did my OE in the 80’s! It has always been somewhere you knew was dangerous and a place to show extra safety.
Dumbarses try to bring drugs through Singapore and they probably will get caught!
Singapore is an awesome place to visit for non-dumb-arses!
Sure, but Floyd13 is arguing that the Singapore DP is bad because you could (in theory) be wrongly convicted, but Floyd13 is posting from the USA, another place where you could (in theory) be wrongly convicted and get the DP.
To be fair, a dozen states do not have the death penalty. But yeah, it could happen.
I have nothing to do with drugs, but I have absolutely no interest in visiting Singapore. It’s not just the drug thing, there’s a lot of reasons why I never would.
As for the drug offenses, sure, people get caught everywhere, but for everyone that gets caught, there are more that get away with it, even in Singapore. It’s actually a strategy among smugglers. Make sure one gets caught, so the others could past security.
As an agnostic, I say kill’em all and let whatever sort them out.
You could also make the argument that, if he’s done it once, he’s more likely to do it again, like this woman, because he might not have the scruples against it that most of us would, and would presumably know more about how to do it than the average person would.
I’m anti-death-penalty as well, more so since reading this thread. But that argument doesn’t necessarily hold water.
For those who support the death penalty because it’s mentioned in the Bible, it’s interesting to look at what later Jewish courts did with it. It became almost impossible to sentence someone to death under those biblical laws, because any human system of justice is guaranteed to be imperfect.
Mans tries to smuggle 3.96Kgs of Heroin via Singapore Airport.
Security attempts to restrain the man, who knifes Security Guard 1, takes Gun and shoots dead Security Guards 2 and 3 and injures legitimate passengers 1 & 2.
Is finally restrained and arrested. But while having detailed intelligence information about contraband smuggling and money trails to organised terrorism in SE Asia, refuses to divulge any such information.
His sentence?
What were his incentives to surrender peaceably?
What were his incentives to share intelligence?
Okay, evidently I’m completely invisible.
I guess it’s pretty easy to have never heard of a workable plan for legalization when you utterly ignore anyone who proposes such a plan. :rolleyes:
You aren’t invisible (although that would be pretty cool though huh?). The problem is in our definitions of detailed.. Even this is the tip of the iceberg.
This like that cartoon gimmick where the character tries to stop the flow of water in one spot and it sprouts out all over. If you could somehow isolate the current population of addicts and somehow get them free drugs, you could probably prevent some crime:
However:
- Some of them are going to die due to the seemingly unlimited and cheap availability of their drug of choice.
- HERE IS THE BIG ONE - new addicts will be created faster than ever before. I can’t see how anyone could say otherwise. The number of addicts certainly isn’t going to go down and there must be at least a few people that have never tried hard drugs because they are illegal and somewhat difficult for the average person to find. Availability will be greatly increased even for those underage. Both alcohol and tobacco are addictive (but not always in the same people) and those are two serious problems that we already have. We would only open it up to more and it will be quite the bruden to place on hospitals, rehab centers, families, workplaces etc.
How many detox and rehab beds is this measure going to create and who is going to pay for it? Before you say, the drug companies, keep in mind how expensive rehab is, a significant portion of the users will eventually need it, and most of them will need it multiple times. Figure an average cost of $7000 for a ten day detox and rehab. Those on the first attempt will probably go through several more in a few years.
Will it be allowable for people like teachers and nurses to test positive for crack or heroin?
This is what I mean about a “detailed” plan. These details can’t be glossed over. You somehow believe that you can just turn over the illegal drug industry and everything will be fine. Every little restriction you put on them curtails the effectiveness of the measure. Addicts can be pretty selective. Is the legal drug market going to try and out-invent the illegal drug trade when it comes to new drugs and variations on them? Cocaine in a pill isn’t good enough for your average crack addict. Remember that we already have one legal opiate called Methadone that addicts can get everyday. Yet, it isn’t good enough for many of them and it is an addictive drug on its own. The industry would have to do both innovation and marketing to stay relevant to the problems it is trying to curtail.
How are people going to get drugs to get them addicted in the first place. Will they just sell them at the liquor store or will people have to swarm their doctor’s office on Friday afternoon to get prescriptions for the weekend. What about that oath that the doctor’s took? How can they look someone in the eye and hand them permission to start doing something that has a good chance of killing them.
Production costs for some of the opiates and cocaine can be very high. Once you figure in R&D, state of the art production, liability costs, quality control, and multiple levels of distribution, we may find that some drugs are still pretty damned expensive. What would the point be then?
Oxycontin is a popular addictive drug that can also be gotten legally through prescription. Many addicts build up to a multiple 80 mg pill (the highest commonly available) habit a day. That is still prohibitively expensive for most addicts if they have to pay for it legally.
You would have to have one kick-ass national drug program to not have any illegal drug dealers. How are the kids going to supplied? Those that just want a little something extra?
This is a tough one and I am not going to throw some made-up numbers from a website on here. I went to graduate school at Dartmouth in psychopharamcology/neursoscince. I also get to talk with addicts and alcoholics in structured settings all the time.
There are two ways to get this information:
- Talk to people who have been addicted to alcohol and other substances. Most of them report that time to addiction for things like crack and meth are more quickly addictive and faster all-consuming than alcohol even though the full-blown addictions are similar. The number of casual crack users for example seems to be much smaller than that for alcohol or even marijuana.
- Animal studies - there is a whole body of literature on the rate that animals (rats in particular) become addicted to the different drugs. If we get into that, it is going to get academic really fast but it is up to you.