Possible Death Penalty for Drug Smuggling Housewife

[Craterloads]

Oh, well as long as you have our best interests at heart feel free to take my money with force. Perhaps you could steal more of our money and start your own health service with it too. Perhaps a fire and police service as well... hell, TAKE US TO WAR! YEE HAW!!


Do you really think we need a government stealing our money to do this? The road's owner would have an incentive to make sure the road is safe, else nobody would use it.

Who would own this said road? What makes you think this road owner would care? How would this road owner police this road ensuring only qualified drivers are only using this road? Would this owner then enforce users who are not qualfied to drive on said road, ban people from using said road? In effect telling people what or what they cant do on said road which would counter your initial argument...

 

[steve-h]

Guys, we need to control people, for the sake of society! All agreed? Okay let's go. We'll steal people's private property and with it hire some drug advisers whose advice we'll ignore! After all, we don't want to seem too wishy washy by changing our positions... the public will not take us as seriously.

 

[Craterloads]

Tough guy here, has a problem with authority

 

[steve-h]

Who would own this said road? What makes you think this road owner would care? How would this road owner police this road ensuring only qualified drivers are only using this road?

If the road owner does not care then nobody would use their road. Where's the incentive to push the probability of accidents through the roof? That would be a ridiculous business model.

Would this owner then enforce users who are not qualfied to drive on said road, ban people from using said road? In effect telling people what or what they cant do on said road which would counter your initial argument...

I don't believe you've thought this through very well. You still wouldn't have the right to trespass on another person's private property.

Tough guy here, has a problem with authority

It's funny how this is considered weird... Yes, I have a problem with authority figures. Yes I have a problem with being stolen from. Yes I have a problem with people thinking they have the right to tell others what to do when they're not hurting anybody else.

 

[Freakbro]

If im correct what you have just said is pretty much "unsubstantiated nonsense" no?

Err, no, it's (again) the opposite of that, it's opinion voiced by the very people tasked by the government to look into this issue based on scientific evidence rather than "what people feel is the truth"

 

[Craterloads]

If the road owner does not care then nobody would use their road. Where's the incentive to push the probability of accidents through the roof? That would be a ridiculous business model..

So ultimatly this road owner will be enforcing his own law, aka telling you what or what you cant do and since you dont like authoritative figures i guess you wont be using said road.

I don't believe you've thought this through very well. You still wouldn't have the right to trespass on another person's private property.

haha i havent thought this through So let me get this straight all roads will be privatly owned each with effectively there own laws passed down by the owers of said roads. Now this is going to be managable.

It's funny how this is considered weird... Yes, I have a problem with authority figures. Yes I have a problem with being stolen from. Yes I have a problem with people thinking they have the right to tell others what to do when they're not hurting anybody else.

Youve lost me here, so police officers, you would have removed?

 

[[TW]Fox]

What's bizarre about being against a group of people stealing your money and then using it to enforce laws which dictate what you can put in your own body?




Obviously not as trendy as having your money stolen from you.

I think you need to go away and read the Theft Act, which defines what 'stealing' is in this county.

Hint: It isnt paying tax.

 

[Craterloads]

Err, no, it's (again) the opposite of that, it's opinion voiced by the very people tasked by the government to look into this issue based on scientific evidence rather than "what people feel is the truth"

Im just seeing words from YOU

This is what Mr Obama had to say on the matter

"I personally and my administration's position is that legalisation is not the answer, that in fact if you think about how it would end up operating, the capacity of a large-scale drug trade to dominate certain countries, if they were allowed to operate legally without any constraint could be just as corrupting, if not more corrupting than the status quo,"

Now i take Obama's word over yours.

 

[steve-h]

So ultimatly this road owner will be enforcing his own law, aka telling you what or what you cant do and since you dont like authoritative figures i guess you wont be using said road.

The difference is nobody is forcing you to use that road. I don't think it's okay to have our money taken from me via force. This doesn't mean I think I should be able to do whatever I want on someone else's property.

haha i havent thought this through So let me get this straight all roads will be privatly owned each with effectively there own laws passed down by the owers of said roads. Now this is going to be managable.

Manageable? No, you're missing the point.

Youve lost me here, so police officers, you would have removed?

No, they would be private. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

I think you need to go away and read the Theft Act, which defines what 'stealing' is in this county.

Hint: It isnt paying tax.

Owned! Provide me with the correct term please.

 

[Freakbro]

I think you need to go away and read the Theft Act, which defines what 'stealing' is in this county.

Hint: It isnt paying tax.

Please, tell Dolph this

 

[Freakbro]

Im just seeing words from YOU

Ok then, lets see what the independent scientific committee on drugs, set up by the government said.

Alcohol is more harmful than heroin or crack when the overall dangers to the individual and society are considered, according to a study in the Lancet.

The report is co-authored by Professor David Nutt, the former government chief drugs adviser who was sacked in 2009.

It ranked 20 drugs on 16 measures of harm to users and to wider society.

Heroin, crack and crystal meth were deemed worst for individuals, with alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine worst for society, and alcohol worst overall.

The study by the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs also said tobacco and cocaine were judged to be equally harmful, while ecstasy and LSD were among the least damaging.

You can google more to see how they call for the regulation and decriminalisation of all drugs in order to reduce the overall harmful effects of all types of recreational drugs.

This is what Mr Obama had to say on the matter

Now i take Obama's word over yours.

He is a politician, he is going to say what people want to hear rather than the truth.

The same way our government set up the above committee, who came back with the scientific answer, then sacked the head man because it wasn't the answer they wanted and he wouldn't keep quiet and toe the line

 

[steve-h]

He is a politician, he is going to say what people want to hear rather than the truth.

The government is put in place to protect you, why would they lie to you? Give me just one case of government telling you lies or ignoring evidence regarding drugs. Go for it, I bet you can't.

I personally support Obama... how can you not, he's the cool, hip president who's admitted his love for cannabis and cocaine... this shows us that he is human and lets us relate to him!

... and that's why he supports locking people who do the same as him away and ruining any chance of a career they may of had. Oh, don't forget his support for having the DEA raid medical marijuana dispensaries who provide patients with effective medicine.

Seems like a genuine guy; I'd vote for him. He knows what is best for us!

 

[scwba06]

Bull she was in it for herself

 

[TJM]

No, they would be private. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

And owned by who? What happens if you don't pay for the services? How can the court take the word of an 'officer' who has a vested interest in seeing that his employer comes out on top in a criminal trial?

 

[steve-h]

And owned by who?

It would be owned by whomever wants to set up a service.

What happens if you don't pay for the services?

To the service? It would have to go out of business. To you? Literally nothing.

How can the court take the word of an 'officer' who has a vested interest in seeing that his employer comes out on top in a criminal trial?

Well if they were caught lying it would totally ruin their whole business' reputation AND that of the individual who is caught. Courts would no longer take that person's word for truth again and it would ruin the public image of the business.

 

[Tefal]

No, they would be private. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

whats stops people who sign up to the "aggression principal" hiring their own private security and killing yours/buying yours off/killing you?

To the service? It would have to go out of business. To you? Literally nothing.

yep 100% definitely not going to turn into a protection racket no siree.

It would be owned by whomever wants to set up a service.

So blackwater equivalents/g4s/bouncers/criminal organizations with muscle to spare then?

Well if they were caught lying it would totally ruin their whole business' reputation AND that of the individual who is caught. .

not really, personally I'd definitely hire the security firm that would lie to convict someone i wanted convicting over one that wouldn't.

Courts would no longer take that person's word for truth again and it would ruin the public image of the business

so who's paying for these courts then?

Courts would no longer take that person's word for truth again and it would ruin the public image of the business

 

[steve-h]

whats stops people who sign up to the "aggression principal" hiring their own private security and killing yours/buying yours off/killing you?

Non-aggression principal. Killing will still get you put in prison. What stops KFC hiring hit-men to kill McDonalds' employees and customers? Why would it happen with protection services?

So blackwater equivalents/g4s/bouncers/criminal organizations with muscle to spare then?

Perhaps even the police we have now.

not really, personally I'd definitely hire the security firm that would lie to convict someone i wanted convicting over one that wouldn't.

Their word would mean nothing, so it would be totally ineffective in court, no?

so who's paying for these courts then?

We'll steal money from... wait no, they would be private.

 

[TJM]

I don't think you've thought this through. Privatising the criminal justice system would completely undermine its legitimacy and be totally impractical.

What would stop people shopping around courts for the right judge and by what right would said judges imprison someone? How would private police forces deal with public disorder? Would a poor person have to accept that their relative's murder would go unsolved because their insurance doesn't cover forensics? Would private police have the same common law duty to intervene in criminal acts or would it just be a breach of contract if it later turned out the victim was a customer? How would it be regulated?

 

[Tefal]

Non-aggression principal. Killing will still get you put in prison.

says who?

All the systems are small and private the richest ******* has the biggest private army and then he makes the rules.

What stops KFC hiring hit-men to kill McDonalds' employees and customers?

The police services provided by the current biggest richest *******, the government also backed up by the army.

Why would it happen with protection services?

Because security companies are world renowned for being corupt and well mercenaries are hardly unlikely to turn down a lot of money because some smaller firm may take issue.

Perhaps even the police we have now.

Who would they be employed by though, and are you sure they'd want to work as private security?

Their word would mean nothing, so it would be totally ineffective in court, no?

Why do you think this is ending in court or even more amusingly why do you think lying in court in the past would have a bearing on a future separate case?

if that were true every major company in the world atm would be screwed.

We'll steal money from... wait no, they would be private.

Great so why don't i just pay the judge to decide the verdict i want?

After i pay the security i want to take the person i want to that court or more relevant still why don't i just have the security shoot the poor ******* and dump him in a river?

what is anyone else going to do? Are the private security firms going to have a armed war over some guy one of them shot?



"non aggression" is all well and good so long as everybody plays by the rules.

You want an example of what would happen then lets use the current situation, currently a very rich/powerful organization (government) employs the police as it's security force, snow these police are required to up hold the law put down by their employer.

Currently you disagree with paying taxes so you choose not to pay you're going to get arrested and charged and put in jail.

All you'll be doing is replacing one great big employer with one rule set with lots and lots of little ones (and some massive ones that would very rapidly grow in such a market) Why don't you think the same would happen?

 

[steve-h]

What would stop people shopping around courts for the right judge

The 'right' judge? You mean a corrupt one? When we find out, their business and themselves will be blacklisted and become unused.

How would private police forces deal with public disorder?

Where is it? A business isn't going to want people scrapping on their property.

Would a poor person have to accept that their relative's murder would go unsolved because their insurance doesn't cover forensics?

Possibly. It's not as though you have the right to other people's services. Nor do you have the right to force people to investigate your crime.

With that said... do you really believe people will just accept that and move on? No. Word will get out and they'll get pounded with charity. Or, imagine the positive publicity a police/protection force would get if they were to solve that murder. If I owned a service I would definitely see the benefit to catching that killer.

Would private police have the same common law duty to intervene in criminal acts or would it just be a breach of contract if it later turned out the victim was a customer?

It's up to them what they put in their contract. I've no idea what their motivation would be for putting that in though.

How would it be regulated?

and by what right would said judges imprison someone?

As far as rights go, I'm not sure. At this point, I'm unsure on what incentive private prisons would have to accept prisoners convicted by known dodgy courts.

(Buffering...)

However, should a person be falsely convicted, the court and/or judge is going to be blacklisted and because of that, so would the businesses who would enforce the punishment. Because if those people enforced something immoral and people found out then it would be terrible for their reputation and people would no longer give them their money.

I guess with that said, private prisons would make money somehow by providing services. If companies are buying the services of dodgy prisons then people will know and avoid such companies. So unless people are okay with supporting massive injustices I don't think it would end badly.