With brother and brother?
To clear any misunderstanding, I am making a prediction what the next illegal sexual act that will be made legal on the slippery slope.
Indonesia Executions
- Thread starter Vern1961
- Start date
With brother and brother?
To clear any misunderstanding, I am making a prediction what the next illegal sexual act that will be made legal on the slippery slope.
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 89
Who deserved it more, the drug exporters or this guy who made the bombs in the Bali bombing whos just been let out:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...017261729?sv=18b30dfed67f7e22640a815e31c97502
The death penalty for drug "crimes" is totally OTT.
Humans have used psychoactive substances for thousands of years, yes there's potential health risks from using them, but you can say that about nearly everything.
A large portion of the problems of illegal drugs is caused by them being illegal in the first place.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...017261729?sv=18b30dfed67f7e22640a815e31c97502
The death penalty for drug "crimes" is totally OTT.
Humans have used psychoactive substances for thousands of years, yes there's potential health risks from using them, but you can say that about nearly everything.
A large portion of the problems of illegal drugs is caused by them being illegal in the first place.
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 89
Then by your logic so are alcohol dealers, you have to apply the logic consistently, you can't have it both ways.
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 89
Most 21 year olds are pretty stupid, which is how old they were when they did it.
I am 15 years older than this and I don't think the same way as I did back then.
Were they stupid? Yes.
Were they evil people who deserved to die? Certainly not.
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 89
SO in terms of morality, you think selling booze is immoral enough already to deserve death?
21 is more than old enough to understand the consequences of your actions. Ultimately the Indonesian stance couldn't be any clearer, get caught, you get shot. These people were willing to take the risk for financial reward, it is what it is.
I'm sure they were very sorry for what they did. Everyone who gets caught is always sorry.
Prohibition: the action of forbidding something, especially by law.
It's using the same logic to justify legalising something. According to that logic outlawing is bad so you should allow it to happen.
Mexico and other South American nations problems lie deeper than that which is why they have cartels running amo,, its not just a simple case of them being what they are just because drugs is illegal, otherwise you would have powerful cartels in the UK too.
Not thought about it to be completely honest. What would you prefer, welcome them in with open arms?
Edit: Just read up re: the use of reasonable force, sounds fair to me. Wouldn't necessarily say you should be able to lawfully kill someone, but if they were trying to kill me, or a member of my family then yes, you should be able to kill them (which I believe would be considered 'reasonable force').
Last edited:
A good reason why the voting age shouldn't be lowered to 16. Stupid people often get themselves or others killed.
Whether you agree with it or not, the sign spells it out in black and white.
If you want to roll the dice, be willing to accept the consequences when you lose.
I don't know why drug deaths has come up as issue of discussion here. As I said before I couldn't give a damn if a drug user dies they made that choice, I probably sound like i'm contradicting myself here, but my argument is when you legalise something you are essentially making it socially acceptable and taking its use widespread as its easier to get your hands on it now.
Also you can regulate something as much as you want, but once you create a prolem you can't police it all, you can't police every person who uses it, so you might get a new generation of kids buying heroin from boots, regulation will tell them they are only allowed 10 grams or something, but they want more, they can go to a street dealer and buy it off him.
I made that assumption because usually ones who defend the use of drugs tend to be users themselves.
Well, agreeing with Indonesia's death penalty for drug trafficking is essentially agreeing that it can be justifiable to kill someone on your own ground merely because you don't like what they are doing. How can that possibly be right?
Death penalty for anything is bad enough as it is, but for simply carrying a substance irrespective of the reasons or context? Really?
I don't know why drug deaths has come up as issue of discussion here. As I said before I couldn't give a damn if a drug user dies they made that choice, I probably sound like i'm contradicting myself here, but my argument is when you legalise something you are essentially making it socially acceptable and taking its use widespread as its easier to get your hands on it now.
Also you can regulate something as much as you want, but once you create a prolem you can't police it all, you can't police every person who uses it, so you might get a new generation of kids buying heroin from boots, regulation will tell them they are only allowed 10 grams or something, but they want more, they can go to a street dealer and buy it off him.
I made that assumption because usually ones who defend the use of drugs tend to be users themselves.
Do you give a damn when a binge drinker or a smoker dies due to cirrhosis or lung cancer?
You can absolutely police it. I'll explain again: dealers will not be able to stay in business long when they are competing against pharmaceutical companies. In terms of volume, quality, or price.
And that assumption is wholly incorrect; do you think the majority of people that wanted the legalisation of marijuana in some US states were smokers?