Death Sentence Awarded To Drug Trafficker

[nick2k]

hat a sentence of 10-15 years for the agony and torture that drug dealers cause to people is very light

It's not drug dealers who cause agony and torture, it's censorship and misinformation

Many people use drugs and there's not one place on earth where repression has shown to change this fact.

Governments can then repeat the same mistakes over and over again, or reconsider their policy.

Outlawing drugs creates the black market with the risks and violence it implies.

Put an end to the black market and put an end to this violence. Keep the prices as they should be on the legal market, and see drug related delinquency drop because there's no use for it anymore.

Put an end to the taboo surrounding drugs, and allow users to feel accepted in society and not choose marginal lifestyles that sometimes degenerate.

It's not the use of drugs that is dangerous, it's their misuse.

People unfortunately judge drugs, drug users and drug dealers, not on facts, but on myths widely spread without the slightest reflection.

Some are so ridiculous than anyone who stopped for a second to think about it would see them as the lies they are.

But everyone is too eager to draw conclusions about a subject they know little about, from a few sensational cases they vaguely recall.

Anyone who has used drugs knows that apart from a minority of users who indeed have issues with drugs, there is a huge majority of functional drug users to who drugs pose no more problems than the beer you take legally in a bar.

Actually, if you support any kind of punishment on drug dealers, you'd better do the same about your local 7-11 employees for selling cigarettes and alcohol.

Here are some statistics to get the facts right :

Annual Causes of Death in the United States

Tobacco 435,000

Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000

Alcohol 85,000

Microbial Agents 75,000

Toxic Agents 55,000

Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000

All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000

Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600

Marijuana 0

from http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm

But anyway, let's forget quickly about the fact that if governments cared about our health rather than just being on a witch hunt, they'd concentrate their efforts on tobacco and alcohol first.

And let's talk about other drugs.

There are exceptional cases of adverse reactions to recreational drugs, as there are to aspirin.

But in the huge majority of cases, it's not actually the drug itself that was responsible of the physical problem (such as death), but its misuse. And its misuse is due to disinformation. And disinformation is due to a policy of repression rather than help.

Does heroin kill the heroin addict?

Heroin in itself is an extremely safe drug that doesn't have negative effects on the body.

But the fact that it's illegal and the taboo that surrounds it forces users to use it irresponsibly and sometimes adopt unhealthy lifestyles.

If it were sold in pharmacies as it used to be, users would know exactly what they are buying. But when buying it off the street, they have no way to know the purity and may very well overdose on a potent batch while thinking that they are using the same amount as usually.

The ban on drugs doesn't just prevent people from knowing the purity of the product (= how much they are taking), but also from knowing the product itself.

There have for examples been a few fatalities of people who had taken PMA (para-methoxy-amphetamine) when thinking to be using ecstasy (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine).

It's only because those drugs are illegal that such risks exist.

When you go to a shop to buy a bottle of whiskey, you know you're not buying gasoline.

If you could go to the pharmacy to buy a 60mg pill of MDMA, you'd know you're not getting PMA.

But since governments insist on repression rather than information, people don't even have the slightest idea about what they are taking or how they should take it.

And this disinformation is quite dangerous.

It's responsible for instance for the few cases of "ecstasy deaths" by hyponatremia.

The pattern is the same : there is no information provided to drug users ; someone hears that "when you take ecstasy your temperature rises so you have to drink X liters of water" ; the person drinks too much water and dies of it.

And who's blamed for the death? Ecstasy

And who's to blame? Disinformation

There's always irresponsible behaviours, but the legality of drugs and diffusion of information certainly wouldn't encourage them.

So back to our drug dealer.

Why did he deal drugs? To make money.

Why did the car seller sell cars? To make money.

How many people are killed every day in car accidents?

Much more than by drug related incidents.

Is the car seller responsible for those deaths?

Or are the drivers?

Is the 7-11 salesman responsible for the death of the alcoholic and the victim of drunk driving accident?

Or are the alcoholic and the drunk drivers responsible?

Should we ban cars because they cause deaths?

Should we ban drugs because they cause deaths?

Should we ban peanuts because they cause hundreds of deaths by allergy each year?

Either you decide to live, or you decide to stay at home all your life to avoid risks.

But if you decide to go outside and live, there will be risks.

Some people life to practice sports, some like to play games, some like to take drugs.

All have their amount of risk ; but as long as those risks concern ourselves and not others, no one should try to take away from us our freedom to choose the life we wish.

You wish to drink : a dealer will sell you alcohol.

You wish to climb a mountain : a dealer will sell you shoes.

you wish to take drugs : a dealer will sell you drugs.

There may be a risk when drinking, climbing a mountain or taking drugs, but if you don't put the health of others in danger, it is your right to do it. And the dealer is to you no worse than the car dealer to who buys a car.

The real criminals, responsible for drugs' victims are those who prevent the diffusion of information because of ignorant a prioris about a topic they never considered with an open mind.

if you make drugs legal, there will be more people getting addicted to them. and the more addicted people that exist in society the less stable it is. not good.

history shows us that the way to go is - NOT to legalize drugs.

look at what it did to china about a 100 years ago?

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/heroin/opiwar1.htm

history is a good teacher. ..but only if you listen.

[terry57]

i think that if one decides to play russian roulete and smuggle drugs through international airports, one must be prepaired to pay the ultimate penalty if one gets caught.

after all is said and done, they know what the penalty is, so whats the big deal when the judge gives it to them. ?

getting caught at the airport is a bit different than getting caught toking on a joint, so its a no brainer to me.

if there smuggling smack there dealing in death anyway, we all have to pay the man and be accountable for our actions.

western countries are pathetic as they take the responsibility away from the individual and a good lawyer will always find a way to a lighter sentence. ( there mommy did'nt love them or some crap like that )

i like the asian system ( especially singapore ) where you know you will die if caught at the airport with drugs.

the moral of the story is dont smuggle drugs through international airports.

not very hard is it punters.

thank you very much.

[mpdkorat]

The Death Sentance does not work... I have not read this thread just the OP

[P3t3]

We deem ourselfs to be an intelligent species, are we not? So why not legalize it and have everybody decide for themselves whether or not too get hooked.

Pro's

• More taxes to be raised
  
• Encourages fairtrade
  
• Cuts off the financial means of terrorists and organized crime
  
• Natural elimination of the not so intelligent
  

[meemiathai]

vegan

excellent post!!

I always wonder how ironic it is when I buy an ecstasy from a person, I automatically become a victim and the person who sold it becomes someone who deserves to be executed! Come on guys! What kind of logic is that!!!

I think hypocrisy is ingrained in human beings' DNA. Regardless of whatever race. It is impossible to get rid of!

If it wasn't for hypocrisy in human beings, I'm sure we would be so advanced already as to spending a holiday on Pluto.

And for those who want to hang those drug addicts, have you yourselves or any of your family members ever got anything to do with illegal drugs? If yes, do they deserve to be hanged or are you as hypocritical as to saying that they are the victims only? And if no, <deleted> are you talking about?

[terry57]

vegan

excellent post!!

I always wonder how ironic it is when I buy an ecstasy from a person, I automatically become a victim and the person who sold it becomes someone who deserves to be executed! Come on guys! What kind of logic is that!!!

I think hypocrisy is ingrained in human beings' DNA. Regardless of whatever race. It is impossible to get rid of!

If it wasn't for hypocrisy in human beings, I'm sure we would be so advanced already as to spending a holiday on Pluto.

And for those who want to hang those drug addicts, have you yourselves or any of your family members ever got anything to do with illegal drugs? If yes, do they deserve to be hanged or are you as hypocritical as to saying that they are the victims only? And if no, <deleted> are you talking about?

i think that the death penalty is not warranted if the person is addicted to the drug.

unfortunately the drug is more powerful than most humans and this is a fact.

if the person is not addicted to the drug and is doing it for pure profit, to swing at the end of a rope is a very reasonable option.

[gummy]

The Death Sentance does not work... I have not read this thread just the OP

Really ? How many executed drug dealers/peddlers have you heard about that have re-offended then ?Whilst they perpertrate peddling this filthy muck that are given to children purposely to get them addicted then I for one think that the death sentance is warranted. It is a pity that most of the Western build do not have or encourage similar sentencing.

[atlastaname]

All very easy to condemn others that are strangers to you . Lock em up and throw away the key ... thats what you all love. Unless of course it was one of your own....how many years would you like to see your sons get? Sanget wants them killed , his own flesh and blood, how about the rest of you ? Or is that different now?

As for the law enforcement officers ...well... wonder how much hurt and suffereing they have caused in the past by prosecuting and getting jailed innocent people . Like the recent case this week of Sally Clark from the UK. Wrongly convicted of killing her child , jailed in appalling conditions for several years , released eventually when found she was innocent...then killed herself cos she couldn't face the world anymore. Nice one Police .... you did a great job there , another one YOU have killed never mind the drug dealers

Nonsensical liberalist clap trap.

The above case, sad though it is,canot possibly be blamed on the police.

They arrested her, based on evidence they had.

In England it is NOT hte decision of the Police to prosecute, that is down to DPP.

She was found guilty by a jury NOT the police.

She was convicted as a result of mainly 2 issues, 1)Meadows Law (look it up)..2) The evidence of a now discredited paediatrician.

So get down off your liberal high horse and look at the facts.

In relation to the Thai case, there are laws in place for a good reason, no doubt if it was upto you then these scum bags who are peddling their filth would be given a rehabillitating programme at the tax payers expense and allowed to re offend time and time again.

Wake up and smell the coffee!!!!!!!!!!

Just make it all legal and let the consumer decide based on good education. THAT is the answer.

JackNDanny is well known for his extreme views on drugs seen in other threads. He is the one who wants them all to fry and when i asked what if it was your kid his reply was ...don't laugh.. "my kid would never do that" !! like thats not what all the druggie kids parents say !! When i pushed him on IF it was his kid does he still fry ...he refused to answer OF COURSE!!

Oh BTW JackNDanny , if the police didn't kill Sally Clark who did...someone's to blame. Can't just blame it on the vicious unforgiving court system we have in our police state , thats too easy . Someone was responsible for putting her in the circumstances where she killed herself? Who Jack...WHO??

[Lucifer]

The Death Sentance does not work... I have not read this thread just the OP

Yes it does. One minute they're alive, and the next, they're dead. Then they bury them...see, it works.

[atlastaname]

The Death Sentance does not work... I have not read this thread just the OP

Yes it does. One minute they're alive, and the next, they're dead. Then they bury them...see, it works.

Yes of course in that sense it does work , but i think the other poster meant it doesn't work in solving the problem. Is your answer , and the answer of all the hang em and flog em brigade here just to keep killing or imprisoning for life all the drug dealers? Is that the only answer you have ? Because if it is then the problem will never go away (as it hasn't so far).

Look its easy really, people will carry on taking drugs , other people will carry on selling them to them (supply and demand) so IF the authorities want to stop the problem then another way must be found to try to cut the death toll. My way is to educate properly people about the risks of taking drugs, then let them get on with it. It becomes their choice to take them or not based on what they would then know about them. People will still die , but they do now , and the prisons will be emptier.

[nick2k]

ideally, I think the solution would be to invent a drug that people can't get addicted to. something that gives a person eurphoria without the bad side effects.

bad side effects that cause addicted people to act irresponsible such as in driving when they can't do so properly, or hurting others to get more of the addicting drugs.

this is the reason why drugs should NOT be legalized.

when people get addicted to drugs, they do more irrational things then if they were not addicted. legalizing drugs will increase the number getting addicted because they will cost less.

bad idea to legalize drugs.

look what happened to china not too long ago when they allowed opium to be used publicly whenever wherever.

on a personal note, I knew many deadhead friends in berkeley during the keystone era who because of their drug habits became psychotic, depressive. in general, negative. I think the drugs over the years fried their brains. no joke.

[vegan]

if you make drugs legal, there will be more people getting addicted to them. and the more addicted people that exist in society the less stable it is. not good.

The situation in the Netherlands, where drugs are not legal, but decriminalized, shows that this is not true.

"When compared to other countries, Dutch drug consumption falls in the European average at six per cent regular use (twenty-one per cent at some point in life) and considerably lower than the Anglo-Saxon countries headed by the United States with an eight per cent recurring use (thirty-four at some point in life)." (link)

People who want to try drugs will do it regardless of them being legal or not.

While people who don't want to try them won't try them just because they are legal.

Of course, legality would make them easier to get, but with widespread information, there is no way the situation could be any worse than now.

Also, "addiction" should be seen more objectively than it usually is.

First, taking drugs doesn't mean to get addicted.

Far from it, the number of occasional recreational drug users is overwhelmingly superior to that of addicts.

Physical addiction is pretty much exclusive to opiates. And you have to use almost daily over several weeks to get physically addicted. Nothing such as "take it once and you're done". That's a myth.

Psychological addiction can happen with many drug (although at very different levels), but not to anyone.

Psychological addiction is much more a question of personality than of drugs.

Someone with an addictive personality may find refuge in drugs. And if this person hadn't found drugs, he would have found refuge in another kind of marginal behaviour.

Second, although addiction is never desirable and sometimes catastrophic, it can also be without any real negative influence on someone's life.

But just as you only hear about the trains that arrived late and not about the ones that arrived on time, you only hear about catastrophic cases of addiction and not the harmless ones.

There are many functional addicts to who the only negative aspect of their addiction is the stigma that society puts on them because of it.

Apart from it, they have jobs, families, nice behaviours and so on.

Don't forget that you all have friends who you've never considered addicts but who are as addicted to nicotine or alcohol than other people are to opiates.

And don't forget either that if you have a relative who's taking painkillers for his back pain, he's taking the same opiates that "junkies" are taking recreationally.

Drugs shouldn't be approached too lightly, but they shouldn't be approached with any false ideas either.

history shows us that the way to go is - NOT to legalize drugs.

I'm afraid you've drawn your conclusion a bit too fast.

Drug use has existed for thousands of years in some regions without ever being considered as a problem. It has on the contrary often being a big part of the culture.

The witch hunt that we call drug war is only a few decades old.

The results of the drug war are catastrophic!!!

It certainly hasn't stopped or even lowered drug use.

It has ruined the lives of many innocent people. (i still can't understand the concept of putting someone in prison for consuming drugs!)

It has killed many innocent people (by making the subject a taboo and information scarce, because of violence due to the illegal market, because of the marginal lifestyles drug users have to adopt as they are not accepted by society, ...)

Where did history show that the way to go was not to legalize drugs?

And in what does the opium war give a lesson about drug use?

All it gives is a lesson about greed.

i think that if one decides to play russian roulete and smuggle drugs through international airports, one must be prepaired to pay the ultimate penalty if one gets caught.

We all understand what you mean.

But in regard of the precedent posts, this is the same as saying "in a dictatorship, if you speak against the government you should be prepared to pay the price".

What we are arguing about is not that there was a risk of penalty, but if the penalty should exist or no.

if the person is not addicted to the drug and is doing it for pure profit, to swing at the end of a rope is a very reasonable option

How is a drug dealer any worse than a car or liquor seller?

There are way more deaths due to car accidents or alcohol than there are due to illegal drugs.

In all those cases, a reasonable use of the product is possible.

Risk zero doesn't exist, but it doesn't exist either when eating peanuts.

On the other hand, efforts can be made to inform in order to improve the situation.

Really ? How many executed drug dealers/peddlers have you heard about that have re-offended then ?Whilst they perpertrate peddling this filthy muck that are given to children purposely to get them addicted then.

If you could get us the number of this famous pusher who we keep hearing about and who gives drugs away to people to get them addicted, there are several generations of drug users who have been looking for him desperately!

The tone that you use shows that you have probably never been close to the world of drug use, and that just as I did in the past, you judge a situation you don't know from was is reported to you by the media.

I once thought "drug dealers are murderers" too.

I'm glad to have taken a few side roads in my life that inspired me to question everything I was so sure about.

ideally, I think the solution would be to invent a drug that people can't get addicted to. something that gives a person eurphoria without the bad side effects.

Many people would rightfully argue that they already use this or that drug without being addicted or having any bad side effects.

Once again, it's more a question of personality than of drug.

For some people, drug use is negative.

For other people, it can be extremely positive.

Some drugs which are given a very bad image by the media (which shouldn't be trusted about anything) actually have very beneficial effects on people's lives.

If you take the example of ecstasy, it was first used medically before being banned for no other reason than "drugs are bad", and is again being studied for potential medical use (http://www.maps.org/mdma/)

bad side effects that cause addicted people to act irresponsible such as in driving when they can't do so properly, or hurting others to get more of the addicting drugs.

The problem is not as much addiction as addiction in our society.

If an addict is rejected by society, he may enter a vicious circle and take further refuge in drugs.

If those drugs are illegal and expensive, he may take bad decisions to keep his lifestyle going.

But if everyone sees the addict just as we see someone who takes a glass of whiskey after lunch, and that he can get his drug for cheap at the pharmacy, drugs won't exclude him/her from society anymore. Drugs can even be a support that help him/her feel better in society.

[taxexile]

he may have been sentenced to death , but i doubt if he will actually be executed.

as far as i know , nobody has been executed in thailand for many years. the sentences get commuted to life.

putting aside for a minute the rights and wrongs of the death penalty or its suitability in the war against drugs , he knew the risks and penalties involved , so he cant really have too much to complain about.

[TypicalAnonym]

as far as i know , nobody has been executed in thailand for many years

According to Thai government websites, the most recent executions were in 2004. See here:

http://www.correct.go.th/eng/deathpenalty.htm

[Scott]

I am not a proponent of the death penalty, but I have a hard time getting all worked up about it. I do, however, think that executing drug traffickers is a little over-the-top. They can easily be locked up for a very long time if need be.

[taxexile]

According to Thai government websites, the most recent executions were in 2004. See here:

i stand corrected then.