Drugsdealers meet justice: 8 executed

[gsa]

Follow the chain of the drug all the way back to its basic ingredients. Where are they getting heroin and coke from? Where do the opium poppies and coca leaves come from? How are they getting the drugs to sell on the streets?

You are saying that all drug transactions are violent because someone up the chain of distribution may have been violent?

 

[MD]

The time for cocaine addiction varies considerably by user, and may not develop at all. But this is no different from alcohol, and cocaine was also widely available and pervasive prior to its prohibition in the teens in the U.S. Immoderate use of any substance is likely to produce negative consequences for the user and those around her, and this is no different with alcohol or cocaine. The opiates are a different class altogether. I do not know that those can be used recreationally in any responsible way. And you are forgetting that our drug laws classify other substances with almost zero addiction potential as prohibited, including LSD and its cousins.

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that we did not have a drug war until the 1980s, and yet despite having a lax regulatory environment we did not see these overwhelmingly negative impacts you speak of. Nor do we see the impact in other societies that look the other way. The most violent examples you can think of are in poor and destitute regions that are filled with despair for reasons usually totally unrelated to drugs.

Are you really serious? Cocaine is one of the most highly addictive drugs after meth. I'm not talking about LSD, I'm talking specifically about coke, meth and heroin. Heroin is an opiate btw. And yes other forms of opiates are being highly abused because of the massive heroin dependence in the inner cities. So there is a lot of demand for pharmaceutical opiates, for those heroin addicts who need their fix.

There have been drugs peddled in the inner cities for decades, well before the drug war. The negative impacts were there, they were just regulated to the black neighborhoods so nobody gave a ****. Once things starting leaking out into the white areas, that's when the govt got concerned.

The negative impacts I speak of are from my own personal experiences and not just made up. Have you ever lived in a drug community? Ever worked around drug addicts? Or drug dealers? I have and it is pervasive in the inner cities in the U.S. It may look pretty to you from your Euro trip to Amsterdam, but it isn't so pretty to those who have to live through it.

The impacts in other societies are horrible, as I have just pointed out in the prior examples above. Just recently there has been an epidemic of heroin use in a state in Punjab, which is having massive problems and Punjab was one of the wealthiest states in India before this epidemic. So no, it's not only to do with poverty. Drugs can easily destroy a well functioning society if they are pervasive enough.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You are saying that all drug transactions are violent because someone up the chain of distribution may have been violent?

I'm saying that coke and heroin dealers are part of a chain of violence whether or not they are personally involved in violence. Heroin and coke are not like pot and alcohol.

 

[MD]

The time for cocaine addiction varies considerably by user, and may not develop at all. But this is no different from alcohol, and cocaine was also widely available and pervasive prior to its prohibition in the teens in the U.S. Immoderate use of any substance is likely to produce negative consequences for the user and those around her, and this is no different with alcohol or cocaine. The opiates are a different class altogether. I do not know that those can be used recreationally in any responsible way. And you are forgetting that our drug laws classify other substances with almost zero addiction potential as prohibited, including LSD and its cousins.

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that we did not have a drug war until the 1980s, and yet despite having a lax regulatory environment we did not see these overwhelmingly negative impacts you speak of. Nor do we see the impact in other societies that look the other way. The most violent examples you can think of are in poor and destitute regions that are filled with despair for reasons usually totally unrelated to drugs.

Here is a rather good study on comparing the mean harm from each drug, based on reports from psychiatrists and addiction specialists.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673607604644

 

[Apex]

I'm saying that coke and heroin dealers are part of a chain of violence whether or not they are personally involved in violence. Heroin and coke are not like pot and alcohol.

So is it some kind of "violent by proxy" type of thing? Or maybe a metaphysical violence? Please, enlighten us.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So is it some kind of "violent by proxy" type of thing? Or maybe a metaphysical violence? Please, enlighten us.

I'm saying that those coke and heroin dealers are getting their supply from criminals further up in the drug trafficking chain, and they're getting it from drug cartels, drug mules, slaves making the drugs, etc. Do you understand now?

Example: From Mexico to the Midwest, a heroin supply chain delivers: A young Texan builds a trucking network that hauls multimillion-dollar loads to Chicago | WBEZ 91.5 Chicago

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Drugs destroy communities, anyone who denies this has not lived in a community that is destroyed by drugs and has lived a rather privileged life. I do support the executions, but it's impossible to stop the flow unless you go to all out war against countries which grow drugs.

Like Stringer Bell says: ' This game's forever'

The people who use them only destroy themselves. It's not like a disease where if one person takes meth, I'm going to be addicted to it. I won't be unless I try it myself. I know it would sound crazy but you'd be better off if you made all of the drugs legal. Why? Because there'd be less crime. A drug dealer wouldn't exist if all of them are legal. When something is illegal, the price goes up and drug dealers make a fortune out of it. Than they use it to finance their criminal activities. Even if you got rid of all of the drugs in the world, it wouldn't matter, because people would invent new ways of getting high. Besides if a certain drug like crack or cocaine was legal, would you buy some? Probably not. People will do it and find a way to smuggle it if they really want it.

I know prohibition on drugs doesn't work. It didn't work for America in the 1920 when the banned alcohol so why would people think it would work for other drugs? The War on Drugs is also a failure as it's promised neither peace nor stability. There's more crime and more people addicted to this stuff than ever before because they are illegal. I don't like those drugs or condone it but it doesn't make sense to make them illegal in the first place. Luckily some states are getting rid of the prohibition of marijuana. They're realizing that prohibition doesn't work. It's one of those ideas that sounds good at first but once you put it into practice you realize it's not so good.

 

[gsa]

Are you really serious? Cocaine is one of the most highly addictive drugs after meth. I'm not talking about LSD, I'm talking specifically about coke, meth and heroin. Heroin is an opiate btw. And yes other forms of opiates are being highly abused because of the massive heroin dependence in the inner cities. So there is a lot of demand for pharmaceutical opiates, for those heroin addicts who need their fix.

There have been drugs peddled in the inner cities for decades, well before the drug war. The negative impacts were there, they were just regulated to the black neighborhoods so nobody gave a ****. Once things starting leaking out into the white areas, that's when the govt got concerned.

The negative impacts I speak of are from my own personal experiences and not just made up. Have you ever lived in a drug community? Ever worked around drug addicts? Or drug dealers? I have and it is pervasive in the inner cities in the U.S. It may look pretty to you from your Euro trip to Amsterdam, but it isn't so pretty to those who have to live through it.

The impacts in other societies are horrible, as I have just pointed out in the prior examples above. Just recently there has been an epidemic of heroin use in a state in Punjab, which is having massive problems and Punjab was one of the wealthiest states in India before this epidemic. So no, it's not only to do with poverty. Drugs can easily destroy a well functioning society if they are pervasive enough.

Yes, I am serious.

1. Opiates as I said are a class all their own. I know that heroin is an opiate.

2. Cocaine has variable rates for addiction; most people who use it will not become addicted. In fact, the overwhelming majority of users will not become addicted.

3. I have never been to Amsterdam nor does my knowledge of drugs and addiction stem from youthful foreign escapades.

4. I worked in the criminal justice system for years. I am pretty familiar with the issues. And I have lived in cities with "drug problems," including at the neighborhood level, although I would never reduce it to a "drug community."

I do not disagree that certain drugs can destroy entire communities if use is pervasive enough. The opiates are the clearest example of this. But they are a class of their own, as I said. And drug use was never restricted to the black community. The perception that it was is just that, a perception. It was in fact marijuana use (and acid presumably) among the counterculture and the perceived abuse of heroin by returning soldiers from Vietnam that prompted the first stirrings of our modern drug war. Ironically, it was also at this time that Congress repealedthe Boggs Act and the mandatory minimums that were imposed by Congress in 1951, btw, and elevated in 1956. Not because Nixon was in favor of drug legalization (he was adamantly opposed to it in fact), but because he listened to the advice of experts who said that the mandatory prison sentences were unfair and were not working. And indeed, despite prohibition and mandatory sentences, the US was experiencing a growth in drug use, although most of it was marijuana which is simply not a serious drug. But it was a target of the mandatory minimums just the same, which failed, just like the current drug war is failing.

Portugal has been trying out decriminalization for over a decade without experiencing a massive surge in use with societal decimation. It can be done, and it will vary from drug to drug. But this criminalization nonsense comes at too high a price.

 

[Riverwolf]

Death penalty for drug dealing is quite extreme. I go back and forth on capital punishment anyway, but whenever I'm in a supportive mood, it's only for certain things. Drug dealing isn't one of them, because... what drugs are we talking about?

One problem is that the propaganda smear campaigns of the 80s and 90s colored all recreational drugs (except caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco, apparently) as horrible evil devil-spawn, and all drug dealers as minions of Satan who are just out to get kids on drugs because EVIL!!!! While this probably did help keep kids off recreational drugs, which is certainly a good thing, it didn't do well for real education on what, exactly, is what when it comes to drugs. Not all of them are addictive or damaging, for one thing, and many have positive qualities similar to caffeine. Sure, too much will kill you, but the same is true of everything. I drink caffeine all the time, and if I had too much in too short of time, I'd most certainly die. But that's no reason to make it illegal. There's also the fact that drugs are also used frequently in medicine; I'm on a carefully-dosed prescribed amphetamine, for instance, because it helps me stay focused, productive, and in good spirits. It's for that reason that when referring to these types of drugs, I specify recreational drugs.

Now, I'm fully in favor of certain recreational drugs being illegal, particularly crack and heroin. These are highly addictive and highly fatal, with any "benefit" effectively rendered null by the negative effects. Pot, however, is harmless in itself (though inhaling smoke is never a good idea no matter what's on fire), and other recreational drugs like LSD are so restricted that proper research to determine their exact effects is incredibly difficult to do, which means they're illegal out of generalized fear rather than certainty. (Though I'm not sure I'd want LSD to be legalized for recreational use, since it's an hallucinogen, but if other effects are what I hear tell, it might be an effective medicine in VERY controlled doses, and I believe it should be fully legal for certain shamanic contexts).

But death by firing squad for selling drugs? Drug dealers aren't necessarily as the propaganda depicted: often they're just people like anyone else trying to feed themselves and their families like everyone else. The negative effects are certainly bad enough to warrant jail time, but not death.

 

[MD]

Yes, I am serious.

1. Opiates as I said are a class all their own. I know that heroin is an opiate.

2. Cocaine has variable rates for addiction; most people who use it will not become addicted. In fact, the overwhelming majority of users will not become addicted.

3. I have never been to Amsterdam nor does my knowledge of drugs and addiction stem from youthful foreign escapades.

4. I worked in the criminal justice system for years. I am pretty familiar with the issues. And I have lived in cities with "drug problems," including at the neighborhood level, although I would never reduce it to a "drug community."

I do not disagree that certain drugs can destroy entire communities if use is pervasive enough. The opiates are the clearest example of this. But they are a class of their own, as I said. And drug use was never restricted to the black community. The perception that it was is just that, a perception. It was in fact marijuana use (and acid presumably) among the counterculture and the perceived abuse of heroin by returning soldiers from Vietnam that prompted the first stirrings of our modern drug war. Ironically, it was also at this time that Congress repealed the Boggs Act and the mandatory minimums that were imposed by Congress in 1951, btw, and elevated in 1956. Not because Nixon was in favor of drug legalization (he was adamantly opposed to it in fact), but because he listened to the advice of experts who said that the mandatory prison sentences were unfair and were not working. And indeed, despite prohibition and mandatory sentences, the US was experiencing a growth in drug use, although most of it was marijuana which is simply not a serious drug. But it was a target of the mandatory minimums just the same, which failed, just like the current drug war is failing.

Portugal has been trying out decriminalization for over a decade without experiencing a massive surge in use with societal decimation. It can be done, and it will vary from drug to drug. But this criminalization nonsense comes at too high a price.

According to some studies I was able to dig up, about 20% of recent cocaine users are cocaine dependent. That's 1 in 5 recent users develop dependence. That's a high proportion of people who develop a quick dependance, so I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that most people won't be addicted. With long term use the rates are sure to be much higher. Cocaine is well known to cause a rapid dependence neurologically and the epidemiology backs it up. Also the other study I referenced clearly showed that cocaine was twice as harmful as alcohol, which was part of your original argument that alcohol and cocaine are equally bad. The withdrawls from coke are much stronger and lead to a much higher rate of crime.

Neuropsychopharmacology - Risk of Becoming Cocaine Dependent: Epidemiological Estimates for the United States, 2000-2001

I have given various examples of areas where drugs have destroyed the community. I've referenced even the harm that cocaine can cause with scientific articles.

I don't know the history or the law, but I grew up right next to a drug neighborhood and it was really bad. A friend of mine was shot and killed in a drug war, innocent bystander. We can look at Portugal or Amsterdam and take the risk, or eliminate the need for such harmful substances from our society altogether. Sometimes it's better to fight for the right thing than give in to what is absolutely wrong.

 

[Riverwolf]

According to some studies I was able to dig up, about 20% of recent cocaine users are cocaine dependent. That's 1 in 5 recent users develop dependence. That's a high proportion of people who develop a quick dependance, so I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that most people won't be addicted.

"Most people" means "a majority of people". 20% of/1 in 5 people is a minority. A high proportion that's certainly cause for concern, sure, but still a minority. That still leaves 80% of/4 in 5 people who won't develop dependence, and thus "most people" won't be dependent.

 

[MD]

"Most people" means "a majority of people". 20% of/1 in 5 people is a minority. A high proportion that's certainly cause for concern, sure, but still a minority. That still leaves 80% of/4 in 5 people who won't develop dependence, and thus "most people" won't be dependent.

Funny I always thought 'most' meant 95%+. So is 51% the most? 60%? Or are you just trying to prove a useless point?

Anyways those are for recent users, if you read what I wrote properly. For long term users I'm sure the rate is higher and I was right. It's 25%, which means 1 in 4 cocaine users fit the criteria for abuse or dependence.

Cocaine use disorder in adults: Epidemiology, pharmacology, clinical manifestations, medical consequences, and diagnosis

Also coke is the no.1 drug that is most associated with ER visits. You sure you wanna legalize it? Then again you did say that drug dealers are just family men who wish to support their kids, which is by far one of the stupidest things I have ever read on RF.

 

[Riverwolf]

Funny I always thought 'most' meant 95%+. So is 51% the most? 60%? Or are you just trying to prove a useless point?

No need for such hostility. Clearly we've both grown up having two different ideas as to what constitutes "most". I've only ever heard "most" as being synonymous with simple majority (so, yes, 51% counts as "most"), so my only intention was to clarify perceived confusion that was honestly confusing me.

If you think of "most" as meaning 95%+, fine. Carry on.

 

[Glaurung]

The two executed Australians have been the main news story here for a few days now. It's a shame, as over the ten years the two had apparently reformed and become exemplary examples of sincere remorse. It's kind of pointless to then kill them after being rehabilitated. That said, they knew that drug smuggling was a capital offence and took that risk.

Indonesia made the best decision in centuries.

Why? Because you think killing was truly in best interests of Indonesia? Or is just spiteful glee?

 

[Altfish]

Legalise drugs, put them on the same standing as cigarettes and alcohol. The savings will be massive...police time, court times, prison space; also if it's legal you can tax it.
The drug cartels also loose interest and go out of business.

Win-Win

 

[Aiviu]

Death sentence on drug dealing? Do evil people care?

I think this is not about justice, its again about, how human unsuccessful attempt. And that on both sides. What this govt did is just sad.

 

[dust1n]

news.sky.com/story/1473963/eight-drug-prisoners-executed-by-firing-squad


Indonesia made the best decision in centuries.

The majority of the world's heroin supply originates from Afghanistan. What should Indonesia do about that?

 

[dust1n]

Where do the opium poppies and coca leaves come from?

Farming?

 

[dust1n]

Also, the manufacture and distribution of alcohol does not necessarily involve human exploitation, extortion, murder, etc. across international boundaries.

Most legal businesses don't.

 

[McBell]

KIll them all.
Let their gods claim them.