British woman gets death sentence

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Quaxar:

Just a FYI, I now edited my post you're quoting there to make it more clear that I was saying no to his silly suggestion of trying cocain, not the word recreational. Although I don't particularly like to call any dangerously addictive substance recreational...

Fair enough, that does make more sense.

adamsaccount:

Denholm Reynholm:

adamsaccount:

But shes a grandmother, she claims her kids were threatened, wheres the justice in that?

Also gotta love the fuckers who accuse me of racism and then start spouting stereotypes about british people

Most people facing a death sentence will claim a lot of things. If there's no investigation into the allegations then sure, that's pretty unjust, but just because she says so, doesn't make it so.

I get that but a grandmother of 56 with no prior convictions has got have a pretty damn good reason to adopt a life of crime and start drug smuggling into countries that use the death penalty. Something isnt adding up

Absolutely, but it could have been something as simple as greed... She's nearing retirement age - Maybe she thought she could do one or two jobs and get a nice little fund for her retirement.

Denholm Reynholm:

adamsaccount:

Denholm Reynholm:

Most people facing a death sentence will claim a lot of things. If there's no investigation into the allegations then sure, that's pretty unjust, but just because she says so, doesn't make it so.

I get that but a grandmother of 56 with no prior convictions has got have a pretty damn good reason to adopt a life of crime and start drug smuggling into countries that use the death penalty. Something isnt adding up

Absolutely, but it could have been something as simple as greed... She's nearing retirement age - Maybe she thought she could do one or two jobs and get a nice little fund for her retirement.

Thats tru enough. Still even if that turns out to be the case she doesnt deserve to die in my eyes anyway

Oh well, Indonesia is an oppressive corrupt theocratic dictatorship. A failed state. This draconic punishment is just more proof of that. There's dozens of people sentenced to death over this, and it's not working. Showing once again that the drug penalty is bad.

adamsaccount:
Cocaine is a very recreational drug and if you dont believe me try some

It's clear you haven't got a clue about it then. If you buy coke, you finance the FARC in Colombia, gang wars in Mexico, similar drug crime in Venezuela and a few other things. Second, coke fiends are called that for a reason, it's because they're dangerous people. They become unstable and agressive and subdueing them can be quite a challenge which can require inflicting serious harm on them.

So far all the fights at work that required serious intervention had to do with cocaine users. One guy just started swinging a heavy chair in the waiting area and I had to put him on the ground to avoid clients getting harmed. Which was really odd because he escalated in a split second and I didn't have him on the radar as a risk before that, really irrational behaviour. Now they don't sense much pain and are rather powerfull when that happens, so the only sure way was to knock him out, which happened rather instantly and he went tumbling on the ground. I'm pretty sure that knocking your head twice like that is a concussion and some neurological damage, so way to go cocaine, the guy will have headaches for weeks and that nerve damage may be very light, but it never recovers again. Then two idiots barged in demanding medication at night, tight on coke, drunk and smoking marijuana. The police was exceptionally busy that night, so after 1,5 hours of constant abuse and vandalism I opted to throw them out myself and a fight erupted pretty instantly. Also I remember a rather serious fight between clients where one make a remark about the friend of the other who was OD'ing and out cold, and because he was tight on coke, he attacked immediatly, and even drew a knife. They backed down when I intervened, but it's crazy. Weapon usage is almost unheard of here obviously he wasn't so happy afterwards because he went for assault with a weapon, weapon possesion and death threats. Not to mention some of the highly explosive dickheads I've seen while going out over the years. That's cocaine at work for you.

Quite frankly if someone decides to line up cocaine dealers or smugglers and shoot them, let's just say I care a bit less than when someone who's committed a different crime gets that.

Oh, and a personal recommendation: If you really think it's so recreational, try some coke that's been cut up with ketamine. Please don't hold me responsible for any side effects like dying gruesomely in a gutter.

Blablahb:
Oh well, Indonesia is an oppressive corrupt theocratic dictatorship. A failed state. This draconic punishment is just more proof of that. There's dozens of people sentenced to death over this, and it's not working. Showing once again that the drug penalty is bad.

adamsaccount:
Cocaine is a very recreational drug and if you dont believe me try some

It's clear you haven't got a clue about it then. If you buy coke, you finance the FARC in Colombia, gang wars in Mexico, similar drug crime in Venezuela and a few other things. Second, coke fiends are called that for a reason, it's because they're dangerous people. They become unstable and agressive and subdueing them can be quite a challenge which can require inflicting serious harm on them.

So far all the fights at work that required serious intervention had to do with cocaine users. One guy just started swinging a heavy chair in the waiting area and I had to put him on the ground to avoid clients getting harmed. Two idiots barged in demanding medication at night, tight on coke, drunk and smoking marijuana. The police was exceptionally busy that night, so after 1,5 hours of abuse I opted to throw them out myself and a fight erupted. Also I remember a rather serious fight between clients where one make a remark about the friend of the other who was OD'ing and out cold, and because he was tight on coke, he attacked immediatly, and even drew a knife. They backed down when I intervened, but it's crazy. Weapon usage is almost unheard of here obviously he wasn't so happy afterwards because he went for assault with a weapon, weapon possesion and death threats. Not to mention some of the highly explosive dickheads I've seen while going out over the years. That's cocaine at work for you.

Quite frankly if someone decides to line up cocaine dealers or smugglers and shoot them, let's just say I care a bit less than when someone who's committed a different crime gets that.

Oh, and a personal recommendation: If you really think it's so recreational, try some coke that's been cut up with ketamine. Please don't hold me responsible for any side effects like dying gruesomely in a gutter.

Look if you want to make this about my personal tastes then thats fine, im not apologizing to anyone. I know enough to stay safe. That was supposed to be an offhand comment to show that its a recreational drug which it clearly is. The reason im funding the drug wars in mexico is because the whole thing is driven underground but thats just my opinion and it could be wrong. I dont think the war on drugs can ever succeed personally, and we may as well start persuing the other options because all the violence got WAY out of hand a LONG LONG time ago, Mexico is a fucking battlezone and, in the words of vass the definition of crazy is to do the same thing again and again and expecting things to change.

I dont expect a lot of empathy from the internet but i expected a bit more than this when a granny's about to be executed.

As said before they havent executed anyone since 2008, 5 years ago and now the first person they pick is a 56 year old grandmother who claims she was coerced by threats to her children, and then claim that her biggest crime is ruining the name of bali as a family tourist resort

This just makes no sense to me

adamsaccount:

Denholm Reynholm:

adamsaccount:

I get that but a grandmother of 56 with no prior convictions has got have a pretty damn good reason to adopt a life of crime and start drug smuggling into countries that use the death penalty. Something isnt adding up

Absolutely, but it could have been something as simple as greed... She's nearing retirement age - Maybe she thought she could do one or two jobs and get a nice little fund for her retirement.

Thats tru enough. Still even if that turns out to be the case she doesnt deserve to die in my eyes anyway

Well like Blahblah something or other said, it's never as harmless as smuggling it in so someone can get their hair blown back for a couple of hours.

Crimes like this should be so unthinkable to commit that the punishment in itself dissuades most people. If people are aware of the risks and still go ahead with it, they have no one to blame but themselves... Unless of course she was coerced, but that remains to be seen.

Kopikatsu:
I genuinely like the Judge's ruling, going solely off that article (Because I know literally nothing about the case itself, and don't presume to know anything about it).

But the judges said there were no mitigating circumstances and the defendant did not appear to care about the consequences of her actions.

Bolded the important part. If the convicted shows neither remorse nor willingness to reform, then it's sensible to dispose of them and be done with it as other venues would be a waste of time and money in that case.

I'd see things slightly differently, like, if you don't care what happens to you, then why should I, pretty much.

@OP: I am, by the way, opposed to death penalty, but bombing the place to kingdom come doesn't strike me as the right way to argue against it. Especially not on behalf of someone who themselves doesn't care about the consequences of their own actions...

adamsaccount:
Look if you want to make this about my personal tastes then thats fine, im not apologizing to anyone. I know enough to stay safe.

Don't deceive yourself. "I know enough to stay safe" and "But it's recreational, I have it under control" are the two things I hear most when people are waiting for help at the addict treatment centre.

By the way, ketamine presence is undetectable for humans, and requires drug testing. By the time you notice it as a user, it's too late. Also, can you name me the effects caused by Levamisol, Fenacetine, Hydroxine, Lidocaine and Diltiazem? You should already be aware of it, as those are chemicals with which most coke is cut.

How come you didn't know that? Maybe you're not so safe as you think.

adamsaccount:
That was supposed to be an offhand comment to prove that its a recreational drug which it clearly is.

I await your proof that no cocaine addicts exist, eagerly.

Also, how do you explain cocaine being involved in so much violence?

adamsaccount:
The reason im funding the drug wars in mexico is because the whole thing is driven underground but thats just my opinion and it could be wrong. I'll get it whether its legal or not, dont worry about me.

And that's why you deserve to be arrested and punished for that. By the way, legalising drugs only escalates the crime. The failed Dutch experiment with marijuana proves this; the trade is still in the hands of organised crime, people still get addicted, and the easy legal availability gave as addicts as young as 13 years old, and drug tourism. Legalisation failed. That's why you see Dutch policies turning more towards making marijuana illegal again, for instance by the attempt of introducing a pass system to get rid of the tourists, banning 'coffeeshops' that sell drugs near schools, etc.

adamsaccount:
I dont think the war on drugs can ever succeed personally, and we may as well start persuing the other options because all the violence got WAY out of hand a LONG LONG time ago, mexico is a fucking battlezone and, in the words of vass the definition of crazy is to do the same thing again and again and expecting things to change.

Now you're engaging in the eternal fallacy of people who want to legalise drugs: Thinking it's choosing between either legalising all drug crime, or doing the exact same thing the US has been doing.

Other countries have shown this not to be true. Drug education for instance can help people from staying away from drugs, for instance because they've received education and know better than mythology like 'cocaine is safe and recreational'.

Some weakminded people will always reach for drugs and end up dead in the gutter, but as long as drug education and rehab policies exist to limit that number, there's no problem at all with bringing down the hammer on idiots who trade and use despite knowing better.

Quaxar:

adamsaccount:

Quaxar:

And who are you to judge what is worth a death sentence and what should be legal? Why do you assume your standards of right and wrong apply to a country where over half a million underaged Indonesians from 10-20 years are addicted to narcotics such as heroin?
What should Britain do? Not what you want it to I sure hope. There's a huge difference between diplomatic negotiations and a war even more ridiculous than anything the US could ever conceive.

Um... no.
Contrary to a lot of people I actually know the biochemistry and read studies. Gonna need more to convince me.

Then this draconian policy obviously isn't working.

And you ask who am I to judge whats right and wrong? Well thats a right we all have i always assumed. I can look at an action and decide if its right or wrong, just try and stop me.

My view is a world view and isnt limited to my country and this is it;
The death penalty should not exist because a government that shows that kind of violence will probably just breed more violence.

No I didn't say that, I said who are you to decide that a country's laws are wrong based on your ideas, even though you probably have no idea about its politics, healthcare or history.
Not working? It's a deterrant for a lot of people, I don't think anyone's assuming that any sort of penalty will stop all crime. Harder penalty means bigger profit margin for organized drug smuggling but takes a lot of amateur smugglers not willing to risk it out of the market.
Am I for a death penalty? Damn no, but on the other hand if a country has it and you willingly break that law I won't have pity for that stupidity.

Bashfluff:

Quaxar:

Um... no.
Contrary to a lot of people I actually know the biochemistry and read studies. Gonna need more to convince me.

Define "recreational drug" for me.

There are plenty of people dying of obesity in the US. Gets get fat and addicted because of their parents. Plenty of gamblers wasting their lives and their money because they are addicted. Plenty of people who drink and are addicted. Who smoke.

I believe in a country where you can do whatever you want, to yourself, because if you don't believe I have the right to potentially fuck myself over, you don't believe in any freedom at all.

I should probably clarify that "um... no" was supposed to be answering to the "try some" part. I don't dispute that it's classified as a recreational drug, but I also don't claim that it is not highly addictive and harmful.
Alcohol and tobacco are recreational drugs as well, food and gambling are nothing to do with drugs as they don't fit the definition at all.

I don't believe in freedom because I object to free availability of dangerous chemicals? I can live with that.

You missed the point entirely. My point is that there are plenty of knowingly dangerous substances we ingest, or smoke, or let our kids ingest. There are plenty of things we do that fuck us over. But we should have the right to do them. It's the most basic right of all--the right to our own bodies.

I dont think cocaine is particularly safe and I definitely don't think its something everyone should do. Personally my experiences on it have all been positive but I accept that coke heads can be violent and dangerous, but only slightly more than drunkies. I dont have a big habit myself, its not something i do regularly and i couldnt give two fucks what its cut up with because i trust my source.

However regulating the supply would definitely have a few benefits. First of all the farmers would recieve a larger share for there crop.

Secondly you could make sure that the quality is higher and isnt cut up with fibre glass or other such shit thats going to kill people

Thirdly it would take money to a certain extent out of the hands of the gangs. If you could buy some age restricted from a chemist or something then the drug gangs get no cut from it, and i believe this was the case untill the 20th century.

But no I dont think the world is quite ready for legalised cocaine yet. Were better off focusing our efforts on legalising marijuana instead of everything at once.

Its not something you can just do overnight.

However, even legalising marajuana across europe would mean that drug gangs no longer get an income from it. I believe the reason its failing in Amsterdam (well im not even sure if it is but you live there so ill take your word for it) is because its the only place in Europe where its legal and available to buy in shops, thus you have a large concentration of people arriving to just get as fucked off their heads as possible. Ive been there and its a pretty rowdy place but just out of interest why would you say its a failing experiment?

And i agree weakminded people will always reach for drugs but if they have weed grown in their own country and purer drugs that arent cut up with crud this minimises both the risk to these people and stops violent drug gangs making money from it. Its never something that should be encouraged.

I think Portugals system of possession being only an administrative felony instead a criminal offence would be a good place to start, then moving on to legalised possesion under a certain weight whilst also legalizing the growing of it. The government could make substantial tax from this and put that money back into drug rehabilitation programs and the like.

I definetely dont have all the answers but what i propose looks like a better fairer system to me.

Having anti drug talks at my school if im totally frank just made me want to try drugs even more. (think reefer madness, got fed some line about a kid who got so high off weed he stabbed himself in the neck with scissors because he thought he was invincible) all the kids just laughed

I do agree though that you should be able to ingest what you want, just also that its not something you can flip a switch on and expect things to improve, youve got to be careful about it.

Back on topic, if every country could legally grew most the drugs it consumed this would certainly solve a lot of the problems relating to drugs

ps; Also dont give me that patronising shit. Im in no danger of going to rehab, take it from me

edit: thought of something else, the supply could be controlled by chemists to prevent people going out of control

I agree that there shouldn't be a death penalty however i believe that the living conditions in jails should be reduced to a bare minimum! Criminals in prison are living a more luxury life than me!?!?! I would quite happily go out and commit a crime if it meant cooked meals and a roof over my head!

Bashfluff:
You missed the point entirely. My point is that there are plenty of knowingly dangerous substances we ingest, or smoke, or let our kids ingest. There are plenty of things we do that fuck us over. But we should have the right to do them. It's the most basic right of all--the right to our own bodies.

Two wrongs don't make a right, so that argument doesn't fly.

Also, you're ignoring the fact that drugs cause damage mostly to society, and to other people than the user. To name an example, some 600 systematic offenders, 90% of them drug addicts, caused more than two-thirds of all crime in the city of Amsterdam before the Netherlands started locking them up for two years in special drug addict prisons.

That means that 540 drug users, were perpetrating more crime than the 1.208.000 other inhabitants of the city together.

That's what drugs do.

Blablahb:

Bashfluff:
You missed the point entirely. My point is that there are plenty of knowingly dangerous substances we ingest, or smoke, or let our kids ingest. There are plenty of things we do that fuck us over. But we should have the right to do them. It's the most basic right of all--the right to our own bodies.

Two wrongs don't make a right, so that argument doesn't fly.

Also, you're ignoring the fact that drugs cause damage mostly to society, and to other people than the user. To name an example, some 600 systematic offenders, 90% of them drug addicts, caused more than two-thirds of all crime in the city of Amsterdam before the Netherlands started locking them up for two years in special drug addict prisons.

That means that 540 drug users, were perpetrating more crime than the 1.208.000 other inhabitants of the city together.

That's what drugs do.

And thats what drugs will continue to do regardless of government policy. Junkies stealing for their habits etc are a huge percentage of repeat offenders as it is the world over. Thats why theres rehab in prisons

Blablahb:

Bashfluff:
You missed the point entirely. My point is that there are plenty of knowingly dangerous substances we ingest, or smoke, or let our kids ingest. There are plenty of things we do that fuck us over. But we should have the right to do them. It's the most basic right of all--the right to our own bodies.

Two wrongs don't make a right, so that argument doesn't fly.

Also, you're ignoring the fact that drugs cause damage mostly to society, and to other people than the user. To name an example, some 600 systematic offenders, 90% of them drug addicts, caused more than two-thirds of all crime in the city of Amsterdam before the Netherlands started locking them up for two years in special drug addict prisons.

That means that 540 drug users, were perpetrating more crime than the 1.208.000 other inhabitants of the city together.

That's what drugs do.

No, that's what drug DEALERS do. Involving this with cartels and gangs causes this. It'd be the same if we were living in prohibition times. We'd be having this discussion about alcohol. Don't confuse the substance with the smugglers.

And more than that...correlation causation. Just because criminals happen to be on drugs doesn't mean all people on drugs--or even most--are criminals.

adamsaccount:
And thats what drugs will continue to do regardless of government policy.

Uhm, nope. For one thing, banging up those so-called recreational users, who get arrested more than weekly, has been shown to lower crime rates dramatically. Evaluation of this new policy of locking up drug users has been shown to be quite effective. Not just because you prevent a few hundred crimes by locking them up for 2 years over the smallest infraction, but because they can they receive help whether they like it or not, and one of the problems with drug addicts is that they often don't want help. They only want to use, and will accept whatever help they get as long as it doesn't interfere with their addiction.
By incarcerating them and creating a legal handle to force them to undergo therapy, this problem is adressed.

If what you claimed is right, there should be no differences between countries in terms of drug use percentages by the population, and no differences in the amount of problems caused by drugs. But that's demonstrably untrue.

Another good example by the way is how the US ended the crack-cocaine epidemic of the 90's. Drug bans work, whether you like it or not.

*edit* Double post on accident. Sorry.

[quote="the clockmaker" post="528.399073.16352166"][quote="Bashfluff" post="528.399073.16352082"]

1. I'm not advocating it. I'm saying that you're calling out racism and such when it just isn't there. You're being waaaaaay too over the top, and it doesn't belong in debate. I'm saying, hey, it's not that their lives are worth less, it's that if we decided to go to war--to make a point, not because this bitch is going to die--people will die. It's not because our lives are worth less. It's because they're the enemy.

2.I'm labeling the government and the culture barbaric, how they treat people. That is barbaric. End of. Also, define First World Country for me.

3. Someone is making some unjustified assumptions. It's fitting you call on jesus when you do this. IT's not racism. I'm not saying, "Indonesian's don't understand anything other than violence'. I said I could see where he was coming from, given how the governemnt was acting, given that THEY--which is a vague pronoun I never elaborated on--were barbaric and tended to over rely on violence. And countries like that do that for a reason, looking at history.

4.Again, you miss the point. My point is that there are times where you can condemn the laws of another. I'm not comparing them in any other way than that.

Blablahb:

adamsaccount:
And thats what drugs will continue to do regardless of government policy.

Uhm, nope. For one thing, banging up those so-called recreational users, who get arrested more than weekly, has been shown to lower crime rates dramatically. Evaluation of this new policy of locking up drug users has been shown to be quite effective. Not just because you prevent a few hundred crimes by locking them up for 2 years over the smallest infraction, but because they can they receive help whether they like it or not, and one of the problems with drug addicts is that they often don't want help. They only want to use, and will accept whatever help they get as long as it doesn't interfere with their addiction.
By incarcerating them and creating a legal handle to force them to undergo therapy, this problem is adressed.

If what you claimed is right, there should be no differences between countries in terms of drug use percentages by the population, and no differences in the amount of problems caused by drugs. But that's demonstrably untrue.

Another good example by the way is how the US ended the crack-cocaine epidemic of the 90's. Drug bans work, whether you like it or not.

Thats just forcing people to live the way you want them too though. I dont agree with that at all. Has the problem gone away in america? no, it just moved onto meth. It solved nothing
Mexico is still paying for the USAs drug habit far worse than in the 90s.

back on topic: now this woman faces 8 years on deathrow waiting for her appeal to come though

basically this

or this if youre a bit more moderate

The Pedobear:
I agree that there shouldn't be a death penalty however i believe that the living conditions in jails should be reduced to a bare minimum! Criminals in prison are living a more luxury life than me!?!?! I would quite happily go out and commit a crime if it meant cooked meals and a roof over my head!

Something tells me that prison conditions in Indonesia are going to be less than pleasant.

....Dammit, again?

And this, friends, is why I would never ever ever go to indonesia or any country with similar laws. Because it's INSANELY easy to get dragged into mule-ing, even against your will. Kidnapping plots, having it stuffed into your bags, etc.

There is no way in hell you could convince me to go visit a country that executes people for smuggling when it's very easy to get dragged into. Anyone who goes there is rolling dice with their life.

As for the woman, I hope they CAN prove her family was in danger. That SHOULD get her sentence reduced. If they prove it and they still want to kill her, THEN we can start arguing about intervention.

adamsaccount:
Thats just forcing people to live the way you want them too though. I dont agree with that at all.

Rubbish. There's no such thing like a right to harm society through drug use. You're just ignoring everything mentioned when you say that.

You're doing people who'd otherwise use drugs a favour, you're doing drug users a favour by bringing down the hammer on that and getting their life back on track, and you're stopping a lot of crime that way. It's a very good initiative of which all evaluations are positive. The only criticism is it's not far-going enough, because after those 2 years and rehab, people go back to the same city, meet the same people, get drugs, start using drugs, stop working, start stealing, etc. Ideally you could forcibly relocate them to the countryside, but that's obviously legally impossible and quite extreme, even if it would work.

Also I'm ignoring any more attempts to present a false dillemma between the US or legalisation.

What, youre doing them all a favour by putting them all in jail?

We all know theres no drugs in jail

What about responsible drug users who just do it for kicks?

This is where we differ. I believe in freedom of the individual, you obviously believe in the greater good for society. I think thats a dangerous concept. I dont think were going to agree on this ever.

Theres rehabs without jail, theres support without locking people up.
Im never working for the clampdown

Now i wish this thread would die so everyone can forget that i didnt take my bipolar meds and declared war on indonesia

adamsaccount:
What, youre doing them all a favour by putting them all in jail?

We all know theres no drugs in jail

What about responsible drug users who just do it for kicks?

This is where we differ. I believe in freedom of the individual, you obviously believe in the greater good for society. I think thats a dangerous concept. I dont think were going to agree on this ever.

Theres rehabs without jail, theres support without locking people up.

Now i wish this thread would die so everyone can forget that i didnt take my bipolar meds and declared war on indonesia

If the situation were different, MAYBE... and for SOME drugs like weed.

But when drugs fuel violent industries, no, it should always be illegal.

Well ive said it before and ill say it again, the illegality of these drugs means only criminal scum will deal with them, meaning they are able to make ALOT of money off them which in turns fuels more violence. Its a vicious cycle. If i had my own country I know what id do with it.

I think the original sentence of 15 years is fine but death for drugs... wow. I doubt they will go through with it like the paper says.

Another thing I've noticed is the drug dealers/mules in the UK, they are pretty old. I was watching a show on weed the other day and they had these two guys that had their face covered but you could see their hands and they looked like 50 or older.

adamsaccount:
What, youre doing them all a favour by putting them all in jail? We all know theres no drugs in jail

Yes, in most prisons there's no drugs. The US forms an exception to that rule because they disinvest or overcrowd (whichever explanation you prefer) their prison system.

And it's doing them a favour because you can make them lose their addiction, that in itself is a huge help. Then the Measure Systematic Offenders also involves stuff like psychological help, because most of the time people use drugs also because they have personal problems. Nobody was just sitting on the couch one day and though 'yeah, let's go snort coke or inject heroin!'. There's always some kind of personal personal or mental defect at work.

adamsaccount:
What about responsible drug users who just do it for kicks?

I guess they'll just have to accept that if they insist on knowingly breaking the law, funding drug criminals, the FARC, the Taliban and a few other questionable goals, just for their selfish wish for a rush, that there may be consequences in the form of having it seized and being fined.

Sounds like a minor inconvenience in exchange for what's really a pretty big dickmove on their part.

adamsaccount:
Theres rehabs without jail, theres support without locking people up.

And they fail, because the majority of the drug users there leg it when the withdrawal sets in, or just go out occasionally and keep using while also pretending to detox. It's a complete failure. Even worse are attempts to detox at home. Mostly that just results in some shots they take being replaced with methadone and a fuckton of benzodiazepines. I really shouldn't criticise it because I've made a good living off that pointless waste of tax money ever since my contract with the military was up, but it's still useless.

The only way is to either lock them up, or take them somewhere they really don't know anything or anyone. For instance a project with British addicts where they got flown to, I believe Thailand, and detoxed in a temple there under the care of monks was a smashing succes.
We've got a problem on the other hand that carts people across half the country, about an hour by train, and it's failure because people quite regularly leg it and return home. Getting into a train without paying is easy enough for them (and the railways charge you and me extra because of the drug users).

Why does Thailand work by contrast? They've got nowhere to go when on the Thai countryside with no money, and certainly no way to go get drugs.

adamsaccount:
Now i wish this thread would die so everyone can forget that i didnt take my bipolar meds and declared war on indonesia

You use freaking cocaine while you're bipolar?

...

really?

And you wanted me to believe you were a so-called responsible recreational user?

Coke isn't Weed. You people know that right? The safety of Marijuana is already debatable, but cocaine is absolutely dangerous and highly addictive.

adamsaccount:
Now i wish this thread would die so everyone can forget that i didnt take my bipolar meds and declared war on indonesia

You're too kind Blab. I would have had the equivalent of an epileptic fit if I had heard this revelation firsthand.

I don't even know what to say about this.

Look Adam, I doubt you're only taking cocaine and I hate to think of what that particular cocktail of drugs is doing to you.

Thats a damn shame if I've ever seen one. Its unjust, its borderline barbarity, and its just not nice. However, she also probably knew the consequences of the crime in such a country and there is probably not a damn thing that can be done.

Sad but true.

Bashfluff:

1. I'm not advocating it. I'm saying that you're calling out racism and such when it just isn't there. You're being waaaaaay too over the top, and it doesn't belong in debate. I'm saying, hey, it's not that their lives are worth less, it's that if we decided to go to war--to make a point, not because this bitch is going to die--people will die. It's not because our lives are worth less. It's because they're the enemy.

By going to war, you are deciding that it is worth those thousands of lives to achieve your goal, by extension, you are painting the entire nation (which you clearly know absolutely nothing about) into the same pot as one one judge. You call them 'the enemy' acting as if that is an assured thing, that their deaths are worth your 'message'

As I have stated multiple times, they haven't executed anyone since the Bali Bombers and fuck those guys. As such, her sentence will probably be commuted without your bullshit saber rattling.

2.I'm labeling the government and the culture barbaric, how they treat people. That is barbaric. End of. Also, define First World Country for me.

See I bet you that without going to google, you could tell me fuck all about the culture of Indonesia, I mean, I am not disagreeing that the government is overly strict (calling them barbaric has a little to much of a 'yellow peril' vibe) but you just had to throw the culture in there too.

And first world is normally a function of their economic development and overall quality of life, which you then conflated with moral superiority.

3. Someone is making some unjustified assumptions. It's fitting you call on jesus when you do this.

Was there supposed to be more to this, or was it just the world's laziest dig at religion?

IT's not racism. I'm not saying, "Indonesian's don't understand anything other than violence'. I said I could see where he was coming from, given how the governemnt was acting, given that THEY--which is a vague pronoun I never elaborated on--were barbaric and tended to over rely on violence. And countries like that do that for a reason, looking at history.

Okay, couple of things here, from what I can see, you know nothing about Indonesian tendencies, you know nothing about what they do or do not understand (which extends to the government as well) you know nothing of their history and you just make the assumption that that is the tendency.

And you can see where he was coming from in the whole 'bomb the little fucks for touching our woman'. If you are willing to kill thousands of innocents to 'punish' somebody, you are magnitudes worse than the people you are condemning.

4.Again, you miss the point. My point is that there are times where you can condemn the laws of another. I'm not comparing them in any other way than that.

you came in defending the notion that war over this is anything other than fucking lunacy, and that, whether you want to openly stand by it or not, was your point.

Also, there is a button next to 'post' saying preview, it should help you set out your posts with less chop and change.

Death penalty's a bit too strong, and I think it should be rolled back. She wasn't Pablo Escobar, she was just a mule. However if the silly cow gets life I will not bat an eyelid. She was smuggling a ridiculously large amount of coke into South East Asia. Anyone with half a brain and general knowledge knows that is a stupidly risky thing to do.

I also think the UK press is currently pushing the "poor dear, she's a granny don't you know?" angle a bit too much. She had kids who popped out more kids...and? She knew exactly what she was doing and lost. If she was a six foot-tall, tattooed, bald, bearded bloke by the name of Bernard, not one fuck would be given.

to put this case to one side for a second but to follow on from Images comment about "Bernard" and others in the thread which touch on what this person appears to be...

to assume that certain forms of criminals will have "previous", are ignorant of the law, have some kind of mental deficiency that makes them easy to catch or some definitive appearance, sex or age bias.

these are all fallacies.

fallacies that are constantly used by the criminals themselves to their advantage.

i know of people who have went to their grave (both male and female) with a near lifetime criminal career behind them, ZERO personal entanglement with "the law" and who you wouldn't once give second look in a supermarket.

the idea that women in particular have some kind of inherent predisposition not to be criminal because they are women...well apart from probably being some twisted form of near "sexism" it's outright bullshit.

hell, of the 4 criminal families who ran the scheme i grew up on as a teenager 2 of them were headed by middle aged matriarchs and the women i knew who involved themselves in criminal activity knew fine well "society" would treat them with kid gloves, would be all to keen to believe the line "a man made me do it" and that motherhood could be leveraged as an advantage. indeed some of the women ive known were amongst the most scarily blatant instigators of violence and criminal activity i've ever met.

in short any time you find yourself thinking "they don't look like a criminal" you really ought to pause and reflect on why Lady Justice wears a blindfold...

as an additional thought consider this: while societal convention may twist your arm to see "druggys" and criminals as "lower class" the two largest societally effecting recreational drug scenes in living memory ie the 60s "hippy movement" etc and the 90s "rave scene" were both predominately "middle class" affairs...and don't think for a moment that the dealers/professional criminals making piles of cash from them were for some reason of a lesser social class than those enjoying the product.

most people with even the slightest inkling about the drug scene know that non crack cocaine is generally a drug of "the rich" and the higher echelons of society (Robin Williams once quipped "Cocaine is God's way of saying you're making too much money.") and even the opiates have a long and distinguished tradition of being a drug of arty people and intellectuals (from William S. Burroughs to Will Self and so on). there probably isn't a city arts scene anywhere in the western world that doesn't have a supposedly ex-heroin addict poster boy/girl.

now that's not to say that some or even a great many drug dealers and drug users are not "lowlife scum". i grew up amongst such "scum" and know them very well. but to assuming that criminals and drug dealers and users fit the stereotypes of what average, non familiar people think they are...well i for one found out constantly to my surprise that was almost never the case...and imo that's probably a big part of why the black economy constantly persists; it's not the criminals who are the ignorant ones but rather those who think they could pick out from a line up who all the criminals are.

Bashfluff:
[quote="the clockmaker" post="528.399073.16352166"][quote="Bashfluff" post="528.399073.16352082"]

1. I'm not advocating it. I'm saying that you're calling out racism and such when it just isn't there. You're being waaaaaay too over the top, and it doesn't belong in debate. I'm saying, hey, it's not that their lives are worth less, it's that if we decided to go to war--to make a point, not because this bitch is going to die--people will die. It's not because our lives are worth less. It's because they're the enemy.

2.I'm labeling the government and the culture barbaric, how they treat people. That is barbaric. End of. Also, define First World Country for me.

3. Someone is making some unjustified assumptions. It's fitting you call on jesus when you do this. IT's not racism. I'm not saying, "Indonesian's don't understand anything other than violence'. I said I could see where he was coming from, given how the governemnt was acting, given that THEY--which is a vague pronoun I never elaborated on--were barbaric and tended to over rely on violence. And countries like that do that for a reason, looking at history.

4.Again, you miss the point. My point is that there are times where you can condemn the laws of another. I'm not comparing them in any other way than that.

First, second, and third world countries are terms that were originally used to describe a cold war era.

First: Affiliated with Europe and America.
Second: Affiliated with the soviets.
Third: Unaligned.

First, second, and third are useless words from a bygone age that don't actually describe anything and we stop using them.

adamsaccount:
Now i wish this thread would die so everyone can forget that i didnt take my bipolar meds and declared war on indonesia

Frission:
You're too kind Blab. I would have had the equivalent of an epileptic fit if I had heard this revelation firsthand.

I don't even know what to say about this.

Look Adam, I doubt you're only taking cocaine and I hate to think of what that particular cocktail of drugs is doing to you.

Drugs and alcohol use and abuse isn't uncommon among people with bipolar if we find medication ineffective. I myself drank a lot from a young age, because it calmed me down, conversely I'd take some other things to peak me back up when I was very down.

It's not such a big deal unless he's snorting cocaine while cooking heroin to inject as he is popping ecstasy and washing it down with a pint sized mix of the four horsemen.

That said, the idea that it's "responsible use" in these cases is laughable. I just thought I'd mention it's not exactly uncommon.

[quote="the clockmaker" post="528.399073.16356871"][quote="Bashfluff" post="528.399073.16353912"]

1. You seem to be pulling the racist card out again, and that's really my whole point. I'm not saying we should go to war. I'm saying that people advocating it wouldn't be going on "our white lives are worth more of theirs"! Which is what you seemed to be implying. I don't like war myself, and I would not usually advocate it.

2. I understand that this is how they see these people, this is what is acceptable. I don't give a rat's ass about some obscure pieces of cultural information, and you can stop waving them in my face like they matter. They don't. What matters is how they treat others. That was my point.

Although the definition of First World is a little...unclear, that's the one that we seem to go with most these days. I'm saying that usually people are past this bullshit by the time they grow up and get to be a First World Country. Not ALL the time. But usually they're not going to do things like this.

3. Stop waving your, "I know more about Indonesia than you"...thing in my face. I know enough. I don't know the stupid, inane stuff you do, but I know enough. Okay? Okay.

I'm not willing to do that. Please, jump to more assumptions. I'm not for bombing. I'm not for bombing them for touching one woman either. I'm saying I can see where he's coming from. Is that a cardinal sin now? Is empathy equivalent to being the devil now?

4. You do not get to tell me what my point is. I present my claims to you. If you want to argue something that I never proposed instead of my actual arguments in order to make me look dumb, you're arguing a strawman. That's generally looked down upon, and for good reason.

What as exactly was going through her head when she thought the words - smuggling - Indonesia - drugs? Did she think this was going to go well? For fucks sake pretty much everyone knows you don't fuck about with drugs in that part of the world.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked