British woman gets death sentence

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Helmholtz Watson:

Bashfluff:

EVERYONE who is sane would think that discrimination of that sort is horrifying at best, tyranny of a sort that can push us back as a society. I view healthcare as a basic human right.

No its holding a person responsible for their actions, and if they want to willingly put poison in their body, then they should be held accountable for it, not me. I shouldn't be held accountable for their actions, because if that was the case then I would have every right to support a law that says you can't consume cocaine.

Nice personal attack btw.

By what? What would you have them do? If I play football and get a head injury, are people just supposed to throw up their hands and say, "WELL, YOU KNEW THE RISKS, NOW GET OUT!"? What about people who live in places where their house was likely to catch fire? Or people who live in tornado alley. This sort of responsibility IS tyranny of the worst kinda. It's not a personal attack. I would say you were dumb if the Earth was flat. I say that you are insane for trying to hold people responsible for their actions by denying them a basic human right. You'd rather have them DIE than get medical treatment, and that's just sick.

I suppose that you would treat people who smoked and got cancer the same way?

Bashfluff:

Helmholtz Watson:

Bashfluff:

EVERYONE who is sane would think that discrimination of that sort is horrifying at best, tyranny of a sort that can push us back as a society. I view healthcare as a basic human right.

No its holding a person responsible for their actions, and if they want to willingly put poison in their body, then they should be held accountable for it, not me. I shouldn't be held accountable for their actions, because if that was the case then I would have every right to support a law that says you can't consume cocaine.

Nice personal attack btw.

By what? What would you have them do? If I play football and get a head injury, are people just supposed to throw up their hands and say, "WELL, YOU KNEW THE RISKS, NOW GET OUT!"? What about people who live in places where their house was likely to catch fire? Or people who live in tornado alley. This sort of responsibility IS tyranny of the worst kinda. It's not a personal attack. I would say you were dumb if the Earth was flat. I say that you are insane for trying to hold people responsible for their actions by denying them a basic human right. You'd rather have them DIE than get medical treatment, and that's just sick.

I suppose that you would treat people who smoked and got cancer the same way?

In regards to your poor comparisons, Kopikatsu has already addressed this subject.

As for human right, no, a person who has no health insurance does not have a right to destroy their body and have me pick up the tab. Either you can do whatever you want to your body and pay for it if you you get sick or we can have laws that ban cocaine and have taxes help people get medical treatment for accidents that occur to them. You don't get it both ways.

Helmholtz Watson:

Bashfluff:

Helmholtz Watson:
No its holding a person responsible for their actions, and if they want to willingly put poison in their body, then they should be held accountable for it, not me. I shouldn't be held accountable for their actions, because if that was the case then I would have every right to support a law that says you can't consume cocaine.

Nice personal attack btw.

By what? What would you have them do? If I play football and get a head injury, are people just supposed to throw up their hands and say, "WELL, YOU KNEW THE RISKS, NOW GET OUT!"? What about people who live in places where their house was likely to catch fire? Or people who live in tornado alley. This sort of responsibility IS tyranny of the worst kinda. It's not a personal attack. I would say you were dumb if the Earth was flat. I say that you are insane for trying to hold people responsible for their actions by denying them a basic human right. You'd rather have them DIE than get medical treatment, and that's just sick.

I suppose that you would treat people who smoked and got cancer the same way?

In regards to your poor comparisons, Kopikatsu has already addressed this subject.

As for human right, no, a person who has no health insurance does not have a right to destroy their body and have me pick up the tab. Either you can do whatever you want to your body and pay for it if you you get sick or we can have laws that ban cocaine and have taxes help people get medical treatment for accidents that occur to them. You don't get it both ways.

Well if i had to choose id definetely go for funding my own insurance and legalising drugs. However this was the case in the usa before medicare, and drugs were not legalised so these are obviously not the only options. Id like to see drugs heavily taxed and the money used for the healthcare and rehabilitation of addicts.

adamsaccount:
However this was the case in the usa before medicare, and drugs were not legalised so these are obviously not the only options.

First off, I was referring to people who had no insurance. Second, Medicare is not used for people who feel like getting high or getting some rush off crack or heroine.

adamsaccount:
Id like to see drugs heavily taxed and the money used for the healthcare and rehabilitation of addicts.

And I'd like hard drugs to remain illegal so that I don't have to worry about being assault by some drug fiend.

Helmholtz Watson:

adamsaccount:
However this was the case in the usa before medicare, and drugs were not legalised so these are obviously not the only options.

First off, I was referring to people who had no insurance. Second, Medicare is not used for people who feel like getting high or getting some rush off crack or heroine.

adamsaccount:
Id like to see drugs heavily taxed and the money used for the healthcare and rehabilitation of addicts.

And I'd like hard drugs to remain illegal so that I don't have to worry about being assault by some drug fiend.

Okay then. Different points of view are welcome

Assault is assault and its always gonna be a crime

I dont really know enough about medicare to argue on that

don't get it both ways.[/quote]

Helmholtz Watson:

Bashfluff:

Helmholtz Watson:
No its holding a person responsible for their actions, and if they want to willingly put poison in their body, then they should be held accountable for it, not me. I shouldn't be held accountable for their actions, because if that was the case then I would have every right to support a law that says you can't consume cocaine.

Nice personal attack btw.

By what? What would you have them do? If I play football and get a head injury, are people just supposed to throw up their hands and say, "WELL, YOU KNEW THE RISKS, NOW GET OUT!"? What about people who live in places where their house was likely to catch fire? Or people who live in tornado alley. This sort of responsibility IS tyranny of the worst kinda. It's not a personal attack. I would say you were dumb if the Earth was flat. I say that you are insane for trying to hold people responsible for their actions by denying them a basic human right. You'd rather have them DIE than get medical treatment, and that's just sick.

I suppose that you would treat people who smoked and got cancer the same way?

In regards to your poor comparisons, Kopikatsu has already addressed this subject.

As for human right, no, a person who has no health insurance does not have a right to destroy their body and have me pick up the tab. Either you can do whatever you want to your body and pay for it if you you get sick or we can have laws that ban cocaine and have taxes help people get medical treatment for accidents that occur to them. You don't get it both ways.

No he did not. If you'd like to give it a try, you are welcome.

I'm saying that it is a human right, end of. If you think that means that everyone gets insurance like everyone gets car insurance, FINE. However you have to make it happen, make it happen. But it is a right.

Bashfluff:

I'm saying that it is a human right, end of.

You keep repeating your opinion as if it was fact, but its not. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself. Healthcare isn't a human right, its your opinion.

Helmholtz Watson:

Bashfluff:

I'm saying that it is a human right, end of.

You keep repeating your opinion as if it was fact, but its not. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself. Healthcare isn't a human right, its your opinion.

It is a fact in the same way that most other human rights are. I have the RIGHT to life. I have the RIGHT to free speech. It only matters if the people I live around let me have it, but I believe that healthcare is a human right, and if you want to let people die because you're too cheap, I have nothing more to say to you.

Bashfluff:

It is a fact in the same way that most other human rights are. I have the RIGHT to life. I have the RIGHT to free speech. It only matters if the people I live around let me have it, but I believe that healthcare is a human right

So do you have any sources to back up your claim that a drug abuser has a the human right to have medical attention if they have no insurance....or am I just supposed to take your word on it?

Bashfluff:
and if you want to let people die because you're too cheap, I have nothing more to say to you.

Now your strawmaning my argument, I'm not opposed to helping some old lady who felt on the icy sidewalk and broke her hip, I'm opposed to allowing a coke fiend to get medical treatment after he was repeatedly told that said drug is addictive and will only result in self harm.

Kopikatsu:

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 disagree with your point in general, but even more so considering this is a case of someone being sentenced to death for violating laws which shouldn't exist in the first place.

Bashfluff:

Helmholtz Watson:

Bashfluff:

EVERYONE who is sane would think that discrimination of that sort is horrifying at best, tyranny of a sort that can push us back as a society. I view healthcare as a basic human right.

No its holding a person responsible for their actions, and if they want to willingly put poison in their body, then they should be held accountable for it, not me. I shouldn't be held accountable for their actions, because if that was the case then I would have every right to support a law that says you can't consume cocaine.

Nice personal attack btw.

By what? What would you have them do? If I play football and get a head injury, are people just supposed to throw up their hands and say, "WELL, YOU KNEW THE RISKS, NOW GET OUT!"? What about people who live in places where their house was likely to catch fire? Or people who live in tornado alley. This sort of responsibility IS tyranny of the worst kinda. It's not a personal attack. I would say you were dumb if the Earth was flat. I say that you are insane for trying to hold people responsible for their actions by denying them a basic human right. You'd rather have them DIE than get medical treatment, and that's just sick.

I suppose that you would treat people who smoked and got cancer the same way?

Speaking as someone in California:

If their house is in danger of wild fires, they are rich. Very rich.

Because the property values of the outskirt hills (wildfire areas) are home to very higher-middle to high class houses. The "cliff mansions" you see every so often. People with far more financial flexibility than city dwellers.

So a rich person crying because they bought a 1-3 million dollar house in wildfire areas, which get a wild fire every summer, doesn't get much sympathy from anyone. Because building a house in the brush is like building your house on an active volcano that bursts every year.

Also: "responsibility is tyranny?" Really?

Helmholtz Watson:

Bashfluff:

It is a fact in the same way that most other human rights are. I have the RIGHT to life. I have the RIGHT to free speech. It only matters if the people I live around let me have it, but I believe that healthcare is a human right

So do you have any sources to back up your claim that a drug abuser has a the human right to have medical attention if they have no insurance....or am I just supposed to take your word on it?

Bashfluff:
and if you want to let people die because you're too cheap, I have nothing more to say to you.

Now your strawmaning my argument, I'm not opposed to helping some old lady who felt on the icy sidewalk and broke her hip, I'm opposed to allowing a coke fiend to get medical treatment after he was repeatedly told that said drug is addictive and will only result in self harm.

No, it's not a strawman. You are willing to let people die because you just don't want to foot the bill. Not all people, but yes, people will die. It's a human right like free speech is a right, like the right to life is a right. Inalienable rights, intrinsic rights, are not given by anyone else. There is no citation for them. They are. You can logically reason why they are so, but they aren't things that you recognize because "X says so".

Ultratwinkie:

Bashfluff:

Helmholtz Watson:
No its holding a person responsible for their actions, and if they want to willingly put poison in their body, then they should be held accountable for it, not me. I shouldn't be held accountable for their actions, because if that was the case then I would have every right to support a law that says you can't consume cocaine.

Nice personal attack btw.

By what? What would you have them do? If I play football and get a head injury, are people just supposed to throw up their hands and say, "WELL, YOU KNEW THE RISKS, NOW GET OUT!"? What about people who live in places where their house was likely to catch fire? Or people who live in tornado alley. This sort of responsibility IS tyranny of the worst kinda. It's not a personal attack. I would say you were dumb if the Earth was flat. I say that you are insane for trying to hold people responsible for their actions by denying them a basic human right. You'd rather have them DIE than get medical treatment, and that's just sick.

I suppose that you would treat people who smoked and got cancer the same way?

Speaking as someone in California:

If their house is in danger of wild fires, they are rich. Very rich.

Because the property values of the outskirt hills (wildfire areas) are home to very higher-middle to high class houses. The "cliff mansions" you see every so often. People with far more financial flexibility than city dwellers.

So a rich person crying because they bought a 1-3 million dollar house in wildfire areas, which get a wild fire every summer, doesn't get much sympathy from anyone. Because building a house in the brush is like building your house on an active volcano that bursts every year.

Also: "responsibility is tyranny?" Really?

THAT responsibility. Which I probably should have put in quotations. And I should have made my position more clear. I don't have much sympathy for someone who builds their house their either. But I still believe that the firefighters should show up and put out their fires. Even if I have to foot the bill a little bit. Because that's what you do in a civilized society.

Bashfluff:

No, it's not a strawman. You are willing to let people die because you just don't want to foot the bill.

No its not about money, its about me not being held accountable for them willingly destroying their own bodies after they have been repeatedly told that cocaine is addictive and only leads to self harm. I am not their mother or father, I don't have to pay for their devil-may-care attitude about their own health. They want to intentionally hurt themselves? Fine, but I'm not going to agree to pay for it. They have to take responsibility for their own actions.

Bashfluff:
Not all people, but yes, people will die. It's a human right like free speech is a right, like the right to life is a right. Inalienable rights, intrinsic rights, are not given by anyone else. There is no citation for them. They are. You can logically reason why they are so, but they aren't things that you recognize because "X says so".

So that is a no to the request that I don't just take your word for it? I'm not surprised because what your saying is completely subjective. Coke fiends don't have a right to knowingly destroy their own body and then expect me to pay for it, especially when I didn't inflict harm on them to begin with.

Helmholtz Watson:
Coke fiends don't have a right to knowingly destroy their own body and then expect me to pay for it when I didn't inflict harm on them to begin with.

Which do you think is cheaper; imprisoning a drug addict for a year OR treating a drug addict for a year?

Treatment is much cheaper, especially as, if successful, it stops the anti-social behaviour, while imprisonment just delays it.

Typically countries spend ~90% of the monies allocated for reducing the impacts of drugs on law enforcement (police, courts and prisons).

And after over 50 years of this spending there are more drugs then ever, both in quantity, potency and number of types.

TechNoFear:

Helmholtz Watson:
Coke fiends don't have a right to knowingly destroy their own body and then expect me to pay for it when I didn't inflict harm on them to begin with.

Which do you think is cheaper; imprisoning a drug addict for a year OR treating a drug addict for a year?

Treatment is much cheaper, especially as, if successful, it stops the anti-social behaviour, while imprisonment just delays it.

Typically countries spend ~90% of the monies allocated for reducing the impacts of drugs on law enforcement (police, courts and prisons).

And after over 50 years of this spending there are more drugs then ever, both in quantity, potency and number of types.

First off, I already stated that money wasn't the sole issue. Second, this isn't an argument about whether they should be in prison or in a treatment center, its about whether hard drugs should be legal, to which I said I would agree with that if it meant that I didn't have to pay for their hospital visit if they didn't have insurance.

Helmholtz Watson:

Bashfluff:

No, it's not a strawman. You are willing to let people die because you just don't want to foot the bill.

No its not about money, its about me not being held accountable for them willingly destroying their own bodies after they have been repeatedly told that cocaine is addictive and only leads to self harm. I am not their mother or father, I don't have to pay for their devil-may-care attitude about their own health. They want to intentionally hurt themselves? Fine, but I'm not going to agree to pay for it. They have to take responsibility for their own actions.

Bashfluff:
Not all people, but yes, people will die. It's a human right like free speech is a right, like the right to life is a right. Inalienable rights, intrinsic rights, are not given by anyone else. There is no citation for them. They are. You can logically reason why they are so, but they aren't things that you recognize because "X says so".

So that is a no to the request that I don't just take your word for it? I'm not surprised because what your saying is completely subjective. Coke fiends don't have a right to knowingly destroy their own body and then expect me to pay for it, especially when I didn't inflict harm on them to begin with.

You do realize that your "responsibility" means that, "No, you don't deserve medical treatment, even though all of these other people do dangerous things that they know are harmful, or risky. You have to take responsibility, even though the football player doesn't". And no, that's NOT a bad analogy.

Your "responsibility" will kill people. And that's just shameful.

"Coke fiends don't have a right to knowingly destroy their own body and then expect me to pay for it, especially when I didn't inflict harm on them to begin with."

Do you realize what you pay for with your taxes? Do you really know what you're paying for?

Bashfluff:

You do realize that your "responsibility" means that, "No, you don't deserve medical treatment, even though all of these other people do dangerous things that they know are harmful, or risky. You have to take responsibility, even though the football player doesn't". And no, that's NOT a bad analogy.

If a coke fiend has insurance, I'm not trying to deny them medical attention, I just don't support the idea that a coke fiend without medical insurance should get free treatment. As for your analogy, it sucks. The purpose of football isn't to intentionally get broken ribs or ankles, while the purpose of consuming coke is to get some kind of high while knowing that you are destroying your body.

Bashfluff:

Your "responsibility" will kill people. And that's just shameful.

If hard drugs were legal and a person knowingly consumes cocaine despite being told multiple times that it is addictive and can cause serious self harm, and they have no insurance, I shouldn't have to help pay the bill. If that means that they die because they chose to put them self in that situation under such direr circumstances then they are responsible for their own life, not me. I'm not their parents.

Bashfluff:

"Coke fiends don't have a right to knowingly destroy their own body and then expect me to pay for it, especially when I didn't inflict harm on them to begin with."

Do you realize what you pay for with your taxes? Do you really know what you're paying for?

Yes, I'm paying for the services I use(like driving on the road) and I'm paying to help fund the government and government programs.

Helmholtz Watson:

Bashfluff:

You do realize that your "responsibility" means that, "No, you don't deserve medical treatment, even though all of these other people do dangerous things that they know are harmful, or risky. You have to take responsibility, even though the football player doesn't". And no, that's NOT a bad analogy.

If a coke fiend has insurance, I'm not trying to deny them medical attention, I just don't support the idea that a coke fiend without medical insurance should get free treatment. As for your analogy, it sucks. The purpose of football isn't to intentionally get broken ribs or ankles, while the purpose of consuming coke is to get some kind of high while knowing that you are destroying your body.

Bashfluff:

Your "responsibility" will kill people. And that's just shameful.

If hard drugs were legal and a person knowingly consumes cocaine despite being told multiple times that it is addictive and can cause serious self harm, and they have no insurance, I shouldn't have to help pay the bill. If that means that they die because they chose to put them self in that situation under such direr circumstances then they are responsible for their own life, not me. I'm not their parents.

Bashfluff:

"Coke fiends don't have a right to knowingly destroy their own body and then expect me to pay for it, especially when I didn't inflict harm on them to begin with."

Do you realize what you pay for with your taxes? Do you really know what you're paying for?

Yes, I'm paying for the services I use(like driving on the road) and I'm paying to help fund the government and government programs.

The purpose of coke isn't too destroy your body! But it happens anyway. The purpose of football isn't to destroy your body! But it happens anyway.

They deserve to die because that's what responsibility is to you? How utterly fucked up is that? If someone jumped into a lake to avoid a falling building, and he started drowning, would you say, "Well, you should have known you couldn't swim. You put yourself in that situation, so you can just take responsibility and drown?" No, you're not their parents. That doesn't mean anything no matter how many times you say it! The government is supposed to provide for us. We fund it to provide services like the police, and the fire departments, and the CDC. We do this because we fund the government to work for us. To provide for us. When countries invade, it protects us. To say, "Hey, you put yourself in a shitty situation that's almost identical, if not so, to many other people because of an intrinsic part of the human condition, you can die because I don't want to spend part of the money I spend as part of the collective system to treat you" means that you do not understand what taxes are and what the government is for.

This is how I see it: You're either too cheap, you you're arguing that people on drugs who have bad shit happen to them deserve to die. And both of those are equally sick and make me glad you're not in charge.

I would imagine the British Embassy will intervene and have her imprisoned here in the UK under UK law. That's usually the case with citizens incarcerated abroad and I believe even more relevant when discussing the death sentence.

KingsGambit:
I would imagine the British Embassy will intervene and have her imprisoned here in the UK under UK law. That's usually the case with citizens incarcerated abroad and I believe even more relevant when discussing the death sentence.

Extremely doubtful. She filed for an appeal, but has no lawyer nor does she have money to hire one. They asked the British Government to foot the bill, but they refused. She's working with a charity organization, Reprieve, at the moment, but they were pretty unsuccessful. Unless she can pony up 2,500 soon, she's headed to the firing squad. Even if she does come up with the money, then the appeal might be denied anyway.

She's toast.

Bashfluff:

The purpose of coke isn't too destroy your body! But it happens anyway. The purpose of football isn't to destroy your body! But it happens anyway.

Actually, it is. The effects of most harmful drugs are such because of the damage they cause to the body. Cocaine, for instance, is a powerful stimulant- which is a large part of why it does what it does. But the effects of such a powerful stimulant (Constricts blood vessels and increases body temperature, heart rate, blood pressure, etc. It can even cause hypothermia in large doses.) causes severe damage, especially to the lungs and kidneys. There's also the fact that powered cocaine is cocaine hydrochloride. You might recognize that second word as a very powerful acid that's extremely corrosive to human tissue, which is also something that causes damage.

Here's an image of the possible conditions resulting from cocaine use to help reinforce that point: Uno.

These drugs aren't illegal because the big bad government doesn't like it when people have fun. They're banned because they'll destroy you. But, if you insist on saying that individual rights trump everything; here's an inquiry for you: How do you feel about suicide, and legislation surrounding suicide?

Kopikatsu:

KingsGambit:
I would imagine the British Embassy will intervene and have her imprisoned here in the UK under UK law. That's usually the case with citizens incarcerated abroad and I believe even more relevant when discussing the death sentence.

Extremely doubtful. She filed for an appeal, but has no lawyer nor does she have money to hire one. They asked the British Government to foot the bill, but they refused. She's working with a charity organization, Reprieve, at the moment, but they were pretty unsuccessful. Unless she can pony up 2,500 soon, she's headed to the firing squad. Even if she does come up with the money, then the appeal might be denied anyway.

She's toast.

Bashfluff:

The purpose of coke isn't too destroy your body! But it happens anyway. The purpose of football isn't to destroy your body! But it happens anyway.

Actually, it is. The effects of most harmful drugs are such because of the damage they cause to the body. Cocaine, for instance, is a powerful stimulant- which is a large part of why it does what it does. But the effects of such a powerful stimulant (Constricts blood vessels and increases body temperature, heart rate, blood pressure, etc. It can even cause hypothermia in large doses.) causes severe damage, especially to the lungs and kidneys. There's also the fact that powered cocaine is cocaine hydrochloride. You might recognize that second word as a very powerful acid that's extremely corrosive to human tissue, which is also something that causes damage.

Here's an image of the possible conditions resulting from cocaine use to help reinforce that point: Uno.

These drugs aren't illegal because the big bad government doesn't like it when people have fun. They're banned because they'll destroy you. But, if you insist on saying that individual rights trump everything; here's an inquiry for you: How do you feel about suicide, and legislation surrounding suicide?

Don't even fucking TRY to throw the HCL = dangerous bullshit out there. Do you have the slightest fucking clue about what you're talking about? All medications come as a salt form because the freebases are generally too unstable and/or not a nice convenient powder or crystal, hcl is just one example of a salt form any compound can take. It doesn't mean shit. It is NOT the same as hydrochloric acid. You should be fucking ashamed of yourself for trying and pull that bullshit, passing something off as fact when you don't have the slightest goddamn clue.

Yes, it constricts blood vessels and increases heart rate, those are side effects, they aren't the purpose of the drug, any more then liver damage is the purpose of paracetamol.

You don't have a clue about drugs, that's fine, just don't post as if anything you say carries factual weight.

Shpongled:

Don't even fucking TRY to throw the HCL = dangerous bullshit out there. Do you have the slightest fucking clue about what you're talking about? All medications come as a salt form because the freebases are generally too unstable and/or not a nice convenient powder or crystal, hcl is just one example of a salt form any compound can take. It doesn't mean shit. It is NOT the same as hydrochloric acid. You should be fucking ashamed of yourself for trying and pull that bullshit, passing something off as fact when you don't have the slightest goddamn clue.

Yes, it constricts blood vessels and increases heart rate, those are side effects, they aren't the purpose of the drug, any more then liver damage is the purpose of paracetamol.

You don't have a clue about drugs, that's fine, just don't post as if anything you say carries factual weight.

When inhaled, the body absorbs the cocaine in cocaine hydrochloride. Once the hydrochloride is by itself, it dilutes into hydrochloric acid. This is what 'coke nose' is, when the acid burns through the cartilage that separates the nostrils and causes the nose to collapse.

Source: Pagliaros' Comprehensive Guide to Drugs and Substances of Abuse.

Edit: By the by, the by. I put you on my ignore list, 'cause you're not really someone I wish to even attempt to hold a conversation with. So no need to respond to this post.

Kopikatsu:

KingsGambit:
I would imagine the British Embassy will intervene and have her imprisoned here in the UK under UK law. That's usually the case with citizens incarcerated abroad and I believe even more relevant when discussing the death sentence.

Extremely doubtful. She filed for an appeal, but has no lawyer nor does she have money to hire one. They asked the British Government to foot the bill, but they refused. She's working with a charity organization, Reprieve, at the moment, but they were pretty unsuccessful. Unless she can pony up 2,500 soon, she's headed to the firing squad. Even if she does come up with the money, then the appeal might be denied anyway.

She's toast.

Bashfluff:

The purpose of coke isn't too destroy your body! But it happens anyway. The purpose of football isn't to destroy your body! But it happens anyway.

Actually, it is. The effects of most harmful drugs are such because of the damage they cause to the body. Cocaine, for instance, is a powerful stimulant- which is a large part of why it does what it does. But the effects of such a powerful stimulant (Constricts blood vessels and increases body temperature, heart rate, blood pressure, etc. It can even cause hypothermia in large doses.) causes severe damage, especially to the lungs and kidneys. There's also the fact that powered cocaine is cocaine hydrochloride. You might recognize that second word as a very powerful acid that's extremely corrosive to human tissue, which is also something that causes damage.

Here's an image of the possible conditions resulting from cocaine use to help reinforce that point: Uno.

These drugs aren't illegal because the big bad government doesn't like it when people have fun. They're banned because they'll destroy you. But, if you insist on saying that individual rights trump everything; here's an inquiry for you: How do you feel about suicide, and legislation surrounding suicide?

I dont think there should be any legislation banning suicide. I tried to bring it up before because it seems comparable. I dont see why legislators should decide that you have to keep yourself living regardless of any terminal amount of pain you might be in.

For me it just comes down to legislators overstepping the mark. Would the world be better if no one wanted to commit suicide or take drugs? Maybe, but this will never be the case.
This and legalised assisted suicide are the only 2 issues I would really like to change about the world

edit: also nuclear disarmament

Fun fact, suicide was legalised in the UK in 1961

Also, the point of universal healthcare is that no one gets to decide who deserves treatment or not.

Hmmm, well people are going to hate on my opinion here.

On one hand I don't think the sentence is unreasonable. When it comes to certain issues the only way to stop them is to kill the people involved. I think one of the reasons why attempts at Probitions (alchohol or War On Drugs) fail is because of the general lack of will involved in enforcing the bans. People will generally endure the risks when there are millions of dollars to be made, or if they are addicted to a substance. I'm very much for killing drug dealers and drug smugglers, and have made myself very popular among the left wing for suggesting a "three strikes" policy on rehab. Basically if you relapse after the third time it's the death penelty for Mr. Junkie. Truthfully this is less because of the guys on the street (though they contribute to it) as much as very rich celebrities who do all kinds of junk while illegally intoxicated, perhaps even killing people in car accidents, buy their way out of it, and then go to rehab. Some celebs doing this dance 10-12 times over a lifetime and racking up a library of offenses, they just don't care because they are rich and famous and can do whatever. Hence the whole point about the rehab dodge only working three times, and really if rehab doesn't work prison and it's rehab isn't going to really work either, all it is, is the low-budget public works version of the celebrity clinic. Sorry of he's your favorite rock star, three and he's out.

I'll also say that old people are some of the worst criminals out there (and I know this from working casino security) a lot of them believe they can get away with nearly anything because they are old and by pretending to be fuzzy in the head or whatever, and then use their age as an excuse to not be "handled". Shoplifting, bonus jumping, general flea behavior, pick pocketing, etc... they do it all. Just because some sweet old lady looks like she could be your grandmother doesn't mean she's not total scum. Bad people grow up to be old too. Some 50+ year old grandmother
smuggling drugs... yeah, I can see it easily, a pay day is a pay day. A good mule is someone you wouldn't stereotypically suspect, and claiming you were forced is pretty much "drug mule dodge #1".

Now if this hasn't enraged people yet, I'll get on to the other hand, where I'm going to explain why I don't think this lady should be executed:

It's bloody Bali, I don't trust their goverment or law enforcement. The very fact that they went for a more severe penelty than initially suggested makes me think that they are all psyched up for the power trip inherant in executing a person from a first world country to prove they can do it. Sort of like what China pulled with caning David Faye many years ago, but to a differant extreme.

I believe a first world citizen is entitled to trial by first world standards, not those of the second and third world, no matter where they travel. To me, a third rate country like Bali should turn over criminals like this to the most appropriate Embassy and throw them out of their country, but otherwise not be able to do anything. This very attitude and general practice is also probably why they are all psyched for an execution, to prove that the first world is failing.

It's sort of like how in the old days a Roman citizen could walk the breadth of the known world in peace and safety b
ecause he (and everyone else) knew that if anything happened to them, the vengeance of Rome would be swift, and terrible. Nowadays there is a tendency to look at the developed western world like the decline of rome and pretty much say "hey, look what we can do".

The very way this trial and sentence went down stinks in of itself. The appropriate response is to send in a bunch of those nasty Royal Marine Commandos I hear so much about, break her out of jail, and have the UK pretty much tell Bali to go pound sand. It would send a message to the second and third world that the first world prefers to act diplomatically, but at the end of the day we're not going to let a bunch of comparitive backwards savages execute "our" citizens in kangaroo courts. The US, UK, France, Australia, Canada, etc... should cooperate more often in this, whether it's a situation in Bali, or some dual citizen being stoned to death by Islamic Tribals for not marrying their rapist or whatever.

It's not nice, it's not politically correct, and it's not "fair", but it's how I feel. Not all societies and justice systems are created equal.

Right now to my thinking the worst thing the UK could do is try and handle this diplomatically and cut deals behind the scenes, because that will just encourage second and third world nations to take first world citizens hostage in their "justice systems".

Oh, but one other important caveat here, when brought back to the UK I think she should be put on trial under UK law where drug smuggling is also illegal. Granted it has comparitively paintywaist penelties (as my first part explained) but I believe a first world citizen is entitled to first world justice.

adamsaccount:

I dont think there should be any legislation banning suicide. I tried to bring it up before because it seems comparable. I dont see why legislators should decide that you have to keep yourself living regardless of any terminal amount of pain you might be in.

For me it just comes down to legislators overstepping the mark. Would the world be better if no one wanted to commit suicide or take drugs? Maybe, but this will never be the case.
This and legalised assisted suicide are the only 2 issues I would really like to change about the world

In that case; here's the thing:

Life insurance will not pay out if you commit suicide, regardless of the legality of suicide itself. This is reasonable, yes? Because anyone could just take out a million dollar policy and then off themselves if their family really needed the money (This is something that has happened in the past.)

If you agree it's reasonable, then why is it different with drugs and health insurance? You can and will be denied health insurance based on pre-existing conditions, because there is a strong chance that you will need treatment for that condition, which defeats the purpose of insurance in the first place. Same for drugs, if you're a drug addict, then there will be medical issues that need to be taken care of...which is exactly why they'll deny you.

If you think it's unreasonable, how do you justify forcing the life/health insurance companies to pay out for that?

Edit: As for the second part; may as well make everything, including murder and rape legal. Because if it's legal, then no laws ever get broken! 'X is a bad law because people will break it anyway' is never a legitimate point.

Kopikatsu:

adamsaccount:

I dont think there should be any legislation banning suicide. I tried to bring it up before because it seems comparable. I dont see why legislators should decide that you have to keep yourself living regardless of any terminal amount of pain you might be in.

For me it just comes down to legislators overstepping the mark. Would the world be better if no one wanted to commit suicide or take drugs? Maybe, but this will never be the case.
This and legalised assisted suicide are the only 2 issues I would really like to change about the world

In that case; here's the thing:

Life insurance will not pay out if you commit suicide. This is reasonable, yes? Because anyone could just take out a million dollar policy and then off themselves if their family really needed the money (This is something that has happened in the past.)

If you agree it's reasonable, then why is it different with drugs and health insurance? You can and will be denied health insurance based on pre-existing conditions, because there is a strong chance that you will need treatment for that condition, which defeats the purpose of insurance in the first place. Same for drugs, if you're a drug addict, then there will be medical issues that need to be taken care of...which is exactly why they'll deny you.

If you think it's unreasonable, how do you justify forcing the life/health insurance companies to pay out for that?

Firstly, I dont think its reasonable for life insurance countries to refuse to pay out in the case of suicides. I just dont see people being willing to kill themselves en masse to get their families money. If this does happen which no doubt it very rarely does, then the grieving families have just as much claim as anyone else to that money in my opinion. I dont see how the manner of your death should effect this, your family have lost just as much. It could be viewed as a loophole,but If your willing to kill yourself to give your family a better life then more power to you. Its so extreme that i think in the end yes the claim is valid.

I dont really know about and was never really arguing in regards to health insurance, i was brought up in Britain where you'll be treated with whatever you need for free regardless of the reason you need treatment, and i think this is the best possible system. However, in a system where you need to buy insurance i agree that it is reasonable for drug users to pay higher costs for health insurance or be refused it as they are making a sometimes dangerous lifestyle cost.

Anyway i cant really debate insurance with any authority, but i can say this, the insurance companies should serve the people, and not the other way round

Therumancer:
Hmmm, well people are going to hate on my opinion here.

On one hand I don't think the sentence is unreasonable. When it comes to certain issues the only way to stop them is to kill the people involved. I think one of the reasons why attempts at Probitions (alchohol or War On Drugs) fail is because of the general lack of will involved in enforcing the bans. People will generally endure the risks when there are millions of dollars to be made, or if they are addicted to a substance. I'm very much for killing drug dealers and drug smugglers, and have made myself very popular among the left wing for suggesting a "three strikes" policy on rehab. Basically if you relapse after the third time it's the death penelty for Mr. Junkie. Truthfully this is less because of the guys on the street (though they contribute to it) as much as very rich celebrities who do all kinds of junk while illegally intoxicated, perhaps even killing people in car accidents, buy their way out of it, and then go to rehab. Some celebs doing this dance 10-12 times over a lifetime and racking up a library of offenses, they just don't care because they are rich and famous and can do whatever. Hence the whole point about the rehab dodge only working three times, and really if rehab doesn't work prison and it's rehab isn't going to really work either, all it is, is the low-budget public works version of the celebrity clinic. Sorry of he's your favorite rock star, three and he's out.

I'll also say that old people are some of the worst criminals out there (and I know this from working casino security) a lot of them believe they can get away with nearly anything because they are old and by pretending to be fuzzy in the head or whatever, and then use their age as an excuse to not be "handled". Shoplifting, bonus jumping, general flea behavior, pick pocketing, etc... they do it all. Just because some sweet old lady looks like she could be your grandmother doesn't mean she's not total scum. Bad people grow up to be old too. Some 50+ year old grandmother
smuggling drugs... yeah, I can see it easily, a pay day is a pay day. A good mule is someone you wouldn't stereotypically suspect, and claiming you were forced is pretty much "drug mule dodge #1".

Now if this hasn't enraged people yet, I'll get on to the other hand, where I'm going to explain why I don't think this lady should be executed:

It's bloody Bali, I don't trust their goverment or law enforcement. The very fact that they went for a more severe penelty than initially suggested makes me think that they are all psyched up for the power trip inherant in executing a person from a first world country to prove they can do it. Sort of like what China pulled with caning David Faye many years ago, but to a differant extreme.

I believe a first world citizen is entitled to trial by first world standards, not those of the second and third world, no matter where they travel. To me, a third rate country like Bali should turn over criminals like this to the most appropriate Embassy and throw them out of their country, but otherwise not be able to do anything. This very attitude and general practice is also probably why they are all psyched for an execution, to prove that the first world is failing.

It's sort of like how in the old days a Roman citizen could walk the breadth of the known world in peace and safety b
ecause he (and everyone else) knew that if anything happened to them, the vengeance of Rome would be swift, and terrible. Nowadays there is a tendency to look at the developed western world like the decline of rome and pretty much say "hey, look what we can do".

The very way this trial and sentence went down stinks in of itself. The appropriate response is to send in a bunch of those nasty Royal Marine Commandos I hear so much about, break her out of jail, and have the UK pretty much tell Bali to go pound sand. It would send a message to the second and third world that the first world prefers to act diplomatically, but at the end of the day we're not going to let a bunch of comparitive backwards savages execute "our" citizens in kangaroo courts. The US, UK, France, Australia, Canada, etc... should cooperate more often in this, whether it's a situation in Bali, or some dual citizen being stoned to death by Islamic Tribals for not marrying their rapist or whatever.

It's not nice, it's not politically correct, and it's not "fair", but it's how I feel. Not all societies and justice systems are created equal.

Right now to my thinking the worst thing the UK could do is try and handle this diplomatically and cut deals behind the scenes, because that will just encourage second and third world nations to take first world citizens hostage in their "justice systems".

Oh, but one other important caveat here, when brought back to the UK I think she should be put on trial under UK law where drug smuggling is also illegal. Granted it has comparitively paintywaist penelties (as my first part explained) but I believe a first world citizen is entitled to first world justice.

While i vehemently disagree with everything you said up until the third paragraph, the last bit makes a lot of sense to me, and is what i was getting at if you read some of my first posts. Protect and serve, as the police force motto goes.

I remember a Russian hostage crisis that Putin solved by saying "give us back our people or we will fucking destroy you" except in russian and with less swearing.

Kopikatsu:
These drugs aren't illegal because the big bad government doesn't like it when people have fun. They're banned because they'll destroy you.

They really aren't given that many governments not only allow the sale of alcohol and tobacco, but in some places, are the only ones allowed to operate the stores that sell one or the other. Government has never banned anything for the good of the people alone. In fact, if the good of the people were even on their radar, these drugs wouldn't be illegal, they wouldn't be giving criminals sole control of a multi-billion dollar industry, they wouldn't be making more criminals by forcing those who want drugs to deal with criminals and incarcerating people for minor drug charges, and they would spend a lot more of that money they waste on throwing people in prison on drug rehab for those who need it.

But sure, go ahead and continue assuming that drugs are illegal for your own good when many experts who have spent years working with government agencies fighting the drug war and people who've spent years studying frequently agree that it isn't working and is actually making things worse. But then again, if those drugs were made legal, the government would have to dismantle agencies like the DEA and all of their offices within the US and outside of it. Which I doubt many politicians would really be in a hurry to do since it's one of the bigger departments there is, and they aren't actually concerned about the immorality of drug laws or the fact that they actively contribute to higher crime rates by and large. Trusting government to have your best interests at heart with every piece of legislation, and worse, buying into simplistic explanations of complex problems that they like to pass out as propaganda to keep people from recognizing the real problem is as naive as it gets and far more dangerous for the masses to engage in than any drug use.

But, if you insist on saying that individual rights trump everything; here's an inquiry for you: How do you feel about suicide, and legislation surrounding suicide?

I know of absolutely no western nation where suicide is illegal, or where someone can even be held indefinitely if they are believed to be suicidal.

adamsaccount:
I dont think there should be any legislation banning suicide. I tried to bring it up before because it seems comparable. I dont see why legislators should decide that you have to keep yourself living regardless of any terminal amount of pain you might be in.

That's a false dilemma. There's euthenasia and palliative care. If you're in so much pain morphine doesn't block it out anymore, you can request a dose that'll block out the pain (oh, and kill you) pretty much in any country.

What you don't want however, is pricks killing themselves by jumping off buildings or in front of trains. Everybody who's present for that remembers it the rest of their life. Or they put a gun to their head, and other people can have jolly good fun cleaning up all the blood. That's why you stop suicide, and pretty much everyone who commits suicide is an asshole. If your life is a burden, that's no excuse to make your death someone else's burden.

Vivi22:
I disagree with your point in general, but even more so considering this is a case of someone being sentenced to death for violating laws which shouldn't exist in the first place.

Because the drug trade that claims more lives every year than your average war, is a good thing? 0.o

Blablahb:

adamsaccount:
I dont think there should be any legislation banning suicide. I tried to bring it up before because it seems comparable. I dont see why legislators should decide that you have to keep yourself living regardless of any terminal amount of pain you might be in.

That's a false dilemma. There's euthenasia and palliative care. If you're in so much pain morphine doesn't block it out anymore, you can request a dose that'll block out the pain (oh, and kill you) pretty much in any country.

What you don't want however, is pricks killing themselves by jumping off buildings or in front of trains. Everybody who's present for that remembers it the rest of their life. Or they put a gun to their head, and other people can have jolly good fun cleaning up all the blood. That's why you stop suicide, and pretty much everyone who commits suicide is an asshole. If your life is a burden, that's no excuse to make your death someone else's burden.

Vivi22:
I disagree with your point in general, but even more so considering this is a case of someone being sentenced to death for violating laws which shouldn't exist in the first place.

Because the drug trade that claims more lives every year than your average war, is a good thing? 0.o

Well im glad we found something we can agree on. My grandfather who died of lung cancer waited until we could visit and say goodbye before getting an overdose, and im so glad that he was able to. However, for people with things like locked in syndrome i think weve got to put a foolproof system in place so they have this right too.

Kopikatsu:

KingsGambit:
I would imagine the British Embassy will intervene and have her imprisoned here in the UK under UK law. That's usually the case with citizens incarcerated abroad and I believe even more relevant when discussing the death sentence.

Extremely doubtful. She filed for an appeal, but has no lawyer nor does she have money to hire one. They asked the British Government to foot the bill, but they refused. She's working with a charity organization, Reprieve, at the moment, but they were pretty unsuccessful. Unless she can pony up 2,500 soon, she's headed to the firing squad. Even if she does come up with the money, then the appeal might be denied anyway.

She's toast.

Bashfluff:

The purpose of coke isn't too destroy your body! But it happens anyway. The purpose of football isn't to destroy your body! But it happens anyway.

Actually, it is. The effects of most harmful drugs are such because of the damage they cause to the body. Cocaine, for instance, is a powerful stimulant- which is a large part of why it does what it does. But the effects of such a powerful stimulant (Constricts blood vessels and increases body temperature, heart rate, blood pressure, etc. It can even cause hypothermia in large doses.) causes severe damage, especially to the lungs and kidneys. There's also the fact that powered cocaine is cocaine hydrochloride. You might recognize that second word as a very powerful acid that's extremely corrosive to human tissue, which is also something that causes damage.

Here's an image of the possible conditions resulting from cocaine use to help reinforce that point: Uno.

These drugs aren't illegal because the big bad government doesn't like it when people have fun. They're banned because they'll destroy you. But, if you insist on saying that individual rights trump everything; here's an inquiry for you: How do you feel about suicide, and legislation surrounding suicide?

I'm not arguing EFFECTS. I'm arguing INTENT. No one wants to destroy their body. It's an unfortunate side effect. And quite frankly, I couldn't care less about about what the government wants to do to keep me from ingesting whatever I want into my body. It's my body. And if the government wants to try and ban things that will destroy my body, they have a lot of work to do.

Insofar as my suicide stance....

What rights do you really have if you don't have the right over your own life? None, really.

Bashfluff:

Kopikatsu:

KingsGambit:
I would imagine the British Embassy will intervene and have her imprisoned here in the UK under UK law. That's usually the case with citizens incarcerated abroad and I believe even more relevant when discussing the death sentence.

Extremely doubtful. She filed for an appeal, but has no lawyer nor does she have money to hire one. They asked the British Government to foot the bill, but they refused. She's working with a charity organization, Reprieve, at the moment, but they were pretty unsuccessful. Unless she can pony up 2,500 soon, she's headed to the firing squad. Even if she does come up with the money, then the appeal might be denied anyway.

She's toast.

Bashfluff:

The purpose of coke isn't too destroy your body! But it happens anyway. The purpose of football isn't to destroy your body! But it happens anyway.

Actually, it is. The effects of most harmful drugs are such because of the damage they cause to the body. Cocaine, for instance, is a powerful stimulant- which is a large part of why it does what it does. But the effects of such a powerful stimulant (Constricts blood vessels and increases body temperature, heart rate, blood pressure, etc. It can even cause hypothermia in large doses.) causes severe damage, especially to the lungs and kidneys. There's also the fact that powered cocaine is cocaine hydrochloride. You might recognize that second word as a very powerful acid that's extremely corrosive to human tissue, which is also something that causes damage.

Here's an image of the possible conditions resulting from cocaine use to help reinforce that point: Uno.

These drugs aren't illegal because the big bad government doesn't like it when people have fun. They're banned because they'll destroy you. But, if you insist on saying that individual rights trump everything; here's an inquiry for you: How do you feel about suicide, and legislation surrounding suicide?

I'm not arguing EFFECTS. I'm arguing INTENT. No one wants to destroy their body. It's an unfortunate side effect. And quite frankly, I couldn't care less about about what the government wants to do to keep me from ingesting whatever I want into my body. It's my body. And if the government wants to try and ban things that will destroy my body, they have a lot of work to do.

Insofar as my suicide stance....

What rights do you really have if you don't have the right over your own life? None, really.

My thoughts exactly

Shpongled:
-snip-

Glad we got that cleared up. Still against legalization, as far as non-perscription, for-fun-use, of drugs. Hell, I'd even be on board for more stringent laws regarding tobacco products and alcohol.

Kopikatsu:

Shpongled:

Don't even fucking TRY to throw the HCL = dangerous bullshit out there. Do you have the slightest fucking clue about what you're talking about? All medications come as a salt form because the freebases are generally too unstable and/or not a nice convenient powder or crystal, hcl is just one example of a salt form any compound can take. It doesn't mean shit. It is NOT the same as hydrochloric acid. You should be fucking ashamed of yourself for trying and pull that bullshit, passing something off as fact when you don't have the slightest goddamn clue.

Yes, it constricts blood vessels and increases heart rate, those are side effects, they aren't the purpose of the drug, any more then liver damage is the purpose of paracetamol.

You don't have a clue about drugs, that's fine, just don't post as if anything you say carries factual weight.

When inhaled, the body absorbs the cocaine in cocaine hydrochloride. Once the hydrochloride is by itself, it dilutes into hydrochloric acid. This is what 'coke nose' is, when the acid burns through the cartilage that separates the nostrils and causes the nose to collapse.

Source: Pagliaros' Comprehensive Guide to Drugs and Substances of Abuse.

Edit: By the by, the by. I put you on my ignore list, 'cause you're not really someone I wish to even attempt to hold a conversation with. So no need to respond to this post.

That's not how it works. I see you've taken the quote and source directly from wikipedia, either wikipedia has't checked the source or the source is simply wrong, because that's now how it works.

The HCl is part of the cocaine compound, the compound as a whole is absorbed through the membranes. The compound is not reformed when diluted in water. Cocaine HCl is neutral, it's not an acidic burn that causes the damage to the nasal passages, it's constricted blood flow from the cocaine's vasoconstriction.

I don't care if you'v ignored me or not, i'm posted this to correct the misinformation that you're spreading. I can see why you wouldn't particularly enjoy a discussion with someone who repeatedly pointing out why you're wrong, but i hope you'd be able to see the other side of it, how frustrating it is having a discussion with someone who has no qualms whatsoever with making baseless assumptions and passing them off as fact.

Im just going to add this

"Sit back picture yourself swooping up a shell of purple with foam crests of crystal drops soft nigh they fall unto the sea of morning creep-very-softly mist...and then sort of cascade tinkley-bell like (must I take you by the hand, every so slowly type) and then conglomerate suddenly into a peal of silver vibrant uncomprehendingly, blood singingly, joyously resounding bells....By my faith if this be insanity, then for the love of God permit me to remain insane."

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked