British woman gets death sentence

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
 

Bashfluff:
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.

So you will probably be in favour of legalising assault then? After all, if I feel like beating someone up, who is the government to declare I can't inflict harm on society just for the heck of it, just like a drug user does?

Shpongled:
I don't care if you'v ignored me or not,

He's citing a medical book. You're a druggie who's making Pavlov happy with this debate.

I know who gets higher ratings for reliability.

Blablahb:

Bashfluff:
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.

So you will probably be in favour of legalising assault then? After all, if I feel like beating someone up, who is the government to declare I can't inflict harm on society just for the heck of it, just like a drug user does?

Shpongled:
I don't care if you'v ignored me or not,

He's citing a medical book. You're a druggie who's making Pavlov happy with this debate.

I know who gets higher ratings for reliability.

Blablahb no ones arguing for legalising assault. What were arguing for is the ability to consume what we like in the privacy of our own homes.

All your argument seems to consist of is that it damages society. Well, some drug users who go out stealing and mugging to feed their habit most certainly ARE damaging society, and they are breaking additional PROPER laws that negatively impact other people, for which they should be punished. (forced rehab sounds good to me now) You dont need drugs to be illegal to stop people like this.

If youve got to lump us in the same little box in your head as muggers just to justify your point of view then thats just stupid.

If i were to consume a tab of acid in front of the discovery channel one afternoon then what damage does that do to society? Why should this be illegal? Please explain it to me because I don't get it.

Sure i could be out feeding orphans or giving shoes to the homeless but aside from the lack of doing something positive for other people i really dont see the harm. As you just said to you its as bad as beating someone up so please explain why.

edit: also you work in a rehab clinic and use the word druggie to insult people? Keep it classy

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.

Judging by the costs of beriatric medical care, we should probably enact a prohibition on junk food to protect society from the food addicts. If you don't like your rations of water, bread, and greens, you're a worthless hedonistic hippie who needs to be put down.

adamsaccount:
Blablahb no ones arguing for legalising assault. What were arguing for is the ability to consume what we like in the privacy of our own homes.
All your argument seems to consist of is that it damages society. Well, some drug users who go out stealing and mugging to feed their habit most certainly ARE damaging society, and they are breaking additional PROPER laws that negatively impact other people, for which they should be punished.

Except there's a much larger bunch out there who end up with health damage. Also that supposed minority (which has never been shown to be a minority) causes so much trouble and is so difficult to stop that they're a legit argument, especially since legalising drug abuse would skyrocket their numbers. The number of addicts could easily double or triple, experiences in countries where a type of drug is very easy to get show that, and these people perpetrate the majority of crime, so crime as a whole and all the asociated costs could realistically double as well.

And then you're easily talking billions of euros in damages done by drug legalisation.

I think a much better reason then "But I want to get high" is needed to do that.

adamsaccount:
If i were to consume a tab of acid in front of the discovery channel one afternoon then what damage does that do to society?

That's a question many asked themselves, after which they remember nothing untill waking up in the ER.

lowhat:
Judging by the costs of beriatric medical care, we should probably enact a prohibition on junk food to protect society from the food addicts. If you don't like your rations of water, bread, and greens, you're a worthless hedonistic hippie who needs to be put down.

That's a stupid comparison for the same reasons as mentioned with alcohol.

Blablahb:

Bashfluff:
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.

So you will probably be in favour of legalising assault then? After all, if I feel like beating someone up, who is the government to declare I can't inflict harm on society just for the heck of it, just like a drug user does?

Shpongled:
I don't care if you'v ignored me or not,

He's citing a medical book. You're a druggie who's making Pavlov happy with this debate.

I know who gets higher ratings for reliability.

NO. I'm arguing rights over your OWN body. Not other people's bodies. Your own. Do you understand my argument?

Blablahb:

adamsaccount:
Blablahb no ones arguing for legalising assault. What were arguing for is the ability to consume what we like in the privacy of our own homes.
All your argument seems to consist of is that it damages society. Well, some drug users who go out stealing and mugging to feed their habit most certainly ARE damaging society, and they are breaking additional PROPER laws that negatively impact other people, for which they should be punished.

Except there's a much larger bunch out there who end up with health damage. Also that supposed minority (which has never been shown to be a minority) causes so much trouble and is so difficult to stop that they're a legit argument, especially since legalising drug abuse would skyrocket their numbers. The number of addicts could easily double or triple, experiences in countries where a type of drug is very easy to get show that, and these people perpetrate the majority of crime, so crime as a whole and all the asociated costs could realistically double as well.

And then you're easily talking billions of euros in damages done by drug legalisation.

I think a much better reason then "But I want to get high" is needed to do that.

adamsaccount:
If i were to consume a tab of acid in front of the discovery channel one afternoon then what damage does that do to society?

That's a question many asked themselves, after which they remember nothing untill waking up in the ER.

lowhat:
Judging by the costs of beriatric medical care, we should probably enact a prohibition on junk food to protect society from the food addicts. If you don't like your rations of water, bread, and greens, you're a worthless hedonistic hippie who needs to be put down.

That's a stupid comparison for the same reasons as mentioned with alcohol.

You continue to miss the point and give people's questions the run around. Just answer this.

Why do you care if I went home and and did some drugs now? Why can I not control what goes into my own body? If I by my drugs with money I didn't steal from anyone, stay at home away from kids, and don't come out till I'm sober, would you still care?

And comparing legalizing drugs to legalizing assault is pure idiocy. One is self harm, the other is hurting other people against their will

So... did we all agree that it's not the smartest of ideas to try and smuggle drugs into a country where it's a capital crime?

Shpongled:

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.

Right then, let's solve that issue, shall we?

The Wikipedia source isn't the best because it lacks page numbers and I haven't been able to find any good internet source to browse through it and find it myself (Google Books not much help there). And while I'd love to I am not really willing to purchase a 60€ book just for that. Anyhow, I can present you with another source by the same author: p65, The Handbook of Child and Adolescent Drug and Substance Abuse: Pharmacological, Developmental, and Clinical Considerations by Louis A. & Ann Marie Pagliaro

I'll be taking the time to type it all out for you:

Intranasal insufflation of cocain hydrochloride is associated with both minor irritation and severe injury to the nasal mucous membranes and the underlying structures.
[...]
The minor irritation and more serious injury are caused by the direct action of cocaine (i.e., vasoconstriction) on the surrounding skin and mucous membranes and by the direct irritation of the hydrochloride salt form of cocaine, which, when it comes into contact with nasal secretions, forms a dilute but irritating solution of hydrochloric acid.

Yes, HCl is the salt form of cocaine, which on itself is a weak base, and together with the acidic HCl forms a neutral compound[1] that is very soluble in both water and fat and thus makes it exellent for intake through mucous membranes. Because of this the salt is also the preferred compound for medical use as a local anesthetic[2], though there's a huge difference between a short-term local and habitual usage in terms of dosage and application.

However, nasal mucous contains various enzymes, proteins, salts, immunoglobulins and other things to react with[3]. Have a look at the spoiler, the first molecule is cocaine, the second one the hydrochloride form.


Notice the N+ and Cl- there, this is what makes the good solubility (polarized molecules are good at interacting with other polarized molecules such as water[4]), but also means that the link is prone to reacting when given proper partners. And when the Nitrogen gets itself a CH3 to become neutral it's only logical that the HCl is freed and can go at it in your nose.

The compound as a whole is what gets absorbed, that is correct, yet the bioavailability of nasally ingested cocaine (hydrichloride) is only around 50%[5] (being generous, more in the 30s actually) which means that you have quite a bit of every dose you take stuck in the defensive mechanisms of the nasal cavity where it can react and release a bit of HCl every time. Multiply that with habitual usage of maybe a few times a week over a long period of time and you've got a slowly corroding process.

And I can understand why he wouldn't want to discuss with you, your way of discussion involves quite a bit of swearing and allegations. Please try to stay civil when you want to hold a discussion. Also, sources would be nice.

Quaxar:

Shpongled:

Kopikatsu:

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.

Right then, let's solve that issue, shall we?

The Wikipedia source isn't the best because it lacks page numbers and I haven't been able to find any good internet source to browse through it and find it myself (Google Books not much help there). And while I'd love to I am not really willing to purchase a 60€ book just for that. Anyhow, I can present you with another source by the same author: p65, The Handbook of Child and Adolescent Drug and Substance Abuse: Pharmacological, Developmental, and Clinical Considerations by Louis A. & Ann Marie Pagliaro

I'll be taking the time to type it all out for you:

Intranasal insufflation of cocain hydrochloride is associated with both minor irritation and severe injury to the nasal mucous membranes and the underlying structures.
[...]
The minor irritation and more serious injury are caused by the direct action of cocaine (i.e., vasoconstriction) on the surrounding skin and mucous membranes and by the direct irritation of the hydrochloride salt form of cocaine, which, when it comes into contact with nasal secretions, forms a dilute but irritating solution of hydrochloric acid.

Yes, HCl is the salt form of cocaine, which on itself is a weak base, and together with the acidic HCl forms a neutral compound[1] that is very soluble in both water and fat and thus makes it exellent for intake through mucous membranes. Because of this the salt is also the preferred compound for medical use as a local anesthetic[2], though there's a huge difference between a short-term local and habitual usage in terms of dosage and application.

However, nasal mucous contains various enzymes, proteins, salts, immunoglobulins and other things to react with[3]. Have a look at the spoiler, the first molecule is cocaine, the second one the hydrochloride form.


Notice the N+ and Cl- there, this is what makes the good solubility (polarized molecules are good at interacting with other polarized molecules such as water[4]), but also means that the link is prone to reacting when given proper partners. And when the Nitrogen gets itself a CH3 to become neutral it's only logical that the HCl is freed and can go at it in your nose.

The compound as a whole is what gets absorbed, that is correct, yet the bioavailability of nasally ingested cocaine (hydrichloride) is only around 50%[5] which means that you have quite a bit of every dose you take stuck in the defensive mechanisms of the nasal cavity where it can react and release a bit of HCl every time. Multiply that with habitual usage of maybe a few times a weekover a long period of time and you've got a slowly corroding process.

And I can understand why he wouldn't want to discuss with you, your way of discussion involves quite a bit of swearing and allegations. Please try to stay civil when you want to hold a discussion. Also, sources would be nice.

Well thank you for clearing that up. It appears we were both correct to varying degrees.

I admit i was overly aggressive in my reply to him, that was mainly because i assumed he'd seen the "HCl" somewhere and immediately jumped to the conclusion that HCl = hydrochloric acid, with the word "acid" being a scary word to people with limited understanding of what the words actually mean. I assumed this because i've never seen anywhere any reference to damage caused by hydrochloric acid formed from the leftovers of the cocaine left due to BA as opposed to vasoconstriction, which is by far the most often cited reason for "coke nose". I'll admit i was wrong.

Still, i wouldn't have been quite as aggressive if i hadn't spent the entirety of the thread refuting ridiculously obnoxious claims about various drugs that are patently and blatently false, including one by the poster in question regarding the florida "zombie" incident. Yes it's no fun having discussions with someone being aggressive, but it's equally no fun having discussions with people who will happily base their arguments on hearsay, myth and misinformation without even the slightest hint of at the very least a quick google before they post. Sources are all well and good, but aside from this nothing I've said is in any contention whatsoever.

RhombusHatesYou:
So... did we all agree that it's not the smartest of ideas to try and smuggle drugs into a country where it's a capital crime?

Yes I think thats probably the only thing we can all agree on

That granny had some ladyballs, youve got to give it to her

Helmholtz Watson:
You want to do whatever you want to your body? Sure, but if things take a turn for the worst then you shouldn't be allowed to go to a hospital if you don't have insurance and you should be prevented from receiving any medical benefits that are payed for with my tax dollars.

I have yet to crunch the numbers but what if the tax from alcoholic sales is greater than the tax spent to fix alcohol related problems? If the net tax paid by your average alcoholic JUST on alcohol is greater than the average expense for every alcoholic surely it evens out and these people SHOULD get medical attention with tax payer money. Thats the whole reason these things are taxed so high. These people DO pay more tax than you to compensate for a more dangerous lifestyle.

If we use that reasoning then alcohol needs to have WAY WAY WAY lower taxes.

Shpongled:

Quaxar:
snip

Well thank you for clearing that up. It appears we were both correct to varying degrees.

I admit i was overly aggressive in my reply to him, that was mainly because i assumed he'd seen the "HCl" somewhere and immediately jumped to the conclusion that HCl = hydrochloric acid, with the word "acid" being a scary word to people with limited understanding of what the words actually mean. I assumed this because i've never seen anywhere any reference to damage caused by hydrochloric acid formed from the leftovers of the cocaine left due to BA as opposed to vasoconstriction, which is by far the most often cited reason for "coke nose". I'll admit i was wrong.

Still, i wouldn't have been quite as aggressive if i hadn't spent the entirety of the thread refuting ridiculously obnoxious claims about various drugs that are patently and blatently false, including one by the poster in question regarding the florida "zombie" incident. Yes it's no fun having discussions with someone being aggressive, but it's equally no fun having discussions with people who will happily base their arguments on hearsay, myth and misinformation without even the slightest hint of at the very least a quick google before they post. Sources are all well and good, but aside from this nothing I've said is in any contention whatsoever.

Fair enough. I think I'd rather stay away from those pages then, don't really have the time to indulge in another hour long research on drug chemistry today...

I'm sure vasoconstriction is a big factor, nasal tissue has a lot of blood vessels under a thin skin layer, bad blood supply means less energy for the mucous membrane to rebuild itself, thus drying up and also leads to a cooler nose. Both those factors diminish the protection against infections and are not at all beneficial for tissue life. But acidic compounds can only worsen the situation.
And I'll admit it wasn't that easy to find good sources for the biochemistry of specifically cocaine hydrochloride in a human environment, none of my own books had even any mention of it and a lot of my post is stuck together from various sources and my own experience in biochemistry. So possibly it hasn't been subject to a lot of focused studies yet or maybe it's only one of many contributing factors not worth a special look but the principle itself is sound, I'm just unclear on how much exactly this HCl release is responsible for destroying the nasal tissue.

On a rather morbid level Ihope they through with it. I'm tired of having to hear from the foreign brit students about how the us is terrible because they still have a death sentence. Granted they have no idea whqat they're talking about but still

emeraldrafael:
On a rather morbid level Ihope they through with it. I'm tired of having to hear from the foreign brit students about how the us is terrible because they still have a death sentence. Granted they have no idea whqat they're talking about but still

Two wrongs don't make a right. Other places being more terrible doesn't eliminate flaws in the USA (or my or other countries for that matter). Let's point to those flaws and try to correct them, not debase ourselves by comparing ourselves to worse places. We should aspire to improvement rather than celebrate the fact that we're not the worst.

Skeleon:

emeraldrafael:
On a rather morbid level Ihope they through with it. I'm tired of having to hear from the foreign brit students about how the us is terrible because they still have a death sentence. Granted they have no idea whqat they're talking about but still

Two wrongs don't make a right. Other places being more terrible doesn't eliminate flaws in the USA (or my or other countries for that matter). Let's point to those flaws and try to correct them, not debase ourselves by comparing ourselves to worse places. We should aspire to improvement rather than celebrate the fact that we're not the worst.

Oh Idont care that they say it it would just be nice to counter them. Every country has flaws.

Before we go any further, I feel like we might have gone off track and I want to set the record straight. We are talking about a hypothetical scenario where hard drugs would be legal for people to consume to their hearts content and what the consequences should be if the person has no insurance and still chooses to consume cocaine knowing full well of that its addictive and harmful. Now then......

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.

That's not true at all, you can play touch football and/or wear heavy pads to protect your body to prevent bodily harm. However, you can't consume cocaine "lite", the result of cocaine is the deterioration of the consumers body, while the result of football doesn't have to be the deterioration of the players body(especially if its touch football).

Bashfluff:

They deserve to die because that's what responsibility is to you?

"[D]eserve to die"? No, they "deserve" to be responsible for themselves if they are going to consume hard drugs like cocaine. You make it sound like I'm trying to kill them, which I'm not. I'm not saying that a coke fiend with health insurance should be refused medical treatment if they can pay for it, I'm saying that a person without any medical insurance that chooses to consume cocaine should not expect tax payers/the hospital to pick up their bill.

Bashfluff:
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?"

Another poor comparison. The person jumping into the lake is doing so in order to being killed by a crushing building. They don't have much of a choice. On the other hand, outside of some Hollywood movie scenario I can't think of a reason a person would have no choice but to consume cocaine so that they didn't die.

Bashfluff:
No, you're not their parents. That doesn't mean anything no matter how many times you say it!

Sure it matters, because if that coke fiend without insurance was my son or daughter, I feel as if I would have a responsibility to make sure they get medical treatment, even if that means I have to pay out of pocket.

Bashfluff:
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.

First off, as I stated above, the situations are not identical. You can play touch football, but you can't consume "cocaine lite". As for the role of the government, the government should provide for you on the condition that you help fund the government. A person who doesn't help fund the government should not be provided with the aid the government gives.

Bashfluff:
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 already said that money wasn't the primary issue. As the hypothetical situation where all drugs are legal, the people who do hard drugs should be responsible for their life. If they have the money to pay the medical bills, then I have no issue with them. However if they don't have the money to pay for the medical bills then they should either be denied medical treatment or forbidden from taking hard drugs which put their life in serious danger.

adamsaccount:

Also you work in a rehab clinic and use the word druggie to insult people? Keep it classy

...said the guy that wanted to kill innocent Indonesians because a single British women violated Indonesian law and was going to pay for her crimes.
"Those in glass houses...."

adamsaccount:

RhombusHatesYou:
So... did we all agree that it's not the smartest of ideas to try and smuggle drugs into a country where it's a capital crime?

Yes I think thats probably the only thing we can all agree on

That granny had some ladyballs, youve got to give it to her

No I don't, she was thoughtless for doing what she did. Her actions are not to be admired.

BiscuitTrouser:

I have yet to crunch the numbers but what if the tax from alcoholic sales is greater than the tax spent to fix alcohol related problems? If the net tax paid by your average alcoholic JUST on alcohol is greater than the average expense for every alcoholic surely it evens out and these people SHOULD get medical attention with tax payer money. Thats the whole reason these things are taxed so high. These people DO pay more tax than you to compensate for a more dangerous lifestyle.

If we use that reasoning then alcohol needs to have WAY WAY WAY lower taxes.

Fair enough, if cociane was taxed so much as to compensate the cost of medical bills the coke fiends would rack up, I would have no issue with uninsured coke fiends getting medical treatment.

If I was the P.M what I would do would be threaten invasion. They cannot face the might of the British Empire. They would not get away with their barbaric acts.

Helmholtz Watson:

adamsaccount:

Also you work in a rehab clinic and use the word druggie to insult people? Keep it classy

...said the guy that wanted to kill innocent Indonesians because a single British women violated Indonesian law and was going to pay for her crimes.
"Those in glass houses...."

adamsaccount:

RhombusHatesYou:
So... did we all agree that it's not the smartest of ideas to try and smuggle drugs into a country where it's a capital crime?

Yes I think thats probably the only thing we can all agree on

That granny had some ladyballs, youve got to give it to her

No I don't, she was thoughtless for doing what she did. Her actions are not to be admired.

.

Well I suppose i cant really take any moral highground after saying we should bomb indonesia, but what youve got to understand is that im pro drugs and anti death penalty, so when someone gets the death penalty for drugs offenses im going to get quite upset and say shit that probably doesnt make a whole lot of sense just out of anger.

She was thoughtless in breaking the law, especially one which has such a strict penalty but still to me that does not mean she should have to be executed. Dont get me wrong you should absolutely respect the laws of whatever country you happen to be visiting and if you dont you pay the consequences but i also think governments should hold themselves to higher standards than killing whoever breaks those laws just to prove a point. Whats the point of a government if its going to uphold violence? Live and let live is my life philosophy so again sorry for saying we should bomb them, it came from anger and not from rational thought.

Shpongled:
snip

So should we take your word for it or do you care to provide actual sources like the person you quoted did? Because without sources you can claim anything. Because I am more inclined to believe the Harvard source than your ramblings.

TheKasp:

Shpongled:
snip

So should we take your word for it or do you care to provide actual sources like the person you quoted did? Because without sources you can claim anything. Because I am more inclined to believe the Harvard source than your ramblings.

Source on what? Quaxar eloquently handled the cocaine HCl issue, and the only other two claims i've really made were the metabolic process of LSD and the absence of drugs other than cannabis found in the florida zombie's body. Both of those you can find the answer for yourself with a quick google, the top million hits will all provide you with plenty of sources on facts of those.

I assume you're talking about the cocaine hcl thing because thats the only thing anyone i've spoken to in this thread has bothered to provide a source for (LOL at harvard source though, he copy/pasted a quote from wikipedia). For that, take a look at Quaxar's post and you'll see that whole debate broken down thoroughly. Turns out Kopi's "harvard" source was incredibly poorly worded but a minor amount of hydrochloric acid is left over due to the relatively low BA of cocaine intranasally, which is something i'd forgotten to consider, was wrong about and admitted to being wrong about.

Aside from that, personally i think being the dude who HASN'T bullshitted throughout the entirety of the thread like certain other posters, AND has had the balls to admit when he was wrong, again, unlike certain other posters in the thread, does go some way in giving me credit.

adamsaccount:

She was thoughtless in breaking the law, especially one which has such a strict penalty but still to me that does not mean she should have to be executed. Dont get me wrong you should absolutely respect the laws of whatever country you happen to be visiting and if you dont you pay the consequences but i also think governments should hold themselves to higher standards than killing whoever breaks those laws just to prove a point. Whats the point of a government if its going to uphold violence?

I say that she should be treated the same way any Indonesian would get treated if they were convicted for the same crime. It doesn't seem right that because England has the ability to throw its weight around, she should avoid the punishment, but if some old lady from some place like Malaysia were to convicted of the same crime, her government probably wouldn't be able to get her out of being punished.

adamsaccount:

Live and let live is my life philosophy so again sorry for saying we should bomb them, it came from anger and not from rational thought.

Fair enough.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked