The Death Penalty doesn't solve the root of the drug problem

last SG · 2004-06-14T22:13:09+00:00

Originally posted by pikamaster: right, and terrorists also not in our country, but we do alot in trying to help Indon and USA in tracking down terror big b...

witness SG

Stupid wrote:

"The reason why I want to use the analogy of weopons and explosive substance is because u mentioned tat individual should be leave with a choice, allowing individuals to decide whether they wish to be addicted. If tat is the case of "leaving choices for the individual", why not do it for weopons and explosive substance as well ? Why banned them too ? Do it like the american and allow people to have their own guns. I need to ask tis question again, when these drugs is in, it can only harm society and never benefits it. Why support these vices?"

My reply:

Why do you persist in arguing irrationally? I say let individuals decide whether they wish to become addicted to drugs. You say, why not allow weapons into the country? The two issues are not related. You may as well say since I advocate choice on the issue of drugs, why not let people choose to commit rape or not? It is an absurd way to tenuously connect two different issues by citing choice as the factor.

Also, I am not advocating people to be addicted to drugs. Substance abuse is undesirable. But it is a growing problem. How does one solve the problem in the best way possible? My contention is that just imposing draconian measures against drug users and traffickers may not be the best way to handle the problem.

CX SG

Originally posted by witness:

Not all drugs are the same. Some are more addictive than others. Many publications, including Encyclopedia Britannica and the Lancet Magazine have openly stated that marijuana for instance is not more harmful or addictive than cigarettes or alcohol. And yet trafficking in marijuana beyond a certain amount can result in one being hanged in Singapore.

it is not quite accurate to suggest that marijuana and other "soft", "non-addictive" drugs are altogether harmless...

one needs to take a balanced stand on it. marijuana has been clinically proven to be good for rhumatism and is a much better painkiller than morphine when used on cancer patients... generally less side effects.

but healthcare and clinical use is DIFFERENT from widespread social proliferation. i am sympathetic to grey old aunties smoking a "joint" to ease their joint pains... but i do not feel the same way about a bunch of young punks smoking it to get "high" and getting into all kinds of trouble. there is no physical dependence, but it is acknowledged that there is a psychological dependence that can be just as powerful and destructive.

the line is drawn between "use" and "abuse" . its not the same.

studies have also shown that abusers have a tendency to "graduate" to using much stronger drugs as well.

once u're hooked, i think the choice of whether to get addicted or not is no longer yours to make Mr. Green the choice to quit is still yours but nobody pretends that its an easy path to take.

and not to mention the social problems generated by the pushers over their "turf". we don't have much of these associated problems here because we take a firm position on drugs and try our best to choke the supply side of it within our borders.

Are you seriously suggesting that alcohol is less dangerous than drugs? Ample evidence exists to show that this is not the case. Countless lives have been ruined whether directly or indirectly through alcohol addiction. America tried to ban alcohol once, but did not succeed. America has been trying to wipe out drug use for years now, but it is not succeeding.

any substance used in excess is harmful... nothing is ever 100% safe. if u eat nothing but carbohydrates, u'll get beri beri... if u take too much vitamins, carotene poisoning is a likely consequence.

i did address alcohol earlier... it takes A LOT to get THAT far gone. i can spend an evening with 2 jugs of beer and all it'll give me is a full bladder. try that with straw of heroin... 2 good straws might cause u to O.D and die already...

the characteristic of each substance is just not the same and some substances need to be more closely guarded than others.

as for outright prohibition, i would venture to suggest that it is impossible not because it is undesirable, but simply because the world we live in today is far too connected, the demand is present and pple eager to profit from supplying it are willing to take the risks involved.

the realistic route is not to pretend that "we banned it, therefore it doesn't exist" . but to remain vigilant and keep the demand small through education and deterrent, and supply tight, through effective enforcement and tough laws.

Is the water getting clearer?

u tell me...

witness SG

In reply to CX:

I would definitely agree with education and supplying people with information that would allow them to decide whether or not to indulge in substance abuse.

As it stands however, I do feel that our laws against drugs, particularly against users of drugs such as marijuana are over-strict.

Many studies have shown that marijuana has effects that are not more detrimental than cigarettes or alcohol. People can and do function normally, just as cigarette smokers do, after smoking their joints.

Many government campaigns emphasise the heavy costs of drug abuse. Part of the costs includes the heavy penalties inflicted by the law. Ironically, these draconian penalties are meted out to protect people from themselves.

Housing thousands of prisoners who have committed victimless crimes is no way to build a compassionate society. The cure may be worse than the disease.

witness SG

------ Deleted-----------------

Sorry.... unintended double posting.

witness SG

(Double posting deleted)

stupidissmart SG

Why do you persist in arguing irrationally? I say let individuals decide whether they wish to become addicted to drugs. You say, why not allow weapons into the country? The two issues are not related. You may as well say since I advocate choice on the issue of drugs, why not let people choose to commit rape or not? It is an absurd way to tenuously connect two different issues by citing choice as the factor.

As said by u before, u mention tat we should let people have a choice to be hooked onto drugs. Since we r already so liberal as giving people a chance to be hooked onto drugs, might as well give the people a chance to use guns and explosive substance isn't it ? If u understand why we do not give people a chance to use guns and explosive substance, then u will understand why I do not support giving people a chance to be "hooked onto drugs".

Also, I am not advocating people to be addicted to drugs. Substance abuse is undesirable. But it is a growing problem. How does one solve the problem in the best way possible? My contention is that just imposing draconian measures against drug users and traffickers may not be the best way to handle the problem.

As I said before, your previous solution will make the situation worse. If we allowed drugs to be imported freely, it will only increase the numbers of addicts by a lot. Do u believe tat the numbers of addicts will inevitable increase if drugs is imported freely ? Is tat desirable for society ?

witness SG

In reply to Stupid:

I do not think that it is necessarily true that the drug problem will worsen if one legalizes drug use. In fact many kinds of drugs are already legalised, such as sleeping pills etc. It is possible to also be addicted to these.

Europe, particularly the Netherlands, is a good example where certain drugs forbidden in most countries are allowed to be consumed. Holland has still not gone to the dogs as far as I know.
Britain has also given up the fight against Esctasy consumption and now only requires clubs to ensure that there is water readily available for the drug takers.

It may very well be true that when drugs are legalised, there will be more addicts. But even if this is so, the benefit of not having to imprison drug abusers should be taken into account. Don't forget the repercussions of being sent to jail in Singapore. Your chances of gainful employment after release are much lesser. Who knows how many lives have been ruined because we choose to be so harsh to drug takers.

When people abuse drugs, they possibly harm themselves. When people have access to weapons, they will probably use them to hurt others. You still don't get it, do you?

CX SG

Originally posted by witness:
In reply to Stupid:

I do not think that it is necessarily true that the drug problem will worsen if one legalizes drug use. In fact many kinds of drugs are already legalised, such as sleeping pills etc. It is possible to also be addicted to these.

don't mind if i reply to this also?

the same point actually... its not the same and the line is drawn between user vs. abuser.

i'm insomniac myself... i am prescribed dormicum... but only on a very limited scale, under very strict instructions. and i take it to achieve ONE aim only... to sleep so i can function properly the next day. i do not take it when i have no problems sleeping, and my G.P advices against me taking it too regularly... i understand the perils myself and i take it only when i'm under a lot of stress and i need to function properly the next day.

this is NOT the same as a person who has lost control and grown dependent on it, or is taking it frivolously to get "high"... and i DON'T go down that road because i have a G.P who knows me and tells me what i hate to hear and i have the good sense to take his advice.

this is really under the most ideal situations... if ANY of these factors are missing, responsible doctor, responsible patients, and strict prescription guidelines, then u will have a repeat of that recent fiasco where G.Ps were over-prescribing that stuff for cash.

Europe, particularly the Netherlands, is a good example where certain drugs forbidden in most countries are allowed to be consumed. Holland has still not gone to the dogs as far as I know.
Britain has also given up the fight against Esctasy consumption and now only requires clubs to ensure that there is water readily available for the drug takers.

Mr. Green the Neatherlands DID face a conservative backlash...

many pple feel that they opened the floodgates to the devil's plant... and it is depressing when parents see their kids graduate from hashih and mariguana to heroin and coke...

it is not unreasonable to say that exposure to soft drugs can lead to vulnerability to harder, more addictive substances.

and i don't think that the UK did the right thing in that area. E isn't just harmful cos it dehydrates. it is harmful quite literally... the production process is dodgy and pple do die from bad pills. the urban legend is that they preserve that stuff by spraying baygone on it... to keep away insects.

and if u consider HOW pills are made, a bit of impurities can have very dire consequences... how can we reasonably allow such products to proliferate?

It may very well be true that when drugs are legalised, there will be more addicts. But even if this is so, the benefit of not having to imprison drug abusers should be taken into account. Don't forget the repercussions of being sent to jail in Singapore. Your chances of gainful employment after release are much lesser. Who knows how many lives have been ruined because we choose to be so harsh to drug takers.

so why did they choose such objectionable habits? its hard to justify having someone on your payroll who is drooling and incoherent most of the time...

if i was an employer, i certainly would not want someone to be "under the influence" when he / she's working!

When people abuse drugs, they possibly harm themselves. When people have access to weapons, they will probably use them to hurt others. You still don't get it, do you?

its NOT JUST about the addicts... their familes, the social cost of rehabilitation, the resulting "underground economy" that springs up to take advantage of the supply side of the market, AND the resulting social problems of that.

a person using drugs hurts MORE than himself.

CX SG

Originally posted by witness:
In reply to CX:

I would definitely agree with education and supplying people with information that would allow them to decide whether or not to indulge in substance abuse.

yes... one needs to equip pple with information to make their own decisions... but if they indulge in hard drugs, the decision is made by their addiction, not themselves.

As it stands however, I do feel that our laws against drugs, particularly against users of drugs such as marijuana are over-strict.

Many studies have shown that marijuana has effects that are not more detrimental than cigarettes or alcohol. People can and do function normally, just as cigarette smokers do, after smoking their joints.

have u smoked it? i'm a cigarette smoker myself... weed is NOT like cigarette.

i've seen pple pee on themselves, fornicate furnitures and make total morons of themselves while indulging in it... fun to watch, but TOTALLY turned me off that stuff...

we are given the faculty of reason so that we can USE IT, not so that we can numb it and abandon its use.

Many government campaigns emphasise the heavy costs of drug abuse. Part of the costs includes the heavy penalties inflicted by the law. Ironically, these draconian penalties are meted out to protect people from themselves.

in most other instances, including civil liberties, free speech, free press and democracy, i would agree with u. but i draw the line at drugs and crime.

Housing thousands of prisoners who have committed victimless crimes is no way to build a compassionate society. The cure may be worse than the disease.

victimless? drug trafficking is certainly NOT "victimless" ... drug use is not always "victimless" . in theory, pple are free to make @sses of themselves if they so wish. but when such irresponsible behavior hurts other pple, i say that's where we draw the line.

and if we can pre-empt such stupid, reckless behavior by regulating and restricting the substances that causes it, i don't think its a bad thing.

speed, coke, weed, e, 'shrooms, acid, take your pick... they ALL have dangerous effects, not just on their users, but on those UNLUCKY enough to be in contact at the wrong time with the users.

in medieval christianity, painkillers could not be administered during child-birth because labour pains were seen as God's punishment for Original Sin. women sometimes died in the process because of that.

that's dumb in today's context. we now use drugs to help pple whenever we can. but does abusing weed help pple? does pumping oneself full of speed help anything other than making one crazy with andrenalin and potentially hurting themselves as well as others?

any substance that causes one to lose control of oneself needs to be regulated because individuals owe it to themselves, their familes AND society at large to make sure that their stupid behavior does not hurt other pple. THAT is a civil society.

when u have a situation when pple believe that they only need to account to themselves, indulge themselves and everything else that serves to control him is an oppressive influence, u don't have a civil society. u have narcissism and chaos.

witness SG

In reply to CX:

The problem with imposing heavy punishment on drug abusers is that the punishment itself becomes part of the problem. You talk about families ruined by drugs and all.... isn't it partly because of the stigma of being sent to jail and all the pernicious effects that follow? As I said earlier, the cure becomes part of the disease.

The punishment is probably meant as a deterrent against abuse but when that punishment is not working we need to try a different approach. (We need a paradigm shift -- but if Kuhn is right, this will be a long time coming.)

If addiction is something that takes over the abuser as you say, then all the more it should be treated as a medical problem, not a criminal one.

Education is always good, and such education can also include the full consequences of drug abuse -- employer rejection, school failure and what-not.

You claim that marijuana is more potent than alcohol or nicotine. I have never touched the stuff, but the reports I read claim otherwise. The evidence is at the very least, very, very murky. And yet our consequences for taking the stuff is heavily transparent. This doesn't sound rational to me, and the best reason I can come up with whenever I think about this issue is cultural conditioning -- cigarettes and alcohol have been legalised for a long time and will therefore continue to be so. Marijuana on the other hand has been looked upon suspiciously for a long time, and will continue to be so.

Finally, it is a matter of personal responsibility and the government's trust in the wisdom of the masses. Punishing people for acts that only offends themselves directly creates more constraints on personal liberty than necessary.

Please don't preach about the drug abuser's effects on his family yada yada yada. When a man drinks excessively, when he contracts AIDS after unprotected sex, when he contracts cancer and leaves many dependents behind --- do we put him behind bars as well?

nww16 SG

have u smoked it? i'm a cigarette smoker myself... weed is NOT like cigarette.

pls leh.....weed is like cigarette oni weeds gives u a floating feeling....

i've seen pple pee on themselves, fornicate furnitures and make total morons of themselves while indulging in it... fun to watch, but TOTALLY turned me off that stuff...

i think u have been watching too much television n reading too much books on the effects of drugs...have u try them b4?? if not shut up...wat u see is not wat u feel lah....

stupidissmart SG

don't mind if i reply to this also?

Sure, no prob. Nice reply. Just wanna add some points to it...

I do not think that it is necessarily true that the drug problem will worsen if one legalizes drug use. In fact many kinds of drugs are already legalised, such as sleeping pills etc. It is possible to also be addicted to these.

People can also be addicted to paracetamol, widely known as panadol. Why do we banned certain drugs and not others ? It depends on the side effects associated with it and the possibility of being addicted to it. As said by CX, for sleeping pills and panadol, following the doctor orders will result in maximum benefit and minimum side effects. Sleeping pills is relatively controlled stricty in singapore too. I believe some doctors from Grace clinic were prosecuted because they sell out restricted drugs freely.

It may very well be true that when drugs are legalised, there will be more addicts.

So it is good for society to have more addicts or less addicts ?

But even if this is so, the benefit of not having to imprison drug abusers should be taken into account. Don't forget the repercussions of being sent to jail in Singapore. Your chances of gainful employment after release are much lesser. Who knows how many lives have been ruined because we choose to be so harsh to drug takers.

Actually singapore gives drug addicts (not trafficker) one chance before imprisoning them. On their first offense they will be sent to drug rehabitation centre to clean away their addicts and educate them on the harms of drug addicts. If they were caught second time, then will they be charged and jailed. They r given a chance, however they choose to return to their old ways. So wat should we do to deter them from taking drugs again ?

When people abuse drugs, they possibly harm themselves. When people have access to weapons, they will probably use them to hurt others. You still don't get it, do you?

Do u know the problem of drugs to society ? Drug addicts r being controlled and have to pay a lot of money to maintain their habits. If they can't get enough money, they will resort to any measures such as stealing, drug trafficking, robbing etc. Doesn't drugs hurt other people now ? You still don't get it do u ?

The problem with imposing heavy punishment on drug abusers is that the punishment itself becomes part of the problem. You talk about families ruined by drugs and all.... isn't it partly because of the stigma of being sent to jail and all the pernicious effects that follow? As I said earlier, the cure becomes part of the disease.

Again I have to iterate tat first time drug offenders do not go to jail.

Second, certain drugs r known to give people brain damage (reaction and thinking becomes worse thus result in getting lower end job) , sudden change of emotions and moods (beating up friends and relatives , laugh and cry without reason), and severe health problem including death (hospital bills). They r being controlled by drugs and had to pay a lot to maintain their habits. (Commit crimes, taking all money from family to spend on habit) Doesn't all these reasons become more valid in ruining a family than just jailing Rolling Eyes ?

The punishment is probably meant as a deterrent against abuse but when that punishment is not working we need to try a different approach. (We need a paradigm shift -- but if Kuhn is right, this will be a long time coming.)

How do u define success or failure in "deterring people" ? I think drug control is relatively successful in singapore.

If addiction is something that takes over the abuser as you say, then all the more it should be treated as a medical problem, not a criminal one.

If u really want to classify, then it is more accurate to classify it as a society problem. BTW wat is your objectives in classifying the problem ?

Education is always good, and such education can also include the full consequences of drug abuse -- employer rejection, school failure and what-not.

They already do it thoroughly in drug rehabitation centres. Those who commit the crime again then goes to jail. Heck even primary schools and televesion has been drilling people about the ill effects of drug abuse. If education can solves all problem then society will already be perfect.

CX SG

Originally posted by nww16:
pls leh.....weed is like cigarette oni weeds gives u a floating feeling....

different pple have different feelings from it... for first timers, its likely that there's no feeling even.

and i stand by my point... it is NOT like smoking a cigerette.

i think u have been watching too much television n reading too much books on the effects of drugs...have u try them b4?? if not shut up...wat u see is not wat u feel lah....

so if i see a drunk, and he smells like a drunk and he staggers and he pukes, i have to say that he is NOT drunk because "what u see is not what u feel" ?

witness SG

So it is good for society to have more addicts or less addicts ?

We could be addicted to all kinds of stuff. One thing for sure, it is better to have less prisoners, especially those who are in prison not because they are criminals, but because they are drug addicts.

What offence have they committed? Consuming addictive substances? What sort of offence is that, really? Why not jail alcoholics? sex addicts? tv addicts?

If people break the law, if they steal, if they hurt someone, then, whether they are addicts or not, it's fair that they are punished (though even here, I have my reservations, but that is another story). But do you realise what your attitude towards addicts is? Condemn them before they have committed any criminal acts, aside from taking drugs -- which may or may not be criminal acts -- it's just that as a society, we have chosen to criminalise these acts.

Second, certain drugs r known to give people brain damage (reaction and thinking becomes worse thus result in getting lower end job) , sudden change of emotions and moods (beating up friends and relatives , laugh and cry without reason), and severe health problem including death (hospital bills). They r being controlled by drugs and had to pay a lot to maintain their habits. (Commit crimes, taking all money from family to spend on habit) Doesn't all these reasons become more valid in ruining a family than just jailing?

If drugs do damage, people should be told about them. If they insist on going ahead anyway, we should still try to talk them out of it. Or we should send them for medical treatment. Or finally, we have to respect that it's their decision. Why should we make things worse for them by putting them in prison?

People do all kinds of harmful things to themselves and their families in society. They become depressed, they take alcohol, they kill themselves by smoking, they neglect their children and spouses, they commit adultery etc. Many families are ruined through these and other countless actions. Why aren't they jailed?

Just jailing? You must be joking. Do you know what it is like to be sent to prison? Do you realise the many repercussions for a person who has been to jail in Singapore? Just jailing indeed.

If u really want to classify, then it is more accurate to classify it as a society problem. BTW wat is your objectives in classifying the problem?

Yes, substance abuse is a societal problem. Classifying the problem could be important to understanding the nature of the problem. Whether the act of taking drugs is seen as an individual right, (why can't I do what I want to myself) a medical problem (I cannot help taking it), or a criminal problem (I mean to harm society) could contribute towards a more ideal solution to the problem, rather than throwing people into jail.

Education is ongoing. We cannot have enough of it. Drug addicts are people too you know. We shouldn't just throw them into jail and think the problem is solved. Who sees the heartaches and pain they experience once they get out of jail and try to re-start their lives? But who put them into jail in the first place? And for what? Consuming addictive substances? And for this they deserve their lives to be ruined?

stupidissmart SG

Drug addict r much worse than other form of addicts. Do u agree with this statement ? U still haven't answer tis question... is it better to have more or less drug addicts in a socety ?

What offence have they committed? Consuming addictive substances? What sort of offence is that, really?

This argumant can be applied to guns and explosive substance again isn't it ? Why give the death penalty to people who just had possession of firearms ? Why punish people who had possession of explosive substance ? They just had possession of these prohibited items and had not kill anybody with it isn't it ? Why punish them when they just possess it ?

The answer is, do u really have to see the end effects before acting ? Isn't it the duty of law to prevent crimes from happening instead of just punishing offenders ? Do u want to see streets filled with drugs addicts or they r forced to commit crimes before we catch them. Isn't the harm already done ?

BTW they had already abetted the crime of knowing or buying thus suporting a drug trafficker and do not disclose tis information to the police. Tat by itself is another crime. It is the same as passing a knife to a person who want to commit murder.

Why not jail alcoholics? sex addicts? tv addicts?

Is sex banned ? Is TV banned ? Is alcohol banned ?

First, people r told about them through education, advertisement and campaigns. Second, if u volunteer to go to a drug rehab center, u will get no criminal records no matter how many times u need to go there. A lot of warning has been given out too. Everyone can make their own decisions, but they had to be prepared to pay a price for it. Buying drugs is a way of supporting drugs.

Just jailing? You must be joking. Do you know what it is like to be sent to prison? Do you realise the many repercussions for a person who has been to jail in Singapore? Just jailing indeed.

Compared with the above examples I had made, how bad is jailing compared with drugs ? Not only r u going to end up with a worse job (brain damage is permanent. If u get a criminal record at least your brain is still alive and u can make a comeback or learn new skills) and bad reputation than jailing, u r going to hurt your family and friends physically, mentally and waste away all their resources

So now u and I agree it is a society problem. So now wat ?

Education is ongoing. We cannot have enough of it. Drug addicts are people too you know.

How much further do u think the Gov should educate people ?

We shouldn't just throw them into jail and think the problem is solved. Who sees the heartaches and pain they experience once they get out of jail and try to re-start their lives? But who put them into jail in the first place? And for what? Consuming addictive substances? And for this they deserve their lives to be ruined?

We can see it from another perspective.

Who sees the heartaches and pain of their family members when people r poisoned to death due to taking of prohibited drugs. Who can see the problems of people who suffered from permanent brain and health damage in adapting to society caused by taking of drugs. Why r there drugs around tat ruin their lives ? They could have been healthy individual tat can contribute more to society. Why do people have to tolerate crimes committed by drug addicts ? Do u see the pain and anguish felt by the victims over their loss of possession and sometimes love one due to drug abuse ? The victims had done nothing wrong at all, why do they deserve to suffer tis fate ?

CenturionMBT SG

If that is the case, using your anology, If murdering does damage, people should be told about them. If they insist on going ahead anyway, we should still try to talk them out of it. Or we should send them for medical treatment. Or finally, we have to respect that it's their decision. Why should we make things worse for them by putting them in prison?

People do all kinds of harmful things to themselves and their families in society. They become depressed, they take alcohol, they kill themselves by smoking, they neglect their children and spouses, they commit adultery etc. Many families are ruined through these and other countless actions. Why aren't they jailed?
Ever heard of personal protection order?

Just jailing? You must be joking. Do you know what it is like to be sent to prison? Do you realise the many repercussions for a person who has been to jail in Singapore? Just jailing indeed.

Oh and we don't jail drug addicts, we rehab the addicts and jail traffickers. Why? Cos it is another form of murder. You are poisening the minds of hundreds of innocents. Rights are one thing, but when the personal rights of different people infringe into other people's rights, it is as good as useless.In the end what it leaves is chaos.

witness SG

This is exactly the wrong analogy to use. When you do drugs, you possibly harm yourself. When you murder someone you do direct harm to others. The basis of criminal law is to protect individuals from being harmed by others.

Oh and we don't jail drug addicts

I don't know where you get this information from but it is absolutely WRONG. We DO jail drug addicts. While in jail they may undergo drug treatment programmes, but they are in prison and are subject to all the pernicious effects of imprisonment both during and after they are released from prison. [/quote]

witness SG

Drug addict r much worse than other form of addicts. Do u agree with this statement?

No. On what basis do you make this kind of value judgement?

U still haven't answer tis question... is it better to have more or less drug addicts in a socety?

This is a purely theoretical question with no fundamental importance. We all want to live in a perfect world, but the world is far from perfect. The meaning of "better" is highly subjective. If anything, it is better to live in a world in which we treat people with much more compassion than we are doing.

Confusing two unrelated issues (again). As I said repeatedly, drug takers possibly harm themselves directly. Weapons may no doubt be used against oneself, but are more often used against others. It is therefore justifiable to have strict laws against firearms.

The answer is, do u really have to see the end effects before acting ? Isn't it the duty of law to prevent crimes from happening instead of just punishing offenders ? Do u want to see streets filled with drugs addicts or they r forced to commit crimes before we catch them. Isn't the harm already done?

Yes!!!!! A cardinal principle of law is presumption of innocence. Unless a person criminally harms others, he shouldn't be treated as a criminal. It is erroneous to make the connection, whether justifiable or not, that drug takers are likely to commit crimes, and then jail them for the crimes they have yet to commit.

Even our laws don't do that. What our laws do is to declare the ingestion of drugs as a criminal offence. But we need to ask whether the basis of such a law is a rational one.

Is sex banned ? Is TV banned ? Is alcohol banned?

Since overindulgence in all these can cause harm to family life, then if drug addicts are jailed, so should we imprison sex addicts, tv addicts and alcohol addicts. Now you know how absurd this way of arguing is.

For ingesting something that harms yourself, you get to go to jail. We are so used to this that we do not see how absurd this law is.

No matter how much damage drugs does to a person, then damage is self imposed. When an addict is imprisoned, that punishment is imposed by the law. What right does the law have to impose such punishment on an act that does not do anyone else direct harm? But many of us do not feel this way because we are so used to this system. If we wish to move towards a better world, we need to see things differently. In general, the more freedom the better, as long as the freedom does not impinge on the rights of others.

At the bottomline, you need to respect the freedom of each individual to live the life he wishes to live. Saying that drugs harm other than the drug taker, and therefore we should punish him for that is an invalid argument. It is invalid because human beings do many other things that may have harmful repercussions on others and yet we do not punish them for it.

A man is married but has many affairs. The wife finds out and divorces the husband. The children become tramatised as a result. But no one is imprisoned. Why? Anyone can think of countless examples on a similar vein.

And again, please do not assume that addicts will commit crime and therefore this is a justification for jailing them. As I said, even our laws make no such assumption. We jail addicts because we have decided that taking certain substances amounts to a criminal act. That is all there is to it.

stupidissmart SG

No. On what basis do you make this kind of value judgement?

I am surprised tat u will say no but I will elaborate if u want to.

Other forms of addicts only give mostly mental torment when u r deprive of it. Lets use the example u have given of a TV addict. If u deprive him of TV, he will only feel miserable mentally. He feel itching to watch TV, think nothing but TV and etc. For drugs, not only r they tormented mentally such as desiring for the high or floating feeling, they r also physically tormented by the drug withdrawal effects. They have running nose, uncontrolled trembling and sweating, feeling cold, muscle cramps, uncontrolled sh!tting and vormitting and so on and so forth. Doesn't tat make Drug addict much worse than other form of addicts ? Now do u agree with tis statement ?

Tis is a simple question and I think u try to smoke your way through... Is society better with lesser drugs tat will cause brain damage, health ailments and crime laden streets ? Let's put it simply... is society better off with smarter, healthier and safer people ? And don't tell me taking drugs is not equal to committing crimes. I am sure a lot of them with no money have to resort to crimes to pay off their habits. Wat is the benefit tat prohibited drugs can bring to us ? Nothing.

I have said many times tat drugs do affect other people. Drugs can be given to other people who will become an addict themselves. It is no doubt harming other people isn't it. There is nothing wrong with linking these 2 issues together. Note tat possession of drugs is an offence .

BTW... u have totally ignore my passage tat was put in bold.. I will write them down again

BTW they had already abetted the crime of knowing or buying thus suporting a drug trafficker and do not disclose tis information to the police. Tat by itself is another crime. It is the same as passing a knife to a person who want to commit murder.

For your info, I am talking about implementing laws such as possession of drugs, firearms and explosive substances. Do anyone do any wrong to other people just by merely having possession of it ? No, but the law still lable them as criminal offences because they want to prevent it from using it against the benefit of society. I am talking about the rational of writing laws such as possession of drugs and firearms, not talking about the potential committing of crimes by drug addict. I hope u get it clear.

It is not about any addicts, it is about drugs. As I said earlier,

is TV banned ? (no)
How addictive is TV compared with drugs ?
(drug is certainly more addictive)
Is there any good benefit tat can be derived from watching TV ? (entertainment)
Is there any good benefit tat can be derived from taking drugs ?
(nope)
Wat is the percentage of people tat will be addicted to TV when they watched it ? (1 in a million bah)
Wat is the percentage of people tat will be hooked onto drugs when they ingest it ? (should be pretty high... 1 in 2 ?)
Wat is the problem of withdrawal of drugs compared with TV ?
(as stated in earlier passage)
Wat is the side effects of drugs compared with TV ? (Drugs: brain damage, hazard to health, prone to crimes... TV: bad eyesight, waste of time)

Drugs is a total new ball game altogether.

For ingesting something that harms yourself, you get to go to jail. We are so used to this that we do not see how absurd this law is.

For possession of a controlled drugs before u take it, for failing to report to authorities when one know of potential drug dealers, for supporting the drug industry to flourish.

First I have to state again tat u get a chance to prevent being imprisoned by going through drug rehab.

Second, I got to ask again does possession of firearms cause any hurt to any people ? It is only after u have used it to kill someone before it had caused harm to other people isn't it ? If u acknowledge why firearms need to be controlled strictly, then u should realise why drugs have to be controlled as well. Possession of firearms does not impinge on the rights of others too isn't it ? They have not fired any shots from it, how can u claim they will fire it off and harm any person ? A cardinal principle of law is presumption of innocence. Unless a person criminally harms others, he shouldn't be treated as a criminal. It is erroneous to make the connection, whether justifiable or not, that possession fo firearm are likely to commit crimes, and then jail them for the crimes they have yet to commit.

As I said before, consumption of drugs has furnish 3 aspects tat have the potential of being charged or affect other people. Possession of drugs, supporting of drugs and obstruction to justice. I have iterate many times before, drugs is a totally new ball game altogether.

A man is married but has many affairs. The wife finds out and divorces the husband. The children become tramatised as a result. But no one is imprisoned. Why? Anyone can think of countless examples on a similar vein.

Has anyone committed any criminal actions along the course of marriage ? He do get punished by certainly losing the custody of children and had to pay alimony to his wife isn't it ?

And again, please do not assume that addicts will commit crime and therefore this is a justification for jailing them. As I said, even our laws make no such assumption. We jail addicts because we have decided that taking certain substances amounts to a criminal act. That is all there is to it.

Possession of drugs is already a crime Rolling Eyes Don't tell me a person can consume drug without possession of it first.

witness SG

Let's bring this discussion to a close so that we don't keep going round and round the mulberry bush.

Firstly, it's irrational to link drugs and weapons. Thought this point is obvious, but some people just don't get it. Supporting a more liberal drug policy does not mean supporting a more liberal policy towards arms. There is nothing illogical or inconsistent about wanting a more liberal policy towards drugs and continuing to support our strict stance against weapons possession.

Next, there is the common argument that substance abuse is bad because not only does it harm the user, it also affects his family and society at large. It is therefore justifiable to imprison substance abusers.

The above argument is fallacious because many actions of humans affect others adversely but we do not imprison these people for such actions.

As for the justification that substance abusers should be imprisoned because drug taking hurts the abusers, my contention is that the cure is worse than the disease because of the very real repercussions of imprisonment. At the bottomline, we should respect the right of the individual to live his life so long as he does not directly harm others.

Finally some people think it is a big deal that drug users should be punished because they have broken the law by possessing drugs and you can't consume drugs without first possessing them. This way of thinking overlooks the fact that we have consciously chosen to criminalise drug possession and consumption. But is it rational to do so in the first place is the question I raised.

This shall be my last post on the topic. It has been an interesting discussion. Feel free to have your last say, anyone.

« Previous Page Next Page »