PDA

View Full Version : Execute drug dealers?



Pages : [1] 2

Mr Fred
24th April 2015, 22:45
http://m.bbc.com/news/world-australia-32443037

Indonesia finally looks like it's going to take out the trash, executing a bunch of drug dealers.
It is my considered opinion these people are not worth the air they steal from decent people.
Their greedy quest for cash creates misery and death, not just for the weak minded drug users, but for their families and the whole of society.

I moved from the UK, place infested with drug dealers and all the crime that goes with it, to Indonesia, a place where drugs are rare, so crime is equally rare.
I'm not making claims about Indonesia being totally crime or drug free, but both are limited.
Penalties are harsh, seeing small time pot dealers locked up for five years or more, and major drug dealers getting life or death.

You have to see the difference to realise how much drugs damage a society, and since I have, I fully support Indonesia's stance in putting these people in front of a firing squad.

What do you think?

Bill. MC
24th April 2015, 22:50
It would be much safer if all drug use was legalised.

Calidore
24th April 2015, 23:04
drugs are fun - executing people doesn't fit.

Chris Mitchell
24th April 2015, 23:17
Drugs damage society because they're illegal and therefore very expensive, so addicts rob to get the money.

At the end of the day, if people want to poison themselves, let them do it. Why should the government interfere? Make drugs legal, and the dealers go out of business.

Joe 90
24th April 2015, 23:23
What do you think?

That you're a bellend.

Dordie
24th April 2015, 23:30
What do you think?

Why do you pick on black men?

Bill. MC
24th April 2015, 23:46
Drugs damage society because they're illegal and therefore very expensive, so addicts rob to get the money.

At the end of the day, if people want to poison themselves, let them do it. Why should the government interfere? Make drugs legal, and the dealers go out of business.

Illegal drugs are seldom the REAL drug. Take MDMA commonly called ectasy, Es or Eckies - in its true format it is a relatively innocuous substance. When sold in the street it will likely be some harmful substance or adulterated with harmful substance and hence the reason why every so often someone will die after taking an ectasy pill or tab.

Heroin users who die of an over dose will do so because most heroin will be adulterated with white powders such as baking soda and when the real thing is sold in the streets the users will have an expectation that the stuff will have the same strength as previous deals and they over dose.

Calidore
25th April 2015, 02:00
http://www.bcferries.com

Help, where am I? I've Ben in a drug induced stupor for the last two hours and I can't remember how I got here. I love moden theatre, long legs, I'm king of the ballet, got to keep open the charge point or it will heal over. Time to set up sme new torches.

Mr Fred
25th April 2015, 04:57
Drugs damage society because they're illegal and therefore very expensive, so addicts rob to get the money.

At the end of the day, if people want to poison themselves, let them do it. Why should the government interfere? Make drugs legal, and the dealers go out of business.

No so.
Drug puddled idiots would never manage to hold down a job, so they'd have to steal anyway, and that's before you consider the waste of time and money for he emergency services.

Your argument assumes drug users are reasonable people, but that just isn't true.

KiNoRonin
25th April 2015, 04:58
http://m.bbc.com/news/world-australia-32443037


You have to see the difference to realise how much drugs damage a society, and since I have, I fully support Indonesia's stance in putting these people in front of a firing squad.

What do you think?

I Agree Completely!


3X3

KiNoRonin
25th April 2015, 05:08
I Love the part where they Sing about Killing the Pusher if he Runs


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEnszZ6G0sQ



3X3

Plutonium
25th April 2015, 08:45
http://m.bbc.com/news/world-australia-32443037

Indonesia finally looks like it's going to take out the trash, executing a bunch of drug dealers.
It is my considered opinion these people are not worth the air they steal from decent people.
Their greedy quest for cash creates misery and death, not just for the weak minded drug users, but for their families and the whole of society.

I moved from the UK, place infested with drug dealers and all the crime that goes with it, to Indonesia, a place where drugs are rare, so crime is equally rare.
I'm not making claims about Indonesia being totally crime or drug free, but both are limited.
Penalties are harsh, seeing small time pot dealers locked up for five years or more, and major drug dealers getting life or death.

You have to see the difference to realise how much drugs damage a society, and since I have, I fully support Indonesia's stance in putting these people in front of a firing squad.

What do you think?

You say that drugs are rare in Indonesia, and yet here are these eight people sentenced to death for drug dealing. Can you spot the discrepancy here? If there was no market for drugs in Indonesia, then there would no clientele for dealers and drug smugglers.

Clearly drugs use in Indonesia is much more widespread than you claim.

I am personally of the view that the whole issue of drugs needs to be studied professionally. The so-called 'war on drugs' is not being won. Take out one drug dealer, and another one takes their place. So there is perhaps a case for decriminalising drugs, therefore eliminating the criminals. If you look at Prohibition in America, when alcohol was banned, the Mafia and other organised criminals moved in to supply it illegally, accompanied by a plague of violence between rival gangs, the St Valentine's Day Massacre being the most notorious example. Once alcohol was re-legalised, the rug was pulled from under the criminals' feet.

So maybe that's a lesson we should learn on how to deal with other drugs (and alcohol is a drug).

Chris Mitchell
25th April 2015, 10:59
No so.
Drug puddled idiots would never manage to hold down a job, so they'd have to steal anyway, and that's before you consider the waste of time and money for he emergency services.

Your argument assumes drug users are reasonable people, but that just isn't true.

That's also true of alcoholics - would you also criminalise alcohol and advocate the death penalty for those who sell it?

parsonstreet
25th April 2015, 11:29
Execution is state murder :tirade:

parsonstreet
25th April 2015, 11:30
That's also true of alcoholics - would you also criminalise alcohol and advocate the death penalty for those who sell it?

Also junk food causes the devastating effects of obesity and heart attacks and gout.

Scrotnig
25th April 2015, 12:48
That's also true of alcoholics - would you also criminalise alcohol and advocate the death penalty for those who sell it?
Sounds reasonable.

Plutonium
25th April 2015, 13:17
Execution is state murder :tirade:

Yes. If you say that it is a crime to take a human life, how does it become not a crime if it is carried out with state sanction?

It's a bit like saying that robbing a bank would not be a crime if it was carried out by the police.

Mr Fred
25th April 2015, 14:38
Clearly drugs use in Indonesia is much more widespread than you claim.

The Australians were smuggling out of Indonesia.
Most drugs are for use by foreigners in Bali.

I think you need to look at a situation before you spout uninformed rubbish.

Fork Me
25th April 2015, 14:52
Yes. If you say that it is a crime to take a human life, how does it become not a crime if it is carried out with state sanction?

It's a bit like saying that robbing a bank would not be a crime if it was carried out by the police.

Actually, it's nothing like that at all. I'm 100% opposed to capital punishment but that is a gross oversimplification. You're argument would be equally valid to troops in a combat situation, and by equally valid, I really mean equally invalid.

Lord Ponsonby
25th April 2015, 15:19
Drugs damage society because they're illegal and therefore very expensive, so addicts rob to get the money.

At the end of the day, if people want to poison themselves, let them do it. Why should the government interfere? Make drugs legal, and the dealers go out of business.

Saint Christopher.

Haw haw haw.

Chris Mitchell
25th April 2015, 18:38
Sounds reasonable.

The argument itself may sound reasonable. However, they did try banning alcohol in the US based on similar reasonable arguments in the 1920s. It didn't stop alcohol consumption at all, but it did lead to the rise of the Mafia, who controlled the alcohol supply once it became illegal, and are still operating 90 years later.

Chris Mitchell
25th April 2015, 18:39
Saint Christopher.

Haw haw haw.

Thanks for your vote of confidence, Lord P. Do you have any views on the topic yourself?

Lord Ponsonby
25th April 2015, 18:54
Thanks for your vote of confidence, Lord P. Do you have any views on the topic yourself?

Yes. Just give me an hour or so, I'm banging a spliff together at the moment. Fancy a toke, or are you a reformed character now you've settled down with Fanny Cradock?

It's good gear. Man.

Lord Ponsonby
25th April 2015, 18:55
Sticky bud, Luverly!

nicknotnicked
25th April 2015, 19:29
Sticky bud, Luverly!

Try some "Lemon"!

Lord Ponsonby
25th April 2015, 19:36
Try some "Lemon"!


Drop in and try some. Mine's the house with no snow on the roof. :angel10:

Chris Mitchell
25th April 2015, 19:42
Yes. Just give me an hour or so, I'm banging a spliff together at the moment. Fancy a toke, or are you a reformed character now you've settled down with Fanny Cradock?

It's good gear. Man.

Fair enough. I haven't smoked since 2002, when Fanny was still a girl, though I've had the occasional hash cookie since then. And sticky bud still smells nice.

Lord Ponsonby
25th April 2015, 19:50
Fair enough. I haven't smoked since 2002, when Fanny was still a girl, though I've had the occasional hash cookie since then. And sticky bud still smells nice.

Oh, ok.

Memnoch
25th April 2015, 20:04
The dealers who are caught are not the people producing the drugs and controlling the supply. If you shoot the couriers, their bosses will always be able to replace them. It's just a waste of bullets and changes absolutely nothing.

Mr Fred
25th April 2015, 23:22
The dealers who are caught are not the people producing the drugs and controlling the supply. If you shoot the couriers, their bosses will always be able to replace them. It's just a waste of bullets and changes absolutely nothing.

But most of these are the big boys, or are guilty of a large part in many murders.
Drugs cause large scale death and misery, so any and all dealers are guilty of murder.
Lame excuses don't hold up -these people kill for cash, so I have no problem at a'l Indonesia's stance on this issue.

Another note.
I see the thread has been derailed by those in favour of stupidity, using the usual arguments about booze and cigs.
Of course, they have to resort to this old tactic because they have no good points to put forward about drugs, save the tired old rubbish about how lovely things would be if all drugs were legal.

Mr Fred
25th April 2015, 23:23
http://m.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31851707

Mr Fred
25th April 2015, 23:24
Anyway, they have been given the required 72 hours notice of their deaths, so ghey've had their chips and will rot in hell.

Plutonium
26th April 2015, 08:22
The Australians were smuggling out of Indonesia.

So were the drugs they were smuggling, manufactured in Indonesia, or smuggled into Indonesia from somewhere else?


Most drugs are for use by foreigners in Bali.

Which is in Indonesia, so why are the drugs being smuggled out of Indonesia? :juggle:

Plutonium
26th April 2015, 08:26
Actually, it's nothing like that at all. I'm 100% opposed to capital punishment but that is a gross oversimplification. You're argument would be equally valid to troops in a combat situation, and by equally valid, I really mean equally invalid.

"Your"

Killing by troops in war has never been counted as murder. The definition of murder in English law is "the killing of a human being in the King's/Queen's peace, with malice aforethought".

So there are three elements here:
(1) It only covers the killing of a human being, not other creatures.
(2) The killing takes place "in the King's/Queen's peace", and so excludes acts of warfare.
(3) It involves "malice aforethought", the killer must have the intention to kill; it does not however imply premeditation, as the intention can be formed on the spur of the moment, for example in a bar room brawl; however premeditation is an aggravating factor (for some reason, English law does not have the distinction between first and second degree murder).

Now an execution seems to me to fulfil all these three criteria. The only difference from any other murder is that it is sanctioned by the state.

Plutonium
26th April 2015, 08:28
Killing by troops in war has never been counted as murder.

Although if you kill soldiers who are surrendering, that does count as murder.

Mr Fred
26th April 2015, 08:35
So were the drugs they were smuggling, manufactured in Indonesia, or smuggled into Indonesia from somewhere else?



Which is in Indonesia, so why are the drugs being smuggled out of Indonesia? :juggle:

Indonesia has a very popular island called, Bali.
Lots of foreigners go there, but can't go two weeks without drugs, so there's a drugs trade to be had.
Most of the rest of Indonesia has a tiny problem, but it is there.

They Australian mass murderers were attempting to smuggle to Australia to make money. They bought cheap and attempted to sell high in Australia. We should also note one other thing; it was the Australians that provided the tip off that saw them arrested.
Quite why they're moaning now is a mystery.

Anyway, it's confirmed - they evil dogs will be dead evil dogs on Tuesday.

Plutonium
26th April 2015, 08:41
But most of these are the big boys, or are guilty of a large part in many murders.

Where does it say that? This lot look to be like the usual 'mules'.

Let's be clear about this. The "big boys" never take drugs with them, they get other people to do it for them. Catching the top guys involves undercover operations and often armed assaults on their headquarters.

Mary Veloso was duped into carrying drugs. Rodrigo Gularte suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. Some "Mr Big", eh?


Drugs cause large scale death and misery, so any and all dealers are guilty of murder.

Someone else who doesn't understand the meaning of murder. Does anyone taking drugs get forced to do so? They take them because they want to. You said that must drug taking in Indonesia is among holidaymakers on Bali - do they all go back home in body bags, then?


Lame excuses don't hold up -these people kill for cash, so I have no problem at a'l Indonesia's stance on this issue.

I do, because the executions will be state sanctioned murder.


Another note.
I see the thread has been derailed by those in favour of stupidity, using the usual arguments about booze and cigs.
Of course, they have to resort to this old tactic because they have no good points to put forward about drugs, save the tired old rubbish about how lovely things would be if all drugs were legal.

Rather than addressing the point about Prohibition, you simply dismiss it. The fact is that the "war on drugs" is not being won, and it won't be won as long as there is a market for the drugs.

How much do you actually know about drugs, Fred? Do you simply buy into all the tabloid hysteria? It has been mentioned here that most drugs-related deaths are caused by inadvertent overdoses. Drug takers know that the drugs they buy are normally adulterated with other substances, so they increase their dosage to take account of this. Then when they get a consignment which is unexpectedly pure, this kills them.

Legalise drugs, and this problem is eliminated. The purity of drugs sold from legal dealers can be monitored by Trading Standards.

Do you have an answer for that? Or just more abuse about "ignorance" and "stupidity"?

Plutonium
26th April 2015, 08:45
Indonesia has a very popular island called, Bali.

No shit.


Lots of foreigners go there, but can't go two weeks without drugs, so there's a drugs trade to be had.
Most of the rest of Indonesia has a tiny problem, but it is there.

So if the problem is pretty much limited to holidaymakers on Bali, what's the big deal?


They Australian mass murderers were attempting to smuggle to Australia to make money. They bought cheap and attempted to sell high in Australia. We should also note one other thing; it was the Australians that provided the tip off that saw them arrested.
Quite why they're moaning now is a mystery.

Anyway, it's confirmed - they evil dogs will be dead evil dogs on Tuesday.

You haven't answered my question. Were the drugs being smuggled out, manufactured in Indonesia, or had they been smuggled there from somewhere else?

Fork Me
26th April 2015, 15:23
Killing by troops in war has never been counted as murder.

Neither has state sanctioned execution.

Chris Mitchell
26th April 2015, 17:08
But most of these are the big boys, or are guilty of a large part in many murders.
Drugs cause large scale death and misery, so any and all dealers are guilty of murder.
Lame excuses don't hold up -these people kill for cash, so I have no problem at a'l Indonesia's stance on this issue.

Another note.
I see the thread has been derailed by those in favour of stupidity, using the usual arguments about booze and cigs.
Of course, they have to resort to this old tactic because they have no good points to put forward about drugs, save the tired old rubbish about how lovely things would be if all drugs were legal.

How can you say that's derailing it?

The arguments you use against drug users who can't hold down a job apply just as much to alcoholics, and you're just attempting to evade the question.

Mr Fred
26th April 2015, 23:35
Mary Veloso was duped into carrying drugs. Rodrigo Gularte suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. Some "Mr Big", eh?

They claim so, but I claim to be Prince Charles.
Am I?

Mr Fred
26th April 2015, 23:43
You haven't answered my question. Were the drugs being smuggled out, manufactured in Indonesia, or had they been smuggled there from somewhere else?

Some drugs are made in Indonesia, weed and meth being the most common.
Weed is mostly grown in the extremist run north - slightly ironic but it shows what silly people extremists are.
Irony extends to the cops in that area who have the worst drug problem in the whole of Indonesia.
A saw a meth factory being busted a year or so ago. The cops told me the owner would never get out of prison.

As far as I'm aware, the rest is smuggled into the country, or Indonesia is a transit point.
A British woman is also on death row, also claiming she was set up.
Seems the local know her as the local dealer. Drug dealers lie.

Mr Fred
26th April 2015, 23:47
The fact is that the "war on drugs" is not being won, and it won't be won as long as there is a market for the drugs.

In the UK and US, the war on drugs is in trouble.
I understand the same goes for Australia
Indonesia's drug dealers have to keep a very low profile, even a bit of weed can get you 5 years.
The war here is being lost be the dealers, so there is very little other crime.

The answer for the other countries would seem to be, hammer dealers in a large way.
Works here.

nicknotnicked
27th April 2015, 00:06
http://www.smh.com.au/world/they-wanted-130000--and-then-more-explosive-bali-nine-bribe-allegations-20150426-1mtwc1.html?&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=social&eid=socialn%3Afac-14omn0012-optim-nnn%3Apaid-25%2F06%2F2014-social_traffic-all-postprom-nnn-smh-o&campaign_code=nocode&promote_channel=social_facebook

Seems that bribery is alive there too...
And as an aside, most adults go to Thailand for the fun atmosphere and perhaps sex with mostly of age girls that know what they are in to, NGOs paint a whole different picture otherwise their funding dries up...

Plutonium
27th April 2015, 08:25
Neither has state sanctioned execution.

What I am saying, Forkers, is that execution fits the description of murder; killing in warfare doesn't.

If you're a pacifist, fair enough, but I do personally believe in the concept of a just war. WW2 being the most obvious example. If we hadn't stood up to Hitler, we would all be living under a Nazi dictatorship.

Plutonium
27th April 2015, 08:28
In the UK and US, the war on drugs is in trouble.
I understand the same goes for Australia
Indonesia's drug dealers have to keep a very low profile, even a bit of weed can get you 5 years.
The war here is being lost be the dealers, so there is very little other crime.

The answer for the other countries would seem to be, hammer dealers in a large way.
Works here.

Other countries do that. The USA has extremely long sentences for drug dealers. It doesn't seem to work.

The answer is that as long as there is a market for drugs, there'll be a supply. Take out one dealer, another will appear in their place. Maybe there isn't a market in Indonesia, apart from Bali. That may be down to cultural and religious reasons, I don't know. The fact is that huge numbers of people in the industrialised countries seem to be on various kinds of drugs. And it's not just the lower classes, there's a big demand among the wealthy for cocaine.

Plutonium
27th April 2015, 08:29
http://www.smh.com.au/world/they-wanted-130000--and-then-more-explosive-bali-nine-bribe-allegations-20150426-1mtwc1.html?&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=social&eid=socialn%3Afac-14omn0012-optim-nnn%3Apaid-25%2F06%2F2014-social_traffic-all-postprom-nnn-smh-o&campaign_code=nocode&promote_channel=social_facebook

Seems that bribery is alive there too...


Hmm, let's see Fred's take on that.

Lord Ponsonby
27th April 2015, 08:35
Hmm, let's see Fred's take on that.

Have you ever tried skunk?

You should.

Plutonium
27th April 2015, 09:09
Have you ever tried skunk?

You should.

Non Sequiturs R Us.

Fork Me
27th April 2015, 13:06
What I am saying, Forkers, is that execution fits the description of murder; killing in warfare doesn't.

It fits YOUR definition of murder. But not any actual current legal definition.

Plutonium
27th April 2015, 13:12
It fits YOUR definition of murder. But not any actual current legal definition.

I've already told you the legal definition of murder.

It should be noted that murder is a Common Law offence. The classic definition is that by Sir Edward Coke:

""Murder is when a man of sound memory, and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King's peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the party wounded, or hurt, etc. die of the wound or hurt, etc. within a year and a day after the same."

The bit struck out no longer applies, but the rest of the definition still stands today. The important bit for the purposes of this discussion being the bit shown in bold, ie it does not cover acts of war.

Now please can you tell me what, in the above, does not apply to a 'lawful' execution?

Fork Me
27th April 2015, 13:30
I've already told you the legal definition of murder.

It should be noted that murder is a Common Law offence. The classic definition is that by Sir Edward Coke:

Why do you always assume that of someone doesn't agree with you they haven't understood what you posted?

You've already said all that, and Cole's definition is not "the classic definition", it's A definiton and only applies to UK law, which is not what we're talking about here.

Also,as you've already stated, tropps in a combat situation CAN in certain cases be court martialled for murder, so the bit in bold doesn't even apply there. You are, as usual, talking complete nonsense.

Even if we do accept Cole's definition as the be all and end all, let ME do some highlighting:

"Murder is when a man of sound memory, and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King's peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the party wounded, or hurt, etc. die of the wound or hurt, etc. within a year and a day after the same."

If capital punishment is deemed lawful by the state (which it is in any state that practices capital punishment), then it doesn't fall foul of Cole's definition.

Plutonium
27th April 2015, 13:50
Why do you always assume that of someone doesn't agree with you they haven't understood what you posted?

You've already said all that, and Cole's definition is not "the classic definition", it's A definiton and only applies to UK law, which is not what we're talking about here.

I've already said it's the UK definition. However, you will find that definitions in other countries are very similar.


Also,as you've already stated, tropps in a combat situation CAN in certain cases be court martialled for murder, so the bit in bold doesn't even apply there. You are, as usual, talking complete nonsense.

I've already said that troops can be tried for murder in certain situations.


Even if we do accept Cole's definition as the be all and end all, let ME do some highlighting:

"Murder is when a man of sound memory, and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King's peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the party wounded, or hurt, etc. die of the wound or hurt, etc. within a year and a day after the same."

If capital punishment is deemed lawful by the state (which it is in any state that practices capital punishment), then it doesn't fall foul of Cole's definition.

So the staff at Nazi death camps couldn't be tried for murder, because what they were doing was lawful under German law at the time?

Fork Me
27th April 2015, 13:58
I've already said that troops can be tried for murder in certain situations.

So what? You also claimed the bit in bold says that can't happen, which is proof that you definition is not the be all and end all. On the one hand you claim it means that troops can't be tried for murder because if the bit you highlighted, then you admit they can.

You also claimed that the definition means that capital punishment is murder, even though it clearly doesn't because of the bit I highlighted.


So the staff at Nazi death camps couldn't be tried for murder, because what they were doing was lawful under German law at the time?

Clearly they could, still MORE evidence that your definition is not the be all and end all. Remember that definition being THE classical definition of murder is YOUR argument, not mine, and yet you have just provided more evidence that it isn't.

You seem to be tying yourself up in knots here...

Plutonium
27th April 2015, 17:50
So what? You also claimed the bit in bold says that can't happen, which is proof that you definition is not the be all and end all. On the one hand you claim it means that troops can't be tried for murder because if the bit you highlighted, then you admit they can.

Which "bit in bold" are you babbling on about?


You also claimed that the definition means that capital punishment is murder, even though it clearly doesn't because of the bit I highlighted.

I pointed out that just because a killing is lawful, doesn't mean it is justified. The Nazis believed the Jews were evil and needed to be exterminated. Some people believe it's okay to kill somebody in cold blood if it has the sanction of a court. Ultimately, what's the difference?


Clearly they could, still MORE evidence that your definition is not the be all and end all. Remember that definition being THE classical definition of murder is YOUR argument, not mine, and yet you have just provided more evidence that it isn't.

You're the one tying yourself up in knots. Merely saying that a killing isn't a murder simply because it is legal under a particular country's law as it stands, without appeal to any other factor, is a circular argument. My whole point is that execution is state sanctioned murder, because it is a killing in cold blood (not an act of warfare, self-defence or so on) that has been made legal by the state.

Mr Fred
27th April 2015, 22:35
""Murder is when a man of sound memory, and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King's peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the party wounded, or hurt, etc. die of the wound or hurt, etc.

What, like drug dealers do when they supply death to their victims?
They show an intent to make money by supplying something they know will kill many of their customers.

Joe 90
27th April 2015, 22:59
What, like drug dealers do when they supply death to their victims?

They supply what the market demands, nothing more. If people choose to take drugs and in some (rare) cases place their own lives at risk, that's their choice.


They show an intent to make money by supplying something they know will kill many of their customers.

In exactly the same way that the owner of an off-licence does when supplying cigarettes and alcohol to paying customers. Should they too be executed for simply meeting the demands of those who purchase their wares?

On the subject of 'supplying death' (a particularly myopic way of describing a process which actually does nothing of the sort...), which drugs do you think kill more people............cigs and booze, or illegal class A drugs?

Mr Fred
28th April 2015, 05:36
They supply what the market demands, nothing more. If people choose to take drugs and in some (rare) cases place their own lives at risk, that's their choice.


http://thejakartaglobe.beritasatu.com/news/child-protection-commission-concerned-youths-targeted-drug-traffickers/


Jakarta. Drugs trafficked by youths are reportedly increasing as the government receives international condemnation for implementing capital punishment as part of its fighting effort against narcotics.

The head of the Indonesian Commission for Child Protection (KPAI) says that the trend has increased twofold from 21 cases found in 2013 to 42 cases in 2014.

Yes, dealers are so nice. NOT

Fork Me
28th April 2015, 06:39
Which "bit in bold"

The bit YOU highlighted. Are you totally incapable of following a thread?




I pointed out that just because a killing is lawful, doesn't mean it is justified. The Nazis believed the Jews were evil and needed to be exterminated. Some people believe it's okay to kill somebody in cold blood if it has the sanction of a court. Ultimately, what's the difference?

No, what you said was that state sanctioned executions were murder according to the definition you posted. They're not. You were wrong.




You're the one tying yourself up in knots. Merely saying that a killing isn't a murder simply because it is legal under a particular country's law as it stands, without appeal to any other factor, is a circular argument. My whole point is that execution is state sanctioned murder, because it is a killing in cold blood (not an act of warfare, self-defence or so on) that has been made legal by the state.

I suggest you re-read what I said, I haven't said that at all.

ronniex
28th April 2015, 08:31
They supply what the market demands, nothing more. If people choose to take drugs and in some (rare) cases place their own lives at risk, that's their choice.





which drugs do you think kill more people............cigs and booze, or illegal class A drugs?

Without a shadow of a doubt,via quantity alone, it must be cigs and booze.

Joe 90
28th April 2015, 10:04
http://thejakartaglobe.beritasatu.com/news/child-protection-commission-concerned-youths-targeted-drug-traffickers/



Yes, dealers are so nice. NOT

Is that all you've got?

The points you were attempting to make earlier had fuck-all to do with niceness. Feel free to pop back and argue the relevant issues, if you can remember what they are.

Plutonium
28th April 2015, 12:42
What, like drug dealers do when they supply death to their victims?
They show an intent to make money by supplying something they know will kill many of their customers.

Have you not been bothering to read the posts in this thread?

First, nobody forces drug users to take drugs. They take the drugs because they want the 'high'.

I drink, and probably drink too much. If I eventually die of cirrhosis of the liver, will the drinks companies be guilty of my murder? No, because nobody held a gun to my head and forced me to consume their products.

Second, it has already been pointed out to you that most drug-related deaths are from accidental overdoses. This is because most drugs bought on the street are adulterated with other substances, so drug users increase their dose to take account of this. Then, when they get an unexpectedly pure supply, it kills them.

If drugs were sold legally, the purity could be monitored by Trading Standards, and this problem would not occur.

The fact is that you have no answer to either of these points, you just trot out the same old "drug dealers are murderers" line like a stuck record.

Plutonium
28th April 2015, 12:46
The bit YOU highlighted. Are you totally incapable of following a thread?

No, what you said was that state sanctioned executions were murder according to the definition you posted. They're not. You were wrong.

I suggest you re-read what I said, I haven't said that at all.

I stand by what I have said. If you look at the legal definition of murder under English law, then the only way an execution differs from it, is the word 'lawfully'. If I kill somebody in cold blood, with premeditation, it's murder. If an executioner does the same thing, it's a lawful execution.

Mr Fred
28th April 2015, 13:01
First, nobody forces drug users to take drugs

No, the dealers target kids. That saves all the messing about with choice because the children are too young to be properly informed about their decision, but are easy to exploit.

Shoot the devils.

Mr Fred
28th April 2015, 13:04
The points you were attempting to make earlier had fuck-all to do with niceness.

As you know, I despise bad language, but I'll answer anyway.

Niceness, or an evil nature, has everything to do with this.
These people deliberately target children, knowing they'll ruin their lives or kill them with the product they supply.
As they're so evil, I have no problem with them watching a firing squad from the dangerous end.

Mr Fred
28th April 2015, 13:13
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/28/us-indonesia-executions-idUSKBN0NI2F820150428

The execution is just a few hours away.
It looks as if these evil killers will be dispatched to hell at just after midnight Z.

I have two kids, and I want them to grow up in a country free from such nasty dogs, so I have absolutely no objection to taking out the trash.

Someone once asked me if I drop someone in it at the airport if I knew they had drugs - YES, I would, even knowing they'd be facing a firing squad - seems a lot better than letting these people kill kids.

Plutonium
28th April 2015, 13:15
No, the dealers target kids. That saves all the messing about with choice because the children are too young to be properly informed about their decision, but are easy to exploit.

Shoot the devils.

How young are the "kids"?

The article you link to conveniently avoids this question, but shows a picture of a very young child, forming the idea in the gullible reader's mind that these are the kinds of people the dealers are targetting.

Incidentally, the article is saying that "kids" are the dealers, not the users.

Joe 90
28th April 2015, 14:46
As you know, I'm full of shit...

It's common knowledge.


Niceness, or an evil nature, has everything to do with this.

Perception is what it's all about. Sadly you're just not that perceptive. Nobody thinks drug dealers are necessarily warm-hearted, caring souls (although I'm sure some of them are perfectly pleasant people), but they simply supply a demand, and alone that does not make them evil, any more than a shop owner selling kitchen knives (a potential lethal weapon) is evil. As for what they do being morally questionable, given the illegality of certain class A drugs, well that's a completely different discussion and certainly not the one you're attempting to hold.


These people deliberately target children, knowing they'll ruin their lives or kill them with the product they supply.
As they're so evil, I have no problem with them watching a firing squad from the dangerous end.

You're talking nonsense. And you still haven't addressed the points made earlier in the thread.

Joe 90
28th April 2015, 14:46
How young are the "kids"?

The article you link to conveniently avoids this question, but shows a picture of a very young child, forming the idea in the gullible reader's mind that these are the kinds of people the dealers are targetting.

Incidentally, the article is saying that "kids" are the dealers, not the users.

He's hardly going to let mere facts cloud his self-righteous rants, now is he?

Mr Fred
28th April 2015, 22:49
It's common knowledge..

Ah - the common ploy of the pathetic.
When they're finally aware they've lost and have no hope, alter a post to make it look as if they've won.

This exceptionally sad attempt shows only out low, weak minded and unintelligent those guilty of this excuse for an argument are.