Drugsdealers meet justice: 8 executed

[Saint Frankenstein]

Wait! Is this Saint Frankenstein? Or someone hacked his account?
Can anyone confirm what iam reading here???

I'm not sure why you're surprised. I'm a big supporter of the death penalty and a believer that hard drugs are a scourge to be battled.

 

[Apex]

As long as this isn't a situation like in the movie Maria Full of Grace with a person basically being enslaved by a drug cartel and forced to act as a drug mule, I don't really care that they were put to death.

What other non-violent crimes do you support the death penalty for?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What other non-violent crimes do you support the death penalty for?

Drug trafficking isn't a non-violent crime. This isn't like growing pot in your backyard and selling it to your friends. Trafficking hard drugs like heroin and cocaine always involves human exploitation and murder. What, you think they have opium poppies growing in their backyards?

 

[gsa]

I will admit it right here: I'm against the death penalty for ethical and practical reasons, but I consider drug-dealing to be an atrocious crime worthy of severe punishment. Drug dealers don't just harm themselves; they lead many people to addiction that quite often can be fatal. I have little sympathy for them.

The problem is that their culpability is shared by the consumers of the drugs. And most drug users, at least most addicts, are also dealers. You share a joint with a friend? Possession with intent. Dealer. Have a large quantity even if for personal use? Possession with intent, dealer. And so on.

This is not an issue for the criminal justice system. It is an issue for the mental health sector.

 

[Nietzsche]

Mexico is just one example, and a brutal one at that. We have street gangs in the inner city across America trafficking crack, heroin, and other nasty crap. They are highly responsible for the destruction of many communities and families.

Mexico has problems far larger and older than Cartels. The Cartels are just the latest development. However, look at Portugal or Denmark. When they decriminalized drugs, violence went down ludicrously fast.

 

[Apex]

Trafficking hard drugs like heroin and cocaine always involves human exploitation and murder.

I would love to see you actually prove this statement.

 

[kiwimac]

If drugsdealers are tolerated. They become powerful Drugs Kingdoms(Cartels).

Tell that to the Portuguese.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Mexico has problems far larger and older than Cartels. The Cartels are just the latest development. However, look at Portugal or Denmark. When they decriminalized drugs, violence went down ludicrously fast.

Portugal:
"In July 2001, a new law maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. The offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than ten days' supply of that substance.[1] This was in line with the de facto Portuguese drug policy before the reform. Drug addicts were then to be aggressively targeted with therapy or community service rather than fines or waivers.[10] Even if there are no criminal penalties, these changes did not legalize drug use in Portugal. Possession has remained prohibited by Portuguese law, and criminal penalties are still applied to drug growers, dealers and traffickers.[11][12]"
Drug policy of Portugal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Denmark:
"According to the Consolidated Euphoriant Substances Act of 2008, import, export, sale, purchase, delivery, receipt, production, processing and possession of drugs are defined as criminal offences. The penalty under this Act is a fine or imprisonment for a maximum of two years. Illegal possession for own use usually involves a fine, which varies depending on the type and quantity of drugs involved. In some cases the possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of own use may also result in short-term imprisonment. The Act had already been amended in 1996 to increase the penalty for professional drug dealers, who had previously avoided serious sanctions by only carrying very small quantities of drugs at a time. From 2004 the distribution of drugs in restaurants, discotheques or similar places frequented by children or young people has been deemed to be a significantly aggravating circumstance that should always be punished with a prison sentence.

More serious offences are punished under Section 191 of the Criminal Code. The precondition for resorting to this instead of the Euphoriant Substances Act is that the criminal offence involves the transfer of, or the intention to transfer, at least 25 g of heroin or cocaine, 50 g of amphetamine or 10 kg of cannabis. Since 2004 the penalty under Section 191 of the Criminal Code has been imprisonment for 10–16 years, with up to 25 years in particularly serious cases.

No alternatives to punishment are specified for drug-related offences. However, probationary measures can be applied at the sentencing stage, if the court finds punishment unnecessary (this may be applied in cases of any crime) and the law mentions an obligation to undergo treatment as one of these measures.

A new law to allow the medical prescription of heroin to addicts became effective on 1 July 2008, while in 2012 a law allowing the Minister of Health to grant permission for drug consumption rooms to be opened and operated came into effect.

On 1 July 2012 group bans on psychoactive substances came into force following the amendment of the Euphoriant Substances Act, so that Denmark will apply a ‘generic classification’ to control certain new psychoactive substances entering the country."
EMCDDA | Situation summary for Denmark — up to date summary of the national drug situation in Denmark (Country overviews)

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I would love to see you actually prove this statement.

Are you serious? Where exactly do you think cocaine and heroin come from?

 

[Nietzsche]

Portugal:
"In July 2001, a new law maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. The offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than ten days' supply of that substance.[1] This was in line with the de facto Portuguese drug policy before the reform. Drug addicts were then to be aggressively targeted with therapy or community service rather than fines or waivers.[10] Even if there are no criminal penalties, these changes did not legalize drug use in Portugal. Possession has remained prohibited by Portuguese law, and criminal penalties are still applied to drug growers, dealers and traffickers.[11][12]"
Drug policy of Portugal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Denmark:
"According to the Consolidated Euphoriant Substances Act of 2008, import, export, sale, purchase, delivery, receipt, production, processing and possession of drugs are defined as criminal offences. The penalty under this Act is a fine or imprisonment for a maximum of two years. Illegal possession for own use usually involves a fine, which varies depending on the type and quantity of drugs involved. In some cases the possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of own use may also result in short-term imprisonment. The Act had already been amended in 1996 to increase the penalty for professional drug dealers, who had previously avoided serious sanctions by only carrying very small quantities of drugs at a time. From 2004 the distribution of drugs in restaurants, discotheques or similar places frequented by children or young people has been deemed to be a significantly aggravating circumstance that should always be punished with a prison sentence.

More serious offences are punished under Section 191 of the Criminal Code. The precondition for resorting to this instead of the Euphoriant Substances Act is that the criminal offence involves the transfer of, or the intention to transfer, at least 25 g of heroin or cocaine, 50 g of amphetamine or 10 kg of cannabis. Since 2004 the penalty under Section 191 of the Criminal Code has been imprisonment for 10–16 years, with up to 25 years in particularly serious cases.

No alternatives to punishment are specified for drug-related offences. However, probationary measures can be applied at the sentencing stage, if the court finds punishment unnecessary (this may be applied in cases of any crime) and the law mentions an obligation to undergo treatment as one of these measures.

A new law to allow the medical prescription of heroin to addicts became effective on 1 July 2008, while in 2012 a law allowing the Minister of Health to grant permission for drug consumption rooms to be opened and operated came into effect.

On 1 July 2012 group bans on psychoactive substances came into force following the amendment of the Euphoriant Substances Act, so that Denmark will apply a ‘generic classification’ to control certain new psychoactive substances entering the country."
EMCDDA | Situation summary for Denmark — up to date summary of the national drug situation in Denmark (Country overviews)

I didn't say legalize. I said decriminalize.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I didn't say legalize. I said decriminalize.

All it means is that they deal with personal drug use with a rehabilitation strategy (or a monitoring strategy, as in the case of heroin use in Denmark) but everything else is still punished. In fact, it's not so different from what I propose as a sound drug policy.

 

[MD]

Mexico's Cartels are an extremely unique situation, which has more to do with the Mexican government's utter failure in general than with drugs.

Mexico is an exception, not the rule.

What about Punjab? What about Colombia? Iran? Pakistan?

What about the ghettos of every single inner city in the U.S. and Canada?

I think people who claim drugs are harmless either a) use a lot of drugs or b) are completely ignorant and unaware of the **** that goes on in drug communities

 

[columbus]

Many, many more are killed by those fighting drugs than by drugs, their users or criminal activity associated with them.

This is ridiculous.
People who are fighting drug use and trafficking do not kill more people than ODs, addicts trying to get another fix, and dealers battling their competition.

I oppose the death penalty generally. But I have no sympathy for these guys. They went to a country that implements it and committed a capital crime for money.
Oops.
But they picked it. Eight innocent people died around the globe while their sentence was being carried out. Let's save our sympathy for them.

Tom

 

[gsa]

Drug trafficking isn't a non-violent crime. This isn't like growing pot in your backyard and selling it to your friends. Trafficking hard drugs like heroin and cocaine always involves human exploitation and murder. What, you think they have opium poppies growing in their backyards?

I disagree. There are plenty of drug dealers who trade in cocaine, heroin and ecstasy and are not violent. They get processed daily in our court systems.

What about Punjab? What about Colombia? Iran? Pakistan?

What about the ghettos of every single inner city in the U.S. and Canada?

I think people who claim drugs are harmless either a) use a lot of drugs or b) are completely ignorant and unaware of the **** that goes on in drug communities

Drugs are not harmless, and I do not think anyone would claim that. But alcohol is not harmless either; in fact, quite harmful. Alcohol does not produce the same level of violence that you find with the drug war not because the substance is any less harmful, but because the regulatory system is entirely different. The USA had a social experiment on prohibition and, surprise, it produced massive amounts of violence.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I disagree. There are plenty of drug dealers who trade in cocaine, heroin and ecstasy and are not violent. They get processed daily in our court systems.

Follow the chain of the drug all the way back to its basic ingredients. Where are they getting heroin and coke from? Where do the opium poppies and coca leaves come from? How are they getting the drugs to sell on the streets?

 

[MD]

Drugs are not harmless, and I do not think anyone would claim that. But alcohol is not harmless either; in fact, quite harmful. Alcohol does not produce the same level of violence that you find with the drug war not because the substance is any less harmful, but because the regulatory system is entirely different. The USA had a social experiment on prohibition and, surprise, it produced massive amounts of violence.

Alcohol does not have near the same lethality or addiction potential that meth, coke and heroin do. Sure the mob was built on alcohol, but that has more to do with the fact that alcohol was pervasive socially, rather than the addicting power it has. It takes a while to get addicted to alcohol and a while after that to develop serious complications. One can get addicted to coke, heroin or meth rather fast and witness the negative health, psychological, social and community effects at a much more accelerated pace than alcohol. There are entire armies (and countries) now dedicated towards the manufacturing and distribution of hard drugs.This ain't weed.

Regulation argument is bogus. Drugs destroy societies, and the examples I have provided are proof of that.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Alcohol does not have near the same lethality or addiction potential that meth, coke and heroin do. Sure the mob was built on alcohol, but that has more to do with the fact that alcohol was pervasive socially, rather than the addicting power it has. It takes a while to get addicted to alcohol and a while after that to develop serious complications. One can get addicted to coke, heroin or meth rather fast and witness the negative health, psychological, social and community effects at a much more accelerated pace than alcohol. There are entire armies (and countries) now dedicated towards the manufacturing and distribution of drugs.

Regulation argument is bogus. Drugs destroy societies, and the examples I have provided are proof of that.

Also, the manufacture and distribution of alcohol does not necessarily involve human exploitation, extortion, murder, etc. across international boundaries.

 

[MD]

Also, the manufacture and distribution of alcohol does not necessarily involve human exploitation, extortion, murder, etc. across international boundaries.

It did during prohibition. But the social effects of alcohol pale in comparison to what a society would look like using heroin. It would be ultimate collapse.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It did during prohibition. But the social effects of alcohol pale in comparison to what a society would look like using heroin. It would be ultimate collapse.

Yeah, during Prohibition. Not anymore.

 

[gsa]

Alcohol does not have near the same lethality or addiction potential that meth, coke and heroin do. Sure the mob was built on alcohol, but that has more to do with the fact that alcohol was pervasive socially, rather than the addicting power it has. It takes a while to get addicted to alcohol and a while after that to develop serious complications. One can get addicted to coke, heroin or meth rather fast and witness the negative health, psychological, social and community effects at a much more accelerated pace than alcohol. There are entire armies (and countries) now dedicated towards the manufacturing and distribution of hard drugs.This ain't weed.

Regulation argument is bogus. Drugs destroy societies, and the examples I have provided are proof of that.

The time for cocaine addiction varies considerably by user, and may not develop at all. But this is no different from alcohol, and cocaine was also widely available and pervasive prior to its prohibition in the teens in the U.S. Immoderate use of any substance is likely to produce negative consequences for the user and those around her, and this is no different with alcohol or cocaine. The opiates are a different class altogether. I do not know that those can be used recreationally in any responsible way. And you are forgetting that our drug laws classify other substances with almost zero addiction potential as prohibited, including LSD and its cousins.

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that we did not have a drug war until the 1980s, and yet despite having a lax regulatory environment we did not see these overwhelmingly negative impacts you speak of. Nor do we see the impact in other societies that look the other way. The most violent examples you can think of are in poor and destitute regions that are filled with despair for reasons usually totally unrelated to drugs.