Samantha Orobator facing the death penalty

[jeremyjh1]

you gambling on an assumption,if she is guilty then she must stand trial and accept the verdict ,she may as you say make a fantastic parent but if she is involved with drugs then on the same assumption i doubt she will

 

And what assumptions are you making? That she is 'involved' with drugs - by which I assume you mean she's not just chanced her arm once for some quick cash because she's broke or whatever?

 

I assume you mean she's involved up to her neck in the manufacture, the distribution, the selling and so on?

 

The trouble for people like you, what I describe as 'headline readers', is that the rest of the story really doesn't matter. She/he is guilty (usually before any conviction has been reached) and he/she should have the book thrown at them.

 

Why they did it - say, the drug dealers are holding a member of their family hostage until the smuggling is done; or they threaten to kill the smuggler if they don't do it - none of that matters, does it?

 

It must be wonderful to live in such a simple, black and white world.

[depoix]

So, by your logic, if people took drugs in moderation, they'd be ok and we could make drugs legal?

i was of course referring to cigs and alcohol not hard drugs as any one could have understood by reading the posts ,i dont make the laws cigs and alcohol are taxed heavily to try to stop over use,the same over use that kills people

[depoix]

And what assumptions are you making? That she is 'involved' with drugs - by which I assume you mean she's not just chanced her arm once for some quick cash because she's broke or whatever?

 

I assume you mean she's involved up to her neck in the manufacture, the distribution, the selling and so on?

 

The trouble for people like you, what I describe as 'headline readers', is that the rest of the story really doesn't matter. She/he is guilty (usually before any conviction has been reached) and he/she should have the book thrown at them.

 

Why they did it - say, the drug dealers are holding a member of their family hostage until the smuggling is done; or they threaten to kill the smuggler if they don't do it - none of that matters, does it?

 

It must be wonderful to live in such a simple, black and white world.

you make a lot of assumptions,lets stick to facts,she is not going to be shot or hung the authorities believe they have a case against her for drug running,nothing has been mentioned in the news of assumptions of drug dealers holding a member of her family hostage,she will be given a british solicitor who will ask for evidence or proof of guilt to be put foreward by the prosecution,the jury will decide on the verdict and justice will be done,just the same as it is here in britain

[jeremyjh1]

i was of course referring to cigs and alcohol not hard drugs as any one could have understood by reading the posts ,i dont make the laws cigs and alcohol are taxed heavily to try to stop over use,the same over use that kills people

 

But your logic, whether applied to a legal drug or not, is flawed.

 

Drugs, when used in moderation, are no more harmful or addictive than alcohol or cigarettes. So why should some be made legal (and taxed to prevent over use ) while the other is not (leading to over use and countless deaths, due to not being taxed to prevent it).

 

When making a case to maintain the illegality of 'drugs', it is impossible to seperate them from legal 'drugs'.

 

They both kill people - statistics show this.

 

Yet alcohol and cigarettes are legal. Double standard.

 

And I appreciate that you don't make the law - neither do I - but that doesn't stop me from exposing the hypocracy.

 

To this date, I struggle to understand the justification for making alcohol and cigarettes legal whilst keeping other drugs illegal. And to say over use kills people is, well, a little lame and not very profoundly considered.

[pem123]

cigs and alcohol are legal, only over moderation of them kills

 

Surely 'over moderation' is a good thing?

[jeremyjh1]

you make a lot of assumptions,lets stick to facts,she is not going to be shot or hung the authorities believe they have a case against her for drug running,nothing has been mentioned in the news of assumptions of drug dealers holding a member of her family hostage,she will be given a british solicitor who will ask for evidence or proof of guilt to be put foreward by the prosecution,the jury will decide on the verdict and justice will be done,just the same as it is here in britain

 

My 'assumptions' were to simply counter your own - they were, if anything, examples of the opposite view to that which you hold.

 

Your comment 'involved in drugs' suggest something more than simply being used as a smuggler (for very often, that is precisely what happens; they are used either with the promise of money that never comes or through threats of violence or just pure intimidation).

 

I bought some beer the other day from the supermarket, so I guess that means I'm 'involved in alcohol', eh?

 

Sure, I am assuming you're a 'headline reader', but you have done little to suggest that you care anything about the background story of this particular person (or, and I am assuming again, any other person accused of and/or convicted of a crime).

 

I'm not saying she's right to have done what she did - I'm just saying that the 'facts' only tell what happened, they don't say anything as to why.

 

If you discovered, for instance, that she smuggled the drugs to pay for an opeation for her sick mother or that her younger brother and sister were being held hostage by the drug dealers, would that alter your view?

 

Somehow, I don't think it would.

[depoix]

But your logic, whether applied to a legal drug or not, is flawed.

 

Drugs, when used in moderation, are no more harmful or addictive than alcohol or cigarettes. So why should some be made legal (and taxed to prevent over use ) while the other is not (leading to over use and countless deaths, due to not being taxed to prevent it).

 

When making a case to maintain the illegality of 'drugs', it is impossible to seperate them from legal 'drugs'.

 

They both kill people - statistics show this.

 

Yet alcohol and cigarettes are legal. Double standard.

 

And I appreciate that you don't make the law - neither do I - but that doesn't stop me from exposing the hypocracy.

 

To this date, I struggle to understand the justification for making alcohol and cigarettes legal whilst keeping other drugs illegal. And to say over use kills people is, well, a little lame and not very profoundly considered.

well if it isnt over used it wont kill you will it ? you cant die from alcoholic poisoning by having a glass of beer at the weekend can you ? i know people who have smoked for over forty years who are not ill due to smoking, had they been taking heroin in the same amounts for the same length of time i doubt they would still be with us do you agree ?

[depoix]

My 'assumptions' were to simply counter your own - they were, if anything, examples of the opposite view to that which you hold.

 

Your comment 'involved in drugs' suggest something more than simply being used as a smuggler (for very often, that is precisely what happens; they are used either with the promise of money that never comes or through threats of violence or just pure intimidation).

 

I bought some beer the other day from the supermarket, so I guess that means I'm 'involved in alcohol', eh?

 

Sure, I am assuming you're a 'headline reader', but you have done little to suggest that you care anything about the background story of this particular person (or, and I am assuming again, any other person accused of and/or convicted of a crime).

 

I'm not saying she's right to have done what she did - I'm just saying that the 'facts' only tell what happened, they don't say anything as to why.

 

If you discovered, for instance, that she smuggled the drugs to pay for an opeation for her sick mother or that her younger brother and sister were being held hostage by the drug dealers, would that alter your view?

 

Somehow, I don't think it would.

you are still assuming mitigating circumstances forced her to carry drugs,im saying the prosecution must lay down unquestionable proof that she was caught with the drugs,i doubt the court would be interested in her reason for carrying them just the fact that she did ,as for you buying alcohol ,that is entirely up to you,i bought several pints of it yesterday myself as it was my daughters birthday,today i have not bought any,proof that i am not an addict and dont crave alcohol unlike drug users who commit crimes to feed their craving

[Bloomdido]

well if it isnt over used it wont kill you will it ? you cant die from alcoholic poisoning by having a glass of beer at the weekend can you ? i know people who have smoked for over forty years who are not ill due to smoking, had they been taking heroin in the same amounts for the same length of time i doubt they would still be with us do you agree ?

 

If people were able to get 'prescribed' heroin they may well be ok and able to manage their 'habit'. It's the crap that is cut with it like brick dust that does the damage and having to thieve to feed an illegal habit. Why punish addicts any more by making them criminals and forcing them to take unnecessary risks?

[Magilla]

cigs and alcohol are legal, only over moderation of them kills

 

So you would agree then that their legal status is irrelevant, since over-use is a problem in all drugs?

Edited May 12, 2009 by Magilla