Samantha Orobator facing the death penalty

[Rioja]

halibut said drugs should be legalised is he a druggie himself or dealing them?

 

Why does wanting drugs legalised, regulated and taxed make someone either a user or a dealer?

[scottf]

halibut said drugs should be legalised is he a druggie himself or dealing them?

 

 

Just because you agree with something doesn't make you a user of that system.

 

 

Its called an opinion.

[Phanerothyme]

halibut said drugs should be legalised is he a druggie himself or dealing them?

 

Neither - he has realised, like many other law abiding people (and law enforcement people too), that the most damaging effects of drugs stem from their illegality, and not their toxicity or addiction potential.

[jeremyjh1]

Just out of interest Berlin, if she was found beyond doubt to have commited said crime what would you suggest as a suitable punishment - what with you being a legal eagle?

 

Comfy chair and a cup of tea followed by some really intense therapy???

 

So, do you advocate the death penalty for drug smuggling?

 

Interesting. What about someone who kills another person in a car accident through negligence - should they, too be, executed?

 

Not all people who take drugs end up dying from it, so why should this woman, if she is found guilty of the crime, be executed?

 

There are many crimes committed where people are directly harmed or killed as a result of others actions - should they, too, be executed?

 

Remember, execution cannot be repealed if found to be wrong in the future.

 

Timothy Evans, Derek Bentley.

 

Or are they 'casualties of war'?

[Berlin]

Just out of interest Berlin, if she was found beyond doubt to have commited said crime what would you suggest as a suitable punishment - what with you being a legal eagle?

 

Comfy chair and a cup of tea followed by some really intense therapy???

 

I have never suggested that Samantha Orobator should not be punished for her crime, if found guilty. I merely suggested that we wait until she is convicted before executing her.

 

As for the intense therapy; it might be of more use to you.

[Magilla]

I could never draw parallels between them

 

They both sell an extremely damaging drug. One is legal, the other isn't. The parallels are clear. If pretenting they don't exist is the only way you can justify your point of view, you don't have a point of view.

 

and so the question does not merit an answer.

 

Because ofcourse, any logical or rational answer would entirely undermine your point of view.

 

You will of course say otherwise

 

Ofcourse.

 

You have the right to be wrong.

 

Indeed, though not on this point methinks.

[Magilla]

Why does wanting drugs legalised, regulated and taxed make someone either a user or a dealer?

 

It only does in the mind of a simpleton.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Magilla

[jeremyjh1]

They both sell an extremely damaging drug. One is legal, the other isn't. The parallels are clear. If pretenting they don't exist is the only way you can justify your point of view, you don't have a point of view.

 

At the risk of being shot down, one being legal and the other being illegal doesn't lessen the impact of abuse.

 

Alcohol, tobacco can be as destructive as taking narcotics.

 

On the flip side, many people take drugs who do not die and do not suffer ill effects or become a blight on society - same as for those that drink.

 

Given enough support and medical weight, alcohol and tobacco could easily become illegal, just as easily as narcotics could be legalised.

 

One result of legalising something is it can then be monitored, controlled and regulated, as well as deglamourising it. (Not to mention the govt can tax it!!).

 

In truth, if you consider the sentiment of the statement in a wider persepective instead of seizing on the ludicruous, there is nothing more foolish by making it.

[Magilla]

At the risk of being shot down, one being legal and the other being illegal doesn't lessen the impact of abuse.

 

Alcohol, tobacco can be as destructive as taking narcotics.

 

Indeed, which is why I think the two *can* be compared. Saying they are in no way comparable, and that there is no parallel between the two is a nonsense.

 

On the flip side, many people take drugs who do not die and do not suffer ill effects or become a blight on society - same as for those that drink.

 

Given enough support and medical weight, alcohol and tobacco could easily become illegal, just as easily as narcotics could be legalised.

 

Ofcourse, if the general public actually want alcohol and tobacco banned, they don't.

 

One result of legalising something is it can then be monitored, controlled and regulated, as well as deglamourising it. (Not to mention the govt can tax it!!).

 

Agree entirely.

 

In truth, if you consider the sentiment of the statement in a wider persepective instead of seizing on the ludicruous, there is nothing more foolish by making it.

 

?What on earth are you on about?

 

I say that legal drugs and illegal ones can be compared in terms of their effect on health and society. Do you disagree?

[jeremyjh1]

Indeed, which is why I think the two *can* be compared. Saying they are in no way comparable, and that there is no parallel between the two is a nonsense.

 

 

 

Ofcourse, if the general public actually want alcohol and tobacco banned, they don't.

 

 

 

Agree entirely.

 

 

 

?What on earth are you on about?

 

I say that legal drugs and illegal ones can be compared in terms of their effect on health and society. Do you disagree?

 

Apologies, confusing your post with the post you were responding to.

 

It's been a long week!