News What the hell did I just read...

[The DoggFather]

Fun fact about that. At least 3 people in Texas have been executed then been found innocent later.

That's the only deterrent for me.

But I'd give them deathrow for 7 years (pretty sure it's 7 years statue of limitations) then light em up or string them up.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Good on Indonesia... they executed two heroin smugglers.

They do so because they consider the impact the drug has on society.

Currently in the Philippines they execute people for being accused of using drugs. I personally know two people who lost family members there that were executed on the street after being accused of using drugs. They were innocent but that didn't matter.

The war on drugs is stupid. It never works. There are drugs that need to be stopped no matter what like heroine and ice, but removing the supply never works. There's always another supplier. The only way is to remove the need for the drug.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

That's the only deterrent for me.

But I'd give them deathrow for 7 years (pretty sure it's 7 years statue of limitations) then light em up or string them up.

That's pretty much what it is. When a person gets the death penalty then the appeals process usually takes 5-10 years. Often people are found innocent over 20 years after the trial.

Could you imagine being the district attorney who sentenced a man to death only to find out later that he's innocent?

Honestly I'm not completely against the death penalty. But I'm against the death penalty in vague situations. If a guy kills a bunch of people, gets caught doing it and openly admits to it, the kill him.

If a man has some vague evidence against him and his ex-wife is saying he did it, then stick him in prison. Don't kill him. Currently in Texas the law allows for the execution of a person with zero evidence they committed the crime. All it takes is a Jury to think he committed the crime and he's dead.

 

[The DoggFather]

That's pretty much what it is. When a person gets the death penalty then the appeals process usually takes 5-10 years. Often people are found innocent over 20 years after the trial.

Could you imagine being the district attorney who sentenced a man to death only to find out later that he's innocent?

Honestly I'm not completely against the death penalty. But I'm against the death penalty in vague situations. If a guy kills a bunch of people, gets caught doing it and openly admits to it, the kill him.

If a man has some vague evidence against him and his ex-wife is saying he did it, then stick him in prison. Don't kill him. Currently in Texas the law allows for the execution of a person with zero evidence they committed the crime. All it takes is a Jury to think he committed the crime and he's dead.

So basically all or nothing as it stands now. I think if there is a shadow of a doubt, death is off the menu and life with no parole should kick in, death if new evidence clears any doubt.

 

[The DoggFather]

Currently in the Philippines they execute people for being accused of using drugs. I personally know two people who lost family members there that were executed on the street after being accused of using drugs. They were innocent but that didn't matter.

The war on drugs is stupid. It never works. There are drugs that need to be stopped no matter what like heroine and ice, but removing the supply never works. There's always another supplier. The only way is to remove the need for the drug.

I can honestly see drugs being legalised and sold and taxed in the not too distant future.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I can honestly see drugs being legalised and sold and taxed in the not too distant future.

Yep. It's definitely coming but it'll be a slow process. They'll finally legalised Mary Jane even though it's 1,000 times safer than alcohol. The other drugs will be further behind 'cause they're not so safe.

 

[The DoggFather]

Yep. It's definitely coming but it'll be a slow process. They'll finally legalised Mary Jane even though it's 1,000 times safer than alcohol. The other drugs will be further behind 'cause they're not so safe.

They will introduce them first through medicine bro, medical breakthroughs will become preventative measures will become legalised will become lots of taxable profit.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

They will introduce them first through medicine bro, medical breakthroughs will become preventative measures will become legalised will become lots of taxable profit.

Yep. Much like most of the shit now days.

You look at Vaping. People were saying it was dangerous without any evidence it was, then tobacco companies started making vapes and suddenly its being advertised everywhere.

 

[Mr Invisible]

Fun fact about that. At least 3 people in Texas have been executed then been found innocent later.

Yeah but that's a failure in the process.

If there is 100% undeniable certainty that the person did it (sex, murder, drug manufacture/distribution or seriously violent crimes), shoot them.

If they are jailed more than say 5 times in a 10 year period, shoot them (as clearly they are a career criminal).

In some states in the USA they have introduced a 3 strikes policy. Third felony conviction and you get life in prison... apparentely.

I just think the problem with crime is there is little to no incentive for some not to be a criminal.

Currently in the Philippines they execute people for being accused of using drugs. I personally know two people who lost family members there that were executed on the street after being accused of using drugs. They were innocent but that didn't matter.

That's sad (sorry to hear that), but how many lives have been saved by taking out the dealers/manufacturers over there.

Not to mention those who are victims of crime as a result of a drug user.

The war on drugs is stupid. It never works. There are drugs that need to be stopped no matter what like heroine and ice, but removing the supply never works. There's always another supplier. The only way is to remove the need for the drug.

That's only because the punishment isn't a big enough incentive not to supply/manufacture in Australia.

Start putting suppliers and manufacturers in the ground and watch the supply/manufacture rates drop dramatically.

You clamp down on drugs and theft/assault cases drop as well.

I'm heavily anti-drug (marijuana too as I've see first hand the impact it has on peoples minds). I just don't see the need for an artificial high to have a good time. Not to mention the number of innocent crime victims it creates.

I also don't smoke (but that's because I saw my uncle die of lung cancer as a young teenager).

People say "ahhhh but if you drink alcohol you do drugs". Yes I drink... but it is very occasionally and if I buy a 6 pack it'll take me probably 2-3 months to get through it, and I might buy a 6 pack every 6 months. Hence infrequently drink.

But that's just me...

 

[The DoggFather]

Yeah but that's a failure in the process.

If there is 100% undeniable certainty that the person did it (sex, murder, drug manufacture/distribution or seriously violent crimes), shoot them.

If they are jailed more than say 5 times in a 10 year period, shoot them (as clearly they are a career criminal).

In some states in the USA they have introduced a 3 strikes policy. Third felony conviction and you get life in prison... apparentely.

I just think the problem with crime is there is little to no incentive for some not to be a criminal.


That's sad (sorry to hear that), but how many lives have been saved by taking out the dealers/manufacturers over there.

Not to mention those who are victims of crime as a result of a drug user.


That's only because the punishment isn't a big enough incentive not to supply/manufacture in Australia.

Start putting suppliers and manufacturers in the ground and watch the supply/manufacture rates drop dramatically.

You clamp down on drugs and theft/assault cases drop as well.

I'm heavily anti-drug (marijuana too as I've see first hand the impact it has on peoples minds). I just don't see the need for an artificial high to have a good time. Not to mention the number of innocent crime victims it creates.

I also don't smoke (but that's because I saw my uncle die of lung cancer as a young teenager).

People say "ahhhh but if you drink alcohol you do drugs". Yes I drink... but it is very occasionally and if I buy a 6 pack it'll take me probably 2-3 months to get through it, and I might buy a 6 pack every 6 months. Hence infrequently drink.

But that's just me...

I'm undecided on the drugs issue, I just keep going back to if TPTB/government/authorities really wanted to stop drugs they could just use shock and awe tactics and slaughter the producers.

Through my work, I've seen responsible use and fkn stupid use of drugs. Same with alcohol and same with smokes.

I'm in the "kill the supply to stop the demand" mentality as I hate evil and illicit drugs can and often are used for evil.

Obviously killing the demand would have a less body count but I really can't see it happening.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

That's sad (sorry to hear that), but how many lives have been saved by taking out the dealers/manufacturers over there.

None unfortunately. That's what people don't get about the war on drugs. You remove one dealer another one takes his place. It never works. They've carried out hundreds of research projects and they all come back the same showing that it doesn't work, but the US and Australian government keep wasn't money on it rather than attempting to come up with another idea.

That's only because the punishment isn't a big enough incentive not to supply/manufacture in Australia.

Start putting suppliers and manufacturers in the ground and watch the supply/manufacture rates drop dramatically.

That's exactly what they're doing in the Philippines. People are praising the punisher for doing it and guess what the result is.... Bugger all.

After they organised death squads and literally shit people in the street, they still have the exact same drug problem. They still have the same amount of dealers. Except now they also have a large arms trade thanks to the dealers trying to protect themselves.

It sucks but the war on drugs never worked. Ever. No matter what policies they put in place, it still doesn't work. Because they're doing it wrong.

Never arrack the supplier, always attack the addict.

I'm heavily anti-drug (marijuana too as I've see first hand the impact it has on peoples minds). I just don't see the need for an artificial high to have a good time. Not to mention the number of innocent crime victims it creates.

I also don't smoke (but that's because I saw my uncle die of lung cancer as a young teenager).

People say "ahhhh but if you drink alcohol you do drugs". Yes I drink... but it is very occasionally and if I buy a 6 pack it'll take me probably 2-3 months to get through it, and I might buy a 6 pack every 6 months. Hence infrequently drink.

But that's just me...

I get that. But as I said, alcohol is 1,000 times worse than pot. I know there are issues with marijuana as much of my family including myself are allergic to it. But we are very rare. How many people have actually died from pot?

If you support drinking of any level and don't support marijuana on any level then you've either been fed lies that you've been suckered into believing or you're hypocritical. That's just how it is.

 

[Mr Invisible]

It sucks but the war on drugs never worked. Ever. No matter what policies they put in place, it still doesn't work. Because they're doing it wrong. Never arrack the supplier, always attack the addict.

Only issue there is there will always be addicts and idiots that want to try it (then get hooked on it), even the really nuts shit like krokodil and bath salts.

The legal system also deal with posession with a slap on the hand, rather than a harsh sentence. Hence attacking the addict currently does not work (and it's unlikely it will).

I get that. But as I said, alcohol is 1,000 times worse than pot. I know there are issues with marijuana as much of my family including myself are allergic to it. But we are very rare. How many people have actually died from pot? If you support drinking of any level and don't support marijuana on any level then you've either been fed lies that you've been suckered into believing or you're hypocritical. That's just how it is.

Marijuana causes schizophrenia, hence how many people have died from schizoprenics or those in a form of psychosis as a result of marijuana.

Then again I suppose it's a slippery slope arguement because how many people have died at the hands of drunk drivers.

But that said, legalisation is never the answer to solving any crime. By legalising marijuana not only do you them drastically increase the amount of people drug driving (not just drunk driving), or both... but you also increase the potential victims of crime as a result of people smoking marijuana.

Given the ever tightening smoking laws, it'll soon be the case (I honestly believe), where smoking anything (bongs/joints/vapes/cigarettes) will only be allowed in a persons home. Imagine walking in public and people are wandering around smoking bongs.

Then there's the issue around people in regular occupations turning up stoned.

Finally the other big issue is "what abouts". Once you legalise marijuana, people will want ecstacy, then cocaine, then heroin, etc etc legalised, and based off the arguement "well marijuana is also a drug".

As to what the solution is... if legalisation isn't a solution, and the courts are treating possession as softly softly, then going after the dealers/manufacturers really is the only way to stop it (and hitting them harder than ever).

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Only issue there is there will always be addicts and idiots that want to try it (then get hooked on it), even the really nuts shit like krokodil and bath salts.

The legal system also deal with posession with a slap on the hand, rather than a harsh sentence. Hence attacking the addict currently does not work (and it's unlikely it will).


Marijuana causes schizophrenia, hence how many people have died from schizoprenics or those in a form of psychosis as a result of marijuana.

Then again I suppose it's a slippery slope arguement because how many people have died at the hands of drunk drivers.

But that said, legalisation is never the answer to solving any crime. By legalising marijuana not only do you them drastically increase the amount of people drug driving (not just drunk driving), or both... but you also increase the potential victims of crime as a result of people smoking marijuana.

Given the ever tightening smoking laws, it'll soon be the case (I honestly believe), where smoking anything (bongs/joints/vapes/cigarettes) will only be allowed in a persons home. Imagine walking in public and people are wandering around smoking bongs.

Then there's the issue around people in regular occupations turning up stoned.

Finally the other big issue is "what abouts". Once you legalise marijuana, people will want ecstacy, then cocaine, then heroin, etc etc legalised, and based off the arguement "well marijuana is also a drug".

As to what the solution is... if legalisation isn't a solution, and the courts are treating possession as softly softly, then going after the dealers/manufacturers really is the only way to stop it (and hitting them harder than ever).

There's definitely risks involved. Marijuana isn't a cause of schizophrenia but it is a risk increaser. It has been shown to double risk of schizophrenia with regular use (around once a day) and quadruple the risk with heavy use. Keep in mind that double means that an at risk person goes from 0.1% to 0.2% risk. It has no effect on a person who is not as risk. Meanwhile alcohol increases risk of chronic depression by around 5-40 times depending on the person.

And there's definitely drugs that should be stopped any way possible. Like ice which is highly addictive. The problem is that when you target the less harmless drugs and make them harder to get, people then go for the harder drugs 'cause they're cheaper.

Awareness campaigns have shown to lower drug use more than any drug busts ever have.

If you take a hardline stance against something relatively harmless (in comparison to other drugs) then you increase the chance people will go to harder drugs because they are easier to procure.

 

[JayBee]

Loving the discussion.

I think a huge reason we are seeing differences in opinion here largely lies upon a terribly inconsistent judicial system. I'll say from the get go, I am completely against the death penalty, largely for reasons that have already been stated (wrongfully accused, the moral argument).

But I think many people who are for the death penalty is due to how lenient our system has been in cases (think the Daniel Morcombe case - and how the killer was a previously convicted child molester) which leads people to want harsher sentences for situations.

But if the court got it right in the first place, the discussion takes a different course.

 

[south of heaven]

I'm undecided on the drugs issue, I just keep going back to if TPTB/government/authorities really wanted to stop drugs they could just use shock and awe tactics and slaughter the producers.

Through my work, I've seen responsible use and fkn stupid use of drugs. Same with alcohol and same with smokes.

I'm in the "kill the supply to stop the demand" mentality as I hate evil and illicit drugs can and often are used for evil.

Obviously killing the demand would have a less body count but I really can't see it happening.

Easy solution to cripple the drug trade , become a cashless society. Increase the penalties for dealers so the risk is higher than the reward . Far from perfect solution but would hit it hard .
Theres only so many dvd players a dealer will accept for payment.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Easy solution to cripple the drug trade , become a cashless society. Increase the penalties for dealers so the risk is higher than the reward . Far from perfect solution but would hit it hard .
Theres only so many dvd players a dealer will accept for payment.

The cashless part may work. Would probably lead to the collapse of society for other reasons.

The harsher penalty thing doesn't seem to work much. The countries with the highest penalties also have the highest drug trades.

The other issue you get is that the higher ups in the drug trade keep themselves clean. When the penalties increase the kingpins keep the pressure on 'cause their hands are clean. An increase in penalties leads to an increase in the cost of drugs which leads to a higher profit so the drug lords and the kingpins push it even more. The middle-men get screwed but there's always more lackeys that can be roped in.

 

[The DoggFather]

Easy solution to cripple the drug trade , become a cashless society. Increase the penalties for dealers so the risk is higher than the reward . Far from perfect solution but would hit it hard .
Theres only so many dvd players a dealer will accept for payment.

We are so close to cashless it's not funny.

Conspiracy nuts will it's brought in purely to invade privacy, but it would clean up the market a tad bit.

But really, cryptocurrency is the back door to cashless.

 

[The DoggFather]

The cashless part may work. Would probably lead to the collapse of society for other reasons.

The harsher penalty thing doesn't seem to work much. The countries with the highest penalties also have the highest drug trades.

The other issue you get is that the higher ups in the drug trade keep themselves clean. When the penalties increase the kingpins keep the pressure on 'cause their hands are clean. An increase in penalties leads to an increase in the cost of drugs which leads to a higher profit so the drug lords and the kingpins push it even more. The middle-men get screwed but there's always more lackeys that can be roped in.

Saddam hated drugs, he would catch the smugglers, hold them at the border, call the Army and media, and RPG the shipment with the smugglers on live TV.

 

[JayBee]

Easy solution to cripple the drug trade , become a cashless society. Increase the penalties for dealers so the risk is higher than the reward . Far from perfect solution but would hit it hard .
Theres only so many dvd players a dealer will accept for payment.

As crazy as it sounds, for what you are trying to achieve - it would work.

The downside is - it will cripple a lot of small businesses (mostly retail). Also, it begs the questions of how society would change as a result. People have actually completed studies to theorize how people would change - interesting read if you yall get a chance! But if you aren't bothered finding anything... here goes:

• De-sensitization of cash. You are more likely to swipe a card, then pay in cash for items. As a result, impulse buying could increase markedly, due to the simple "act" of tapping or swiping, as opposed to handing over cashola
• Fraud could increase
• Test how honest we are as a society. People are more likely to commit insurance fraud than steal a wallet
• Paper trails for everything, ergo, no privacy
• Fees for small transactions

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Saddam hated drugs, he would catch the smugglers, hold them at the border, call the Army and media, and RPG the shipment with the smugglers on live TV.

I remember that. Americans and Australians do the same thing but we lock it up rather than destroying it. It's an economic flaw. If you remove a large portion of drugs from the market then that increases the price of drugs which encourages people to make and sell more drugs. Same goes for busting drug lords. Take one out and another takes his place.

It's like the African politician who found a massive ivory stash and burnt it all. After that the cost of ivory went up and poaching tripled.

People try to make things better and often make them worse.

That's why you often hear how Saddam and Castro were both CIA operatives. It's a smart decision to put someone you can control in power rather than trying to remove the problem. You're instead controlling the problem.