Alvin Phoon
China, one of the world’s oldest civilisations, boasting rich history, almost 10 million square kilometres of land and a 1.4 billion strong population, is destined to be a major power. Her impact on the world we know today cannot be doubted. Their economy has progressed significantly. One could argue that China is possibly only communist by name, and that within its veins runs the thick blood of capitalism. Her leaders are intelligent, making full use of the resources available to them. If we had the power to rewrite history, there is no doubt that one or two minor corrections would result in China being the most important nation in our modern society. Yet, I find myself posing the same question over and over again; what is wrong with the Chinese?
(Above: Pre-execution shaming. The signs have offenders’ names right below the offense. In the cases of these two men, they have been charged with murder. Source: thechinadebate.org. Below: Akmal Shaikh. Source: The Daily Mail )
Chinese newspapers and web users have ignored all condemnation from Britain and hailed the execution of drug trafficker Akmal Shaikh. One headline reads “ China No Longer an Amusement Park for Crimes of Foreigners“. In my last post, I wondered (out loud) if the Chinese were still feeling bitter about the Opium war. A web user from Guangxi confirms my suspicions, claiming it to be “a day that Chinese people held their heads up and it’s a day to comfort national heroes…who fought against opium smoking”.
Let me state first and foremost that I utterly condemn the execution. Even more so, I condemn these remarks. They disgust me, and it pains me to read about such ignorance and cruelty. The petulance of the Chinese, even after their government has taken the life of a man deemed to be mentally unstable for an offence that should not warrant a death sentence, sickens me.
It was previously stated that the amount of drugs found on Shaikh could have caused the deaths of over 25,000 people. This is where most people are mistaken. Drugs do not cause death. Similarly, guns do not cause deaths. The number one cause of death? Human beings.
It is downright ridiculous to suggest that such man-made, artificial entities could cause death. 
They are non-living objects, whose purpose is to be used and to function as part of modern society’s many unnecessary accessories. It is us, who are at fault.
Drugs cannot hurt us if we do not allow them to. Unless the cannabis plant suddenly grows arms and slashes you all over with its leaves.
For too long, drugs have been conveniently exploited and named as scapegoats. They have had fingers pointed at them by those who fervently refuse to admit that it is our responsibility to educate our youth on the dangers of drug use. We consistently push the blame on them for destroying the lives and minds of many. The truth is, eliminating all drugs will never work because there will always be alternative means of obtaining them. The only real way of annihilating the drug market is to educate. Inform. Teach. It is time to take responsibility.
If the Chinese think that instilling fear is the solution to crime, they are severely mistaken. There will be plenty more vandals, thieves, drug traffickers, prostitutes, robbers, murderers etc. How many are they going to kill before they realise that crime will never cease? How many have to die so that the Chinese can continue feeling proud that their nation practices such intolerance? What sort of education will it take for them to realise that reveling in the death of a mentally disturbed individual is not just cruel, but plain repulsive? And how long will it take all of us to understand that it is not our place to decide whether one’s life should end?
(Below: The cold, desolate tomb of Akmal Shaikh near Urumqi, north-west China. Source: The Daily Mail. Left: An appeal for clemency. Source: Dylan Martinez, Reuters )
Alvin also writes for his blog here.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Highly doubt people will use a Bi-polar to smuggle drugs.
What if he gets bonkers and sell it himself, use the money to organise a Miss Swine-a-pore or Miss Omniverse pagent ??? or buy handbags for all his lesbian kakis ???
theinkhorn
“As i said before, the issue is not how much more addictive substance A is than substance B. Now, while I may not understand the purpose of your question”
I fail to see why it does not matter if substance A is more destructive and addictive then substance B is not an issue. The topic is about application of law and punishment to pushers of harmful substance. The more harm the more severe punishments will be meted out.
If you don’t understand the purpose of my question, yet you want an answer to my type question. Then, how can you understand the answer to the question?
You logic seems too ‘high level’ for me to understand.
As I said, I believe you are just ‘acting blurr’. I shall answer you.
I’ll take the marijuana!
94) theinkhorn on January 4th, 2010 1.54 pm
Hope these answer your questions.
It did… but only on the question of what their definition of ‘addiction’ means.
Unfortunately, none of them seemed to have taken into consideration the accessibility of the substance as a determining factor. i.e if nicotine is more accessible than heroin, it should surely be harder to stay off the substance (dependence factor). This is evident when the dependence rate is “usually measured by the number of users who eventually become dependent”. If you can find cigs around every corner of where you live (temptation), surely it is much harder to become independent, right?
So my question, on whether your point (based on the study) is valid, remains.
It doesn’t matter because all these substances are addictive and unhealthy, so why sentence a man to death for trafficking heroin, cocaine or marijuana, but allow imports of nicotine and coffee? It is a clear double standard is it not? Studies have shown that coffee is way more addictive than marijuana, and nearly as harmful, so why not hang a man for carrying around a suitcase full of super?
If you don’t feel that the above argument is sufficient, then lets go back to one of my very first points. Harm is only caused if people allow it to be caused. You call them victims, sympathize with them, donate money so that they can start their lives over. I say they should take responsibility, and understand that IF NOT for their addictions, IF NOT for their imbecilic decision to consume, there would be no traffickers or manufacturers.
Well, that’s exactly why you should answer your question with all honesty and sincerity, and explain it to me, isn’t it?
If it’s okay for you to pick marijuana over caffeine, it should be okay for me to pick cocaine over nicotine, no?
96) theinkhorn on January 4th, 2010 3.18 pm
Sorry but i genuinely do not understand the point you’re trying to make. You want me to select out of three addictive substances, which i would take if i had a gun pointed to my head. Would you explain your reasons for this question and your point behind it?
If I were to venture a guess, justkaypoh’s point is not that dissimilar to mine. We wanted to compare the substance by themselves. gram for gram, dosage for dosage, etc.
We (or maybe it’s just me) feel that that is the real way to determine addicted-ness of a substance. The study which you have repeatedly quoted skips the issue totally. It includes all the environmental factors (e.g accessibility of the substance) when it did the study. The hypothetical scenario justkaypoh came up with, is to remove these environmental factors.
One more thing… if nicotine is more addictive than heroin, I have to wonder why sex slavers didn’t use cigs to sex slaves of children or women they kidnapped.
*use cigs to MAKE sex slaves OUT of children…
Actually lobo76, yes I do. It is a shame that the accessibility factor wasn’t evaluated. But then again, if users become eventually become dependent, implying that they weren’t initially, whose fault is it? Is it the suppliers’ faults for making the drug available, or Is it the user’s fault for taking that first step?
And with that, we’re back to square one.
Yes lobo76, i wonder too. Those doctors must be wrong.
A terrorist took a bomb onto a passenger plane but was caught before he could explode it. Now, his sympathisers are trying to argue for the terrorist with these arguments.
1. The terrorist is a crazy fella because he could have killed himself if the bomb did explode successfully in mid air. Since he is insane, it is inappropriate for him to take responsibility for his deed.
2. In the society where the terrorist lived, the law states that they are considered martyr if they carry out terrorist act on their enemy. As such, foreign law is not applicable to him.
3. The terrorist is only a small leg soldier. The main culprit is the terrorist head who instigated and misled him to carry out the terrorist act. There is no point to punish the leg soldier.
4. The crew and passengers who took the flight to their enemy’s country are partly to be blamed if they become casualties of terrorism because they should have known better that all these flights are potential terrorist target after 911. They have the option to not board the plane, but they did.
5. Comparing the terrorist with soldiers fighting in a war. If the terrorist is given capital punishment, then soldiers who had taken lives in war should all be punished similarly. Why honour the soldiers and condemn the terrorist? Why the double standards?
6. The terrorist should be given a lighter sentence since no one is killed (yet?).
Did the sympathisers forget about the serious consequence if the terrorist act had been successful?
In this case, how many lives could be destroyed by the 4kg of heroin if Akmal was not caught?
Wondering how a man suffering from “Bi polar” can travel to the far western china instead of staying at his own turf “English land” Oh… if he was caught in beijing undergoing treatment, maybe i can believe him lah.
wysiwyg you got it all wrong. And you’ve missed a great deal. We have been through all your points. Please scroll up and read from comment number 1. And please pay special notice to wui’s comments. They will tell you all you need to know. No point for us to repeat ourselves over and over again.
As for you, lost, again, please read the articles related to the case to find out why he was travelling and how he managed to.
theinkhorn,
Do you know why I pick marijuana? Do you think that I’m so stupid?
That’s because I assume I’m taking 0.01 mg of marijuana and 1 ton of caffeine!
Hahaha. Do you get the idea me and lobo76 are driving at now?
com’on lah. be sensible.
pardon him? might as well tell china to publicly say “we will pardon you if u are mentally unsound while being caught peddling drugs”
so with the west invading iraq believing they had wmd when they actually have nothing is lawful? while executing someone with drugs on him is unlawful?
dumping opium in china is lawful while putting to death someone who peddles drugs unlawful?
what nonsense! every country have their laws and one is to observe these strict laws. step out of line and bear the consequences.
to this bugger who got executed, you deserve it and good riddance.
to china, i support your decision. u have the backbone to do what is right. the law applies to all, white, brown, black or yellow.
last but not least. to alvin poon. u said “Drugs do not cause death. The number one cause of death? Human beings”
stupid analogy
correct what! they executed that human being lah. u said it yourself.
enuff said
Going by your logic justkaypoh, should it be okay for me to take 0.01 g of cocaine as compared to a carton of Marlboro?
And Nick, actually there isn’t enough said my friend. Please come up with something more substantial then twisting words around to suit your views.
thinkhorn, that not my logic, please discern carefully.
I’ll put it clearly for you to see.
The criteria have to be met.
1. supposed I’m force into a situation to take either one
2. I said 0.01 MG of marijuana vs 1 ton of caffeine.
A closer similarity will be 0.01 mg of cocaine vs 1 ton of nicotine (probably more tons of cigs)
these factors are very very important in scientific study to draw more accurate conclusions.
I’m concerned whether is it your lack of looking at details difference that caused you not to see the real picture
108) theinkhorn on January 4th, 2010 8.13 pm
And with that, we’re back to square one.
Not really…. we probably never got on the same page, hence we can’t be ‘back’ to square one. =)
115) theinkhorn on January 5th, 2010 5.47 am
what talking you????
Again, it is irrelevant. If you would rather take 0.01 mg of marijuana than a ton of caffeine, then it still means that its okay for me to take 0.01 mg of cocaine than a ton of nicotine.
We don’t need to be on the same page for that lobo76, we just need to go back to how our discussion first began. And we’ve more or less been going round and round the track.
The Brits are very diplomatic yet a cunning people.
Remember the opium they poured using gunboat diplomacy into China in exchange for Chinese porcelain, tea, silk, etc., during the weak Qing era.
Remember the trafficker Akmal Shaikh is not white. And he’s a Moslem.
The Brits are simply trying to get political mileage from this episode to pacify the restless Islamists especially Al Queda and its supporters which are out to terrorise the US and the UK. Some positive diversion they hope is good deflecting to China.
But will these jihadists buy it is another matter given their regular pronouncements to avenge their brothers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
theinkhorn,
Looks like you can’t differentiate the quantity the effects resulting from different quantity. Do you know the difference between mg and ton?
Are you seen anybody sent to rehab center due to coffee addiction and serious withdrawal symptoms. Create crimes and steal and set up gangs? (the coffee club gangs?)
Or is the a conspiracy by the govt of the whole to hide these coffee addicts somewhere?
Come on, don’t lie to yourself and everyone.
Any mole (crackpot or not) planted by the West to smuggle drugs into China today will fail. Yes, China has to be sabotaged in this dog-eats-dog competitive global market economy? The world knows why SIS & CIA exist.
Instigated uprisings in Tibet & Xinjiang have failed miserably. The sabotage during the Olympics run has also failed miserably.
Please remember China will never again allow itself to return to the days of the Opium War.
Better luck the next time!
And it looks like you still don’t understand what i’m getting it justkaypoh.
Same goes for nicotine. How many people get sent to rehab for nicotine addiciton then? It simply does not matter. After all that we’ve talked about, the focus has shifted from whether the traffickers cause the harm to how harmful each substance is. Which really isn’t my point.
Besides, by discussing how harmful each substance is, are you not agreeing that drugs(man-made substances) should not be manufactured? And therefore, applying the chaos theory, should drug manufacturers (instead of drug traffickers) be blamed? And therefore, should we not, instead of needless killings, reduce demand for such substances so that drug manufacturers eventually run out of customers?
It eventually leads back to the original argument. So if your intentions are simply to win this argument instead of the original, I’m afraid you’ve been wasting our time.
When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Gordon Brown is in no position to condemn China’s laws that could have saved many victims of narcotics. British diplomat reminds PM and citizens of history – the opium war.
http://www.oneworldtalk.freeforums.org/remind-the-chinese-about-the-opium-war-t3040.html
China and Singapore don’t have serious drug problems precisely because it enforces strict laws against trafficking.
118) theinkhorn on January 6th, 2010 7.03 pm
After all that we’ve talked about, the focus has shifted from whether the traffickers cause the harm to how harmful each substance is. Which really isn’t my point.
The traffickers certainly profited from it even if the harm didn’t originate from them. Of course, even you should agree that they contribute to the ‘harm’, right?
In any case, who cause ‘harm’ is irrelevant to how heavy the punishment should be. It only tells you who to punish. e.g I ‘harm’ you by poking your chest. You thus determined I am to blame. Will you give me death penalty for it?
And it is exactly because of the heavy punishment of death penalty that this topic came to be. So,if that was your point.. then you may have gone off topic earlier than you tot.
I (and maybe justkaypoh also) thinks that the amount of harm which determines the heavy punishment, is determined really by how harmful the substance is. And how harmful a substance is, should be determined by per dosage, not by its availability or other social factors.
SO, moving on to the who to punish issue…
And therefore, applying the chaos theory, should drug manufacturers (instead of drug traffickers) be blamed?
of course. But what happens when your chaos theory doesn’t tell you where the harm originates? Or for that matter, that you can’t ‘touch’ them if you did? Therefore you punished the ‘first’ one you can get your hands on. i.e the trafficker who travels into your country where you have jurisdiction. So in a sense, your chaos theory supports the heavy punishment of trafficker, not argue against it. They are the ‘earliest’ source of ‘harm’ that we can identify and do something about.
And therefore, should we not, instead of needless killings, reduce demand for such substances so that drug manufacturers eventually run out of customers?
Forgot to address this.
No.. I don’t see why this reduction of demand has to be a mutually exclusive activity from what you term as ‘needless killings’. If both helps, why not do them concurrently?
theinkhorn,
Let me try to explain clearly what myself, lobo76, most laws in the whole and most people think.
For certain items that cause harm/addictive/destruction, the consumers and suppliers (traffickers/pushers) will get the punishment in incremental stages in tandem to the severity of the harm(potential) harm they caused.
Therefore to us, the amount of harmful substances is important in meting out punishment, be it the consumers or the suppliers.
You mentioned several times that the different degree of harm from different substances does not matter in terms of dishing out punishment/sentences right?
Even a primary school knows that the differences consequences of punishment he/she will get pinch another person versus punching the victim several times that he/she get hospitalized.
From you statement that says harm is harm, all the same. To us, harm by a gunshot versus and slap is very different.
Well, of course you are entitled to your OWN set of rules and logic, I’m glad that most law systems do not think like you.
I’ll come back to you on the manufacturers parts(btw they get punished too) let’s finish our supplier parts before confusing with new things.
“So if your intentions are simply to win this argument instead of the original, I’m afraid you’ve been wasting our time.”
By your logic, aren’t you falling in your own accusation you used against others?
Luckily the British subject was not a white, otherwise China has to produce another Hong Kong.
I never absolved traffickers of any blame. I simply wanted a different punishment to be meted out. I’ve stressed “needless killings” over and over. Why should his life be taken away when there are better methods of punishment? Is putting a man in prison for life not enough? Does it comfort people to know that a man was killed because there was a chance they’d be tempted into making a bad decision that could kill them?
We already know where the “harm” originates. You just don’t trace it as far back as we do. You stop at the traffickers while we go way back to the consumer.
And justkaypoh, actually, no. I have been, all along, asking for readers to see things in a different light. To drop their support for the death penalty, which in this case is mandatory.
Kee Meng – no longer are we living in the colonial days of gunboat diplomacy. Every independent sovereign nation should be allowed to enforce laws to reduce crime. Gordon Brown must realise that Britain is no longer Great. It must respect laws too.
124) theinkhorn on January 7th, 2010 11.41 pm
Why should his life be taken away when there are better methods of punishment? Is putting a man in prison for life not enough?
Since ‘better punishment’ is subjective, I don’t want to argue over it.
Does it comfort people to know that a man was killed because there was a chance they’d be tempted into making a bad decision that could kill them?
No. It comforts them in other ways. e.g less people tempted (even when desperate) to traffic drug, and less people (not just themselves) to be tempted into bad decisions that not just kill themselves but also hurt people around them, etc
We already know where the “harm” originates. You just don’t trace it as far back as we do. You stop at the traffickers while we go way back to the consumer.
I hate it when people use ‘we’ to represent their own view. Are you so afraid that you are a minority? who the f*** is ‘we’?
On your point of consumer being the origin, I would have say that this is a chicken and egg thing. Does it mean there has to be demand before there is supply? Or can it be there other way around?
In any case, there is the case of child sex slaves who are usually forced into taking drugs (so that they are be controlled). i.e some ‘consumers’ don’t have to be tempted in the first place.
Thats pretty much the same thing lobo76.
I used we because i figured i shouldn’t take all the credit for what we(people like wui, tan cheng hua) came up with individually and put together as one complete argument. Nothing to do with being a minority.
That i agree, that it is a real chicken and egg issue, and i do believe that despite our differing views, there is no real way for statistics and facts to show which comes first. But the discussion in itself is entertaining and educational, and for that i appreciate your involvement.
On child sex slaves, who you seem to have quite abit of knowledge on, i wouldn’t call them consumers anymore. Anyone forced an addictive substance should be considered a victim, no? Which pretty much makes their abductors the villains. Which also brings us back to our chicken and egg discussion about supply and demand. Funny isn’t it.
127) theinkhorn on January 8th, 2010 10.22 am
I used we because i figured i shouldn’t take all the credit for what we(people like wui, tan cheng hua) came up with individually and put together as one complete argument. Nothing to do with being a minority.
Well, you may be all against death penalty, that doesn’t mean that you all agree about the origin of harm. In fact, you seem to be the first to suggest that consumer to be the origin. Just because you agree on something, doesn’t mean you agree on that something in the same way. Personally, I see people who like to use ‘we’ as people who are insecure…
On child sex slaves, who you seem to have quite abit of knowledge on,…
I think there was a recent news (a few months ago) about a child sex ring in US being busted. Probably came across it as I like to read the top 10 stories on the BBC site. Was wondering why the children didn’t simply just run away… and the answer iirc, was drugs.
Oh well now you’re just being silly. This is not a school yard my friend.
True. Then again, they were forced fed. They are manufactured addicts. Does that not count for something?
129) theinkhorn on January 8th, 2010 10.49 am
Oh well now you’re just being silly. This is not a school yard my friend.
Not sure why schoolyard is referenced…
My ‘distaste’ to people who like to hide in majority stems from … well, the MSM where the ‘govt’ frequently based their decision to majority without substantiating HOW they came up with the majority.
Be more daring in stating your point. Don’t try to speak as a self appointed spokesman for a group that may or may not exist.
True. Then again, they were forced fed. They are manufactured addicts. Does that not count for something?
Count for what exactly? They are your ‘consumers’, forced fed or otherwise.
Does the trafficker really care what the drugs are used for or by whom?
True. Statistic are often compiled which are “supposedly” accurate reflections of the majority’s views. I don’t think i’ve been any less daring than you lobo76, judging from our really, really long discussion.
Again, it lies with intention. Did they intend to consume? Should they be incarcerated and charged for being force fed drugs?
131) theinkhorn on January 8th, 2010 12.33 pm
True. Statistic are often compiled which are “supposedly” accurate reflections of the majority’s views. I don’t think i’ve been any less daring than you lobo76, judging from our really, really long discussion.
I’m not going to go on about this part of the discussion which is quite off topic… since it is a personal thing when I see others used ‘we’ when they try to make a point. We’ll just leave it as it is.
Again, it lies with intention. Did they intend to consume? Should they be incarcerated and charged for being force fed drugs?
Irrelevant. The thread is about the traffickers, not the consumers, regardless of their intention to consume or not.
JKP: “You guys are just confused with the similarity and somehow omit the differences of these items.
I do not support or oppose death penalty, but your logic and analogy it seriously flawed.”
Well, as I stated earlier that my purpose to not to oppose your view on death penalty, but your logic. I rather you just stick to argue about death penalty rather using other analogies with flawed logic.
theinkhorn:
a. “I never absolved traffickers of any blame. I simply wanted a different punishment to be meted out.”
b. “We already know where the “harm” originates. You just don’t trace it as far back as we do. You stop at the traffickers while we go way back to the consumer.”
c. “For what reason, I have no clue. It doesn’t matter which is more addictive. It doesn’t matter which causes more harm.”
d. “But nobody likes to see it that way because we always want someone else to blame, so that we can justify our actions. Nobody likes to see it this way because it means taking responsibility. “
e. “That i agree, that it is a real chicken and egg issue, and i do believe that despite our differing views, there is no real way for statistics and facts to show which comes first.”
x. JKP: For certain items that cause harm/addictive/destruction, the consumers and suppliers (traffickers/pushers) will get the punishment in incremental stages in tandem to the severity of the harm(potential) harm they caused.
Therefore to us, the amount of harmful substances is important in meting out punishment, be it the consumers or the suppliers.
From your statements it can be inferred that (please correct me if I’m wrong) :
1. traffickers/suppliers should be responsible (quote a)
2. suppliers is less responsible than consumers (quote b and d)
3. severity of harm is not important (quote c)
As lobo76 puts it correctly that the main focus here is about the traffickers and their punishment. You so far had not stated your stand staging the punishment against the severity of the harm (suppliers).
What you keep saying was statement 3, severity is not important. Therefore it is natural for me or perhaps other readers to assume that you don’t agree with statement x. It will be helpful to make your stand whether or not you agree or disagree with statement x. Yes/No?
We ( I assume from the statements your oppositions made) your answer is No.
You said that the severity of the harm is not important, but you kept bring up the list of most harmful substance from studies. You seemed very confused.
Your statement b and e is also contradicting. Can you see the obvious logic flaw?
I can understand your stand against death penalty, but your reasoning and logic used to support your stand is seriously flawed as stated clearly from your statements when we put them side by side.
lobo76, actually it is completely relevant. Like i said, my case has always been about the death penalty, and my stance has always been that if there is no intention to consume, there won’t be intention to produce. There was no intention on the part of the kids.
as for jkp, i will address your points one by one. But i do urge you, instead of deliberately searching for flaws in my argument, to think about it carefully. The reason you’re confused is because you try too hard to disprove my argument.
1. For suppliers and traffickers, their agenda is profit. BUT, if there isn’t demand, there wont’ be much profit to be made.
2. Therefore, consumers must be held responsible, as the root cause of the problem. After all, eliminate one trafficker and another will emerge. So whats the point? To make people feel more comfortable for about half a minute before another person is convinced into being a mule?
3. Ecstasy is about as dangerous as riding a horse. Should we ban horse riding? Marijuana is about as dangerous as alcohol. Should we ban alcohol? These are clear double standards no? I apologise if i my comments weren’t clear but this is exactly what i’ve been trying to say. If we talk about severity of harm, then we should ban alcohol if we ban marijuana. So by not banning alcohol, does the law not insinuate that severity of harm is not important?
In this case, it is you who are very confused. The list was brought up for argument’s sake. If you recall, i didn’t post the link until lobo76 requested for me to do so.
About statement X, sure, we can punish them. But again, why does it have to be death when there are better ways of dealing with it? Echoing Lynn’s views from earlier on, there has to be CONSENT for the victims to actually be harmed. Potential damage should not be used because if there is no consent, there is no harm.
As for statements B and E, “we” as explained early refers to collective opinion. But opinions will not be used as confirmation. Agreed? I won’t be as arrogant as to say that our opinions are completely flawless and correct. Which is why if there was some method to confirm which came first, should it not be utilised?
Anything else you need confirmation about?
134) theinkhorn on January 8th, 2010 3.31 pm
… and my stance has always been that if there is no intention to consume, there won’t be intention to produce.
I don’t get it. You previously agreed it was a chicken and egg issue (post 127), meaning that it could be the supplier created addict or addict created supplier. But now you say without the addict (intention to consume), there will be no supplier (intention to produce).
(-_-)??
Emphasis on “my stance”, lobo76. Like i said, opinions are opinions. But looking past opinions towards what is factual is another thing.
theinkhorn
I’ll take it as you agree with statement x. In agreeing with statement X, it will mean that the severity of harm is important.
I’ll take it also that your most current stand now is this, and you no long hold the view that the severity of the harm is not important from your previous statement.
theinkhorn: “As for statements B and E, “we” as explained early refers to collective opinion. But opinions will not be used as confirmation.”
As for statements B and E, both are your exact words, I’m not quoting from anybody else only from YOU. So you can drop the ‘we’ in this case. You said that they are just opinion and not confirmation. Ok, so I’ll take it that you agree that the opinions in statements B and E contradict each other.
theinkhorn: “2. Therefore, consumers must be held responsible, as the root cause of the problem. After all, eliminate one trafficker and another will emerge.”
I’ll assume your LASTEST opinion is ONLY the consumers are the ROOT cause of the problem. My stand is both suppliers and consumers are the ROOT cause of the problem.
Without supply where and how can the consumer get the item? One consumer is only bring harm to himself or a handful of ‘associates’. But a supplier with a few kgs of Heroin can cause harm to tens of thousands of people.
“Ecstasy is about as dangerous as riding a horse. Should we ban horse riding? Marijuana is about as dangerous as alcohol. Should we ban alcohol? These are clear double standards no?”
The context here should be about Heroin. Coming back to the points we were arguing, you or the studies did not specify the quantity. (you said was not important, ok fine, that’s for YOU, but most of us know the diff with 1 mg of Heroin/Marijuana versus drinking 1 barrel of vodka in 20min.)
Studies and stats can be misleading (that’s why HDB can have a deficit of 2 bln!) . there could be just missing factors that are not stated in the studies.
As I said just look around you, there are far most alcohol consumers than Heroin consumers. Do you see as many rehab centers for alcoholics as to Heroin addicts? As Lobo76 had said, gangsters would had use alcohol instead of drugs to enslaved their victims. Cheaper and more powerful isn’t it?
Some average Heroin consumers(need to rehab) are also average alcohol consumers. Based on the studies you quoted, countless people will be sent to rehab from serious withdrawal syndrome.
You must have seen consumers crawling with running nose to the pubs and beg the waiters for more alcohol? Which pubs is that? Let me take a look.
Thats one too many assumptions jkp.
You do realise that you just skipped a number of my main points and went straight back to comparing alcohol and heroin, right? You do notice that you evade a few of my comments and questions and focus on comparing my statements and trying to find errors right?
You’re wrong to say the context is about heroin. The last few days you have been comparing different drugs with each other. The focus has long shifted past just heroin. And yet again, you fail to note my main arguments.
You seem to have conveniently ignored my explanation for the alleged contradiction between b and e.
Your assumptions are again based on words i did not put in instead of words i did. So jkp, again, if your intentions are not to debate the initial issue, but focus more on searching for supposed errors on my part, i hope you find something better to do.
By the way, nice cheap shot to hdb. I genuinely got a chuckle out of it.
Now, again, you have missed my main points. And quite frankly i don’t see the point of repeating myself everyday. You’ll probably assume that i don’t have anything more to say, which is why i’m ending the discussion. It just seems like i don’t have to add anything else because you make me repeat myself over and over again. So anytime you feel like you want another discussion, just scroll up and read all over again.
“Thats one too many assumptions jkp.”
Since your statements are so ambiguities its not wrong to assume, I’d already quoted if you find me assumptions wrong then tell me why and how they are wrong.
“You do realise that you just skipped a number of my main points and went straight back to comparing alcohol and heroin, right? You do notice that you evade a few of my comments and questions and focus on comparing my statements and trying to find errors right?”
I found that you have a habit of accusing others of the same mistake you had done. You probably had skipped more of my main points than I’d skipped yours. Tell me exactly what I ‘skipped’ and what you want me to address (have to be in context of course).
“You’re wrong to say the context is about heroin. The last few days you have been comparing different drugs with each other. The focus has long shifted past just heroin. And yet again, you fail to note my main arguments.”
Well you admitted that the “focus has long SHIFTED”. It’s very clear that the trafficker in this article carried heroin, so it’s more appropriate, of course you can refer to other drugs. Which I’d answer you, just scroll up to look for my answers.
“You seem to have conveniently ignored my explanation for the alleged contradiction between b and e.
Your assumptions are again based on words i did not put in instead of words i did. So jkp, again, if your intentions are not to debate the initial issue, but focus more on searching for supposed errors on my part, i hope you find something better to do.”
Oh, did I ignored your explanation?
Well, look carefully how I replied your statement. Why don’t you just admit honestly that you contradicted yourself then to evade here and there.
theinkhorn : “As for statements B and E, “we” as explained early refers to collective opinion. But opinions will not be used as confirmation. Agreed? I won’t be as arrogant as to say that our opinions are completely flawless and correct. Which is why if there was some method to confirm which came first, should it not be utilised?”
jkp: “As for statements B and E, both are your exact words, I’m not quoting from anybody else only from YOU. So you can drop the ‘we’ in this case. You said that they are just opinion and not confirmation. Ok, so I’ll take it that you agree that the opinions in statements B and E contradict each other.”
“It just seems like i don’t have to add anything else because you make me repeat myself over and over again. So anytime you feel like you want another discussion, just scroll up and read all over again.”
Just looking carefully how you really evaded our questionings especially on the comparison of quantity. We wanted to corner you into answer and be accountable for what you said. But you evaded that’s why you kept REPEATING yourself.
PROVE of what you had evaded:
Jkp: “As I said just look around you, there are far most alcohol consumers than Heroin consumers. Do you see as many rehab centers for alcoholics as to Heroin addicts? As Lobo76 had said, gangsters would had use alcohol instead of drugs to enslaved their victims. Cheaper and more powerful isn’t it?”
If they are medically certified to be mentally-ill, they should be defaulted to life-time imprisonment with no parole.
This is for their own safety and also prevent from being trick again by the drug pushers/smugglers.