• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Trump wants legislation to kill drug dealers

Donald Trump advocates death penalty for drug dealers in rambling speech
Ben Jacobs
The Guardian
March 11th, 2018

In a campaign stop three days before a crucial special election for Congress, Donald Trump advocated the death penalty for drug dealers in the course of an hour-long rambling campaign style speech where he bashed television anchors, unveiled his re-election slogan and discussed nuclear arms negotiations with North Korea. He also mentioned the Republican candidate whom he endorsed.

...

But Trump spent most of his hour and 20 minutes on stage talking about almost every other topic under the sun. He confirmed reports that that he had been floating the idea of imposing a death penalty on drug dealers by a long discourse where he praised the criminal justice system in China. Trump noted China once had a problem with ?the opium? that was ?devastating? and went on to explain his bafflement that murderers were treated more harshly than drug dealers. ?If someone goes and shoots somebody, kills somebody they get the death penalty,? said Trump. In contrast, he noted ?a drug dealer will kill 2,000 to 5,000 people during the course of his life?.

Trump acknowledged how controversial the concept was. ?I don?t know if this country is ready but I think it?s a discussion we have to start thinking about.?

It marked Trump?s most explicit public statements on the topic although he previously praised Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte who is leading a campaign of alleged extrajudicial killings against drug dealers and users.

Read the full story here.

Here is the full transcript of the portion of his speech related to drugs:

I don't care how big the United States is, but we're gonna build the wall and we have to build the wall for people, for gangs, for drugs. The drugs has never been a problem like we have right now. And by the way, like the world has with drugs, and you know what, we fill up these councils, they all want to be on councils, they call them Blue Ribbon councils, where we take Melania, great, great first lady, we take - she's great, she is great. You think her life is so easy, folks? Not so easy. She is a great first la-, but we put Melania and other people on this blue-ribbon committee. Do you think the drug dealers that kill thousands of people during their lifetime, do you think they care who's on a blue-ribbon committee? The only way to solve the drug problem is through toughness. When you catch a drug dealer, you gotta, you gotta put him away for a long time.

When I was in China, and other places by the way, I said, Mr. President, do you have a drug problem? No, no. no. We do not. I said Huh, big country. 1.4 billion people, right? Not much of a drug problem. I said, What do you tribute that to? Well, the death penalty. True. Hey, if you're a drug dealer, and you know you're gonna get caught, and you know that you're gonna kill people, you're killing our kids, they're killing our kids, they're killing our kids, they're killing our families, they're killing our workers. You know, we have a hard time of the 100 million people, that special group of people, they're great people. They want to work. We have a hard time. A lot of them can't qualify to work in these factories. Chrysler's coming back in, you saw that from Mexico to Michigan, you have... we have companies coming back into the United States. You haven't seen that. I used tell you that was going to happen, but now it's happening. But a problem, a lot of people can't qualify because of drugs, but I said to the President, I said so, You don't have much of a problem. No. And they had a problem. You know, if you go back 200 years ago and they know all about drugs. It was devastating to China, the opium, devastating, it destroyed China and I'm not gonna let it destroy us.

And there was an article in one of the main papers. Maybe it was the failing New York Times, it's one of them. And I don't even know where they get it because, honestly, I don't know that the United States, frankly, is ready for it. They should be ready for, but at a minimum you have to give long tough sentences. But if you go to Singapore, I said, Mr. President, what happens with your drugs? No, we don't have a problem, President. I said, Really, why? We have a zero-tolerance. And he's not playing games. These guys don't play games. You know, we have a different type of people. They don't play games. I said, How you doing on drugs? No problem. Said, What do you mean no problem? And that's entertainment. You know, a lot of things are happening. So what do you mean no problem? We have a zero-tolerance policy. What does that mean? That means if we catch a drug dealer, death penalty, that's it. And they don't have a problem. Now, remember this: If somebody goes and shoot somebody or kill somebody, they go away for life and they can even get the death penalty, right. One person. They shoot one person they get the death penalty, they shoot, one person kill some person, knife one person, the person dies, they get maybe the death penalty, or maybe life in prison, no parole, right. Okay. A drug dealer will kill 2,000, 3,000, 5,000 people during the course of his or her life. Thousands of people are killed or their lives are destroyed, their families are destroyed, so you can kill thousands of people and go to jail for 30 days. They catch your drug dealer. They don't even put him in jail. Think of it, you kill one person, you get the death penalty in many states or you get life imprisonment. You think of it. You kill 5,000 people with drugs because you're smuggling them in and you make it a lot of money and people are dying and they don't even put you in jail. They don't do anything, but you might get 30 days 60 days 90 days. You might get a year, but you're not gonna get, and then you wonder why we have a problem. That's why we have a problem, folks. And I don't think, I don't think we should play games now. I never did polling on that. I don't know if that's popular, I don't know if that's unpopular, probably you'll have some people that say, Oh, that's, not nice, but - but these people are killing our kids and they're killing our families and we have to do something. We can't just keep setting up, blue-ribbon committees, with your wife and your wife and your husband and they meet and they have a meal and they talk, talk, talk, talk, two hours later, then they write a report said, look, that's what I got in Washington. I got all these blue-ribbon committees. Everybody wants to be blue-ribbon, and we the opioid problem, and for that, we have to go after the drug companies, we have to, we have no choice. We have to go after the drug companies, we have no choice. So, so I think it's a discussion we have to start thinking about, don't you agree? I don't know if you're ready, I don't know if this country is ready for it, but I think, Rick, I think it's a discussion that we have to start thinking about.

It's like going back in time. Very sad. :(
 
You can still find hash in Saudi Arabia, meth in Iran or heroin in China...draconian punishment does not somehow make the societal problem of drug abuse vanish, except perhaps in the most isolated and unfree of societies.

But I suppose it's the kind of simple-minded (and moronic) thinking that appeals to Trump and perhaps some of his simple-minded supporters :) "for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong."

Trump is the master at such answers
 
You can still find hash in Saudi Arabia, meth in Iran or heroin in China...draconian punishment does not somehow make the societal problem of drug abuse vanish, except perhaps in the most isolated and unfree of societies.

But I suppose it's the kind of simple-minded (and moronic) thinking that appeals to Trump and perhaps some of his simple-minded supporters :) "for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong."

Trump is the master at such answers

There are lots of places with insanely hard core penalties for drug offenses. And they still have huge drug problems. It doesn't work at reducing the drug problems in society. It's just barbaric, undemocratic, opposed to the rule of law, and completely ineffectual.

To be honest I find it mind boggling that anyone on bluelight could support this kind of thing. I mean granted not everyone here is a serious hardcore junkie. And there's hardly a shortage of hypocritical stones who think Marijuana is "just a plant" while being totally like any ill informed antidrug type about every other drug. But still.

You'd think most of us would know too many drug dealers to be OK with seeing them executed. I've known a lot of hard drug dealers, and most I wouldn't want to see dead. Many are good parents with children. The idea of just executing them for providing a drug to consenting adults is disgusting to me.

I find it very disturbing how little many people seem to regard human life. Taking someone's life, anyone's life. Should never be something you approach so casually.
 
This is disheartening, but I still don't think Trump really cares about drugs. He is certainly nowhere near as fixated as Nixon or Reagan. Given that both Democrats and Republicans are tiring of mass incarceration I doubt the magnitude of detrimental drug policy instituted under his watch will even be comparable to Clinton.

HAHAHAHA the president of the US is literally calling for the execution of drug dealers and "b-b-but Hillary" is your response?
 
HAHAHAHA the president of the US is literally calling for the execution of drug dealers and "b-b-but Hillary" is your response?

(A) I posted that before the speech in question. I'm a little more concerned now.

(B) I think it was fairly clear from the context that I was referring to Bill, not Hillary.
 
Trump's opioid initiative will seek death penalty for some traffickers
Tim Stelloh and Monica Alba
NBC
March 18th, 2018

The White House will try to stem the nation's opioid crisis partly by stiffening criminal penalties, including seeking the death penalty for drug traffickers, a senior official said Sunday.

The detail was included in a preview of President Donald Trump's opioid initiative, which he will announce Monday in New Hampshire.

In a conference call Sunday, the official said the death penalty would be sought for trafficking in some opioids, including fentanyl, "when appropriate under current law."

The official declined to offer specifics and directed reporters to the Justice Department, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump's plan will also seek to reduce the number of opioid prescriptions filled across the country by one-third - a number the official attributed to the tightening of federal reimbursement policies and prescribing practices.

Read the full story here.

The Unites States has had the death penalty on the books for certain high-level non-violent drug offences since 1994, but thankfully it has never been applied. It would be incredibly sad if Trump and company manage to change that.

_____

For reference: in the United States, one is liable for the death penalty for a non-violent drug offence in one of two situations:

- you were an important player in a drug-trafficking organization and you were convicted of manufacturing, distributing, or dispensing, or possessing with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense:
--- 60+ kg of a mixture or substance containing heroin;
--- 300+ kg of a mixture or substance containing cocaine;
--- 17+ kg of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base (crack);
--- 6+ kg of PCP;
--- 60+ kg of a mixture or substance containing PCP;
--- 600+ g of a mixture or substance containing LSD;
--- 24+ kg of a mixture or substance containing fentanyl;
--- 6+ kg of a mixture or substance containing any fentanyl analogue;
--- 60,000+ kg of a mixture or substance containing cannabis;
--- 60,000+ cannabis plants;
--- 2+ kg of methamphetamine; or
--- 20+ kg of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine.

- you were an important player in a drug-trafficking trafficking organization with revenues of over $20 million in a year, or if the organization trafficked methamphetamine, over $10 million in a year.
 
Last edited:
^ interesting that meth is considered the worst and requires the smallest amount. the law must have been passed during meth hysteria. 2 kg is not that much at all for a drug dealer
 
^ Why do you think that mate? I disagree, amphetamines are prescribed to those who need it for health reasons but meth is a very dangerous addictive drug and not something that should be taxed. Being cheaper would be great but legal? Hell no.
 
I'm shocked the cannabis is on that list in any amount... plenty of people in my state would be dead. Granted, I still don't quite understand how something can be federally schedule 1, yet I can go buy it at the store on literally any street.
And 600+ grams of a mixture or substance containing LSD... this all reminds me of when they began counting the weight of the blotter etc in sentencing.
I know PCP is still used, but it seems so few and far between; someday maybe I'll be lucky enough to come across it. I find it odd that it's still included on things like the basic panel tests or the above mentioned legislature.

If a dealer sells a drug (even if it is just heroin), and the dosage given is fatal, the dealer could be charged with something akin to murder/manslaughter. Likely wouldn't come to that in the real world but it has happened in the past.

^^
I had an ex who OD'd and died from IV heroin about 10 years ago and the police, with the support of her parents, actually did prosecute and charge the dealer with manslaughter. IIRC they tracked the dealer via the deceased's cell phone (text messages) and connected another death to this person's product. I believe it was found to be cut with fentanyl.
 
Last edited:
^ Why do you think that mate? I disagree, amphetamines are prescribed to those who need it for health reasons but meth is a very dangerous addictive drug and not something that should be taxed. Being cheaper would be great but legal? Hell no.

We shouldn’t tear down bridges because a few people jumped.
 
Trump's opioid plan to take three-pronged approach, including death penalty

(CNN)President Donald Trump will roll out new plans to tackle the country's opioid epidemic on Monday in New Hampshire, the White House said Sunday.

The plan will include stiffer penalties for high-intensity drug traffickers, including the death penalty
 
Why do you think that mate? I disagree, amphetamines are prescribed to those who need it for health reasons but meth is a very dangerous addictive drug and not something that should be taxed.

In the United States, methamphetamine is an approved medicine which is sometimes prescribed for childhood ADHD and for short-term treatment of obesity. Sure, crystal methamphetamine is often associated with addiction but if formulated in a similar manner amphetamine and methamphetamine are not all that different.
 
People could get round the 60kg threshold for PCP just by adding in a gram or two of glucose to the batch, just enough to be detectable via NMR or GC/MS or LC/MS. Upping the threshold, since then it would be a deliberate mixture. And up to 600kg would be below the murder threshold.
 
Top