Boycott Singapore - Van's unfair sentance

[plazma]

We ARE talking supply side, not demand. Basic economic terms. Junkies and fiending MDMA users don't make up the entire supply network. Hep C as a result of sharing needles in a small percentage of users who don't have enough HM education has absolutely NOTHING to do with the higher echelons of the distribution network.

And you can be surprised at my failing to pick up your vague 'allusions' all you like, if you want a response to it, come out and say it in the open.

-plaz out-

 

[Mary Poppins]

kb, you are bringing in periphery argument to lend credibility to a rapidly flailing POV.

i will reiterate.
if you refuse to let up on the MDMA v. Heroin argument - even though i specfically pointed out i was using MDMA as an example only then whatever.

Most supply chains operate with more than one drug though, so you CANNOT know what particular drug trades you are contributing to, when you buy a pill, or <insert drug other than heroin here>. Your consumption might be funding/helping/abetting your dealer's dealer's (or anyone's) heroin trading ---- just because you're not actively participating, doesn't mean you're not contributing.

Until the drug market is no longer underground, you will never know, that is a fact, therefore, I come back to my point, which is that it is hypocritical to condemn another's participation in the cycle, when you cannot possibly know to what level your own participation is contributing.

 

[katmeow]

Thats not how MDMA is distrubted...its alot cleaner than that. its a very tidy distribution compared with heroin. The likelihood that the pills you come across have have been near a "granny basher" are very slim. its just not that sort of drug. Even more unlikely is the idea the a person wanting to take some pills for a night out will assault someone in order to obtain money for thier.

Perhaps if you are drawing the comparison between street level dealing of heroin and small time MDMA dealers. However if you take a step up the chain, research has shown that dealers at the mid-range are often invoved with multi-commodities (if you like). So what MP has said it correct, in an unregulated market, you don't know where your substance of choice comes from.

I can say that, because im speaking of probabilites. people will of course get hurt from the MDMA trade, but its different than heroin. Its unlikely you'll get Hep C from a pill. Now, you can say "hey! WTF does that have to with anything?" - but its to help illustrate the nature of heroin addiction where one doesn tcare if their rig is clean and safe and that sahring needles due to lack of supply, or rummaging through bins trying to find a dirty needle

As for this argument, again we come back to the prohibitive nature of the laws surrounding drug use. These practices are quite often associated with the intense street level policing of heroin users.

 

[vurtomatic]

Singapore: Imminent Execution: Van Tuong NGUYEN (m), Australian national

PUBLIC AI Index: ASA 36/003/2005
24 October 2005

UA 279/05 Imminent Execution

SINGAPORE Van Tuong NGUYEN (m), aged 25, Australian national

Australian national Van Tuong Nguyen, who has been condemned to death in
Singapore, had his appeal for clemency rejected by the President on 21 October,
and is now facing imminent execution. A date has not yet been announced,
although the hanging is likely to be carried out within weeks.

An Australian of Vietnamese origin, Van Tuong Nguyen was arrested at Singapore’
s Changi airport in transit from Cambodia to Australia in December 2002, after
police found a package of heroin strapped to his back and a second package in
his backpack.

In March 2004 Van Tuong Nguyen, a former salesman, was sentenced to death for
importing 396.2 grams of heroin into Singapore. He was convicted under the
Misuse of Drugs Act, which carries a mandatory death sentence for anyone found
guilty of trafficking in more than 15 grams of heroin. In October 2004 the
Court of Appeal rejected his appeal against the death sentence.

Van Tuong Nguyen, who had no previous criminal record, was born in a refugee
camp in Thailand and moved to Australia with his mother and twin brother when
he was six months old. He told investigating officers that he had agreed to
carry the drugs in order to pay off debts owed by his twin brother. He said he
did not know how much he was being paid for the trip. It was his first trip
outside Australia. Since his arrest he has shown remorse and cooperated fully
with the authorities. The Australian Federal Police have confirmed that, while
in custody, Van Tuong Nguyen assisted their investigation into the
international drugs syndicate for which he had worked.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
There is usually very little public debate in Singapore about the death
penalty, partly as a result of tight government controls on the press and civil
society organisations. However, the case earlier this year of Shanmugam s/o
Murugesu, who was sentenced to death after he was found in possession of just
over one kilogram of cannabis, sparked unprecedented public discussion. In
April and May, local activists organised a public forum, petitions, vigils and
other events to campaign for Shanmugam’s life to be spared, and to raise
awareness in Singapore about the cruel and arbitrary nature of the death
penalty. The authorities refused to allow an Amnesty International
representative who attended the public forum to address the meeting. Shanmugam
was hanged on 13 May. His lawyer was reportedly subjected to attacks on his
character in government-controlled newspapers over his work on the case.

In April, the Singapore Law Society Gazette published a commentary on Van Tuong
Nguyen’s Appeal Court decision, arguing that there was "light on the path"
because "it is now open to an accused to show ... that a mandatory death
sentence is cruel and inhuman punishment under customary international law".

Singapore, with a population of just over four million, has the highest per
capita execution rate in the world. More than 420 people have been executed
since 1991, the majority for drug trafficking. The Singapore government has
consistently maintained that the death penalty is not a human rights issue. The
Misuse of Drugs Act provides for a mandatory death sentence for at least 20
different offences and contains a series of presumptions which shift the burden
of proof from the prosecution to the defence. Prisoners facing execution may be
granted clemency by the President, but this is extremely rare.

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases as a violation of
one of the most fundamental of human rights: the right to life. It is the
ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and there is no escaping the
risk of error, which can lead to the execution of an innocent person. The UN
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has called
for the death penalty to be eliminated for drug-related offences. In April
2005, the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) renewed calls upon all states
that retain the death penalty to abolish it completely and, in the meantime, to
establish a moratorium on executions.


AI Index: ASA 36/003/2005 24 October 2005

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA360032005?open&of=ENG-SGP

 

[endlesseulogy]

In relation to heroin addiction, its simple..think about it... what does heroin do as a drug and what are its effects? Opiates promote a non-caring attitude to the world. They produce warming feelings that makes the user feel comfortable whatever their setting.. Now if your addiction takes up all your financial resourses and you have no money to life (food, shelter, water) dont you think you would want more heroin to dull the pain of your existance?

The addiction pattern of heroin is a result of the legal cirumstances of that drug. Its a vicious cycle. After doing much reserach into the topic on behalf of a inflicted relitive i have discovered that wealthy addicts dont feel the need to use heroin to the extent poorer more underpriviliged addicts do.

 

[hoptis]

Sure I have consumed drugs, obviously giving money to drug traffickers. But if you can't read the signs, look at the news, read your PASSPORT, READ YOUR PLANE TICKET or simply just use your brain and know the risks of carrying drugs in Asia anywhere, then you really are just an idiot.

what was your argmuent again? stupid people are their own race and when they get caught smuggling drugs we should give them a slap on the wrists because - gosh darn it - they just dont know any better?

I frequently have quite heated discussions on another forum (not a drug site) about harm minimisation.

A lot of times I come up against the attitude that people who are stupid enough to do drugs don't deserve harm minimisation. They don't deserve clean needles and they don't deserve pill testers because if they're stupid enough to take illegal drugs, they deserve to die.

So while you self-righteously condemn this young man to death, just remember that there are a lot of people out there who would pass judgement on your stupid actions in the same way.

If you believe someone who is foolish enough to smuggle 400 grams of heroin deserves to die, don't be disappointed if people think you deserve the same fate for using MDMA.

I just hope you're aware what kind of ideologies you're climbing into bed with.

 

[MyNameGotFuckdOver]

We are speaking about a nation that has mandatory military service, incarcerates homosexuals for no reason and fines people for chewing gum. One must expect that passing through the nation with a sizeable quantity of heroin will attract a harsh penalty.

That said, our government should show some backbone. If we are willing to send our troops to the middle-east to defeat an 'enemy' that previously posed absolutely no threat to our existence, surely our government can pressure Singapore more than it has. Maybe there is suddenly no room for Singaporean students in our universities, or no demand for Singaporean made electronics.

 

[keej]

^^^
re: your second last post...

slightly off topic but what's wrong with legalising heroin? are you one of those people inclined to believe that everybody is going to run out and try smack if it were to be legalised? that same argument is used to justify opposition to the legalisation of marijuana ( a drug 1 in 3 admit to using at one time or another) and is completely devoid of factual evidence. evidence actually suggests the opposite to be true, taking into account that in the netherlands marijauna use has remained stable since it was legalised in the 70's.

the majority of heroin deaths occur from overdosing, a consequence of unregulated manufacture. imagine how many people would be dropping dead daily if aspirin was made illegal and it's manufacture left to criminals?

as stated earlier in this thread and in countless other threads over the years, prohibition causes more problems than the drug itself, for both the user and society. if a junkie mum can get her fix legally at a reasonable cost, she's not going to have to prostitute herself to raise drug funds. she would interact socially more often, coming into contact with people who can help her kick her habit if she wants to, and she can be a better mother to her child/children seeing she could afford to school/house/feed/clothe them. she would be a much more stable person, not associating with undesirables, she could even hold down a job, something high income workers with habits do quite easily.

cigarettes are legal, and through honest information on the dangers of smoking there has been a huge decline in the number of smokers over the years. they didn't have to be banned to achieve such an effect. why should heroin or other drugs for that matter be any different?

You're putting a lot of words in my mouth, especially considering I followed up my post by stating that controlled legalisation is something I'm not necessarily opposed to. But you know, good job on both creating an argument and subsequently tearing it apart in a single post.

Comparing cigarettes to heroin seems to be a popular way to construct an argument for the legalisation of heroin. Only, they're hardly the same, are they? They both fall under the drug umbrella, but that doesn't exactly make them equivelants. Using the decline in cigarettes as an example of why educated legalisation is a viable solution has fuck all to do with heroin when put in their own contexts.

Not that I've tried heroin, but I'd wager its a tad more difficult to hold down a steady job whilst using that over cigarettes. Heroin addicts that are moving far up the corporate ladder are welcome to tell me to shut the fuck up though.

 

[endlesseulogy]

^^ If i were a heroin addict who payed for gear that cost the same as a pack of ciggies, i wouldnt want to climb the corperate ladder. I would get a modest layed back job that requires creative input. Rent a modest apartment etc etc. I'd be heaps happy.

Climbing the corperate ladder dosnt amount to anything as far as im concerned. Hell, I know heaps of people who work for large corperations who openly flaunt their cocaine addictions. Mmmm cocaine, perfect drug for the workplace. You'll find most of these people usually have the intelligence of a small child while possesing keen leadership and "up and at em" skills which are only fueled by the cocaine habit. This is a perfect arrangement if you want to make profits for you're corperation..

A heroin addict friend of mine was the smartest in his family, went to uni for 2 degrees.. then.. started taking heroin.. why? because he enjoyed it and because he could and because he didnt care about making it in the world, because the world to him was cold and dark.. which it is in a way at times.. isnt it?

Before people react and think that i am itimating we should all take heroin.. take a step back.. im just making an observation of reality

 

[MoeBro]

I'd be a corporate whore if it paid well and fuelling my cocaine addiction was all it required...

 

[preacha]

Van smuggled drugs into a country where such a crime is punishable by death.
He did so knowing this.
While the circumstances on how he was outed for this crime I disagree with, the fact that he was doing so in the first place makes him guilty.

I really don't see what's so unfair about it.

At high school, a friend of mine got expelled for having a pound of weed in his locker because someone narc'ed on him to a teacher. While the circumstances of how he was expelled was undesirable, the fact that he chose to break the law renders him vulnerable to the punishment bestowed upon him.

From me to you, here's an awesome 'harm minimalisation' hint

DON'T SMUGGLE DRUGS INTO COUNTRIES WHERE THEY KILL YOU FOR DOING SO!

How transparent must I be to get this message clear to you guys?

 

[endlesseulogy]

You see precha, everyone already knows this and agrees with this at the back of their minds; but if everyone were to all post the same thing saying "its bad to take drugs to asia" blah blah blah, then this would be a pretty boring post wouldnt it?

The whole point of discussion is to take issues into areas of deeper thought, beyond the bleeding obvious. This is a very complex and far ranging issue.

 

[FaTz]

Thank fuck Preacher... Could be wrong but I'm "Pretty" sure I said that 2 pages back hehe... Stupid fuckers... lol

 

[endlesseulogy]

^^ C'mon fatz!! well done!! we are all stupid fuckers... well fuck i give up!! you can come to my house and watch waterworld

 

[FaTz]

WOOOOHOOOOOOOO

The reason I said stupid fuckers was because not only has this turned from a discussion (A chat between people each giving there own points' of view on a certain topic) to a heated argue between bluelighters (A discussion where each person says there view, others say they are wrong, then each person says the same arguement over and over and over thinking the others' will finally give in and agree)... I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that's the deffinition in the Oxford Dictionary of a "Bluelight Discussion"...

Now.......... Let's crack open some vodka and watch some waterworld...

 

[endlesseulogy]

^^ Fuck yes... ill agree with you on that one.. this is supposed to be a serious discussion about a dude getting hung, but we gotta find a funny side to everything .

Now ill go buy some popcorn and maybe a bucket of KFC %)

 

[keej]

^^ If i were a heroin addict who payed for gear that cost the same as a pack of ciggies, i wouldnt want to climb the corperate ladder. I would get a modest layed back job that requires creative input. Rent a modest apartment etc etc. I'd be heaps happy.

Climbing the corperate ladder dosnt amount to anything as far as im concerned. Hell, I know heaps of people who work for large corperations who openly flaunt their cocaine addictions. Mmmm cocaine, perfect drug for the workplace. You'll find most of these people usually have the intelligence of a small child while possesing keen leadership and "up and at em" skills which are only fueled by the cocaine habit. This is a perfect arrangement if you want to make profits for you're corperation..

A heroin addict friend of mine was the smartest in his family, went to uni for 2 degrees.. then.. started taking heroin.. why? because he enjoyed it and because he could and because he didnt care about making it in the world, because the world to him was cold and dark.. which it is in a way at times.. isnt it?

Before people react and think that i am itimating we should all take heroin.. take a step back.. im just making an observation of reality

I wouldn't really argue with that since it's coming from your own view.

The point I was making is that the difference between smoking a cigarette and having heroin is significant enough to warrant them not being tossed in the same boat when making these pro-legalisation arguments. Not only that, but there are so many other issues with smoking that don't apply to heroin (and vice-versa).. the fact that cigarettes have always been legal, that they were used by a large amount of the population, that it has been socially acceptable to smoke. These things just don't apply to heroin (hence apples vs. oranges).

To reiterate, the conclusion that people are reaching is that since cigarettes are completely legal and their usage is falling, it means that if heroin was completely legalised then there would be minimal detrimental effects for users and society. It's a different landscape and the link between the two doesn't fly here.

Btw, just stating again I'm not necessarily against controlled legalisation. I don't think complete legalisation is a better solution than controlled legalisation though. If you agree with me on that then we're good

 

[plazma]

The beautiful irony being in the case of cigarettes/tobacco products vs heroin being that pure diacetylmorphine, if injected by a physician has NO detrimental health impact, and does NO damage to the human body.

-plaz out-

 

[onetwothreefour]

I hear singapore is good this time of year, perhaps you should take some heroin with you to settle your nerves.

i was a bit late to this thread.

seriously, you're going really fucking close to a warning making comments like that. i'm very happy to see the spirited debate going on in this thread, regardless of where my sympathies may lie, but shit like this is not on.

 

[onetwothreefour]

No offence but why are you even on this website anyway?

If I wanted to read thick-headed, ignorant, right-wing drivel like that, I'd go read a Murdoch paper or tune into talkback radio.

This goes for anyone else who thinks it's okay to take someone's life for strapping 400 grams of heroin to their body. I can only imagine what incredibly heartless and incomplete lives you must have lead to hold such low value for the sanctity of human life.

Firstly, someone has to deal drugs. Whether you believe in our drug laws or not, it's likely that because you're on this website you have taken an illicit drug at some point or another in your life (if you haven't then please ignore my rantings).

If you've ever enjoyed taking drugs, then someone, somewhere has had to have made an effort to manufacture, traffic and distribute that drug for your personal indulgance. Regardless of the fact that the overwhelming majority of people involved in such an enterprise are doing it out of greed, the fact remains; we are all most likely here because of these people. To whom we also owe all friendships, experiences and interactions through this website because none of it would happen if people didn't illegally make and move drugs.

The hypocrisy of some people is astounding.

Secondly, while I don't doubt the man made a very, very big mistake, it's quite a stretch to argue that he should be put to death for it.

Even though I oppose the death penalty completely, that's not to say I don't sympathise with the argument that it should be used as a sentence for murderers and rapists, but for moving drugs?

How, in any way, is that punishment in proportion to the crime?

Tuong Van was twenty-two years old when he was arrested at Changi airport three years ago. A lot of people at that point in their life make silly, silly, stupid mistakes. God knows I have, and so do most other people in their lives.

Imagine the biggest mistake you've ever made in your life. Imagine being judged for it in such a way as to say that you are irrevocably evil because of that mistake and that there is no room for rehabilition, the only mandatory sentence that can be given is death by hanging.

If you support this sentence, then basically you're saying that's the kind of society you'd like to live in. If you do, quite frankly you can get fucked and there's a few places I can suggest you go.


- Mohandas K. Gandhi

slightly off topic but what's wrong with legalising heroin? are you one of those people inclined to believe that everybody is going to run out and try smack if it were to be legalised? that same argument is used to justify opposition to the legalisation of marijuana ( a drug 1 in 3 admit to using at one time or another) and is completely devoid of factual evidence. evidence actually suggests the opposite to be true, taking into account that in the netherlands marijauna use has remained stable since it was legalised in the 70's.

the majority of heroin deaths occur from overdosing, a consequence of unregulated manufacture. imagine how many people would be dropping dead daily if aspirin was made illegal and it's manufacture left to criminals?

as stated earlier in this thread and in countless other threads over the years, prohibition causes more problems than the drug itself, for both the user and society. if a junkie mum can get her fix legally at a reasonable cost, she's not going to have to prostitute herself to raise drug funds. she would interact socially more often, coming into contact with people who can help her kick her habit if she wants to, and she can be a better mother to her child/children seeing she could afford to school/house/feed/clothe them. she would be a much more stable person, not associating with undesirables, she could even hold down a job, something high income workers with habits do quite easily.

cigarettes are legal, and through honest information on the dangers of smoking there has been a huge decline in the number of smokers over the years. they didn't have to be banned to achieve such an effect. why should heroin or other drugs for that matter be any different?

these seem to be the two most reasonable and intelligent posts made in this thread, amongst a ton of utter fucking tripe, so i'm quoting them for posterity.