Boycott Singapore - Van's unfair sentance

[onetwothreefour]

Think about how it makes australia look when we cry and moan about a country that's not afraid to carry out its laws, it makes us look like hypocrats who will drop all morals and values because because we let our naive and impressionable emotions get in the way of the real issue, which is, for anyone who's forgotten that someone broke the law and got caught.

but surely the way a just world works is that we're able to criticise the laws that we think are actually unjust? i don't advocate stepping in and forcing another country's co-operation (as someone else leapt to, that would be bush-like in its self-righteous paternalism), but i think it is our moral duty to stick up for what we believe is *right*. increasingly people's values are being shoved aside in favour of bullshit 'utilitarian' views (especially when it comes to drug use), when in the end people should be able to do what they choose.

this guy was, as people have mentioned, merely a small time supply mechanism in an enormous line of demand. to see him crucified in such a way is hypocritical to the extreme, extraordinarily inhumane, and most depressingly, a blight on every single cunt in this thread who thinks that an error in judgement (if that's even the case - he took a large risk, he thought, to fix an even bigger problem, that of his brother's debts) is equal to this poor guy's life.

i hope that everyone who thinks like that (keystroke...kb...) one day ends up suffering at the hands of australia's soon-to-be-similarly-draconian laws. maybe you'll end up like that brazilian man from the uk - make one simple mistake and you're life's over. shot in the head seven fucking times. that's fair, too, right?

 

[onetwothreefour]

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.

this view has always kind of puzzled me.

let's break it down.

you say that the 'crime [wa]s punishable by death'. sure, no arguments there.

you say 'he did so knowing this'. that's right. it's not like we know this for sure, but of course we can assume it. that's fine.

you say you 'disagree with' how he was outed for his crime. i assume you mean that you disagree with how he was apprehended? sure. this seems kind of odd, though.

you say 'the fact that he was doing it in the first place makes him guilty'. sure, presumably we're talking guilty in the legal sense, and not in the moral sense. i assume that the fact that you've already absolved yourself from any sort of moral argument by virtue of your 'disagree[ing]' with their method of apprehension. clever, that. i mean, no-one could possibly argue that he's not legally guilty, so i guess your argument's waterproof.

well, let's replace the example of heroin with, say, books. let's make it specific...perhaps the harry potter books. it's not too much of a leap: recently a member of an australian orchestra was apprehended in china after a search of their personal luggage revealed a book that was banned in that country. they were sent back immediately to australia, and they're not allowed back in. it was illegal there; there's no argument. so my example ain't too much of a stretch. (although, let's remember that even if it *was* a stretch, it doesn't really matter - if someone knows what they're doing is illegal, the morality of whatever that it is needn't even come into it, right?)

but let's imagine that instead of mere deportation, the penalty was instead hanging, like poor mister nguyen's.

but this doesn't matter, because the person in the example was carrying the book. there's no denying it. they knew that carrying the book was illegal. they knew that carrying the book, if caught, would result in their being hanged.

so, well, i guess it's okay then, right...?

 

[preacha]

"so i guess your arguments waterproof."

so why do you have another 4 paragraphs?
fucking arts students never know when to shut the fuck up

 

[onetwothreefour]

fucking i.t. professionals don't know where to look when they see sarcasm?

 

[MyNameGotFuckdOver]

chill

While i'm by no means defending the viewpoint of KB, keystroke, preacha et al, they are entitled to their opinion, as is every other poster in this thread, including yourself. I am concerned however, that your posts in no way facilitate open and balanced communication regarding this issue.

First you threaten to warn a fellow staff member about the manner in which he is presenting his opinion. An opinion that coincidentally, you do not agree with;

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

1234:
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.

Then you go on to quote an emotional, one-sided rant (by hoptis) that starts off by calling a poster 'thick-headed' and actually ends by telling people who don't agree to "get fucked". How reasonable and intelligent! Such posterity! Apart from the bit in the middle where i think i was meant to start crying, that post is much more offensive than anything keystroke has written in this thread. I thought 'shit like this' was not on?

You then quote an excellent journal article (by silvia saint) on the benefits of heroin legalisation etc. While it is a good post, i'm not sure how junkie mums and ciggarettes really relate to the topic at hand, especially considering Van will presumabely be executed long before you can convince the Singaporean government to take up your legal policies.

You then make a rude blanket statement about all the other posts in this thread being tripe. Well thanks very much, the 45 mins i spent reading the thread in its entirity and posting my opinion, has now been stunningly validated.

1234:
this guy was, as people have mentioned, merely a small time supply mechanism in an enormous line of demand. to see him crucified in such a way is hypocritical to the extreme, extraordinarily inhumane, and most depressingly, a blight on every single cunt in this thread who thinks that an error in judgement (if that's even the case - he took a large risk, he thought, to fix an even bigger problem, that of his brother's debts) is equal to this poor guy's life.

A small-time supply mechanism in an enormous line of demand? Please. The bloke had 400g of heroin. It's not exactly bordering on personal use.

As for his brothers debts, people have debts all the time, this is nothing new. Sometimes, they work three jobs and repay them over 20 years, they generally don't look for a quick fix such as drug importation. How did the brothers legal bills amass anyway? Obviously he 'allegedly' broke the law at some stage and the charge was significant enough to warrant getting an expensive lawyer, instead of free legal aid. Smuggling heroin to pay your brothers legal bills is no better or worse than smuggling for any other reason.

i hope that everyone who thinks like that (keystroke...kb...) one day ends up suffering at the hands of australia's soon-to-be-similarly-draconian laws. maybe you'll end up like that brazilian man from the uk - make one simple mistake and you're life's over. shot in the head seven fucking times. that's fair, too, right?

Soon-to-be-similarly-draconian laws? While i hate this government and our legal system as much as the next man, you are kidding yourself if you think any of the bullshit you just mentioned could ever occur here. This is Australia, gang rapists get less than 20 years. Get caught with 400g of Heroin and they would send you to the sort of prison that looks more like a retirement village.

As for your response to Preacha (the ever-present pot-stirrer), it is highly illogical. First of all, who the fuck keeps track of which books are and aren't legal in whatever countries. In the case that you mentioned, it is highly likely that intent was not actually present. There is no doubting that in Van's case, intent was present. He intended to traffick drugs over international borders, intended to earn money from the venture, intended to spend the money (albeit selflessly) and intended to get away without being caught. In addition, books have even less to do with heroin, than ecstasy, ciggarettes and green eggs and ham combined.

While i do empathise with Van and would like to see our government use 'bush-like self-righteous paternalism' to help this kid out of his bad position, your viewpoint is no better or worse than others. Just because you are left-wing, doesn't mean that those with right-wing attitudes aren't entitled to post their opinion (as absurd and infuriating as they may seem).

 

[sierra]

this view has always kind of puzzled me.

well, let's replace the example of heroin with, say, books. let's make it specific...perhaps the harry potter books. it's not too much of a leap: recently a member of an australian orchestra was apprehended in china after a search of their personal luggage revealed a book that was banned in that country. they were sent back immediately to australia, and they're not allowed back in. it was illegal there; there's no argument. so my example ain't too much of a stretch. (although, let's remember that even if it *was* a stretch, it doesn't really matter - if someone knows what they're doing is illegal, the morality of whatever that it is needn't even come into it, right?)

but let's imagine that instead of mere deportation, the penalty was instead hanging, like poor mister nguyen's.

but this doesn't matter, because the person in the example was carrying the book. there's no denying it. they knew that carrying the book was illegal. they knew that carrying the book, if caught, would result in their being hanged.

so, well, i guess it's okay then, right...?

man, what fucked up planet are you on?
how can you possibly compare heroin to harry potter?
do you really think heroin is that harmless?

in australia it might be relatively harmless to the overall health of the social population. but consider living in a nation where AIDS tests are mandatory before marrying a person... just as they are mandatory if you fall pregnant. a nation where homosexual relationships have to be illegal because AIDS is so widespread. does it strike you as odd that IV drugs should also be banned?

you really think its 'cool' to sell heroin in south-east asia? or even take it through singapore, maybe maylasia, hell, why not stop at laos? its fucking stupid. you might not cause anyone to overdose, but you can bet that in a nation where you can't buy syringes over the counter that heroin users will have to share needles... does this not increase the risk of spreading AIDS? what happens when people contract AIDS in third world countries? do they not DIE?

logically therefore, selling heroin or any other IV drug in singapore increases the already extremely high risk of contracting AIDS. and dont give me this liberalised bullshit about "the real risks of getting AIDS" because our situation here in australia is DRASTICALLY different to that of singapore.

granted singapore's situation is not as bad as malaysia (which also carries the death penalty). in malaysia the statistics are way worse with 10 times as many HIV infected people than singapore. both singapore and malaysia can attribute their growing HIV population to the sex industry and travelling business people/tourists... but the number 1 cause of HIV infection in malaysia is IV drug use.

where is malaysia in relation to singapore? well here. here is a map of south east asia, so take a good fucking look:

wow. its right next door. and wow isn't it strange how if you were following the Golden Trail through south east asia how you would hit all these nations tht have the death penalty for carrying drugs... isn't it also funny how UNAIDS describes the region as:

South and South-East Asia contains a variety of AIDS epidemics, and a higher total of HIV infections and annual AIDS deaths than any region except sub-Saharan Africa

if you're threatening the very social structure of these nations by playing around with a drug that promotes the increase of HIV infection the OBVIOUSLY you are going to be given the death penalty.

and damn straight this guy should die. its far better that he die than let him live to cause many other people to die. and that's coming from a person who usually opposes the death penalty.

let's not kid ourselves here.
heroin is fucking stupid.
carrying heroin in a country where you can be given the death penalty for it? well that makes you a dead set moron.

 

[onetwothreefour]

diego/myname: fair points, well made. you're probably right in that i was doing just the same i was criticising others for (though i think several of my points still stand). i will edit my post accordingly asap.

 

[plazma]

let's not kid ourselves here.
heroin is fucking stupid

I'll give you credit for having intelligence, but its taking a strain with comments like that. Heroin is a drug like any other, and as I said before, its a whole fucking bunch more harmless to the body than MDMA or any of the middle class drugs of choice that people on this site seem to prefer. Have the nous to separate a drug from its methods of administration, and also if those countries had half an eye with regards to Harm Minimisation their problems would be VASTLY reduced.

damn straight this guy should die. its far better that he die than let him live to cause many other people to die

I won't even glorify your comments on Van Tuong being executed for heroin traffiking, except to say that you are quite possibly one of the most hypocritical people I hope never to meet. If you consume drugs, you are funding the people who sent this poor fuck to what might possibly be his death. Not only that, but it's also kind of amusing to watch someone who consumes drugs take this kind of moralist position on ANOTHER drug that happens not to be their drug of choice.

-plaz out-

 

[preacha]

damn straight this guy should die. its far better that he die than let him live to cause many other people to die

I won't even glorify your comments on Van Tuong being executed for heroin traffiking, except to say that you are quite possibly one of the most hypocritical people I hope never to meet. If you consume drugs, you are funding the people who sent this poor fuck to what might possibly be his death.

-plaz out-

whereas if you DO consume drugs, by your reasoning Van Tuong would be your Jesus since he is dying for your sins?

 

[plazma]

Keyword there being 'if', yeah and Schapelle Corby's the virgin mary.

Seriously though, you do have a point preach, but the difference is I'm not sitting here calling for the death penalty on a moralist position, I'm prepared to accept my partial complicity in the whole deal.

-plaz out-

 

[sierra]

three points:

1. i am yet to see people turned homeless from a psychological mdma addiction. i am also yet to see anyone become physically addicted to mdma. yet i have seen too many people turned homeless from physical heroin addictions. and i wouldn't really call needle tracks, infected veins etc, extreme weight loss, and not being able to take a shit for days "less harmless to the body" than mdma... oh yeah and not to forget the fact that if you overdose... you die. has there ever been a death linked to mdma?

2. harm minimalisation is something you introduce into developing or developed nations... not countries that have a massive underpriviledged society. in south east asia's case... this is their method of harm minimalisation: erradicating the health risks BEFORE attempting to introduce things like free needles, shooting galleries, etc. i think you're forgetting that this region has a MASSIVE underpriviledged population living in cardboard boxes and making a living by sorting through rubbish dumps and selling disease ridden bodies for sex. harsh? possibly, but thats life in these areas. and without such harsh policies for drug use, south east asia risks becoming the next southern africa in terms of HIV infection. look at the statistics for yourself and tell me AIDS is not a problem in south east asia.

3. i dont consume drugs or could even possibly be linked to the cause for Van Tuong's execution. don't be stupid. his fate was his own decision, he knew the risks, he fucked up, and tough cookies but he had to face the consequences. in this case death... which i'm sure he was well aware of when he considered doing something this stupid for personal gain.

 

[preacha]

On the plus side for heroin though, you get movies such as Requiem For A Dream and Trainspotting being made. What has MDMA given us? Groove. Oooh

 

[sierra]

duh Human Traffic

 

[plazma]

1. i am yet to see people turned homeless from a psychological mdma addiction. i am also yet to see anyone become physically addicted to mdma. yet i have seen too many people turned homeless from physical heroin addictions. and i wouldn't really call needle tracks, infected veins etc, extreme weight loss, and not being able to take a shit for days "less harmless to the body" than mdma.

I guess you might not be looking too hard, I've heard of plenty of people who've fucked out pretty damn hard on all those harmless middle class drugs. The homeless junkie tends to be a lot more obvious than the fucked out e-tarded raver, as their social support networks tend to be worse due to the predominantly class based division in the use of these drugs. Secondly RTP, because I stated that you need to separate a drug from its means of administration, INJECTING drugs might be a bad thing in unsanitary and un-HM circumstances, but heroin itself is blameless, they might as well be injecting meth, the damage you're citingwould be identical, and the drug has jack shit to do with it. I'm talking about the actual effects on the body from processing a dose of diacetylmorphine.

2. harm minimalisation is something you introduce into developing or developed nations... not countries that have a massive underpriviledged society. in south east asia's case... this is their method of harm minimalisation: erradicating the health risks BEFORE attempting to introduce things like free needles, shooting galleries, etc. i think you're forgetting that this region has a MASSIVE underpriviledged population living in cardboard boxes and making a living by sorting through rubbish dumps and selling disease ridden bodies for sex. harsh? possibly, but thats life in these areas. and without such harsh policies for drug use, south east asia risks becoming the next southern africa in terms of HIV infection. look at the statistics for yourself and tell me AIDS is not a problem in south east asia.

Don't even start me on developing or developed nations. All the more reason that HM should be introduced to these places AS they are developing so that these problems don't keep them from developing (AKA Sub Saharan africa). Not only that but face the fact that the first world has a hugely vested interest in keeping these nations underpriveleged so that they exist as a source of cheaper resources and labour than would be obtainable if they were developed to a 1st world equivalent.

3. i dont consume drugs or could even possibly be linked to the cause for Van Tuong's execution. don't be stupid. his fate was his own decision, he knew the risks, he fucked up, and tough cookies but he had to face the consequences. in this case death... which i'm sure he was well aware of when he considered doing something this stupid for personal gain.

I'm trying to work out what you meant here, if you were saying you don't consume drugs, or if you were saying you don't consume drugs that could be linked to the case for Van Tuong's execution. If its the former, then ignore what I said (i suspect its not) but if it's the latter then you're choosing wilful ignorance, because at the higher side of the distribution network there's not a lot of separation between drugs, the same organisations tend to move a whole range of shit, including (GOD FORBID) the MDMA and other middle class shit that gets guzzled up like candy in this country. FINALLY this is not about personal gain, he was doing it in order to pay off his twin brother's debts to a fucking drug syndicate, he didn't even know how much he would be paid for it! Real prime example of greedy money grubbing selfishness huh?

-plaz out-

 

[Samadhi]

three points:

1. i am yet to see people turned homeless from a psychological mdma addiction. i am also yet to see anyone become physically addicted to mdma. yet i have seen too many people turned homeless from physical heroin addictions. and i wouldn't really call needle tracks, infected veins etc, extreme weight loss, and not being able to take a shit for days "less harmless to the body" than mdma... oh yeah and not to forget the fact that if you overdose... you die. has there ever been a death linked to mdma?

Regarding your comment about people turned homeless from a psychological MDMA addiction; i've seen plenty. Girls that used to go out every night to the Beat, would be carrying 2 or 3 bags with them, and would ask the bar staff to hold them. They'd go to whaever "recovery" they could get an invite to, hang out there all day, have a shower if they could, then do it again the next night. Those 2 or 3 bags would be everything they owned. Some of the girls would hook up with a local dealer, who would keep them dosed up on E, would shag them for a couple of weeks, but hey, the girls had somewhere to sleep, right? I saw it first hand, some of them would pass through my house at one time or another, i'd give them something to eat and a bed to sleep in. One girl stayed with me for a while, and the stories she told me about the things some people have done to her broke my heart... all because she started a love affair with mistress E and it got way out of hand. This was right here in Brisbane... so yeah, it does and has happened. I agree with plazma, a fucked out e-bunny is not as obvious as a heroin junky. I've also seen plenty of cracked out ravers go to the local cash converters to trade in whatever they could for a 10 pack of pills.

I've had first hand experience with both scenes (heroin & E), and while i don't deny that heroin addiction is completely fucked up, and the physical effects of it do outweigh the physical effects of E, i absolutely disagree with your statements that seem to make out that MDMA is a comparatively harmless drug, when it isn't.

 

[sierra]

are you shit stirring on purpose? cuz you can't be this dumb.

The homeless junkie tends to be a lot more obvious than the fucked out e-tarded raver, as their social support networks tend to be worse due to the predominantly class based division in the use of these drugs.

well usually by the time a person gets fucked over by mdma/mda its because they've started to develop depression or anxiety or both. these are treated with anti-depressants, which are freely available from your GP... you can be prescribed anti-depressants in all nations because the need for them does not necessarily relate to drug use. if the psychological addiction is that bad, then there is such a thing as a psych ward... which may not be much fun, but it will give you a place to sleep and help you get your life back on track. i'm still really not sure why you brought this up anyway, since it relates to nothing we're talking about here.

should i reiterate? heroin. death penalty. south east asia. aids epidemic.

Secondly RTP, because I stated that you need to separate a drug from its means of administration, INJECTING drugs might be a bad thing in unsanitary and un-HM circumstances, but heroin itself is blameless, they might as well be injecting meth, the damage you're citingwould be identical

yes, i mentioned that. 'IV drug use' covers all IV drugs... not just heroin. but heroin is injected. even if you start out snorting it or smoking it, as the addiction grows (and it does) you begin to see problems with tolerance, and it becomes necessary to inject the drug just to touch base. once you start injecting heroin it then becomes harder to go back or quit. from there its either death or methadone. and in countries where the impoverish have poor access to healthcare, methadone programs and rehab facilities are just out of the window.

, and the drug has jack shit to do with it. I'm talking about the actual effects on the body from processing a dose of diacetylmorphine.

well if you read a single word i typed, then you'd realise that i'm less concerned about the effects of heroin on the body... and more concerned about IV use being the downfall of south-east asian population. maybe you think its a good idea to kill off thousands of asians, i'm not sure if you're that racist (i suspect not). but i for one dont. the governments of south east asia also dont think that allowing IV use is an appropriate means of controlling the AIDS explosion there either.

s.e. asia is going through what is called a "second phase" of HIV infection. where the number of people infected has ballooned in the last 5-10yrs (the latests stats i could find for Singapore were from october 2003). HIV infections have gone from being relatively minor (like in Australia) to being a growing problem. the means by which HIV spreads (in these regions the main causes are through prostitution and IV drug use) adds another significant problem to the outbreak since both causes were previously embedded in post-war s.e. asian culture, particularly amongst travellers. because the nations in this region are so close and share similiar cultures, languages, etc, travelling between nations is far from uncommon. YES the main cause for HIV infections in Singapore is heterosexual prostitution owed to tourists who fuck infected prosititutes because they seem so cheap and well experienced... but then those tourists go back home... may not realise that they have been infected (detection may take up to 5yrs)... and then fuck their spouse. they then have children, and if left unchecked those children can also carry HIV. the parents then eventually die, leaving the children orphaned and left in state care. the more children you have in state care the larger the bill, this is why in southern africa there has been resistance to treatment for HIV infected pregnant women, which will allow the child to be born without HIV. however in neighbouring Malaysia the rates are far higher and they are primarily from IV drug use. is it not obvious that Singapore wishes to avoid a similar disaster by banning needles altogether?

and furthermore, you can't really tell me that Van was transporting diamorphine to a british hospital to help patients. as you said below he was doing this to support an underground south east asian drug syndicate... one of the main causes for HIV infection in neighbouring Malaysia. his intentions were to help spread addiction and ultimately HIV in south east asia... for his own personal gain (to prevent the trauma of losing a family member).

Don't even start me on developing or developed nations. All the more reason that HM should be introduced to these places AS they are developing so that these problems don't keep them from developing (AKA Sub Saharan africa).

well too late. this might have been a good idea in the 80s or early 90s, but for south east asia and africa is just way too late to start introducing harm minimilsation techniques. these work in nations where there aren't massive populations of underprivileged HIV infected people who need to do anything in order to survive. free or cheap needles are something that are only going to be recycled and sold for cash... just like porn magazines from rubbish dumps.

Not only that but face the fact that the first world has a hugely vested interest in keeping these nations underpriveleged so that they exist as a source of cheaper resources and labour than would be obtainable if they were developed to a 1st world equivalent.

labour is useless if it is dead or carries severe health problems or if it is too fucked up on drugs to function in a sweat shop because life there is just so unbearable to experience while sober.

FINALLY this is not about personal gain, he was doing it in order to pay off his twin brother's debts to a fucking drug syndicate, he didn't even know how much he would be paid for it! Real prime example of greedy money grubbing selfishness huh?

-plaz out-

yeah it really is a prime example of personal gain. his reasons for committing the crime were personal (ie his brother). and the fact that it was to pay off debts to a drug syndicate is far worse. why? because that drug syndicate would be partly responsible for creating the health risk in the first place. he was also supporting a black market economy that aims to suck money away from legitimate businesses that offer entertainment, alcohol, and other fun stuff at a lower risk to the community. this really undermines your point about poverty being the fault of first world nations, since it is also caused by crime/drug syndicates.


and once again, can i just state the fact of the matter here:
heroin is a banned substance in singapore... punishable by death. he knew this. he did it anyway. he got caught. now he has to answer to the law. you cant just exempt people from the law because they're dirty australian criminals trying to fund drug syndicates in south east asia. its the law. and in this case the law is final.

 

[plazma]

Head + Brick Wall + Kinetic Energy = Problem

well usually by the time a person gets fucked over by mdma/mda its because they've started to develop depression or anxiety or both. these are treated with anti-depressants, which are freely available from your GP... you can be prescribed anti-depressants in all nations because the need for them does not necessarily relate to drug use. if the psychological addiction is that bad, then there is such a thing as a psych ward... which may not be much fun, but it will give you a place to sleep and help you get your life back on track. i'm still really not sure why you brought this up anyway, since it relates to nothing we're talking about here.

should i reiterate? heroin. death penalty. south east asia. aids epidemic.

What the fuck are you talking about with regards to people being addicted to MDMA having some other causal factor to blame it on? And people addicted to heroin don't have these other causal factors? Yeah sure they can go to a psych ward, but wait, our psych wards here are backed up to the fucking never-never because the goddamn government thinks fighting wars is more important than looking after people with psychological problems. And secondly, MDMA was brought into the argument as an example to refute the people who are trying to distinguish between 'our drugs' and 'their drugs'.

yes, i mentioned that. 'IV drug use' covers all IV drugs... not just heroin. but heroin is injected. even if you start out snorting it or smoking it, as the addiction grows (and it does) you begin to see problems with tolerance, and it becomes necessary to inject the drug just to touch base. once you start injecting heroin it then becomes harder to go back or quit. from there its either death or methadone. and in countries where the impoverish have poor access to healthcare, methadone programs and rehab facilities are just out of the window.

Okay, you might as well say here that people start out taking MDMA orally, and end up plugging it cause it doesn't work quite as well once they have tolerance. There are plenty of people who manage to keep their heroin usage under control, and what you say is an insult to their intelligence akin to ordinary people telling us that we're a bunch of brainless addicts who are slaves to our habits. Methadone is far more fucking damaging than heroin anyway, given that its rare people go on just methadone as a retainer, and combine both leading often to overdose, secondly the withdrawal timeframe is about 4x longer which is just ugly. I still don't see how smoking heroin automatically leads to addiction and IV drug use, its like calling marijuana a gateway drug.

well if you read a single word i typed, then you'd realise that i'm less concerned about the effects of heroin on the body... and more concerned about IV use being the downfall of south-east asian population. maybe you think its a good idea to kill off thousands of asians, i'm not sure if you're that racist (i suspect not). but i for one dont. the governments of south east asia also dont think that allowing IV use is an appropriate means of controlling the AIDS explosion there either.

Sure but you're saying heroin trafficking means that this man would have been responsible for many other deaths, when this is simply a ridiculous extrapolation, based on speculation. Playing the racist card to try and win an argument is just crass. So banning IV use is automatically going to stop the problem? Wow cause that worked really well with banning drugs over here, and indeed in just about every country that makes these things MORE prohibited the problems of bloodborne diseases such as HIV/HEP/AIDS tend to get WORSE. Best thing to do in these cases to fight it is educate and have needle exchange programmes, if you can't legalise or regulate it. Ignoring the problem does NOT make it go away.

s.e. asia is going through what is called a "second phase" of HIV infection. where the number of people infected has ballooned in the last 5-10yrs (the latests stats i could find for Singapore were from october 2003). HIV infections have gone from being relatively minor (like in Australia) to being a growing problem. the means by which HIV spreads (in these regions the main causes are through prostitution and IV drug use) adds another significant problem to the outbreak since both causes were previously embedded in post-war s.e. asian culture, particularly amongst travellers. because the nations in this region are so close and share similiar cultures, languages, etc, travelling between nations is far from uncommon. YES the main cause for HIV infections in Singapore is heterosexual prostitution owed to tourists who fuck infected prosititutes because they seem so cheap and well experienced... but then those tourists go back home... may not realise that they have been infected (detection may take up to 5yrs)... and then fuck their spouse. they then have children, and if left unchecked those children can also carry HIV. the parents then eventually die, leaving the children orphaned and left in state care. the more children you have in state care the larger the bill, this is why in southern africa there has been resistance to treatment for HIV infected pregnant women, which will allow the child to be born without HIV. however in neighbouring Malaysia the rates are far higher and they are primarily from IV drug use. is it not obvious that Singapore wishes to avoid a similar disaster by banning needles altogether?

I won't argue with you about the AIDS/HIV stats or anything. But see above for why banning IV equipment is lunacy and counter-productive. Hell, see this whole site for an explanation on the Harm Minimisation thing, and its principles, and how clearly stupid they must be, by your argument.

and furthermore, you can't really tell me that Van was transporting diamorphine to a british hospital to help patients. as you said below he was doing this to support an underground south east asian drug syndicate... one of the main causes for HIV infection in neighbouring Malaysia. his intentions were to help spread addiction and ultimately HIV in south east asia... for his own personal gain (to prevent the trauma of losing a family member).

ROTFLMAO. I hear Today Tonight are looking for a new 'reporter', you put your resume in yet?

well too late. this might have been a good idea in the 80s or early 90s, but for south east asia and africa is just way too late to start introducing harm minimilsation techniques. these work in nations where there aren't massive populations of underprivileged HIV infected people who need to do anything in order to survive. free or cheap needles are something that are only going to be recycled and sold for cash... just like porn magazines from rubbish dumps.

It is NEVER too late to start to introduce harm minimisation measures, and I refer you back to your argument about me being racist for wanting to kill off thousands of people in south east asia. Not going down the HM path is only going to ensure that it gets a whole lot worse, and there's no guarantee of it getting better either.

labour is useless if it is dead or carries severe health problems or if it is too fucked up on drugs to function in a sweat shop because life there is just so unbearable to experience while sober.

You'd be surprised. Labour can remain useful for a long time into a HIV infection, and drugs (stimulants usually) are often GIVEN to workers in order to ensure productivity in longer working hours and harsher environments.

yeah it really is a prime example of personal gain. his reasons for committing the crime were personal (ie his brother). and the fact that it was to pay off debts to a drug syndicate is far worse. why? because that drug syndicate would be partly responsible for creating the health risk in the first place. he was also supporting a black market economy that aims to suck money away from legitimate businesses that offer entertainment, alcohol, and other fun stuff at a lower risk to the community. this really undermines your point about poverty being the fault of first world nations, since it is also caused by crime/drug syndicates.

So the drug syndicates are responsible for creating the problems of HIV and drug use? I'm unsure how you get that, have you studied economics? Demand begets supply, but not the reverse. If the demand was not there for drugs in the first place, there would NOT be the need to supply them nor the people willing to do so, as there would be no profit in it. Indeed this is mainly a result of the first world nations because lo and behold WHERE are the drugs going? Oh wait, that's right, the first world, because we have the money and are willing to spend it, hence the vastly increased cost of drugs over here at the demand side, and how cheap they are at the supply side. So how does the drug syndicates catering to our needs undermine my argument about the first world being mainly responsible for the poverty, exactly?

and once again, can i just state the fact of the matter here:
heroin is a banned substance in singapore... punishable by death. he knew this. he did it anyway. he got caught. now he has to answer to the law. you cant just exempt people from the law because they're dirty australian criminals trying to fund drug syndicates in south east asia. its the law. and in this case the law is final.

Heroin is a banned substance in Singapore. Yes, it is, punishable by death, yes again. Sure he knew this before he did it, the point of fact is that in this case, the law is an ass, in violation to the most basic of human rights. I don't exempt people from the law because they're dirty australian criminals trying to supply your dirty australian criminal drug habit, I believe that the whole criminalisation of drugs is a complete crock of shit, and has caused so much death, pain and destruction as a result that it should qualify as one of the most stupidly short-sighted episodes in human history. So if its 'the law' I guess to haul out an old chestnut, the Jews in nazi germany knew it was against the law to be jewish, so they had it coming. Also, those gay people who were gay back when it was illegal also knew it was illegal and must have had it coming, and shit, I could go on, but I won't. The law is NOT the be-all and end all, law is the instrument of a government and governments can and ARE frequently in violation of human rights BY making these kinds of laws.

Thank you and good-night.

-plaz out-

 

[sierra]

man, you can go off-topic all you want.

i was simply trying to explain why the death penalty has been set for this crime. governments dont make these kinds of laws for any old reason. in this case it is part of a regional war against AIDS... caused by IV drug use and prostitution.

to us here in Australia it may seem unjust to impose a death penalty for traficking heroin. but in a region where drug use has caused AIDS to establish itself as a critical and widespread health issue that wont go away even if you introduce harm minimalisation tactics... well things are obviously very different.

if you want to get into a discussion about why you think heroin is better than mdma, then take it to the drug forums cuz i'm really not that interested.

sleep well

 

[keej]

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-

What about mental health issues? Not stirring, honestly don't know the answer. Eg. How drug use can trigger schizophrenia or other mental illnesses in some people. If heroin was completely legalised and was capable of triggering these illnesses, and an individual had little willpower, tried it out, and eventually grew a dependence on it.. which in turn triggered the mental illness.. well you see why the whole thing might not be classified as 'beautiful irony'.

 

[plazma]

sierra: Err off topic HOW exactly? I was more replying/rebutting your points rather than raising new ones myself. And I'd never get into a discussion about whether Heroin is better than MDMA.

keej: I'm not sure about statistics or percentages, but I've been told on pretty good authority that you're more likely to have a latent condition such as schizophrenia or similar triggered by alcohol consumption than you are by consuming substances such as MDMA or Marijuana. Heroin, being an opiate generates considerably less risk (to my knowledge) of this occurring than either MDMA or Marijuana.

Anyway. OT.

-plaz out-