Jamaican Woodbine Sales Man Gets Death Penalty In UAE

southsiderosie

pragmatic1 wrote: »

It was a bit of weed ffs. Hardly worthy of the man losing his life over it. Ridiculous, barbaric and plain stupid.

I'm not disagreeing. I don't think that the death penalty should be used for any crime, and I have said that repeatedly. But I don't see selling drugs as a 'minor' offense either, and I think that a lot of people who are more cavalier about it are not the ones who have to live with the fallout from it. Drug dealers are the scum of the earth, and I have little sympathy for anyone who gets involved in it.

karma_

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Would you cheat if you knew that was the law? Again, plenty of place you can go and cheat in peace, why risk your life for it?

FFS I already smoke weed here and it's against the law. The truth is I break fúckin laws all the fúckin time. Not to say I'm a hardened criminal who has no sense of morals, I don't go around harming other people but I also reserve the right to do the things I want to do without harming others.

Chuck Stone

southsiderosie wrote: »

I am visiting my family now, and we can't even use the local swimming pool this summer because of regular shootouts in the surrounding areas. And apart from the violence is the human fallout: strung out zombies, crack babies, petty theft, and unemployment are rampant.

The US has some of the harshest drug laws in the west and yet this situation you describe remains unsurprising. Don't you think it's time to explore alternatives to prohibition?

As regards crack, it is thought the high price of cocaine and lack of purity, directly attributable to prohibition, lead to the creation and widespread use of crack.

I am sympathetic to governments that take a very hard line on hard drugs because the alternative is much, much worse.

There is no 'much, much worse' alternative to point at as an example?

southsiderosie

karma_ wrote: »

FFS I already smoke weed here and it's against the law. The truth is I break fúckin laws all the fúckin time. Not to say I'm a hardened criminal who has no sense of morals, I don't go around harming other people but I also reserve the right to do the things I want to do without harming others.

As long as weed is illegal, your use of it IS harming others because the market for it fuels an enormous amount of violence. I think it should be legal, but until then, unless you are growing it yourself, don't kid yourself that your actions don't have a negative impact on other people.

karma_

southsiderosie wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing. I don't think that the death penalty should be used for any crime, and I have said that repeatedly. But I don't see selling drugs as a 'minor' offense either, and I think that a lot of people who are more cavalier about it are not the ones who have to live with the fallout from it. Drug dealers are the scum of the earth, and I have little sympathy for anyone who gets involved in it.

Selling weed shouldn't even be an offence let alone a minor one. The truth is it's less harmful than alcohol, should we close all bars?

Scioch

karma_ wrote: »

FFS I already smoke weed here and it's against the law. The truth is I break fúckin laws all the fúckin time. Not to say I'm a hardened criminal who has no sense of morals, I don't go around harming other people but I also reserve the right to do the things I want to do without harming others.

If you went to UAE would you consider trying to source weed or sell weed knowing the laws over there ?

If you did who do you think is responsible when you end up on death row ?

karma_

southsiderosie wrote: »

As long as weed is illegal, your use of it IS harming others because the market for it fuels an enormous amount of violence. I think it should be legal, but until then, unless you are growing it yourself, don't kid yourself that your actions don't have a negative impact on other people.

The truth is that it does not. Most people who sell a bit of weed now are people who grow it in their lofts or out in the shed, or in a pc case. It's a massive cottage industry.

southsiderosie

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The US has some of the harshest drug laws in the west and yet this situation you describe remains unsurprising. Don't you think it's time to explore alternatives to prohibition?

As regards crack, it is thought the high price of cocaine and lack of purity, directly attributable to prohibition, lead to the creation and widespread use of crack.

I don't think that crack should ever be legal, or meth for that matter. The neurological effects alone are horrific, not to mention the social fallout. This stuff is poison, and anyone selling it should be locked up.

I think the drug laws are problematic in that they target users as well as sellers, and they are disproportionately enforced against blacks. People need options for treatment rather than incarceration. But when it comes to drug dealers, lock them up and throw away the key.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

There is no 'much, much worse' alternative to point at as an example?

Visit Englewood in Chicago, Overtown in Miami, or the Eighth Ward in Washington DC and then get back to me.

Guy:Incognito

karma_ wrote: »

FFS I already smoke weed here and it's against the law. The truth is I break fúckin laws all the fúckin time. Not to say I'm a hardened criminal who has no sense of morals, I don't go around harming other people but I also reserve the right to do the things I want to do without harming others.

Thats not what I said. If the punishment was death with a decent chance of being caught, would you do it?

You can reserve the right all you want, but if your caught the law will punish you.

nyarlothothep

LordSmeg wrote: »

How is it a moronic argument ? He decided to go live there and then decided to sell drugs knowing full well the consequences of his actions. Your saying he should be allowed to break whatever law he wants and not face full penalties just because he and other disagree with it ? How moronic is that ?

Your line of thinking, that the law is the law, is implicated in many atrocities, violations of human rights, institutionally legitimated prejudices etc throughout history. In fact your line of thinking and those who share in it is implicated in an abundant source of human misery. So it should be called out for what it is, essentially an unquestioning obediant acceptance of authority/systems of authority like the law regardless of whether they are justified or ethical. By your logic Alan Turing deserved to be hounded by the "authorities" for his homosexuality because in the 40s in the UK homosexuality was a crime. But most enlightened humans know that the law was ridiculous. Of course I was actually referring to another poster who used the when in Rome cliche. And furthermore, I did state that he was stupid, that's established, you and your friends are engaging in argumentative sleights of hand. 1. the guy was selling a small amount of pot, not heroin, so arguments pertaining to evil druglords are irrelevant, 2. saying that the law is barbaric but then being laissez faire about his execution by linking his minor misdemeanor with the greater crimes of druglords is hypocritical and dishonest, 3. Saying the law is the law, ergo he deserves what he gets because he knew what was going to happen avoids the fact that the law itself is fcking stupid and shouldn't be respected as such. It's a mans life at stake, over something completely idiotic, yes he's an idiot but that doesn't ethically justify his death at all. If anything he should be judged by his own countrymen. So basically yeah, your argument holds no weight, you're just justifying the perpetuation of human bipedal savagery, ignorance and stupidity, which I can't take seriously at all. Have a LOL :pac:in your face.

karma_

karma_ wrote: »

FFS I already smoke weed here and it's against the law. The truth is I break fúckin laws all the fúckin time. Not to say I'm a hardened criminal who has no sense of morals, I don't go around harming other people but I also reserve the right to do the things I want to do without harming others.

What you are admitting is that you partake in illegal activity which supports gangs of criminals (Drug Dealers) etc who also sell the same drugs to school children and probably sell much harder drugs. They get people addicted to these drugs and this in turn turns people into criminals. You on the otherhand think its OK to buy a little bit of weed from these guys. There are reasons why this stuff is illegal.
People who buy drugs are the scum of the earth for supporting this evil trade which costs many lives and ruins so many homes. Think about that the next time to hand over your cash. Dont cite the B*ullSh*t that you are not harming anyone because you are harming lots of adults and little kids by supporting this industry.

Guy:Incognito

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Your line of thinking, that the law is the law, is implicated in many atrocities, violations of human rights, institutionally legitimated prejudices etc throughout history. .

It's the law in the UAE. The guy decide of his own free will to travel there and sell drugs. The situation was easily avoidable.

southsiderosie

karma_ wrote: »

Selling weed shouldn't even be an offence let alone a minor one. The truth is it's less harmful than alcohol, should we close all bars?

I am not arguing that marijuana should be illegal - go back and read my posts. But given that alcohol is legal, I don't really think this is a valid comparison.

karma_ wrote: »

The truth is that it does not. Most people who sell a bit of weed now are people who grow it in their lofts or out in the shed, or in a pc case. It's a massive cottage industry.

I don't know about Europe, but the vast majority of marijuana produced and sold in North America is controlled by cartels. Frankly, I think it SHOULD be a cottage industry, but the way the industry is currently structured has horrible ramifications for ordinary people in both producing and transit countries.

nyarlothothep

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It's the law in the UAE. The guy decide of his own free will to travel there and sell drugs. The situation was easily avoidable.

DURRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

karma_

southsiderosie wrote: »

I am not arguing that marijuana should be illegal - go back and read my posts. But given that alcohol is legal, I don't really think this is a valid comparison.

I do understand that, I respect your opinion as a poster on this site even though I may disagree with you on this particular topic.

I don't know about Europe, but the vast majority of marijuana produced and sold in North America is controlled by cartels. Frankly, I think it SHOULD be a cottage industry, but the way the industry is currently structured has horrible ramifications for ordinary people in both producing and transit countries.

Well I'm not speaking about the US, although from what I have seen online would lead me to believe that a lot of what is grown over there is homegrown. Although I'm sure the cartels still would supply much of what is around.

From my experiences here, the vast majority appears to be lads growing their own and sharing the wealth.

karma_

Deleted User wrote: »

What you are admitting is that you partake in illegal activity which supports gangs of criminals (Drug Dealers) etc who also sell the same drugs to school children and probably sell much harder drugs. They get people addicted to these drugs and this in turn turns people into criminals. You on the otherhand think its OK to buy a little bit of weed from these guys. There are reasons why this stuff is illegal.
People who buy drugs are the scum of the earth for supporting this evil trade which costs many lives and ruins so many homes. Think about that the next time to hand over your cash. Dont cite the B*ullSh*t that you are not harming anyone because you are harming lots of adults and little kids by supporting this industry.

Mate, put down the Daily Mail.

Bruthal

kryogen wrote: »

A woman cheating on her husband and a drug dealer are not really comparable

A woman cheating is still breaking the law. You based the fact the fella broke that countries law on suggesting he deserves the death penalty.

So why now differentiate with the adultry when that clearly breaks another of these draconian laws?

kryogen wrote: »

drunkmonkey wrote: »

That's complete bollix when your dealing with butchers. It's our duty as the free to help others who can't help themselves without the threat of death.

Are you American by any chance?

Maybe this is the answer to that.

kryogen wrote: »

hell yeah

oppenheimer1

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Your line of thinking, that the law is the law, is implicated in many atrocities, violations of human rights, institutionally legitimated prejudices etc throughout history. In fact your line of thinking and those who share in it is implicated in an abundant source of human misery. So it should be called out for what it is, essentially an unquestioning obediant acceptance of authority/systems of authority like the law regardless of whether they are justified or ethical. By your logic Alan Turing deserved to be hounded by the "authorities" for his homosexuality because in the 40s in the UK homosexuality was a crime. But most enlightened humans know that the law was ridiculous. Of course I was actually referring to another poster who used the when in Rome cliche. And furthermore, I did state that he was stupid, that's established, you and your friends are engaging in argumentative sleights of hand. 1. the guy was selling a small amount of pot, not heroin, so arguments pertaining to evil druglords are irrelevant, 2. saying that the law is barbaric but then being laissez faire about his execution by linking his minor misdemeanor with the greater crimes of druglords is hypocritical and dishonest, 3. Saying the law is the law, ergo he deserves what he gets because he knew what was going to happen avoids the fact that the law itself is fcking stupid and shouldn't be respected as such. It's a mans life at stake, over something completely idiotic, yes he's an idiot but that doesn't ethically justify his death at all. If anything he should be judged by his own countrymen. So basically yeah, your argument holds no weight, you're just justifying the perpetuation of human bipedal savagery, ignorance and stupidity, which I can't take seriously at all. Have a LOL :pac:in your face.

If a law is stupid, he should try and change it. No one is arguing over the intelligence of such laws - it is beside the point. However to break it and not expect the consequences, death penalty in this instance, is utterly naive in the extreme.

Then again maybe he wants to be a martyr to the cause...

karma_

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

If a law is stupid, he should try and change it. No one is arguing over the intelligence of such laws - it is beside the point. However to break it and not expect the consequences, death penalty in this instance, is utterly naive in the extreme.

Then again maybe he wants to be a martyr to the cause...

There's no 'if' about this law. It IS stupid.

Scioch

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Your line of thinking, that the law is the law, is implicated in many atrocities, violations of human rights, institutionally legitimated prejudices etc throughout history. In fact your line of thinking and those who share in it is implicated in an abundant source of human misery. So it should be called out for what it is, essentially an unquestioning obediant acceptance of authority/systems of authority like the law regardless of whether they are justified or ethical. By your logic Alan Turing deserved to be hounded by the "authorities" for his homosexuality because in the 40s in the UK homosexuality was a crime. But most enlightened humans know that the law was ridiculous. Of course I was actually referring to another poster who used the when in Rome cliche. And furthermore, I did state that he was stupid, that's established, you and your friends are engaging in argumentative sleights of hand. 1. the guy was selling a small amount of pot, not heroin, so arguments pertaining to evil druglords are irrelevant, 2. saying that the law is barbaric but then being laissez faire about his execution by linking his minor misdemeanor with the greater crimes of druglords is hypocritical and dishonest, 3. Saying the law is the law, ergo he deserves what he gets because he knew what was going to happen avoids the fact that the law itself is fcking stupid and shouldn't be respected as such. It's a mans life at stake, over something completely idiotic, yes he's an idiot but that doesn't ethically justify his death at all. If anything he should be judged by his own countrymen. So basically yeah, your argument holds no weight, you're just justifying the perpetuation of human bipedal savagery, ignorance and stupidity, which I can't take seriously at all. Have a LOL :pac:in your face.

Your confused and have this backwards. Your line of thinking is the ignorant and stupid one, not mine.

My line of thinking is take responsibility for your actions. Dont risk your life for something as stupid as 20 grams of weed.

Your line of thinking however is the real source of misery and exactly what you accuse mine of being. Do whatever you want regardless of the law if you think you should be allowed to do it anyway.

I didnt bother reading the rest of that mess. Have your lol :pac: back. Save it for later.

karma_

LordSmeg wrote: »

Your confused and have this backwards. Your line of thinking is the ignorant and stupid one, not mine.

My line of thinking is take responsibility for your actions. Dont risk your life for something as stupid as 20 grams of weed.

Your line of thinking however is the real source of misery and exactly what you accuse mine of being. Do whatever you want regardless of the law if you think you should be allowed to do it anyway.

I didnt bother reading the rest of that mess. Have your lol :pac: back. Save it for later.

Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.

Pedant

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Do the crime, do the time. He knew what the punishment would be over there. Just because he is a westerner doesn't absolve him of his crime or mean he should get special treatment, even if the punishment is harsh by our standards.

This is a stupid statement. The sentence is morally wrong in every way. The British government ought to protest. If the young man is pardoned people in the UAE could cop on as to the harshness of the legal system and spark a movement to get these harsh sentences quashed for other people. Besides, cannabis is a harmless drug. It's like giving someone the death penalty for possessing 20 grams of flour. According to your logic, perhaps we should turn a blind eye to all the human rights violations written into UAE law or elsewhere.

"Someone criticizing the government gets death penalty in China" - Pfft, they should have read the law before going to China.

"Two teens in Iran get executed for being homosexual lovers" - Do the crime, do the time.

"Woman raped in Afghanistan get stoned to death" - should have watched herself, now she should face the consequences.


Do you see where this is going?

oppenheimer1

Pedant wrote: »

This is a stupid statement. The sentence is morally wrong in every way. The British government ought to protest. If the young man is pardoned people in the UAE could cop on as to the harshness of the legal system and spark a movement to get these harsh sentences quashed for other people. Besides, cannabis is a harmless drug. It's like giving someone the death penalty for possessing 20 grams of flour. According to your logic, perhaps we should turn a blind eye to all the human rights violations written into UAE law or elsewhere.

"Someone criticizing the government gets death penalty in China" - Pfft, they should have read the law before going to China.

"Two teens in Iran get executed for being homosexual lovers" - Do the crime, do the time.

"Woman raped in Afghanistan get stoned to death" - should have watched herself, now she should face the consequences.


Do you see where this is going?

This chap was a visitor to this country, and he was not on some great social cause - he was out to make a quick buck in an illegal trade. Mentioning him in the same breath as civil rights campaigns does an injustice to those campaigns. He had a right to inform himself of the consequences of his actions, and live or die by those consequences. Yes his crime is trivial to us here in the west, but its not in the middle east. Personally I think the punishment is disproportionate, but that's irrelevant.

I do not think the West is in any position to lecture anyone on morality by the way - there are practices in the west that many consider barbaric too.

Pedant

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

This chap was a visitor to this country, and he was not on some great social cause - he was out to make a quick buck in an illegal trade. Mentioning him in the same breath as civil rights campaigns does an injustice to those campaigns. He had a right to inform himself of the consequences of his actions, and live or die by those consequences. Yes his crime is trivial to us here in the west, but its not in the middle east. Personally I think the punishment is disproportionate, but that's irrelevant.

I do not think the West is in any position to lecture anyone on morality by the way - there are practices in the west that many consider barbaric too.

Sentencing the lad to death goes up and above the moral proportionality between crime and punishment! It's a violation of human rights. It's like saying torturing someone who refuses to give information about a crime involving the robbery of a newsagents is perfectly legitimate because the law of the land states the ends always justify the means. It's not legitimate, it's a violation of human rights!! Just because the West has failed in the past in relation to morality doesn't mean this young lad should be caught up in the backlash of their hypocrisy with his life. It is the duty of the British government to protect its citizens.

PhlegmyMoses

I don't think that anybody doesn't think he was stupid. People continually pointing out how stupid he was are just soapboxing. Nobody has said he wasn't really stupid for what he did. But taking somebody's life, especially when they have so much of it yet to live, for a stupid mistake is absolutely atrocious.

I am genuinely shocked at all the people here who are going down the "The law is the law" route. Sometimes laws are **** and people need to be protected from them. I somehow suspect that if he was sentenced to death for driving 35 in a 30 zone a lot more people would see a different side to this.

PhlegmyMoses

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I do not think the West is in any position to lecture anyone on morality by the way - there are practices in the west that many consider barbaric too.

The West is perfectly within its rights to pass comment on barbaric laws. As is the East if they deem any of the West's practices to be unpalatable. Anything that provokes thought and change for the better in these respective countries, West or East, is a good thing.

Scioch

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

I don't think that anybody doesn't think he was stupid. People continually pointing out how stupid he was are just soapboxing. Nobody has said he wasn't really stupid for what he did. But taking somebody's life, especially when they have so much of it yet to live, for a stupid mistake is absolutely atrocious.

I am genuinely shocked at all the people here who are going down the "The law is the law" route. Sometimes laws are **** and people need to be protected from them. I somehow suspect that if he was sentenced to death for driving 35 in a 30 zone a lot more people would see a different side to this.

He chose to live by those laws though. Thats the issue here not that the punishment is acceptable. Nobody here is saying he deserves to die but he chose that himself by going over there and deliberately breaking the law. He effectively sentenced himself to death.

oppenheimer1

Pedant wrote: »

Sentencing the lad to death goes up and above the proportionality between crime and punishment! That's a violation of human rights. It's like saying torturing someone who refuses to give information about a crime involving the robbery of a newsagents is perfectly legitimate. It's not, it's a violation of human rights!!

There is no need for similes, we can deal with the actual incident. No one is arguing that the punishment is disproportionate but it is beside the point. What I'm arguing is that when you know the penalty for the sale of drugs in a foreign country is the death penalty, you shouldn't be surprised that you get the death penalty if caught. I think a person with the most limited faculties should grasp that. Nor should someone who is a visitor to another country think there are no consequences for taking actions in their host nation that are legal, or carry light punishment at home. A European passport doesn't give you the right to break the laws of your host - even if you think they are stupid.

If you can't live with their laws, don't go there.

Pedant

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

There is no need for similes, we can deal with the actual incident. No one is arguing that the punishment is disproportionate but it is beside the point. What I'm arguing is that when you know the penalty for the sale of drugs in a foreign country is the death penalty, you shouldn't be surprised that you get the death penalty if caught. I think a person with the most limited faculties should grasp that. Nor should someone who is a visitor to another country think there are no consequences for taking actions in their host nation that are legal, or carry light punishment at home. A European passport doesn't give you the right to break the laws of your host - even if you think they are stupid.

If you can't live with their laws, don't go there.

So your basically saying he should die and the British government shouldn't protest. Your logic is completely unacceptable.

PhlegmyMoses

LordSmeg wrote: »

He chose to live by those laws though. Thats the issue here not that the punishment is acceptable. Nobody here is saying he deserves to die but he chose that himself by going over there and deliberately breaking the law. He effectively sentenced himself to death.

This completely detracts from the main issue here. Yes he was an idiot, yes he probably knew the law. But the law is wrong. No matter how many times you and others talk about how it was his own choice, the elephant in the room won't go away. The main issue here has barely been talked about in favour of told you sos and serves you rights.

nyarlothothep

LordSmeg wrote: »

Your confused and have this backwards. Your line of thinking is the ignorant and stupid one, not mine.

My line of thinking is take responsibility for your actions. Dont risk your life for something as stupid as 20 grams of weed.

Your line of thinking however is the real source of misery and exactly what you accuse mine of being. Do whatever you want regardless of the law if you think you should be allowed to do it anyway.

I didnt bother reading the rest of that mess. Have your lol :pac: back. Save it for later.

Which equates to "I know what you are but what am I?" Your posts are living up to your name.

Try harder.

Scioch

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

This completely detracts from the main issue here. Yes he was an idiot, yes he probably knew the law. But the law is wrong. No matter how many times you and others talk about how it was his own choice, the elephant in the room won't go away. The main issue here has barely been talked about in favour of told you sos and serves you rights.

The current discussion arose from the lack of sympathy for this guy. I agree the laws are wrong, but if I did go there I'd be accepting them so if I deliberatly broke a law and was sentenced to death who's to blame ? The law ? Country ? Or me ?

You might not accept these laws but the guy in question did by going there. Like I said he signed his own death warrant so in this particular case he's just as culpable as the state in his own death if he dies.

pragmatic1

Deleted User wrote: »

What you are admitting is that you partake in illegal activity which supports gangs of criminals (Drug Dealers) etc who also sell the same drugs to school children and probably sell much harder drugs. They get people addicted to these drugs and this in turn turns people into criminals. You on the otherhand think its OK to buy a little bit of weed from these guys. There are reasons why this stuff is illegal.
People who buy drugs are the scum of the earth for supporting this evil trade which costs many lives and ruins so many homes. Think about that the next time to hand over your cash. Dont cite the B*ullSh*t that you are not harming anyone because you are harming lots of adults and little kids by supporting this industry.

Do you drive a car and use home heating oil. Because if you do, I'd wager that a lot of blood has been spilled to ensure you have transport and a warm house. If you have the use of a computer or mobile phone likewise.

Bruthal

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Do you drive a car and use home heating oil. Because if you do, I'd wager that a lot of blood has been spilled to ensure you have transport and a warm house. If you have the use of a computer or mobile phone likewise.

So buying petrol for the car is equivelant to buying a few kg`s of heroin, in terms of supporting criminal activity?

PhlegmyMoses

LordSmeg wrote: »

The current discussion arose from the lack of sympathy for this guy. I agree the laws are wrong, but if I did go there I'd be accepting them so if I deliberatly broke a law and was sentenced to death who's to blame ? The law ? Country ? Or me ?

You might not accept these laws but the guy in question did by going there. Like I said he signed his own death warrant so in this particular case he's just as culpable as the state in his own death if he dies.

It's hard for somebody to fully grasp the severity of drug laws in a country when they are so young and have lived most of their life in a relatively free society. The "That will never happen to me" attitude is one of the hallmarks of being young.

The country and the law are far more culpable. That isn't really up for discussion. The state and the law should always be more morally and ethically beyond reproach than the individual. And in this case, they are not.

AtomicHorror

Guill wrote: »

While i don't agree with the death penalty for a crime like this i do believe that you can't go to a country and break their laws and not be subject to their justice.

Lots of this sentiment around and I just can't agree with it. It is of the same mindset that find it permissible to excuse someone for "just following orders". In this case, the kid did something dumb, certainly. He's no activist and he certainly wasn't thinking deeply about what he was doing. However, the above principle is total garbage. There are unjust laws, which we can try to overturn within a system, and then there are unjust systems, which don't allow us to overturn injustice within their constraints. The concept of civil disobedience, including the refusal to obey unjust laws, is an old one going back 150 years or more. In a similar spirit, I think it perfectly acceptable for a country to call bull**** on another country's laws. This case is an example.

pragmatic1

robbie7730 wrote: »

So buying petrol for the car is equivelant to buying a few kg`s of heroin, in terms of supporting criminal activity?

Well if you're buying fuel thats being fought over and minerals that are funding guerrilla wars. How is your consumption not contributing to bloodshed.

imitation

Abandoned sports cars are are common sight at Dubai airport, the reason being that the owners realize they cannot meet repayments on mortgages. Missing even one repayment is grounds for being jailed, so many families do a midnight run to the airport before the bank realize they cannot pay. Its a pretty mental country tbh.

Scioch

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

It's hard for somebody to fully grasp the severity of drug laws in a country when they are so young and have lived most of their life in a relatively free society. The "That will never happen to me" attitude is one of the hallmarks of being young.

The country and the law are far more culpable. That isn't really up for discussion. The state and the law should always be more morally and ethically beyond reproach than the individual. And in this case, they are not.

He's 21, I went traveling at 21 and as young and naive as I was I knew that a crime that has a punishment such as the death penalty will be taken very seriously.

The laws are not more culpable, the law exists to stop this behavior. The law didnt put him into that position, didnt make him do what he did or force him to be there. He chose to do it, knowing the law so he must take responsibility for the outcome. He's not a victim of circumstance here, his actions were deliberate and made with knowledge of the consequences.

Its easy to say "he's young, we all make mistakes" and thats fair enough. I wouldnt like to see him die because of it. But he chose to make his mistakes somewhere where it would cost him his life. If he dies then it is his own fault as far as I'm concerned. I do think the British Government should do all in their power to help him and I hope they do but if not then I wont be losing any sleep. Same as I wouldnt if a 21 year old dealer stabbed in Dublin or died in a bank robbery or killed in a car crash after stealing a car. Just another idiot who died trying to profit from breaking the law.

Bruthal

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Well if you're buying fuel thats being fought over and minerals that are funding guerrilla wars. How is your consumption not contributing to bloodshed.

So buying petrol which causes fighting in other countries, which maybe is up to them to sort out = buying heroin which supports criminal activity here, which is up to us to sort out?

PhlegmyMoses

LordSmeg wrote: »

He's 21, I went traveling at 21 and as young and naive as I was I knew that a crime that has a punishment such as the death penalty will be taken very seriously.

You cannot use your own experiences at 21 as some kind of yardstick for all 21 year olds to live by. The decision making capabilities of many people of that age are haphazard and live for the moment at best. It's why you won't find them as the CEO of a company or running the country.

The laws are not more culpable, the law exists to stop this behavior. The law didnt put him into that position, didnt make him do what he did or force him to be there. He chose to do it, knowing the law so he must take responsibility for the outcome. He's not a victim of circumstance here, his actions were deliberate and made with knowledge of the consequences.

The law has literally put him in this situation. It is not the law's fault that he fell foul of the authorities. That is his own doing. It is, however, the choice of the lawmakers and those in charge to put him in a situation where he will be put to death for the sale of a plant extract. This is morally and ethically reprehensible.

Its easy to say "he's young, we all make mistakes" and thats fair enough. I wouldnt like to see him die because of it. But he chose to make his mistakes somewhere where it would cost him his life. If he dies then it is his own fault as far as I'm concerned. I do think the British Government should do all in their power to help him and I hope they do but if not then I wont be losing any sleep. Same as I wouldnt if a 21 year old dealer stabbed in Dublin or died in a bank robbery or killed in a car crash after stealing a car. Just another idiot who died trying to profit from breaking the law.

This is all incredibly cynical for me and a type of viewpoint that I will never agree with. As such, I don't see the point in me debating it anymore. I respect your position but disagree with it completely.

Cicero

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Hasnt Midnight Express not thought people anything?



:P

Well, not spelling or grammar anyway:p

Ciaran0

I don't know what everyone's even arguing about on this thread. It's not like either he's in the wrong or the government in question is in the wrong. They are both wrong. The law over there is old fashioned and barbaric and he was incredibly stupid to break it. He doesn't deserve to die.

oppenheimer1

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

You cannot use your own experiences at 21 as some kind of yardstick for all 21 year olds to live by. The decision making capabilities of many people of that age are haphazard and live for the moment at best. It's why you won't find them as the CEO of a company or running the country.

If 21 year olds can't grasp that the drugs laws of a country are strict and could lead to a death sentence, should 21 year olds be allowed to vote? Especially if they are live for the moment and haphazard?

Scioch

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

You cannot use your own experiences at 21 as some kind of yardstick for all 21 year olds to live by. The decision making capabilities of many people of that age are haphazard and live for the moment at best. It's why you won't find them as the CEO of a company or running the country.

If a 21 year old doesnt understand Death Penalty = serious then they shouldnt be traveling anywhere. Let alone to the middle east, he's not a child he's an adult human being. And although not as mature as he'll be later in life he's still capable of everything any other human adult is capable of and responsible for his own actions. You cannot argue a 21 year is a kid who isnt responsible for his actions.

The law has literally put him in this situation. It is not the law's fault that he fell foul of the authorities. That is his own doing. It is, however, the choice of the lawmakers and those in charge to put him in a situation where he will be put to death for the sale of a plant extract. This is morally and ethically reprehensible.

He put himself in that situation by choosing to sell drugs in a country where it was death if he was caught. The law is not to blame for him being in the situation only for how he's dealt with once caught. He knew prior to being caught how he would be dealt with.

This is all incredibly cynical for me and a type of viewpoint that I will never agree with. As such, I don't see the point in me debating it anymore. I respect your position but disagree with it completely.

We'll agree to disagree then.

PhlegmyMoses

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

If 21 year olds can't grasp that the drugs laws of a country are strict and could lead to a death sentence, should 21 year olds be allowed to vote? Especially if they are live for the moment and haphazard?

I would argue that the erosion of responsibility of young people since voting laws were introduced would suggest that upping the voting age wouldn't be a crazy idea. 100 years ago, a lot of people had kids and a wife at 18/19. Nowadays, it is unusual for people to be married with kids before 25.

At the same time, the number of people who vote at that age grows as they get older. Basically, a lot of young people do not vote. Anyway, this is incredibly off-topic and probably pissing off all of the mature young things on here. :pac:

Delancey

If they do execute him then he certainly won't do it again

pragmatic1

robbie7730 wrote: »

So buying petrol which causes fighting in other countries, which maybe is up to them to sort out = buying heroin which supports criminal activity here, which is up to us to sort out?

Pretty much yeah. Might be uncomfortable to know, but we have nice lifestyles and cheap goods at the expense of others.

Bruthal

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Pretty much yeah. Might be uncomfortable to know, but we have nice lifestyles and cheap goods at the expense of others.

Well you know about it, is it uncomfortable?

Markcheese

Johro wrote: »

Rabies wrote: »

Everyone knows the strict laws over there. Why do something so stupid?

He's 21.

And 21 is an excuse for what .... I'm a young at heart 39 , my wife always accuses me of being juvenile.... Do I have an excuse for drug dealing in UAE ....( At same time I don't agree with death penalty)