A 56-year-old British woman has been sentenced to death in Indonesia for drugs

gaffer91

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Not at all.

Drugs have absolutely ruined modern society with more muggings, burglaries, drug crazed attacks, murders etc.

I think the death sentence should be introduced in more countries for drug dealing.

irishconvert wrote: »

Why do you consider drug smugling less serious than murder or rape? Do you not realise how many people's lives are destroyed by drugs, how many families are torn apart, how may crimes are comitted by drug addicts, how many people are murdered by drug dealing gangs? People involved in the distribution of class A drugs do an unbelieveable amount of damage to our society. Anyone involved in this business deserves the death penalty.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Oh the naivety... think of how many murders, assaults, threats, gang warfare and corruption are behind the drugs trade on a daily basis worldwide.

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Not to make light of rape or murder but generally...

Rape destroys 1 life.
Murder destroys 1 life + families life.
Drugs destroys many lives and leads to increases in other crimes commited by addicts.

So please don't trivialise it by saying it's just a few ks's of powder.

Posts like the above are so laughably stupid and naive it actually makes me quite sad.

Madam_X

cursai wrote: »

obey the law. its very clear and EASY to follow. but because shes got white skin she should be allowed special treatment. Muck. She knew the penalty. Wheres all the pleas for the other tanned people who are sentenced to death every year in the same country. Rubbish thought process

The death penalty for drugs smuggling is obscene, no matter what race the culprit is. I don't see anyone saying she should have special treatment because she's white. We're talking about this incident because it's a current news story. Yes those who smuggle drugs know the price but the fact it warrants the death penalty in the first place is utterly sick. And I don't understand why it's being constantly ignored that drug mules can be forced into it.

AdamOHare wrote: »

bleeding heart druggies

Aspirin addicts?

TheUsual

Mehhh, maybe if she was Irish I would feel empathy.

You should check out the BBC comments on the story, 99% of them are she got what was coming to her.
Also CNN comments are not too pro-granny in her drug larks.

round tower huntsman

good enough for her.

gaffer91

round tower huntsman wrote: »

good enough for her.

Well said Round Tower Huntsman! Maybe if there were more free-thinking spirited intellectuals like your good self the world wouldn't be such a mess.

:rolleyes:

wonderfullife

Death penalty debate aside, what i find extremely unfair is the following:

"Police believe Dougall and Ponder were the lynchpins in a crime syndicate supplying the drug to rich tourists on the island.

It is believed Sandiford, from Redcar, Teesside, decided to co-operate with the police......They told her she would face the death penalty unless she helped trap the other suspected members of the drugs gang.

A sting was set up allowing Sandiford to keep the drugs with her in a £25-a-night hotel room, where she was accompanied by an undercover police officer while she waited to be contacted by one of the others in the alleged syndicate."


So let's see - you have a couple living in a massive villa in Bali off the proceeds of drug dealing, they rope in a vulnerable middle aged woman to do the donkey work, the actual kingpins get 1 year and 4 years respectively, whilst the donkey who co-operated with police to bring down the whole gang, gets death?

What sort of message does that send out to people? I'm not entirely sure if Indonesia has an equivalent of CAB, but if not, the actual dealers will be out in a handful of years back to their plush villa and millions, and the poor fool who was bullied into doing it gets death?

I'm all for tough stances on drugs, but this is a clear case of a logic brain-fart. They want to send yet another message to the world, if you are caught bringing in drugs, you're facing death. Oh and also we don't really give a rats ass about the wider operation just the mule to make an example of.

PizzamanIRL

Meanwhile in Ireland a serial rapist walks away free.

Galwayguy35

gaffer91 wrote: »

Well said Round Tower Huntsman! Maybe if there were more free-thinking spirited intellectuals like your good self the world wouldn't be such a mess.

:rolleyes:

Everyone knows the laws in Asian countries regarding drugs, she took the risk to make money and got caught.

Save your sympathy for someone who deserves it.

end of the road

wonderfullife wrote: »

I'm all for tough stances on drugs

good for you, how are they working out? from what i can see, their not, agree with the rest of your post though

CrazyRabbit

gaffer91 wrote: »

Posts like the above are so laughably stupid and naive it actually makes me quite sad.

Yet another person who fails to enlighten us as to why...

My post was a very broad and general description only. There are an endless amount of different scenarios, so I could only give high level impact statements regarding rape, murder and drugs.

I've seen first hand the devastation or murder and drugs, though admittedly don't know enough about the impact of rape. I can say though that the impact on society from drugs is probably going to be much higher in many cases. Yes...many people who use drugs are otherwise upstanding citizens who don't cause problems/crime. But they are minority.

kraggy

bucketybuck wrote: »

Yeah, just you keep telling yourself that.

Provide a factual link that states categorically that she trafficked more than once.

old_aussie

seanmacc wrote: »

She won't be executed.

Apparently they haven't executed anyone over there in years. She'll most probably end up on death row for the rest of her life though.

Do you mean "they haven't executed any foreigners over there in years"

kraggy

Biggins wrote: »

I know the feeling.



I don't have to prove a thing - she has been already proven guilty as a drug pusher.

Others then have gone on to state that she is a well known one.
Assuming that the laws of liable still apply in the world - we can assume there is some truth in this.
In fact its born out by others willing to step forward, state so and put their name to their words and research - this included a major nation paper much known for its in depth research alone.

She just didn't name one person/organisation - she was able it appears that she was able to give much detailed evidence against many, around the whole country - as every middle aged person everywhere is able to do of course.

If a few think is woman just fell over night into the business, they are seriously deluding themselves.

She knew what she was doing, she did it under her own efforts, she ignored the warnings, she broke the law (repeated before as well it seems) and she like many before her, is willing to churn out any excuse possible to save her drug pushing ass.

Ye reap what ye sow.

If you continue to dispute the fact that she was a well known drug-pusher, I suggest you challenge the Times and the independent writer/researcher.
You seem to know better than them amazingly.

I don't even...

Biggins, my interaction with you on this thread was a result of a statement by YOU. You declared that she had imported drugs several times as if it were fact.

I simply asked you to provide a link proving such. You failed to do so.

But shur some woman doing research on some book/assignment said it's true so it must be.

Trial by media is ok with you so. Cause that's exactly what you're doing. Judging her by what you see in the papers. Not with the evidence in court.

Would you like to be judged by hearsay?

EDIT:

You referred to the Times report as if it were fact. Again, they are just reporting what that writer claimed. They didn't report it as a factual statement.

Here it is:


"A British grandmother who has been sentenced to death by firing squad for drug trafficking in Bali was a well-known drug dealer in the island, an author with close links to the criminal underworld has told The Times."

Jesus wept. No hard evidence whatsoever.

bucketybuck

wonderfullife wrote: »

What sort of message does that send out to people? I'm not entirely sure if Indonesia has an equivalent of CAB, but if not, the actual dealers will be out in a handful of years back to their plush villa and millions, and the poor fool who was bullied into doing it gets death?

The message that people smuggling drugs will possibly be executed, so don't do it?

kraggy wrote: »

Provide a factual link that states categorically that she trafficked more than once.

Like I said, you keep telling yourself that. You really think you are making a point don't you? This woman is a convicted drug smuggler who was so involved in the wider drug smuggling culture that she was able to be involved in a sting operation involving other high ranking drug smugglers.

If you want to present her as some innocent that made one mistake then go for it, but I doubt many will agree. Alternatively, maybe you are just parroting the demand for cites because you have no real argument. Who knows.

wonderfullife

bucketybuck wrote: »

The message that people smuggling drugs will possibly be executed, so don't do it?

So the actual dealers get 1 year and 4 years sentence and the message to them is "sure tis grand, keep sending vulnerable people with the drugs, if they're caught you'll be grand and back out in a couple of years".

Where's the deterrent there? There will always be a) vulnerable and b) stupid people out there. Threaten to shoot their kids, get them to smuggle it through the airport and no harm done if they wind up being caught.

By every account the granny had never done this before and by every account the couple dealing the drugs had made a fortune and were living in a plush villa.

It's a nonsense. The Irish equivalent would be to send John Gilligan down for 2 years and find any old biddys he got to mule drugs and bang her up for life. The Love/Hate equivalent would be bang Siobhan up for life and John Boy gets 2 years. I've set that up quite nicely with the words bang and siobhan in same sentence.

kraggy

bucketybuck wrote: »

The message that people smuggling drugs will possibly be executed, so don't do it?



Like I said, you keep telling yourself that. You really think you are making a point don't you? This woman is a convicted drug smuggler who was so involved in the wider drug smuggling culture that she was able to be involved in a sting operation involving other high ranking drug smugglers.

If you want to present her as some innocent that made one mistake then go for it, but I doubt many will agree. Alternatively, maybe you are just parroting the demand for cites because you have no real argument. Who knows.

Buck, you provide concrete evidence. It's not me that has the argument. It's you and Biggins.

It's the person who makes a statement that needs to provide evidence, not the person challenging it.

You and Biggins have been asked several time to provide evidence and you have both failed to do so.

Do you usually go around saying dubious things about people in real life when they are completely unfounded?

In a court situation, "shur everyone knows she was at it" doesn't cut it. Maybe that's why it wasn't mentioned during the trial. Because there was no solid evidence to suggest so.

bucketybuck

kraggy wrote: »

Buck, you provide concrete evidence. It's not me that has the argument. It's you and Biggins.

It's the person who makes a statement that needs to provide evidence, not the person challenging it.

You and Biggins have been asked several time to provide evidence and you have both failed to do so.

Do you usually go around saying dubious things about people in real life when they are completely unfounded?

In a court situation, "shur everyone knows she was at it" doesn't cut it. Maybe that's why it wasn't mentioned during the trial. Because there was no solid evidence to suggest so.

Oh, I agree. I don't see any evidence that this convicted drug smuggler was involved in drug trafficking.

kraggy

bucketybuck wrote: »

Oh, I agree. I don't see any evidence that this convicted drug smuggler was involved in drug trafficking.

There's no doubt that she smuggled drugs once. I've never disputed that. I've disputed Biggins claim that she did it several times when there is NO evidence whatsoever to show that she did.

chuky_r_law

Dravokivich wrote: »

It's crazy that people keep doing this knowing what happens if caught. The amount of times it's come up now is unreal.

I've no sympathy for her. Being a grandmother is of no relevance and is simply used to tear jerk and inflame sensationalist emotive responses.

Give me the gun, the lethal injection or the trip switch for the electric chair. I'd execute her myself.

so tell me....how long have you had this fantasy for?

ronjo

kraggy wrote: »

There's no doubt that she smuggled drugs once. I've never disputed that. I've disputed Biggins claim that she did it several times when there is NO evidence whatsoever to show that she did.

What sort of evidence are you looking for by the way?

Defiler Of The Coffin

ejmaztec wrote: »

You're assuming that people would be stupid enough to put their lives on the line smuggling anything into a country that lines them up for a death penalty.

Unfortunately there are people out there who for whatever reason will take the chance regardless of what the punishment is. People who are vulnerable, coerced and yes, stupid. The death penalty is simply not effective as a deterrent.

The point I was trying to make was that giving someone the death penalty for what is in effect a victimless crime is barbaric, backwards and completely repugnant to the the idea of fair punishment and basic human rights. I cannot understand why some people on this thread are saying that she got what she deserved, the punishment is completely disproportionate to the crime and just because it's set out in the law of the country where she was caught doesn't make it in anyway right. People's views are being coloured by the fact that it was drugs she was caught with. If it was alcohol or any other one of the more harmful legal substances there would be a lot more sympathy for her.

kraggy

ronjo wrote: »

What sort of evidence are you looking for by the way?

A police charge would be quite sufficient.

ronjo

kraggy wrote: »

A police charge would be quite sufficient.

and what if she was not actually charged?

Chuck Stone

irishconvert wrote: »

Anyone involved in this business deserves the death penalty.

Saudi Arabia thataway >>>>>>>>>

Anyone who tries to turn my country into a medieval ****-hole like that will have to do it over my dead body.

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Not to make light of rape or murder but generally...

Rape destroys 1 life.
Murder destroys 1 life + families life.
Drugs destroys many lives and leads to increases in other crimes commited by addicts.

How dumb is this? Rape and murder are crimes against innocent people carried out by brutal scumbags. Taking and selling drugs is a crime against who?

Simple question (in bold).

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

I wonder how many of the hardliners...

They're not hard-liners. They're just nervous fragile types who are afraid of the fact that people like to take and do stuff they don't want them to.

kraggy

ronjo wrote: »

and what if she was not actually charged?

There's no if about it. She never was charged with multiple trafficking. If there was enough evidence I'm sure that she would have been charged. Even if she had co-operated with police by giving names as she seems to have done.

Even the prosecution only wanted 15 years. They were shocked when she was sentenced to life.

All I'm saying is that saying that she did something when there's no proof is not only unfair but is potentially libellous.

If the whole world went around spouting unfounded allegations then justice would be rarely served.

If you look at the thread about the Irish girl accused of physical assault (soon to be upgraded to homicide according to news reports) against the baby in Boston, I'm sure that as soon as people start speculating about her past and other issues, the mods and other posters will tell people to stop speculating. Because she's Irish.

Everyone is entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The British woman is guilty of smuggling drugs on one occasion and one ocassion only.

That's the only point that I have been making.

old hippy

TheUsual wrote: »

Mehhh, maybe if she was Irish I would feel empathy.

You should check out the BBC comments on the story, 99% of them are she got what was coming to her.
Also CNN comments are not too pro-granny in her drug larks.

LOL, the BBC "Have Your Say" section is a haven for cranks and other pro-death penalty nutjobs. Hardly representative of the general public.

I wish there was some situation where she could serve a sentence back in the UK. Or be freed on appeal. Fingers crossed.

Dravokivich

chuky_r_law wrote: »

so tell me....how long have you had this fantasy for?

As I said before:

Dravokivich wrote: »

I'm not rolling in on any horse blowing through my trumpet. Or trying to be defensive of the other guy who countered your earlier post. I was both questioning and lampooning what you had posted as it appeared to be a contradiction.

I wouldn't put myself forward as much of a hard man, but I'd be thinking as others mentioned earlier, that one shouldn't go breaking the law in other countries, especially when their level of sentencing is so extreme. My comment about executing her myself was an off the cuff remark to demonstrate exhaustion from hearing and reading so many stories of this kind.

Regarding illicit drug use, It's never been one to display any tolerance of in general on these boards. I doubt I ever will either. And that'd be off boards as well.

mmmmmmmmmmmmkay
?

Do try to keep up.

chuky_r_law

Dravokivich wrote: »

Do try to keep up.

in your head it was a wicked satirical comment on the 'hang em high' brigade often found on boards

everyone else just thought ya sounded like a loon

ejmaztec

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

Unfortunately there are people out there who for whatever reason will take the chance regardless of what the punishment is. People who are vulnerable, coerced and yes, stupid. The death penalty is simply not effective as a deterrent.

The point I was trying to make was that giving someone the death penalty for what is in effect a victimless crime is barbaric, backwards and completely repugnant to the the idea of fair punishment and basic human rights. I cannot understand why some people on this thread are saying that she got what she deserved, the punishment is completely disproportionate to the crime and just because it's set out in the law of the country where she was caught doesn't make it in anyway right. People's views are being coloured by the fact that it was drugs she was caught with. If it was alcohol or any other one of the more harmful legal substances there would be a lot more sympathy for her.

There are always going to be deluded mules who think they can get away with it. Perhaps she thought that her being a woman in her mid to late 50s would give her a free pass and that no-one would suspect her of anything.

The crime might be victimless to you maybe, because it's plainly obvious that you think that all drugs are okay.

The world and his dog knows the risks of wandering into that neck of the woods with a stash that's going to lead you to an execution if you're caught. I don't agree with the death penalty, but those characters do, and she must have known the risks.

scdublin

Death penatly is far too extreme for this in my opinion. We have rapists getting out on bail over here!

Chuck Stone

ejmaztec wrote: »

The crime might be victimless to you maybe, because it's plainly obvious that you think that all drugs are okay.

Most drugs used are no less okay than legal ones. Injecting heroin and smoking crack cocaine is pretty extreme and is self-abuse in any reasonable person's books. Drug abuse and self harm through drug abuse are bad - nobody supports people destroying themselves or drug abuse.

That said the most harmful thing about drugs is their illegality. The so-called war on drugs people has been a multi-billion dollar catastrophic failure and yet people still support this brutal life-wrecking approach to a social issue up to and including executing the gormless and desperate.

It makes me wonder who the bad guys really are in this sordid spectacle.

ejmaztec

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Most drugs used are no less okay than legal ones. Injecting heroin and smoking crack cocaine is pretty extreme and is self-abuse in any reasonable person's books. Drug abuse and self harm through drug abuse are bad - nobody supports people destroying themselves or drug abuse.

That said the most harmful thing about drugs is their illegality. The so-called war on drugs people has been a multi-billion dollar catastrophic failure and yet people still support this brutal life-wrecking approach to a social issue up to and including executing the gormless and desperate.

It makes me wonder who the bad guys really are in this sordid spectacle.

I think that there's a lot of hypocrisy concerning drugs e.g. the CIA's involvement for one. It was/is okay for them to be involved up their covert eyeballs in the trade, and at the same time their crime-fighting fellow public servants in the US are fighting a losing battle to rid the American streets of drugs.

oppenheimer1

irishconvert wrote: »

That is a rediculous point of view. That's like saying we should not outlaw paedophilia as it will simply increase the demand. Nonsense. I guarantee if we start public executions for drug dealing in Ireland the drug will disappear from our streets very quickly.

Violence is never a solution. However I'm not surprised by your stance given your opinion on the role of women in this thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74147029&postcount=69

Not the most moderate moderator I guess

Scruffles

old hippy wrote: »

LOL, the BBC "Have Your Say" section is a haven for cranks and other pro-death penalty nutjobs. Hardly representative of the general public.

I wish there was some situation where she could serve a sentence back in the UK. Or be freed on appeal. Fingers crossed.

it shoud never be used as a mixed representation,they certainly dont represent the uk,a lot of comments seem more at home on the daily fail site than a supposedly middle ground company like the bbc.
its also full of sockpuppets which explains in some cases why opinions can seem a lot more popular than they are because its the same person with multiple accounts backing themselves up- as common with the deviantart forum.
the bbc boards are moderated by an external moderating company called tempero- http://www.tempero.co.uk/ the mods dont even browse the boards nor IP compare accounts to check for socks; they just react to posts that have been reported by the community.

anyway,getting back to topic,am in agreement about the woman,that will probably happen as they wont want to screw up their credibility with other countries.
the government will probably get intervene like they did for gary whatshisface.

old hippy

Scruffles wrote: »

it shoud never be used as a mixed representation,they certainly dont represent the uk,a lot of comments seem more at home on the daily fail site than a supposedly middle ground company like the bbc.
its also full of sockpuppets which explains in some cases why opinions can seem a lot more popular than they are because its the same person with multiple accounts backing themselves up- as common with the deviantart forum.
the bbc boards are moderated by an external moderating company called tempero- http://www.tempero.co.uk/ the mods dont even browse the boards nor IP compare accounts to check for socks; they just react to posts that have been reported by the community.

anyway,getting back to topic,am in agreement about the woman,that will probably happen as they wont want to screw up their credibility with other countries.
the government will probably get intervene like they did for gary whatshisface.

Slight off topic return!

The ironic thing is that the HYS section is populated by the sort who forever moan and criticise the BBC, whilst of course, watching their programmes, listening to their radio services, i-player and using their web facilities!

I don't know if the Govt will intervene because of the drugs angle. Gary Mckinnon(?) suffers from Aspereger's which may have been a mitigating factor in his particular case...

irishconvert

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Violence is never a solution. However I'm not surprised by your stance given your opinion on the role of women in this thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74147029&postcount=69

Not the most moderate moderator I guess

Are you not capable of arguing your point? Why are you bring up something else totally irrelevant to the topic of discussion? Very weak.

irishconvert

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Saudi Arabia thataway >>>>>>>>>

Anyone who tries to turn my country into a medieval ****-hole like that will have to do it over my dead body.

You are allowing OUR country to become a medieval **** hole by not coming down hard on drug dealers and drug trafficers of class A drugs. Are you not aware of the death, destruction of family life and crime caused by these drugs? I bet everyone in this discussion can think of one family member or friend who has been directly affected by drug crime.

end of the road

irishconvert wrote: »

You are allowing OUR country to become a medieval **** hole by not coming down hard on drug dealers and drug trafficers of class A drugs.

rubbish, we have come down very hard on those people over the years, it doesn't work, the demand is to great, the cost is to much to bare, people want drugs, if the government legalised it we would make more money and the government could then deal with the few dealers left. and why are you focusing on class a drugs? so your fine with class b and c drugs? and legal drugs such as alcohol? they kill people to, hay so does medication if you take enough of it so should we bann that to? no didn't think so, so fail

irishconvert wrote: »

Are you not aware of the death, destruction of family life and crime caused by these drugs?

the drugs aren't the problem, its the people taking them who can't handle them, if they end up addicted its their fault for taking them, theirs no excuse not to know the dangers these days yet people still take them, why? because they want to.

irishconvert wrote: »

I bet everyone in this discussion can think of one family member or friend who has been directly affected by drug crime.

no

old hippy

irishconvert wrote: »

You are allowing OUR country to become a medieval **** hole by not coming down hard on drug dealers and drug trafficers of class A drugs. Are you not aware of the death, destruction of family life and crime caused by these drugs? I bet everyone in this discussion can think of one family member or friend who has been directly affected by drug crime.

Are you not aware of the death, destruction of family life and crime caused by successive corrupt governments and bankers? I bet everyone in this discussion can think of one family member or friend who has been directly affected by corrupt government and the finance folk. They are the one's who have screwed the country.

The increase in drug use is a by product of this festering state of affairs. Get your priorities in order.

TheUsual

irishconvert wrote: »

You are allowing OUR country to become a medieval **** hole by not coming down hard on drug dealers and drug trafficers of class A drugs. Are you not aware of the death, destruction of family life and crime caused by these drugs? I bet everyone in this discussion can think of one family member or friend who has been directly affected by drug crime.

I don't think we will ever have a death penalty here in Ireland. But you are 100% right about drugs.
The drugs cause misery, death and crime as well as massive social breakdown.

The people who deal them do it for greed, simple, and they have blood on their hands.
Just because this woman is white, a grandmother, and is crying for the photographers, should mean nothing in the eyes of the court.
I know that when I visit certain countries for work/holiday that some are very strict on drugs, and that death sentences are possible for drugs smugglers. Or at the very least 20 years in a harsh prison abroad.

Their country, their laws.

irishconvert

old hippy wrote: »

Are you not aware of the death, destruction of family life and crime caused by successive corrupt governments and bankers? I bet everyone in this discussion can think of one family member or friend who has been directly affected by corrupt government and the finance folk. They are the one's who have screwed the country.

The increase in drug use is a by product of this festering state of affairs. Get your priorities in order.

I agree with you 100% on the corrupt bankers and politicians. They too have blood on their hands. But this is a discussion on drug trafficing so it has nothing to do with what we are discussing here.

irishconvert

end of the road wrote: »

rubbish, we have come down very hard on those people over the years, it doesn't work, the demand is to great, the cost is to much to bare, people want drugs, if the government legalised it we would make more money and the government could then deal with the few dealers left. and why are you focusing on class a drugs? so your fine with class b and c drugs? and legal drugs such as alcohol? they kill people to, hay so does medication if you take enough of it so should we bann that to? no didn't think so, so fail

Fail! What are you, a student?!

I specified class A drugs because if I don't, people will start going off into tangents saying hash is harmless etc. So if we just concentrate on the most serious drugs it makes the discussion more focused. For your interest I am not fine with other drugs including alcohol, but for the point I just made I don't discuss it here.

end of the road wrote: »

the drugs aren't the problem, its the people taking them who can't handle them, if they end up addicted its their fault for taking them, theirs no excuse not to know the dangers these days yet people still take them, why? because they want to.

So who do you have more sympathy for, the woman sentenced to death for the trafficing or the people who take drugs and end up becoming addicted to them?

end of the road

irishconvert wrote: »

I specified class A drugs because if I don't, people will start going off into tangents saying hash is harmless etc. So if we just concentrate on the most serious drugs it makes the discussion more focused. For your interest I am not fine with other drugs including alcohol, but for the point I just made I don't discuss it here.

fair enough so

irishconvert wrote: »

So who do you have more sympathy for, the woman sentenced to death for the trafficing or the people who take drugs and end up becoming addicted to them?

both actually, her because death is way to much for such a small crime and the addicts because as stupid as they were to take drugs they didn't want to become addicted to them, they knew their was a risk of it but thought "ah i won't become addicted" "won't happen to me" "shur i'm only doing a little at the weekend"

Doc Ruby

irishconvert wrote: »

I guarantee if we start public executions for drug dealing in Ireland the drug will disappear from our streets very quickly.

Didn't work in the Philippines. Didn't work in Indonesia, hence this case. Doesn't work anywhere.

repsol

I can't believe how many people are concerned about the well being of drug smugglers. All the drugs on our streets were brought in by people like her. Drugs cause misery and the people involved use the proceeds to fund other forms of crime such as people trafficking, prostitution ,firearms etc. Save your sympathy for people who have lost loved ones to the drug criminals, not the cockroaches involved in the business.They commit crime because they are too lazy to earn it honestly and greedy.

TheUsual

repsol wrote: »

I can't believe how many people are concerned about the well being of drug smugglers. All the drugs on our streets were brought in by people like her. Drugs cause misery and the people involved use the proceeds to fund other forms of crime such as people trafficking, prostitution ,firearms etc. Save your sympathy for people who have lost loved ones to the drug criminals, not the cockroaches involved in the business.They commit crime because they are too lazy to earn it honestly and greedy.

Amen.

It's 25 years since heroin really destroyed communities in Dublin city.
People need reminding the misery behind the recreational powder or pills sold in a pub on Saturday night.

repsol

TheUsual wrote: »

Amen.

It's 25 years since heroin really destroyed communities in Dublin city.
People need reminding the misery behind the recreational powder or pills sold in a pub on Saturday night.

Shane Geoghgan and Anthony Campbell are 2 cases of 100% innocent people,murdered in drug disputes,one because he looked like the intended victim and the other because he was doing plumbing work in the house belonging to a criminals' niece.Anyone who sells OR BUYS drugs in this country has the blood of these 2 men and others like them on their hands.

end of the road

repsol wrote: »

I can't believe how many people are concerned about the well being of drug smugglers. All the drugs on our streets were brought in by people like her. Drugs cause misery and the people involved use the proceeds to fund other forms of crime such as people trafficking, prostitution ,firearms etc. Save your sympathy for people who have lost loved ones to the drug criminals, not the cockroaches involved in the business.They commit crime because they are too lazy to earn it honestly and greedy.

so legalise the drugs and the prostitution, those grown adults who take drugs chose to take them in the first place, nobody forced them down their throats, those who work "honestly" as you put it can be greedy as well but thats okay?

TheUsual wrote: »

It's 25 years since heroin really destroyed communities in Dublin city.

and yet people keep taking it knowing the risks, its called demand for something, legalise it and allow the government take control as the current systems around the world aren't and never have or will work

TheUsual wrote: »

People need reminding the misery behind the recreational powder or pills sold in a pub on Saturday night.

alcohol causes misery, addiction to medication causes misery, their not illegal.

repsol wrote: »

Shane Geoghgan and Anthony Campbell are 2 cases of 100% innocent people,murdered in drug disputes,one because he looked like the intended victim and the other because he was doing plumbing work in the house belonging to a criminals' niece.Anyone who sells OR BUYS drugs in this country has the blood of these 2 men and others like them on their hands.

rubbish, those who ordered the hits and whoever shot these men have blood on their hands, not anyone else

repsol

Most people start drug taking as kids and it is too late to stop when they are "grown adults"
So once there is demand we should legalize something? There is a demand for child porn,do you want to legalize that?

Yes alcohol and pres drugs are legal. They have legitimate uses.Street drugs have none other than making the retards that take them more retarded

Tell yourself drug buyers have no blood on their hands if it helps you sleep.Drugs are very lucrative and that is why people kill each other to get control. If there were no lowlife buying illegal drugs,there would be no money in it so no murders.

end of the road

repsol wrote: »

Most people start drug taking as kids and it is too late to stop when they are "grown adults"

which is why pearants should be keeping an eye on their children as much as possible

repsol wrote: »

So once there is demand we should legalize something? There is a demand for child porn,do you want to legalize that?

don't you dare compare the abuse of children to drugs, if theirs a demand for something that one wishes to take to "get high" then yes it should be legalised with as much control as possible to try keep kids away from it

repsol wrote: »

Yes they are legal. They have legitimate uses.

so what legitimate use has alcohol? (a drug i enjoy myself along with many other people)

repsol wrote: »

Street drugs have none other than making the retards that take them more retarded

very same as alcohol

repsol wrote: »

Tell yourself that if it helps you sleep.

its not about helping me sleep, its fact, the people who organised and carried out the hits causing those 2 innocent men to be killed have the blood on their hands and not other drug dealers, the "lowlifes who buy drugs" don't have the blood on their hands as their not condoning the murders or wanting them to happen, they just want their drugs.

repsol wrote: »

Drugs are very lucrative and that is why people kill each other to get control. If there were no lowlife buying illegal drugs,there would be no money in it so no murders.

exactly, those reasons are good reasons for legalisation, so you describe drug takers as lowlifes, so your excepting that those who take alcohol are lowlifes as well? or are they different because alcohol is legal?