Human right group. Shut up for our death penalty system !
-
Drug addict won't suffer from withdrawal symptoms if u don't withdraw drugs from them. The problem is that smokers are everywhere, they harm ppl who don't smoke. Furthermore, passive smoking is more harmful than smoking it yourself. Also, smoke addict suffers from withdrawal symptoms.
There is somethign very wrogn with your concept. Heroin and cocaine user suffers much more sever withdrawal symptoms than cigerrettes. An example is heroin, its withdrawal effect include aches and spasms, stomach cramps, vomiting, runny nose, watery eyes, loss of appetite and loss of body fluids. Furthermore, no matter how much passive smoking u inhale, your health is still in a better state than those taking heroin or cocaine
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/cocaine.html
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/heroin.htmlSmoking is a mild addiction? don't make me laugh. Nicotine is as addictive as heroin and cocaine.
But is less harmful than heroin and cocaine
I don't know if heroin is more harmful than cigarette but heroin is easier to quit and less addictive than cigarettes. Why? because a smoker delivers 200-300 discrete doses of nicotine(the addicting agent) to the brain and a heroin addict delivers only 2-3 doses of nicotine to the brain.
Nicotine is not the only thing in the world tat make u an addictSo you kill a heroin addict who was a better chance to quit his habit than a smoker? You let a heroin addict who can only harm himself die? Then you let a smoker who can harm thousands of lives for the rest of his life live?
No, the abuser is never killed. The drug trafficker tat sell drugs to the user r the ones tat get killed.
A Fried Cha Kway Teow seller probably cause more more harm to more people than a smoker for the rest of their life also live as well. -
Nicotine is the common addictive in cigarette, heroin and cocaine. ppl can choose not to eat chay kway tiao but you can't tell a smoker not to smoke.
If you possess over a certain limit of heroin, you get the death sentence doesn't matter if you are the abuser or the trafficker -
the govt only hang drug traffickers, not drug addicts.Originally posted by The man who was death:Nicotine is the common addictive in cigarette, heroin and cocaine. ppl can choose not to eat chay kway tiao but you can't tell a smoker not to smoke.
If you possess over a certain limit of heroin, you get the death sentence doesn't matter if you are the abuser or the trafficker -
1st time i hear heroin is easier to quit and less addictive than cigarettes. i myself was a smoker. i have seen and heard of people quitting cigarettes. i personally can tell you smoking is more of a habit. it is only mildly addictive.Originally posted by The man who was death:Drug addict won't suffer from withdrawal symptoms if u don't withdraw drugs from them. The problem is that smokers are everywhere, they harm ppl who don't smoke. Furthermore, passive smoking is more harmful than smoking it yourself. Also, smoke addict suffers from withdrawal symptoms.
Smoking is a mild addiction? don't make me laugh. Nicotine is as addictive as heroin and cocaine.
I don't know if heroin is more harmful than cigarette but heroin is easier to quit and less addictive than cigarettes. Why? because a smoker delivers 200-300 discrete doses of nicotine(the addicting agent) to the brain and a heroin addict delivers only 2-3 doses of nicotine to the brain.
So you kill a heroin addict who was a better chance to quit his habit than a smoker? You let a heroin addict who can only harm himself die? Then you let a smoker who can harm thousands of lives for the rest of his life live? -
It's true that heroin is easier to quit than smoking. I think stupidissmart can also tell you heroin is less addictive than cigarette. Heroin addicts get the death sentence if they posses over a limit of itOriginally posted by dragg:1st time i hear heroin is easier to quit and less addictive than cigarettes. i myself was a smoker. i have seen and heard of people quitting cigarettes. i personally can tell you smoking is more of a habit. it is only mildly addictive. -
dont talk this way unless u taken before.Originally posted by The man who was death:It's true that heroin is easier to quit than smoking. I think stupidissmart can also tell you heroin is less addictive than cigarette. Heroin addicts get the death sentence if they posses over a limit of it -
Nicotine is the common addictive in cigarette, heroin and cocaine. ppl can choose not to eat chay kway tiao but you can't tell a smoker not to smoke.
nicotine is not the common adictive in the 3.
in fact there shouldn't be any nicotine in heroin or cocaine. Most of the time they r shot into the body or snorted in
Tallking about addictive, eating chay kway teow is addictive itselfIf you possess over a certain limit of heroin, you get the death sentence doesn't matter if you are the abuser or the trafficker
If u r only the drug abuser, why will u carry such a high quantity of drugs with u ? They can last u weeks or even months u know. If u know tat there is a death penalty for possessing such amount, unless u r an idiot, u just need to buy smaller quantity. Anyway if u manage to prove u r not the trafficker, u can escape the death penalty even if u carry such a high quantityIt's true that heroin is easier to quit than smoking. I think stupidissmart can also tell you heroin is less addictive than cigarette.
Heroin is not easier to quit than smoking
Cigarettes are highly efficient nicotine delivery devices and are as addictive as drugs such as heroin or cocaine.
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact09.html
but cigerrettes is much safer than taking heroin or cocaine. -
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/women/09/19/mothers.smoking.wmd
But quitting smoking is easier said than done, nicotine being one of the most addictive drugs known. Indeed, pregnant women in drug rehab programs often have an easier time giving up cocaine, heroin or opiates, says Dace Svikis, Ph.D., an associate professor of psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University.
It is exactly because heroin is more dangerous to take tha makes it easier to quit. It gives the addict no choice but to quit, furthermore heroin is more expensive than cigarettes
The limit is only a few grams, once u carry over a few grams, u're dead -
But quitting smoking is easier said than done, nicotine being one of the most addictive drugs known. Indeed, pregnant women in drug rehab programs often have an easier time giving up cocaine, heroin or opiates, says Dace Svikis, Ph.D., an associate professor of psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University.
I don't see anything written in it tat says cigerrettes is harder to quit than heroin
If your report shows how hard it is to quit smoking, it also shows how hard it will be for a drug abuser to kick drugs as well and wat a terrible thing the drug trafficker had doneIt is exactly because heroin is more dangerous to take tha makes it easier to quit. It gives the addict no choice but to quit, furthermore heroin is more expensive than cigarettes
The withdrawal effect of heroin is much more than cigerrettes. If people use logic to think they wouldn't become smokers or drug addicts in the first placeThe limit is only a few grams, once u carry over a few grams, u're dead
I still gonna say the amount can lasts u weeks and months. U can't take the drug in its raw form. The form which u see on the street now is heavily mixed with other substances to lower the purity. It is something like alcohol. Most alcoholic drink contains less than 50% alcohol. U can't drink pure alcohol it will poison u. If u know the amount of drugs for a death penalty, then don't carry so much with u The only reason for having such amount is because u r a drug trafficker and u have to carry tat amount. -
Inhumane to ban smoking?Don't make me laugh,pls.Originally posted by stupidissmart:tat is why they r taxed heavily and they r discouraged to be used repeatedly. But to ban them will be inhumane to the smokers who r already addicted to it -
What u said is right.But drug addicts take drug at their own free will,isn't it?Originally posted by dragg:why is there double standard? you must understand the difference between a smoker and a drug addict?
cigarette dont kill you overnight. have you ever seen a drug addict? they suffer from withdrawal symptoms. smokers are everywhere. they are just like you and i. smokers live a normal life. it is only a mild addiction.
drug addicts are different. they cannot go without drugs. it is a thousand times more addictive than cigarettes. the wrong dosage can kill you immediately. but can cigarettes kill you instantly?
I say the govt is double standard because selling cigarettes is legal while drug traffickers get hang.What i want to stress is the punishment for drug trafficker is not only inhumane but also too heavy for the crime.
Both selling cigarettees & drug traficking are motivated by money.Both cause harm to cosumers.One is legal and the other get hang.Still no inconsistency of principle? -
There are many drug addicts in S'pore.PAP govt should be blamed for such a situation.Perhaps the PM & ministers concerned should be hang for their faults (since they support death penalty).Since i don't support death penalty,i think they shoud resign instead.
-
we are going nowhere with all these arguments.
the problem dont lie with our law.
death sentence for drug trafficking or not it is does not affect me or you. why? as long as we dont traffick drugs it does not affect us!!!! the same goes to every individual. the law in this aspect is fair!!!
we know the consequences of doing so - DEATH BY HANGING. all mature adults know the consequences. one can opt to rob, steal or burglarize (not that i advocate it) why go for drug trafficking when there is a death sentence?
drug traffickers have no ground to appeal. they know the consequences. -
Dragg,
A govt can enact a law that all thieves should be chopped off their hands.Then when some thieves' hands are chopped off as punishments,the govt would say they know the law and yet they commit the crime so it is not fault of the govt. -
In some religious fundamentalist societies, very likely you will get your hand chopped off for stealing. When that happens there is no use arguing who enacted the law.Originally posted by PRP:Dragg,
A govt can enact a law that all thieves should be chopped off their hands.Then when some thieves' hands are chopped off as punishments,the govt would say they know the law and yet they commit the crime so it is not fault of the govt.
You will also find that most people in these societies agree with such punishments.
Obviously in singapore, many citizens agree with capital punishment for drug trafficking, but it is not likely that singaporeans would agree to chopping hands to prevent stealing and it is also not likely that this law would be enacted. In the unlikihood that this happens, you will find the whole singapore on your side in this argument. Then we don't have disagreement. -
Inhumane to ban smoking?Don't make me laugh,pls.
Wat so funny about tat statement ?What u said is right.But drug addicts take drug at their own free will,isn't it?
So ? Then might as well sell firearms in singapore since both buyer and seller transact at their own will isn't it ?I say the govt is double standard because selling cigarettes is legal while drug traffickers get hang.What i want to stress is the punishment for drug trafficker is not only inhumane but also too heavy for the crime.
I don't see much double standard here. As said much before selling drugs and selling cigerrettes is much like driving at 50km and 150km on the roadBoth selling cigarettees & drug traficking are motivated by money.Both cause harm to cosumers.One is legal and the other get hang.Still no inconsistency of principle?
Might as well say selling ice cream is legal while selling drugs is not. I mean your point to compare with cigerrettes is already a bad point to start off withThere are many drug addicts in S'pore.PAP govt should be blamed for such a situation.Perhaps the PM & ministers concerned should be hang for their faults (since they support death penalty).Fortunately i don't support death penalty,So they shoud resign instead
Statistically speaking, the number of drug addict in singapore is much lesser compared with other countries. Hence if going by your line of thinking, then we should conclude the gov is doing a good job.A govt can enact a law that all thieves should be chopped off their hands.Then when some thieves' hands are chopped off as punishments,the govt would say they know the law and yet they commit the crime so it is not fault of the govt.
Theives r theives, kidnappers r kidnapers, murderers r murderers, drug traffickers r drug traffickers.Different crimes deserve different treatment. It is not uncommon to have death penalty for drug traffickers in many countries. If u say it is the gov fault, then u r condemning perhaps most of the countries leaders. -
you are stretching your argument.Originally posted by PRP:Dragg,
A govt can enact a law that all thieves should be chopped off their hands.Then when some thieves' hands are chopped off as punishments,the govt would say they know the law and yet they commit the crime so it is not fault of the govt.
we dont have such laws.
what is the point of bringing into the argument something hypothetical? -
Then the informed few must turn the tide of opinion.This is possible in a norma,democratic state.But here, trying to influence the voters only gets you trumped up on murky charges, unless you happen to wear white.Originally posted by sgdiehard:In some religious fundamentalist societies, very likely you will get your hand chopped off for stealing. When that happens there is no use arguing who enacted the law.
You will also find that most people in these societies agree with such punishments.
Obviously in singapore, many citizens agree with capital punishment for drug trafficking, but it is not likely that singaporeans would agree to chopping hands to prevent stealing and it is also not likely that this law would be enacted. In the unlikihood that this happens, you will find the whole singapore on your side in this argument. Then we don't have disagreement.
This is not ethical. -
When there is a bad or wrong law, then one can't just blame the offenders but also but look at the law itself.That is the point i wanted to make with that analogy.Originally posted by dragg:you are stretching your argument.
we dont have such laws.
what is the point of bringing into the argument something hypothetical? -
When there is a bad or wrong law, then one can't just blame the offenders but also but look at the law itself.That is the point i wanted to make with that analogy.
It may be obvious tat cutting off of hands is cruel, but hanging murderers and drug trafficker, to much people, is the right law to have. There is again nothing wrong with tis law -
Cutting off hand is cruel,so is caning a person bleeding.
Killing a person is not cruel?Stupidissmart, your sense is different from common ppl. -
My main arguments
Firstly, death penalty is inhumane.Many advanced countries have abolished such punishment.S'pore has become an advanced country.We should similarily follow.
Secondly,drug traffickers do not intentionally want to kill anyone.They commit the crime for money and the addicts buy drugs voluntarily and most of them don't die after taking drug.So to use death penalty on drug traffickers is wrong under the principle of law. -
What if a relative of yours was framed for murder, executed and evidence absolving him of all involvement shows up 10 years later? WHat are you gonna do?Originally posted by stupidissmart:It may be obvious tat cutting off of hands is cruel, but hanging murderers and drug trafficker, to much people, is the right law to have. There is again nothing wrong with tis law
SOmetimes, in our quest to get justice done, we must avoid miscarriages of justice. THis is worse than the crime itself. -
Cutting off hand is cruel,so is caning a person bleeding.
I never say it is not cruel. i was saying it was necessary. U think jailing a person is not cruel ? He have wasted his years in his limited life and tat probably is a much cruel act than caning. All punishments r curel, otherwise everyone will perform cruelty to other people.
Killing a person is not cruel?Stupidissmart, your sense is different from common ppl.Firstly, death penalty is inhumane.Many advanced countries have abolished such punishment.S'pore has become an advanced country.We should similarily follow.
Many advanced countries have not abolish the death penalty as well. Moreover every country have a different views, different cultures and different needs. We shouldn't just follow blindlySecondly,drug traffickers do not intentionally want to kill anyone.They commit the crime for money and the addicts buy drugs voluntarily and most of them don't die after taking drug.So to use death penalty on drug traffickers is wrong under the principle of law.
Drug trafficker intentionally wanted people to become drug addicts and tat is enough reason to kill them. If there is no drug trafficker, then there wouldn't be drug abuser and lives of the society will be protected. To use the death penalty to protect society is right and just and fulfil wat a law should do, protect the innocent.What if a relative of yours was framed for murder, executed and evidence absolving him of all involvement shows up 10 years later? WHat are you gonna do?
Wat if ? There is a lot of wat if. Wat if your relative get to be gang raped and murdered and the murderer get away with 5 years of jail ? Wat if your son who is a scholar but goes to the drug and becoem a drug abuser. In his desperation for money, he use a knife and points at your wife for money. I am sorry man, ther r mistakes but we still have to mete out justice if required -
Studpidissmart,
U are absolutely wrong to say all punishments are cruel.Is fine cruel?Some ppl think imprisonment is nothing because prisoners get free lodging & food.
I didn't advocate following developed countries blindly.I gave reasons why death penalty should be abolished.
The drug traffickers don't intentionally want ppl to take drug.They commited the crime due to money.Even when there are drug,ppl can choose not to take them.
So your rebutals are invalid.