Man Executed For Drugs

[Hero]

16 ounces = 453.59237 grams
You're a bit off (I wrote a US Standard <--> Metric conversion system into my bot, and it's quit accurate). But that's if people only wanted one gram. I'm not a fan of heroin, nor are any of my friends, because it's a terrible drug... but an addict would probably buy half an ounce if they could afford it. The thing about heroin is that an addict will pay as much as he/she can to get it. And not always in cash....

I sucked weiner for some before.

[DeTaiLs]

16 ounces = 453.59237 grams
You're a bit off (I wrote a US Standard <--> Metric conversion system into my bot, and it's quit accurate). But that's if people only wanted one gram. I'm not a fan of heroin, nor are any of my friends, because it's a terrible drug... but an addict would probably buy half an ounce if they could afford it. The thing about heroin is that an addict will pay as much as he/she can to get it. And not always in cash....

May I ask where you are comming up with your math there is 28.6 grams in an ounce so if you round it off to 28 thats 28*16 which is 448, he also said 14 ounces not 16 so it would be around 392 grams.

[RealityRipple]

1 ounce is 28.3495231 grams. 14 ounces is 396.893324 grams. Google Calculator it.

[CrAz3D]

14 ounces of heroine, isn't that a lot?  Some of you drug users explain how much that is.  If that's as much as I would think, and his intent was to sell the heroine for distribution, I don't see the penalty being unfair.

That seems like an odd position for you, Grok.  I tend to be against the war on drugs - I think people have the right to mess themselves up however they want to.  It's a very libertarian attitude - which is why I thought it was odd for you.

But people on hard drugs tend to have an effect on other people's lives in a very negative way. 

It ruins marriages, families, job performance...then you just have some homeless person addicted to whatever drug & will do anything to get it

[Grok]

14 ounces of heroine, isn't that a lot?  Some of you drug users explain how much that is.  If that's as much as I would think, and his intent was to sell the heroine for distribution, I don't see the penalty being unfair.

That seems like an odd position for you, Grok.  I tend to be against the war on drugs - I think people have the right to mess themselves up however they want to.  It's a very libertarian attitude - which is why I thought it was odd for you.

You're quite right, it does seem an odd position.  I was commenting on whether the punishment seemed out of line for the crime as defined by their law.  With regards to whether I think criminalization of illicit drugs is bad?  Yes, I think that's wrong and believe the world would be a better place if those laws were repealed.  But that's for a whole other topic =)

[Arta]

It ruins marriages, families, job performance...then you just have some homeless person addicted to whatever drug & will do anything to get it

Drugs do most of those things *because* they're illegal.

[Grok]

It ruins marriages, families, job performance...then you just have some homeless person addicted to whatever drug & will do anything to get it

Drugs do most of those things *because* they're illegal.

Arta's quite correct.  Consider riding bicycles.  Currently, riding bicycles is legal everywhere, as far as I know.  (An aside here, skateboarding is illegal in many places!)  If we were to have all governments, federal state and local, make the production of bicycles illegal, their sale, distribution, and usage illegal, what would it be like for these people who still ride bicycles?  They would be stigmatized, ostracized, arrested, fingerprinted, jailed, put on probation, have to pay fines, be labelled as criminals, lose their jobs, ruin their marriages, and so on.  Bicycles are dangerous whether legal or not, and their usage ruins marriages, families, ...

To understand the decriminalization of drugs you merely need inject a currently legal activity into the role that drugs currently occupy.  I avoided using alcohol because it's too easy a target and invokes its own set of demonic arguments.

[RealityRipple]

How would you sneak bike riding? Only ride at night, wearing all black with no reflectors or lights, making your chances of getting hit skyrocket. Thus, riding a bike would be labelled much more dangerous. Making things illegal causes many more problems than most people realize.

Stop Crime: Make everything legal!

[Rule]

Oh ok, I suppose alcohol doesn't have a damaging effect on any North American or European families, because it is legal in those places.  Also, drugs that are illegal affect job performance, because they are illegal; if these drugs were legalized, they would no longer have a deleterious effect on the human mind, and hence, they would not interfere with one's ability to get work done anymore.  Further, I'm sure drug addicts wouldn't go to extremes to get legalized drugs: indeed, alcohol is a good example in favour of this point, since alcoholics never do anything that would hurt someone else in order to get their liquor.  Boy was I misinformed.

[RealityRipple]

Nice try at being sarcastic. But you forgot one thing: Germany. You can order an alcoholic drink if you can put money on the bar. They have almost no alcohol problems, drink moderately every day, drink alot for celebrations, and stay smart about it the whole time. They have about 1000 deaths by drunk drivers in germany. Comparatively, the US has about 16,000 a year. Injuries by drunk driving are also way low: 275,000 in the US per year, 47,000 in Germany. Many drugs only affect you when you're on them, and if you're stupid enough to use something that will make you mess up when you're doing things, then you probably should get injured so you'll LEARN.

[topaz]

Nice try at being sarcastic. But you forgot one thing: Germany. You can order an alcoholic drink if you can put money on the bar. They have almost no alcohol problems, drink moderately every day, drink alot for celebrations, and stay smart about it the whole time. They have about 1000 deaths by drunk drivers in germany. Comparatively, the US has about 16,000 a year. Injuries by drunk driving are also way low: 275,000 in the US per year, 47,000 in Germany. Many drugs only affect you when you're on them, and if you're stupid enough to use something that will make you mess up when you're doing things, then you probably should get injured so you'll LEARN.

lol @ drunk driving in Germany:

1. Driving is usually for the wealthy or well-off, since gas is at such a premium (in Europe in general, iirc due to the Russians)
2. The population of Germany is low, only about a third of the US population (link)

Once you include population densities in your figures, things pretty much average out.

[topaz]

And my point here being...

Vulnerability to addiction is a human occurrence, not a cultural one.

[RealityRipple]

A bit out of date, but they still don't do the stupid sh!t we do. I've had quite a few friends who are german citizens (thanks to Foreign Exchange Student stuff), and they all commented on how much we abuse alchohol.

[Arta]

1. Driving is usually for the wealthy or well-off, since gas is at such a premium (in Europe in general, iirc due to the Russians)

That's complete nonsense, sorry. Gas in Europe is perfectly affordable. Gas in the US is outrageously and damagingly cheap.

Oh ok, I suppose alcohol doesn't have a damaging effect on any North American or European families, because it is legal in those places.  Also, drugs that are illegal affect job performance, because they are illegal; if these drugs were legalized, they would no longer have a deleterious effect on the human mind, and hence, they would not interfere with one's ability to get work done anymore.  Further, I'm sure drug addicts wouldn't go to extremes to get legalized drugs: indeed, alcohol is a good example in favour of this point, since alcoholics never do anything that would hurt someone else in order to get their liquor.  Boy was I misinformed.

Of course alcohol causes problems for some people. Drugs, similarly, will always cause problems for some people. However, alcohol causes problems for a much smaller proportion of the people who use it (consider how many more people consume it), and the duties that are placed on the sale of alcohol raise a great deal of money, a great deal of which is spent on services to help people whose lives are negatively affected by it -- most immediately on healthcare, but also via social services and various rehabilitation programmes run by the courts and the probation service.

I would also say that alcoholics probably do not prostitute themselves or become indebted to ruthless drug dealers in order to feed their addiction. Perhaps some do, but I can't imagine that it happens on the same scale as people who are addicted to crack cocaine or heroin.

I feel the same way about drugs as I do about prostitution: if something people want is made illegal, criminals will offer it to them. They are likely to offer it in a more dangerous, less safe, more exploitative way which is likely to be more damaging to the lives of those concerned. Legalised drugs would be safer (eg, more pure and accurately dosed), cheap and easily available, they would be regulated by government, workers in the drugs industry could unionise and improve their working conditions, and most importantly, the sale of drugs could be taxed and the money raised used to help people who make bad choices.

Ultimately, prohibition does not work. This should be obvious by taking a look at the world. Since it does not work, and since we could help people more and keep people more safe by abolishing it, we should abolish it.

[Rule]

However, alcohol causes problems for a much smaller proportion of the people who use it (consider how many more people consume it),

You don't know this, and even if it were true, that might have a lot more to do with the chemical nature of alcohol relative to other drugs than whether or not it is illegal.

They are likely to offer it in a more dangerous, less safe, more exploitative way which is likely to be more damaging to the lives of those concerned.

The drug is also likely to be a lot more (physically/psychologically) accessible to certain groups of people, so those people will be more likely to try the drug, and when they do this they could lose control and damage other people. 

workers in the drugs industry could unionise and improve their working conditions

How lovely.

Ultimately, prohibition does not work. This should be obvious by taking a look at the world. Since it does not work, and since we could help people more and keep people more safe by abolishing it, we should abolish it.

I could say in a similar fashion,
"Ultimately, prohibition works.  This should be obvious by taking a look at the world.  Since it works, and since we could help people more and keep people more safe by implementing it, we should implement it."

You're using what you're ultimately trying to argue as a hypothesis.  That's no more convincing than writing, "prohibition is bad because I say so," and in fact, it's basically equivalent to your argument: writing that something "should be obvious" is not very meaningful or rigorous support for your claim.