Thai woman detained at Changi with 3.2kg of methamphetamine

[ray_of_hope]

Since the law was announced to remove MDP there have been a number of high profile cases of drug trafficking involving significant amounts of drugs well above the threshold that draws the death penalty. Most cases were caught at the Woodlands checkpoint. The case of the Thai woman is unusual in that she was caught at Changi. There is a clear linkage between cause and effect. MDP clearly had a significant deterrent effect. With its removal more and more traffickers are chancing their arms.

 

[mulvi74]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/body/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...formation-faces-users-hooked-deadly-drug.html

I read the articles above on why people get addicted to meth and its effect. It is damn scary. To quote the first article,

For example, in lab experiments done on animals, sex causes dopamine levels to jump from 100 to 200 units, and cocaine causes them to spike to 350 units. "[With] methamphetamine you get a release from the base level to about 1,250 units, something that's about 12 times as much of a release of dopamine as you get from food and sex and other pleasurable activities,"

Probably no human can withstand the withdrawal impact of meth abuse. So to answer your question, I support the drug control policy in that a lot of people are not able to understand the dangers of such drugs. However, I am against the death penalty.

This Thai drug runner probably is suffering hell now in prison from withdrawal symptoms.

My point is whether it is illegal or not there will be addicts. There are many people (especially in the gay community) who do meth/yaba/syabu/ice but are not addicts. There are addicts now despite it being 'illegal'. My point is legalizing all of it will have no effect. McDonald's is legal but by and large people either avoid it or seldom have it. I.e they make a judgement on their levels of consumption. It should be the same case with drugs. As I said there is no victim. If the govts are so concerned about people's health then they should also ban fast foods, trams fats, the increasing use of palm oil etc etc etc. if joe bloggs wants to snort a gram of coke on Friday night, that is his perogative is my point. It is not the lawmaker's perogative

 

[Jah_rastafar_I]

My point is whether it is illegal or not there will be addicts. There are many people (especially in the gay community) who do meth/yaba/syabu/ice but are not addicts. There are addicts now despite it being 'illegal'. My point is legalizing all of it will have no effect. McDonald's is legal but by and large people either avoid it or seldom have it. I.e they make a judgement on their levels of consumption. It should be the same case with drugs. As I said there is no victim. If the govts are so concerned about people's health then they should also ban fast foods, trams fats, the increasing use of palm oil etc etc etc. if joe bloggs wants to snort a gram of coke on Friday night, that is his perogative is my point. It is not the lawmaker's perogative

you sure there are many ppl that do these drugs but aren't addicted? Aren't drugs like heroin addictive? Mind you many countries in the world ban these drugs i wonder if there's one country that doesn't ban them.
The last time i checked i don't think fast food actually causes one to lose his health and his entire life spiralling out of control like meth for example.

 

[mulvi74]

Agreed a bit...

The problem is largely prohibition... Believe it or not drugs are in demand just like alcohol. And making anything in demand illegal does not make it dissappear, it just drive the market and untaxed profits underground where there are no regulations and no proper dispute negotiation.

Many argue Singapore is safe because of our harsh law but this is far from the truth. This Thai woman is just one of the few that was caught. Drug use is steadily going up than previously simply because our population has increased. The average population drug use of any country is about 1 to 3%. The larger the population, the larger the drug users. Singapore have been able to keep "drug use" under control simply because drug users are a very small minority that the government can bully around.

Also, the drug prohibition artificially increase the profits of drugs, making the drug market a great attraction that people are willing to risk their lives over. Then the government clamp down harder, the risk of trafficking goes higher, the profit goes higher and attract more drug mules. Prohibition is just a never ending cycle of profits to the drug cartel and a waste of money for the tax payers.



Also comes the issue of morality of the use of drugs. Though methamphetamine hydrochloride is a very dangerous drug, the moral question to ask is why should the government be allowed to decide what you can or cannot put inside your own body? Your body in your own and you should have the natural inalienable right to do whatever you want to do with it once you have come of age. You want to tattoo, engage in homosexual or heterosexual intercourse, ingest healthy or unhealthy food, be addicted or occasionally use alcohol or tobacco, apply for sex change from male to female or female to male, impregnate yourself artificially or naturally, etc are all your own rights to do what ever you want to yourself as long as you don't directly violate the rights of others. Why should drug use be any different?


Also talking about Meth directly. It is in my opinion that Meth is simply the moonshine of the drug prohibition era. For those who are unfamiliar, "moonshine" is the nickname for illegal brewed alcohol back in the alcohol prohibition era. Where normal rum or beer is hard to smuggle in by the alcohol mules, bootleggers will brew their own alcohol and resell them to the market. Usually this moonshine are highly concentrated and toxic, a very dangerous form of alcohol for consumption.

Prohibition also increase the potency of drugs. Natural drugs like Cannabis, Coca leaf, Natural Opium, Khat and other organic drugs are very hard to transport illegally and consumption of organic drug usually will not get a person addicted easily. Which is why the cartels transform these organics into their pure form which make them easier to transport and sell. Cannabis market is literally gone in Singapore but there are still some who still sell in Malaysia, Coca leaf becomes cocaine, Opium becomes heroin, Khat (a natural amphetamine) is replaced by methamphetamine. Prohibition = more potent and dangerous drugs.


And finally for this post, my major complaint to the war on drugs is the prohibition of Cannabis (aka Ganja, Marijuana, Marry Jane, Pot, Weed). Our drug laws are extremely stupid to make Cannabis illegal and put the death penalty on it, no matter what the amount is. Cannabis is one of the safest natural drug out there, even less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco. Making anything that is less dangerous than Malboro and Tiger Beer illegal is the stupidest idea on the planet, (same goes for the prohibition of E-ciggs). No one have ever died for Cannabis use in the history of mankind simply because Cannabis is non-toxic and non-addictive. For a person to get a lethal dose of Cannabinoids, you will need to consume 5000kg worth of cannabis within 15mins which is impossible for a normal human to do. I can't wait for the day when majority of Singaporeans realize that all these time the PAP have imposed the death penalty on something safer than Tiger Beer. They will most likely be hunted down in the streets.

Also, research into Medical Cannabis has shown that Cannabis have a lot of curative effects of many major diseases including cancer. Cannabis have the potential to CURE CANCER! Any government which makes the cure for cancer illegal is simply EVIL.

Please like our facebook pages:
http://www.facebook.com/THeCureForCancers?fref=ts

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Singapore-Cannabis-Awareness/379102418816815

and spread the message. The war on drugs is a 40 year old mistake which need to be corrected, just like the times when slavery was abolished and the abolishment of the death penalty for witch craft. And the cure for cancer is currently suppressed under the guise of the drug war.

Many countries have seen that the drug war is not working and the medical use of Cannabis is undeniable. It is just a matter of time before the word reaches ASEAN.

The problem of meth is because of the DEA stance and fight on coke IMHO. My background is economics so I am looking at the whole situation from a laissez faire economic perspective. Let's assume all drugs were legal. The first thing is the price of coke would come down by 80-90% because there is no risk of suppliers long along the food chain from farm gate to dinner table being caught so each is not putting a risk premium on their supply. Suddenly meth does not have the price advantages compared to cocaine that it has now. Thus consumption of coke should increase whilst meth would decrease because they will be at a similar price and I think most people agree bit of coke is less damaging than a bit of speed. The addicts will be addicts whether or not each is illegal.

My other view is that people will equilibriate and regulate their consumption levels even with the price drop. People will know they can't get whacked every night or they will lose jobs, lifestyle etc and thus not be able to enjoy it at all. Just as they do now with McDonald's or fast food. Nice once in a while but cant live on it day after day.

The war is an abysmal failure. Think of how much is spent on customs, jails, courts, police around the world and it has no effect on supply, only on price. It also has no effect on demand because if people want they can get. This is all about us control on emerging south and central American economies. Australia was said to ride the sheep's back, the US is petrified of countries like Columbia or Bolivia getting rich on the back of the coca leaf. The us then has to find another source of cheap labour close to home. Big problem for them if the Latinos don't have to work for slave wages eh.

Many of you have been brainwashed by the leegime and the DEA

 

[Jah_rastafar_I]

The problem of meth is because of the DEA stance and fight on coke IMHO. My background is economics so I am looking at the whole situation from a laissez faire economic perspective. Let's assume all drugs were legal. The first thing is the price of coke would come down by 80-90% because there is no risk of suppliers long along the food chain from farm gate to dinner table being caught so each is not putting a risk premium on their supply. Suddenly meth does not have the price advantages compared to cocaine that it has now. Thus consumption of coke should increase whilst meth would decrease because they will be at a similar price and I think most people agree bit of coke is less damaging than a bit of speed. The addicts will be addicts whether or not each is illegal.

My other view is that people will equilibriate and regulate their consumption levels even with the price drop. People will know they can't get whacked every night or they will lose jobs, lifestyle etc and thus not be able to enjoy it at all. Just as they do now with McDonald's or fast food. Nice once in a while but cant live on it day after day.

The war is an abysmal failure. Think of how much is spent on customs, jails, courts, police around the world and it has no effect on supply, only on price. It also has no effect on demand because if people want they can get. This is all about us control on emerging south and central American economies. Australia was said to ride the sheep's back, the US is petrified of countries like Columbia or Bolivia getting rich on the back of the coca leaf. The us then has to find another source of cheap labour close to home. Big problem for them if the Latinos don't have to work for slave wages eh.

Many of you have been brainwashed by the leegime and the DEA

Ok see your pt but i really want to see if that would actually play out like you have said and yes the US has been sabotaging south america for the longest time but you know it's perfectly fine cos the US isn't china.

 

[mulvi74]

Ok see your pt but i really want to see if that would actually play out like you have said and yes the US has been sabotaging south america for the longest time but you know it's perfectly fine cos the US isn't china.

Surely it is worth a try as opposed to the abject failure that is the current war on drugs

 

[Jah_rastafar_I]

Surely it is worth a try as opposed to the abject failure that is the current war on drugs

Why it won't actually ever happen unless the US as the current entity as it is gets dissolved. Rest assured that sabotaging foreign countries to allow american dominance to continue and to prevent any other foreign country to get a leg up is high up on the US agenda. The day the US stops doing it is the day it doesn't exist as it currently is any longer.

 

[drifter]

Wah! you ex police like Ah Ram and GD ah!

I'm just a NS police .

 

[ray_of_hope]

Since there's an anti-death penalty lobby in Spore there should now be a pro-death penalty lobby pushing for a restoration of mandatory death penalty for serious drug offences given the recent upsurge in reported cases.

 

[Narong Wongwan]

Since there's an anti-death penalty lobby in Spore there should now be a pro-death penalty lobby pushing for a restoration of mandatory death penalty for serious drug offences given the recent upsurge in reported cases.

First lobby to go after Burmese drug lords enjoying the high life in sinkieland....white scums got balls to do that? Only wayang la.

 

[GoldenDragon]

First lobby to go after Burmese drug lords enjoying the high life in sinkieland....white scums got balls to do that? Only wayang la.

Money neutralises many things. First time always more difficult. After awhile, it becomes a habit and without it, one is uneasy.