A British national, Lindsay Sandiford, has been sentenced to death in Bali for smuggling nearly 5kg of cocaine into Indonesia. Although it was of course known that Indonesia can impose the death penalty for drug importation, the sentence was hugely unexpected, not least because the prosecution had only sought 15 years imprisonment.

Her defence has involved many factors, from claims of threats against her family to force her into smuggling, to evidence presented suggesting that she was vulnerable to exploitation due to a history of mental illness.

I am opposed to the death penalty in principle. However, I am far from swayed by the defence claims, and the fact is that she was essentially caught red-handed. If you are going to smuggle drugs into a country with the death penalty for that offence, I guess you should be prepared to face that penalty.

The UK government has of course, as a staunch opponent of the death penalty, strongly condemned the sentence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21137649

So, where do you stand on the sentence?

I am against the death penalty. But I also respect the laws of other countries. I also think that the harshness of the sentence has to do with the fact that it wasn´t a few grams she was smuggling. Five kg of cocaine is A LOT.

Well, always sad to see archaic modes of punishment. Then again, it's well known that you risk your life if you smuggle drugs in Asia. With 5kg, she pretty much had it coming.

Quoting Rara (Reply 2): Well, always sad to see archaic modes of punishment. Then again, it's well known that you risk your life if you smuggle drugs in Asia. With 5kg, she pretty much had it coming.

Yup. What do you make of the defence claims of coercion?

Here is an article from The Independent which makes the argument that most drug mules are merely the pawns of traffickers, who should be treated leniently. It further claims that 'most' are coerced into it somehow.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...8427027.html?origin=internalSearch

I disagree with much of this. What say you?

Are those policies any better at fighting drug abuse in those countries ?

Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter): So, where do you stand on the sentence?

She did the crime, so her punishment is fitting. How do they execute people in Indonesia?

Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter): I am opposed to the death penalty in principle. However, I am far from swayed by the defence claims, and the fact is that she was essentially caught red-handed. If you are going to smuggle drugs into a country with the death penalty for that offence, I guess you should be prepared to face that penalty.

I am the same way. I see stuff all the time I think is way too harsh but you really have to ask how they didn't see it coming. I disagree with the National Guard soldiers at Kent State but you have to ask the protesters "come on, do you really think it was smart to throw rocks at guys with guns?"

I do sense that maybe this is being used as an example since the prosecution only wanted 15 years. Hopefully she's not being treated unfairly. I'm against the death penalty too, but if they are going to use it, I hope it's at least used consistently.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 5): How do they execute people in Indonesia?

Firing Squad in this instance.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 5): She did the crime, so her punishment is fitting. How do they execute people in Indonesia?

She is sentenced to death by firing squad.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 6): I do sense that maybe this is being used as an example since the prosecution only wanted 15 years

That is quite possibly so. It seems to be the case that many people sentenced to death in Indonesia never actually have the sentence carried out, so it may be that at some point there is a commution. On the other hand, if they are really hell-bent on setting that example they may carry the punishment through.

I have no compassion for this woman. She should have known the risks by bringing in 5kg of coke. Idiot.

I would like to see the return of physical punishment here in the USA. I think that if a drug dealer, a thief, a burglar, etc. knew that if they were caught and convicted and that their punishment would be 100 lashes with a cane, they may rethink their line of work. And if they still entered their preferred life of crime I bet they would soon reach out to a different occupation after the first time they were caned. Screw prison, the first conviction gets you 50 lashes, the second conviction gets you 100 lashes, and the 3rd gets you 200 plus time in the big house.

Wishful thinking...

I believe that there should be an opportunity for commutation if the prisoner work with police & customs officers, identifying their supplier and the operation they were involved in.

Otherwise it should be no surprise that there is a death penalty, and that it is carried out.

In Singapore you face the death penalty if you carry more that 12 g of drugs, 5 Kilos is a lot. BTW it is written in the entrance form passengers fill in most all countries in SE Asia that you face the death penalty for drug smuggling, so she was warned, her problem.

Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 11): In Singapore you face the death penalty if you carry more that 12 g of drugs, 5 Kilos is a lot. BTW it is written in the entrance form passengers fill in most all countries in SE Asia that you face the death penalty for drug smuggling, so she was warned, her problem.

That always makes me laugh. It's kind of too late by the time you get to the form-filling stage for immigration. Are you supposed to own up straight away to avoid the death penalty?

I agree with the sentiments. I vehemently oppose the War on Drugs and I think that killing someone for mere possession of a substance that cannot harm an innocent bystander (it's not an explosive or a potent nerve gas or a biological agent) is absolute moral corruption.

That said, countries like Indonesia make no secret of the fact that the penalty for drug smuggling is death. Don't like it? Don't go there. And most CERTAINLY don't smuggle drugs there.

They're stupid.

Both her and the people in Indonesia who uphold the death penalty for this crime.

Death penalty IMO can only even be a thing to consider in 2 cases (as in, a coherent argument can be made, not that I necessarily support it): murder (this includes war crimes/crimes against humanity) and aggravated rape.

These countries are taking it too far. However, this fact is well known, and therefore, this course of events could have been expected.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13): I agree with the sentiments. I vehemently oppose the War on Drugs and I think that killing someone for mere possession of a substance that cannot harm an innocent bystander (it's not an explosive or a potent nerve gas or a biological agent) is absolute moral corruption.

What if these drugs somehow found themselves in the hands of children, say parents who have OD'd? E.g. Children think its sweets/sugar whatever, takes some, dies. They would be innocent bystanders. What about vulnerable people? In some African countries, some drug lords forcibly inject drugs into young woman, to get them hooked. They need the drugs but can't afford it so the drug lord makes them work as prostitutes. Drugs ruin innocent lives.

A320ajm

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 9): I think that if a drug dealer, a thief, a burglar, etc. knew that if they were caught and convicted and that their punishment would be 100 lashes with a cane, they may rethink their line of work.

Well, the death penalty is certainly not a deterrent against murder, so why do you think this would work?

I main issue I have with this whole situation is that it's the drug mules that get punished, not the real criminals. Most drug mules have been coerced in some way to carry the drugs.

I completely oppose the death penalty, so hope that her punishment is reduced on appeal.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13): I agree with the sentiments. I vehemently oppose the War on Drugs and I think that killing someone for mere possession of a substance that cannot harm an innocent bystander (it's not an explosive or a potent nerve gas or a biological agent) is absolute moral corruption. That said, countries like Indonesia make no secret of the fact that the penalty for drug smuggling is death. Don't like it? Don't go there. And most CERTAINLY don't smuggle drugs there.

Couldn't have written it better myself!

Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter): So, where do you stand on the sentence?

In the same place as always: the death penalty is barbarian and executions are murder.

Whenever this repugnant practice comes into play, the crime committed takes a backseat to the state-sponsored homicide. Shame on the judge, not even the prosecution demanded this despicable sentence.

[Edited 2013-01-22 15:00:13]

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 15): Drugs ruin innocent lives.

So does alcohol. So does tobacco. So do cars. So does cholesterol. So do airplanes. So do trains. So do bicycles. So do guns. So do knives. So do electrical appliances. So do bathtubs.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 19): So does alcohol. So does tobacco. So do cars. So does cholesterol. So do airplanes. So do trains. So do bicycles. So do guns. So do knives. So do electrical appliances. So do bathtubs.

Drugs are inherently more dangerous, and fund other criminal activities.

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 20): Drugs are inherently more dangerous, and fund other criminal activities.

So do bathtubs.

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 20): and fund other criminal activities.

To be fair, it's because they are illegal. If you made tobacco illegal, I think you'd see it turn into a 'dangerous drug.' I'm ok with banning a drug that really only causes the user to commit mayhem and harm others, but if it's only harming yourself, go for it. I also don't want to get hung up on technicalities like "what if someone smokes a lot of weed and goes driving" because in that case, we really need to ban alcohol because people abuse that and do stupid things with it and it's legal

Quoting Rara (Reply 21): Quoting A320ajm (Reply 20): Drugs are inherently more dangerous, and fund other criminal activities. So do bathtubs.

      

That absolutely cracked me up!

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22): we really need to ban alcohol because people abuse that and do stupid things with it and it's legal

Not to mention, alcohol funded plenty of criminal activity.....when it was illegal. Is there a connection there?

And I'm much more afraid of electrocuting myself than of OD'ing on whatever drug. I wouldn't necessarily make the case that drugs are inherently more dangerous than electricity, or than driving. Or than food, if we're talking about heart disease and such.

Anyway....

What is especially disturbing in this case is that the prosecution recommended jailing her 15 years and that Sandiford cooperated with the police to catch other drug couriers, who got all got relatively light sentences.

ABC news

Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter): So, where do you stand on the sentence?

Too harsh, even though I'm pro-death penalty. She doesn't deserve the sentence imposed.

Deport her and let her go home. According to the article, the cops screwed up when they arrested her. This is pathetic all around.

I'm not completely against the death penalty, although I do think it should only be used on the most depraved of murderers. Low level drug mules? Gimme a break.

Do I feel sorry for her? Not really, because she's the idiot that smuggled drugs into a country that is known for executing drug smugglers.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 6): I disagree with the National Guard soldiers at Kent State but you have to ask the protesters "come on, do you really think it was smart to throw rocks at guys with guns?"

Don't believe for one second that they didn't know what they were doing. It's no different than what the Occutards are doing now: baiting the police and catching the retaliation on camera, and editing it so that it looks like it was an unprovoked assault on peaceful protesters.

Thank goodness their video editing skills are crappy.

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 20): Drugs are inherently more dangerous, and fund other criminal activities.

No offense, but you bought hard into the DARE propaganda. There are dozens of drugs far more "dangerous" than cocaine, and they're perfectly legal.

Quoting allrite (Reply 24):

Which I find stupid. What incentive is there for drug mules to cooperate if they're just as likely to face the death penalty?

And people complain about the drug law penalties in the USA ! Still I do have a problem with a death penalty for 'mueling' drugs, it should be for the dealers and cartel leaders they work for. A foreign drug mule with such a quantity of such drugs entering the USA would most likely get 25+ years although deals could be done to reduce that sentence by dragging in their masters and at the end of their sentence deportation and a ban on ever getting a Visa again.

We are all aware of he financial need, including seeking to get out of debt, as a way to get into a country for work as well as extortion by drug bosses that push many to mule drugs. Too many will take the chance thinking they will be one to get away with it, some will be set up to be caught so others don't.

I am not sure if a UK citizen needs a Visa to enter Indonesia, but if they do, perhaps those officials that issue Visas for that (and other countries) need to be more careful in that process. Maybe there needs to be stricter financial checks to keep out poor and in debt people as well as an educational requirement and even testing of it, to bring out important cultural and legal issues, including drug crime penalties, prior to getting a Visa.

I am in agreement with you.

Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter): a history of mental illness

This should be her get out of jail free card, if this can indeed be proved then its quite possible she should not be entirely responsible for her actions.

However, from the BBC article, it seems the whole family is in a bit of a mess and she was doing this to raise cash to pay off debts. If you are sane enough to raise a family and come up with such a plan and follow through with it, while not wanting to underestimate mental illness in any way whatsoever, I have my doubts she is such a simpleton as to be oblivious as to what she was getting into or the consequences thereof and any mental problems were possibly breakdown related to her circumstances, not a pre-existing mental condition. If she is tested now, you bet she has signs of some mental problems facing a firing squad when expecting 15 years behind bars...

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 26): No offense, but you bought hard into the DARE propaganda. There are dozens of drugs far more "dangerous" than cocaine, and they're perfectly legal.

I was talking about drugs in general. I never mentioned cocaine. I am against illegal substances fully, and support strong punishments for those wishing to partake in them in any sense.

Quoting Rara (Reply 21): So do bathtubs.

Bathtubs have legitimate rational uses, illegal substances for recreational purposes do not. This is a terrible counter argument.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 23): That absolutely cracked me up!

If you found that comment funny, you must be very easily amused and have no real judgment of good comedy.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22): To be fair, it's because they are illegal.

That's not the point, drugs ARE illegal so DO cause problems.

Regards,
A320ajm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 16): Well, the death penalty is certainly not a deterrent against murder, so why do you think this would work?

The death penalty does not deter murder because it is not swiflty enforced. You have a better chance passing away from old age than by execution when you are on death row. Speed the appeals and punishment process up to months, not years and you may see a difference.

If a drug mule, dealer, etc were caned word would get out that it really hurts and isn't worth it. Physical pain is a great motivator to correct unwanted behavior.

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 15): What if these drugs somehow found themselves in the hands of children, say parents who have OD'd? E.g. Children think its sweets/sugar whatever, takes some, dies.

Then we should ban all pharmaceuticals, too, because that happens.

Illegal drugs, especially the dangerous ones, are usually not very active when swallowed. And they don't taste very good. It's very unlikely that a child would orally consume a large quantity of cocaine (HCl or free base), heroin, or amphetamines. These drugs do have oral activity, but the bioavailability is poor, so the dose is much higher.

The hallucinogens LSD, psylocybin, and mescaline are quite active orally, but the lethal doses are astronomical (tens to thousands of times the active dose). Cannabis is similar. To the best of my knowledge, fatal overdose of cannabis has never been reported in a human.

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 30): Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 23): That absolutely cracked me up! If you found that comment funny, you must be very easily amused and have no real judgment of good comedy.

Well now I'm offended!

But I've realized you might be correct. This comment is much funnier:

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 30): Bathtubs have legitimate rational uses, illegal substances for recreational purposes do not. This is a terrible counter argument.

  

But I guess I missed the part where the thread transitioned to personal attacks.

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 30): That's not the point, drugs ARE illegal so DO cause problems.

So make them legal, and all problems go away. At least, that's the obvious analysis from your cause and effect. Which is obviously not correct, as perfectly legal items cause problems as well, like....alcohol and cigarettes.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32): Then we should ban all pharmaceuticals, too, because that happens.

If you are taking pharmaceuticals then it's for medical reasons. And the way your argument goes, you have basically said it's safe to have illegal substances round children - don't even know what to say to that!

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 33): But I guess I missed the part where the thread transitioned to personal attacks.

That wasn't personal, and what an overreaction. I was pointing out you were laughing at something that clearly wasn't funny and was immature.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 33): So make them legal, and all problems go away. At least, that's the obvious analysis from your cause and effect. Which is obviously not correct, as perfectly legal items cause problems as well, like....alcohol and cigarettes.

How hard is it to see that I don't want illegal drugs legal at all, I wish they were eradicated off the face of the Earth. Alcohol and cigarettes don't cause the severity of problems drugs do. I thought most people would have been well familiar with how the Taliban used poppy fields to fund terrorism, for example.

Regards,
A user who is losing faith in the users on this site.

Quoting TheSorcerer (Reply 27): What incentive is there for drug mules to cooperate if they're just as likely to face the death penalty?

That's easy.........( "If you don't tell us what we want to know, we will shoot you at 6:PM, TODAY"; "if you DO tell us what we want to know, we won't shoot you for at least 6 months". (99.9% will choose the latter "option")

But back to the female drug mule; I see it the same way as the guy Robert Blake used to play on TV; you know, the guy with the big white bird on his shoulder all the time....( Baretta ) ( I just remembered )......."If you can't do the time, better not do the crime"! (in this case "the time" is a date with a firing squad)

And for all the "doubters" that think execution doesn't "work"; It has been conclusively proven that NO muderer who has been executed for his / her crime, has EVER committed another one. And for those who insist that it's "cheaper" to lock 'em up for life, than to shoot 'em, I can assure you that won't be the case in Indonesia !

Charley

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 34): A user who is losing faith in the users on this site.

Don't take it personal. I wouldn't. Learned that lesson long ago when I first joined. Cut VikkyVik some slack here.... No harm, no foul.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32): Quoting A320ajm (Reply 15): What if these drugs somehow found themselves in the hands of children, say parents who have OD'd? E.g. Children think its sweets/sugar whatever, takes some, dies. Then we should ban all pharmaceuticals, too, because that happens.

We should ban cars because people cannot be responsible when they get drunk or high then get behind the wheel. DUI's don't do much to deter much because people still do it.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 36): Don't take it personal. I wouldn't. Learned that lesson long ago when I first joined. Cut VikkyVik some slack here.... No harm, no foul.

  

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 36): We should ban cars because people cannot be responsible when they get drunk or high then get behind the wheel. DUI's don't do much to deter much because people still do it.

I do think the illegal drugs which cause the most harm should remain illegal. No society needs crack cocaine or methamphetamine, or heroin, for example. In many respects I agree with many arguments about the war on drugs, and do certainly think that criminalising personal users is pretty futile. Addicts need treatment, not jail, although clearly people that go out robbing to fund their habits need both treatment and some form of criminal sanction. Ultimately though, the focus is all wrong.

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 34): I was pointing out you were laughing at something that clearly wasn't funny and was immature.

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 34): That wasn't personal, and what an overreaction.

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 30): you must be very easily amused and have no real judgment of good comedy.

When you say "you must be...", that pretty much defines a personal comment/attack. Senses of humor differ. I certainly don't care if you don't find it funny, so I'm not sure why you care that I do. And FYI, this:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 33): Well now I'm offended!

...was a joke. I'm not offended at all, nor am I overreacting.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 36): Cut VikkyVik some slack here.... No harm, no foul.

I appreciate it, to be sure, but I'm not sure why I need any slack cut. I only responded to a personal comment.

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 34): Alcohol and cigarettes don't cause the severity of problems drugs do.

I'm not convinced of that at all. Drunk driving? That's a huge issue. Liver disease, lung cancer, emphysema, COPD, heart disease, alcohol poisoning, etc., etc., etc. Alcohol and tobacco are so much more widespread than drugs, too.

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 34): Alcohol and cigarettes don't cause the severity of problems drugs do.

Funniest comment I've read on A.net. Beats flairport.

Hahahaha. Alcohol and cigarettes are actually drugs, no matter how much society might like getting pissed every weekend.

Look at the stats, dearie. Look at how many people tobacco kills (and I've never heard of a second hand cocaine snorter). Or alcohol... especially innocent people, as AirframeAS said below:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 36): We should ban cars because people cannot be responsible when they get drunk or high then get behind the wheel. DUI's don't do much to deter much because people still do it.

[Edited 2013-01-23 15:20:15]

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 38):

Please forgive me for not realising the 1st world problems caused by drinking and smoking you listed are more severe problems than issues like gang turf wars in Mexico, poppy fields funding terrorism or women in some African countries being made to work as prostitutes to payback their 'pimp' who got them forcibly hooked on drugs....
My mistake....

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 40): 1st world problems caused by drinking and smoking

Why would you assume those are solely 1st world problems?

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 34): If you are taking pharmaceuticals then it's for medical reasons. And the way your argument goes, you have basically said it's safe to have illegal substances round children - don't even know what to say to that!

How about this: I'm a board-certified pediatrician and I know an AWFUL lot about this subject. I am NOT saying it is safe to have drugs, legal or otherwise, around children. I am saying that the majority of illegal drugs do not kill or severely harm children by mere ingestion.

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 34): Alcohol and cigarettes don't cause the severity of problems drugs do.

Really? Because when I was in medical school I lost count of the cases of emphyzema and cirrhosis caused by tobacco and cigarettes. Oddly, I saw very few cases of long-term problems being caused by cannabis use. I didn't even see that many chronic problems being caused by cocaine use, although I saw one (and only one) case of bacterial endocarditis caused by injecting heroin. Of course, the heroin itself isn't the culprit. If they could get clean drugs and clean needles and syringes, they wouldn't get bacterial endocarditis.

In fact the MOST DANGEROUS AND MOST ADDICTIVE DRUG IN THE WORLD is... tobacco. It clogs arteries. It destroys the body's reparative processes. It causes cancer in just about every tissue it touches. I have yet to see a drug cause more damage to society at large than tobacco. I'm here to tell ya, folks: tobacco is evil incarnate.

As for alcohol, I've watched it destroy lives. I've seen teenagers come into the emergency room with alcohol levels in the 400's. One girl was wearing pants...but no underwear. That was scary because she'd put on underwear that evening. Where did it go? She didn't remember. I've seen people die of liver disease and it was horrible to watch. It may not be the evil that tobacco is, but it has a very narrow safety index (the amount to kill you is less than 10 times the amount required to get you drunk). I haven't seen a death from acute alcohol toxicity but only because we were there to intervene.

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 34): I thought most people would have been well familiar with how the Taliban used poppy fields to fund terrorism, for example.

Well, yes. Because nobody else sells opium. If Monsanto and ADM could sell it, the Taliban would be unable to compete and the funds would go to Monsanto and ADM shareholders and not to Al Qaeda. And with heroin available to addicts at a known concentration in clean/pure form in clean syringes, there would be fewer deaths and fewer injuries from it.

Tell me, do you know the pharmacodynamics of heroin? Did you know that in your own country, heroin is actually legally available? You might have even been administered it at some point in your life if you ever showed up at your local A&E after a bad accident. It's called "diamorphine" in the UK. We don't use it in the us. We use fentanyl and meperidine, which are similarly potent but harder to synthesize (and don't cross-react for morphine-allergic patients).

So... do you know how heroin is synthesized? Do you know why it is so much more potent than morphine? Do you know what receptor it binds to in the brain? Do you know how it gets into the brain? I'd be interested to know if you do, because you should know about these things before making ridiculous statements like the ones that you've made.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 41): Why would you assume those are solely 1st world problems?

Indeed. They certainly are not solely the preserve of richer lands.

[Edited 2013-01-23 16:22:59]

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 40): issues like gang turf wars in Mexico, poppy fields funding terrorism

You do realise that both are issues solely because Cocaine and Heroin have been made illegal? Just look at all the gang wars that alcohol prohibition caused.

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 40): Please forgive me for not realising the 1st world problems caused by drinking and smoking

I am quite baffled on how you came to this line of thinking......   

Care to explain?

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 40): Please forgive me for not realising the 1st world problems caused by drinking and smoking you listed are more severe problems than issues like gang turf wars in Mexico, poppy fields funding terrorism or women in some African countries being made to work as prostitutes to payback their 'pimp' who got them forcibly hooked on drugs....

Well aloges took the words right out of my mouth:

Quoting aloges (Reply 44): You do realise that both are issues solely because Cocaine and Heroin have been made illegal? Just look at all the gang wars that alcohol prohibition caused.

Yep. Why doesn't the cartel smuggle in tobacco or alcohol?

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 40): women in some African countries being made to work as prostitutes to payback their 'pimp' who got them forcibly hooked on drugs....

Can you corroborrate this? It's awfully hard to get someone hooked on drugs without their consent.

Look, the point of my sayings is that drugs are illegal and do cause problems. Saying well that's only because they are illegal is beside the point on what I'm saying. Women in African countries have been known to have been forcibly injected repeatedly with drugs (and yes I have studied this). And yes Doc, anyone who has been on this site for 5 mins knows yoh are a doctor...And I really don't care about the medical questions you asked. This is as much a social problem. My opinions are not going to change and quite frankly this woman deserves everything she is going to get. She knew the law and tough if she didnt - ignorance is not an excuse in law. And finally, the problems you listed are mainly 1st world problems and if you can't accept that, well it shows how naive you are.

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 48): Look, the point of my sayings is that drugs are illegal and do cause problems.

Two very potent drugs are legal in most places and cause immense damage.

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 48): Saying well that's only because they are illegal is beside the point on what I'm saying.

It isn't, you were describing the very sort of problem that stems from illicit trade.

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 48): My opinions are not going to change

Then why are you participating in the discussion?

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 48): this woman deserves everything she is going to get.

The Indonesian prosecution disagreed. And what about the possible coercion?

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 48): And finally, the problems you listed are mainly 1st world problems

Nonsense. People all over the world drink excessively and smoke, so the problems associated with those drugs occur all over the world. Why would an Indonesian chain smoker have other problems than a British one? Why would a Siberian drunkard have less liver trouble than one from Bavaria?

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 48): if you can't accept that, well it shows how naive you are.

Why the personal attack?