Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whats morally wrong is to continue to allow the drug trade to foster which kills God knows how many people every year. Thats just in the production and selling of it. Not even mentioning the overdoses and death from actual use.
Someone buying drugs is supporting the drug trade and the reason for people getting killed for them to get that drug. They are not innocent by any stretch of the imagination.
Drugs are bad for society. My reason is simple. They have no place in a clean, civil, safe, moral society.
1) Are you honestly trying to compare the mind of a murderer with someone that does drugs? I drive after having a few beers on occasion. Do you honestly think I would get behind the wheel of the car after drinking if any trace of alcohol found in my system meant the death penalty? Hell no. I have smoked weed once or twice. Do you think I would have smoked it if getting caught meant the death penalty? Hell no. Lower the crime is only one benefit. You are missing the other benefit, ie cleaning up the streets and prison and lowering costs. Every drug dealer put the death is one less drug dealer.
2) A seller is someone that deals drugs for monetary gain. Hell yea.
This is with the assumption that there are a finite number of drug dealers. There aren't. Don't you think executing people, likely in mass numbers, would cause a bit of societal stress. We'd see friends die for having drugs.
Also, lowering costs? You must truly know nothing. Life in prison costs less money than a death penalty case and if you think the appeals process for a murder takes a while, impinge how long it would take to decide if we should really murder someone for selling pot. A high schooler, for example, as I found you would not exclude them.
The death penalty is a vestige of a less civilized time. As it is, we should not have it, but to expand it to non-violent crimes is to let go of any moral compass. I'd refuse to support a state that employs such mediaeval methods. I'd consider it an act of evil that no person with any moral standard could ever support.
This is with the assumption that there are a finite number of drug dealers. There aren't. Don't you think executing people, likely in mass numbers, would cause a bit of societal stress. We'd see friends die for having drugs.
Also, lowering costs? You must truly know nothing. Life in prison costs less money than a death penalty case and if you think the appeals process for a murder takes a while, impinge how long it would take to decide if we should really murder someone for selling pot. A high schooler, for example, as I found you would not exclude them.
The death penalty is a vestige of a less civilized time. As it is, we should not have it, but to expand it to non-violent crimes is to let go of any moral compass. I'd refuse to support a state that employs such mediaeval methods. I'd consider it an act of evil that no person with any moral standard could ever support.
It's not even a logical question anyway as it would never pass constitutional muster.
Also, lowering costs? You must truly know nothing. Life in prison costs less money than a death penalty case and if you think the appeals process for a murder takes a while, impinge how long it would take to decide if we should really murder someone for selling pot.
I'm not sure you get the true spirit of this narrow-minded poster. I don't think he or she wants a typical death penalty case when it comes to drug possession. Instead, I believe they are picturing some sort of fast-track arrangement, maybe even Hitler-style public executions carried out the same day.
Because if that is not true, this nation would be reduced to just two types of people. You are either on death row waiting for your next appeal, or you are one of the 50,000,000 judges trying to process all the death penalty cases.
That's pretty much how the Chinese people eradicated Opium from their culture, after WW2.
China still has a huge drug problem. I would imagine a lot of the elimination was a public puff piece to support Maos and the Parties crack down on it. I doubt it really dented it as much as they said.
This is with the assumption that there are a finite number of drug dealers. There aren't. Don't you think executing people, likely in mass numbers, would cause a bit of societal stress. We'd see friends die for having drugs.
Also, lowering costs? You must truly know nothing. Life in prison costs less money than a death penalty case and if you think the appeals process for a murder takes a while, impinge how long it would take to decide if we should really murder someone for selling pot. A high schooler, for example, as I found you would not exclude them.
The death penalty is a vestige of a less civilized time. As it is, we should not have it, but to expand it to non-violent crimes is to let go of any moral compass. I'd refuse to support a state that employs such mediaeval methods. I'd consider it an act of evil that no person with any moral standard could ever support.
The number of drug dealers would drastically drop. Not only would you be executing the ones caught outright, you would also get all the ones being turned in for that 1,000 dollar reward. No one would be able to circumvent that. Best believe someone is gonna out you eventually. Would become a far too risky profession.
As for costs, the system would need to be altered. In which it would be a million times cheaper to execute offenders than life in prison. Id exclude any kids under the age of 16. Older than that would be no appeals or excuses. At that age you are old enough to understand the severity of consequences.
To consume drugs many people have to die. So its not a victomless crime by any stretch of the imagination.
You seem quite soft and tolerant on the drug problem. Which is common and is why we will never clean up our society.
Not gonna happen. No way in hell the US is gonna legalize heroine and meth. Not a chance in hell.
Not to mention this sacrificing principle and moral code.
I want my daughter growing up in a drug free environment. Where even the mention of drugs brings gasps.
You mandate capital punishment for possession and give 1,000 dollar rewards for turning in sellers and it would pretty much wipe out the drug trade.
I won't touch on the capital punishment (which I disagree with, but there are others here covering that), but the 'rewards' for snitching on sellers is a really bad idea. People would have to live in fear of having drugs planted on them.
Not to mention, the ones who'd really know who the actual sellers are will not likely be the types who'd turn them in for it.
You'd get a bunch of false suspects and maybe a few suburban high schoolers selling a little weed. Not the real bad apples.
They tried that in the Netherlands. Not exactly legal but definitely decriminalized. My impression is that it the policy brought a whole range of other issues and the government has backtracked somewhat - although they are still not strict in the way of the US. - there is research online on this.
The Netherlands distinguishes between hard and soft drugs. Marijuana is a controlled substance, a misdemeanor, punishable by fine. Hard drugs are illegal.
Drug trafficking, production, importing and exporting are serious crimes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
