Does the sentence fit the crime?

This is why the drugs are still getting in..................................

and this..............

people who are addicted to drugs will do anything for the next fix.........

Technophobe, the landlord has to take some moral responsibiklity if he serves and allows a person to get drunk on his premises in fact the law dictates that he has a responsibility NOT TO SERVE a drunk.
Fast Robert I think what Alpbach is saying is that the sentence for drug importattion is high because of the potential impact it has on lots of lives, the victims can run into hundreds, almost on a par with someone like Hitler who doesn't pull the trigger just loads and aims the gun, but still an accessorie to the death and misery that is caused.

plimmerton811 wrote:Technophobe, the landlord has to take some moral responsibiklity if he serves and allows a person to get drunk on his premises in fact the law dictates that he has a responsibility NOT TO SERVE a drunk.
Fast Robert I think what Alpbach is saying is that the sentence for drug importattion is high because of the potential impact it has on lots of lives, the victims can run into hundreds, almost on a par with someone like Hitler who doesn't pull the trigger just loads and aims the gun, but still an accessorie to the death and misery that is caused.

Thank you plimmerton811........... :party3:

plimmerton811 wrote:Technophobe, the landlord has to take some moral responsibiklity if he serves and allows a person to get drunk on his premises in fact the law dictates that he has a responsibility NOT TO SERVE a drunk.
Fast Robert I think what Alpbach is saying is that the sentence for drug importattion is high because of the potential impact it has on lots of lives, the victims can run into hundreds, almost on a par with someone like Hitler who doesn't pull the trigger just loads and aims the gun, but still an accessorie to the death and misery that is caused.

But that's a situation created by society, a sum total of our attitudes.
Heroin is diamorphine. One isn't from hell and one isn't from heaven. The line in the sand is completely arbitrary. We have chosen to support policies that criminalise the whole massive market.

If I were to start finding you pictures of deformed babies and the like caused by any one of the everyday recreational activities that our society permits then what would be the difference?

People seem to be under the impression that the whole world wants to get wasted on toxic chemicals.
No, only the same people want to get wasted, more may be inquisitive. The only ones we stop completely by prohibition are those that can't be bothered anyway.

If I was a smack addict, customs would offer no deterrent. I'd get the stuff in somehow. As albach says, the hardcore will do anything. Surely going to a doctor to get weaned off is better than going to a criminal? They hardly ever do go to the doc because they don't want to go to jail/lose their kid. Whatever.

How many more lives does the drug industry adversely affect being a criminal enterprise?

plimmerton811 wrote:Technophobe, the landlord has to take some moral responsibiklity if he serves and allows a person to get drunk on his premises in fact the law dictates that he has a responsibility NOT TO SERVE a drunk.
Fast Robert I think what Alpbach is saying is that the sentence for drug importattion is high because of the potential impact it has on lots of lives, the victims can run into hundreds, almost on a par with someone like Hitler who doesn't pull the trigger just loads and aims the gun, but still an accessorie to the death and misery that is caused.

Have you EVER seen that law enforced? I certainly haven't, and it's a law that's broken hundreds of times every single week.

As for the Hitler comparison, quite frankly it's absolutely ridiculous. Did the millions of Jews choose to get gassed? Does a junkie choose to take drugs? The answers are plainly diferent and that's where the comparison fails completely.

We are not talking about who wants to do anything. We are talking about the sentence that is handed down to a drug dealer as opposed to a murderer. What has been said is that on the face of it drug dealing may not be as bad as a murder so lets have a lighter sentence. What Alpach and I are saying is on the face of it, it may be worthy of a lesser sentence but consider what misery a drug dealer leaves in his wake and that is possibly why they are given a greater sentence. perhaps this is what the magistrate takes into cionsideration when he levies a stiff sentence to druggies. Hitler did not to my knowledge actually kill anyone, much the same as a dealer, however he gave orders which was responsible for the deaths of millions much like a dealer selling drugs knowing what he/she is doing and the lives they are to ruin. So the way I think the comparison is not ridiculous, it just needs some lateral thinking. Irrespective of whether I have seen the alcohol law enforced, and I believe it has been where a death was involved through someone drinking too much on licensed premises, it is still an offence and to my mind if they get someone pissed out their tiny mind then they have a responsibility as a landlord.

The Criminal Court on Friday found activist Daranee Chancheonsilapakul, aka Da Torpedo, guilty of lese majeste and sentenced her to a combined jail term of 18 years.

Daranee, 46, made a series of inflammatory speeches at the red-shirt rallies, notably the demonstration last June at Sanam Luang. Her remarks were against the 2006 coup but laced with offensive references to the monarchy.

The court said in its verdict that Daranee had maliciously offended the monarchy as per Article 112 of the Criminal Code.

She was penalised for three counts of lese majeste, each carrying the punishment for six year imprisonment.

The court found no cause for leniency because the defendant showed no remorse.