Outsourcing a job overseas

[echnidna]

Nowadays going offshore seems very respectable.

So should we outsource some of our justice system to overseas courts etc

Expect this could end up in the orange room

[Kev Y.]

Hang em here, include the druggies and the soccer/phootie hooligans also!!!!:cool:

[Termite]

We will continue to be on a downward spiral untill we start handing out punishments that fit the crime, in all areas. A slap on the wrist is no deterrent.
The goody two shoes have wrecked our country, child and youth crimes are rampant but do you know what the penalties are for disciplining your child with a slap?
Don't get the idea that I'm in favour of brutalising children, but the first word a child should learn the meaning of is NO! How many do?

[Grunt]

The death penalty just isn't a deterrent for drug users. If they were concerned about death then they wouldn't be users. You will end up killing a lot of sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers and not reduce the drug addictions or crime rate.

The drug addiction is a health issue not a law enforcement issue.

The organised crime elements who arrange most of the importation of illicit drugs do not want it legalised because they make too much money out of it.

[Auld Bassoon]

Nowadays going offshore seems very respectable.

So should we outsource some of our justice system to overseas courts etc

Expect this could end up in the orange room

Send them all to Singapore - but to help with their costs, let them have the T.V. rights:eek: :D

Cheers!

PS this was sent in a sense of very dark humour, and in no way suggests that Nguyen Tuong Van should receive this penalty. I really feel grief for his mother.

[Termite]

The death penalty just isn't a deterrent for drug users. If they were concerned about death then they wouldn't be users. You will end up killing a lot of sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers and not reduce the drug addictions or crime rate.

The drug addiction is a health issue not a law enforcement issue.

The organised crime elements who arrange most of the importation of illicit drugs do not want it legalised because they make too much money out of it.
Cut off the supply and you have a chance of treating/reducing the victims. In my opinion suppliers/dealers are murderers and should be punished accordingly. The bloke to be hung in two weeks time does not have a skerrick of my sympathy. The fact that a human life is being terminated does conflict with my Buddhist beliefs but not to the point of fighting for his life, how many has he killed?

[Grunt]

The thing is you will not cut off supply. The stuff grows on trees (or poppies). Currently, the authorities would be lucky to intercept 5% of the drugs that arrive in Australia. Even if we could increase the percentage to 95%, the drug barrons will simply send 20 times the amount. It costs them almost nothing to do so. The price in Australia will go up. This will have only two effects. Crime will go up and the drug barrons will get richer.

We will manage to kill lots of people however. People who have just made a mistake and become addicted to drugs.

[Gumby]

The drug addiction is a health issue not a law enforcement issue.



tell that to the people they rob and assualt to feed their addiction.

[echnidna]

and every dealer gone is one less

[Grunt]

If we treated it like a health issue. They would be able to get it for free or very cheap so they wouldn't need to steal. We would be able to spend the money that we currently spend on enforcement, around $1 billion a year, on rehabilitation programs or on mental health programs. Many drug addicts are have schizophrenia or other mental issues.

[Grunt]

and every dealer gone is one less


Make it legal and you'll get rid of them all. If there is no money in it, then no one will deal. What would the point be?

[ernknot]

This who issue drugs and those who use them is an acedamic argument. Deep down we want them all to hang or whatever. Realistically we want them to be rehabilitated? No way! there is no way to redeem the people who deal/use/try/agree with or make some sort of profit from drugs. The money is too tempting and the victims too easy to suck in. I reckon that the users are as much to blame as the suppliers. Currently the golden rule seems to be that if you cut the supply line, we will be ok. To me that is a load of BS. , if you cut the user demand the supply chain will die on its own accord!!!

[Grunt]

there is no way to redeem the people who deal/use/try/agree with or make some sort of profit from drugs

It is fairly arbitrary as too which drugs are illegal and those that are not.

Alcohol is legal and it cause more grief, misery and violence than any other drug. Cigarettes kill 10s of thousands of people a year. They are legal.

Heroin is actually not that bad for you. If it is controlled doses then you can take it your entire life without any major health problems with the exception of a slightly befuddled brain. It is probably the most effective pain killer for terminally ill cancer sufferers. Yet it is illegal.

The reason why heroin kills is that the dosage is extremely variable and it contains all sorts of contaminates. If you could get it on prescription, the dosage and the quality is controlled. People wouldn't die. Drug dealers wouldn't make money.


To me that is a load of BS. , if you cut the user demand the supply chain will die on its own accord!!!<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

The problem is trying to get people to stop taking drugs. Every smoker knows that it is going to kill them or seriously dimish the quality of there life at some point. These people still smoke.

Alcholics know that alchohol causes brain damage. These people still drink.


I reckon that the users are as much to blame as the suppliers.

Yes, but do they deserve to die because they are stupid, immature or have mental health issues?

Why do the young start smoking? There is no way that they could not know it's bad for them. They still do.

How about we make cigarettes illegal and kill anyone who is caught with more than a carton? Life in gaol for the rest of them.

[Sturdee]

This is one of the few times that I am in total agreement with Grunt.

Drug addiction is an illness and we ought to treat the illness by supplying them with cheap and properly made drugs administered by doctors or clinics for free. Once it is available to addicts for free the need to commit crime to pay for it is abolished.

Also with the demand by users abolished we will get rid of the pushers, and if there are still any, when caught, they should then be executed or sent to Singapore for trial.


Peter.

[Gra]

I have one problem with the death penalty, what happens when the justice system gets it wrong, do we unhang them???? at least if they go to jail we can let them free, once you have killed them you cant make them live again..

I am also in agreement with grunt it is a health issue, and the stupid rules on what drug you can buy from the corner shop and what you cant is completly illogical. the sooner we can get some realistic discution without the moralisers getting all excited and complaining in their beer that we are legalising drugs the better (it will never happen I know, but we can always hope)

[craigb]

I'm in agreement with the Grunt too.

I don't condone what Nguyen did, lets face it he was a scumbag that was prepared to profit from other peoples misery without a thought to their suffering.

Having said that though, I don't think the punishment fits the crime.

After all, not only is the poor bastard going to be necked, but he's had three years to contempate his fate.

I certainly won't take any satisfaction from his execution.

I won't be voting.

[Harry72]

Well spoken Grunt.

[Greg Q]

If we treated it like a health issue. They would be able to get it for free or very cheap so they wouldn't need to steal. We would be able to spend the money that we currently spend on enforcement, around $1 billion a year, on rehabilitation programs or on mental health programs. Many drug addicts are have schizophrenia or other mental issues.

A Billion a year? Jeez, that's optomistic! I reckon the true cost would be
double that for law enforcement/courts to say nothing of the burden on health care (at least one extra ambulance per city per shift, etc etc).
How much is the total loss from burglary and theft every year, to say nothing of the people who get killed or injured in robberies/bag snatches?

I think that there must be thousands of people employed in this country "fighting" the drug problem with no effect other than creating another industry. Add my vote for treating it like a health problem with affordable prescriptions and draconian penalties for dealing.

[Wongo]

We all know where this tread is heading. Whatever it is please stop telling others how to run their country.

[Greg Q]

We all know where this tread is heading. Whatever it is please stop telling others how to run their country.

To whom is this directed?

Greg

[Wongo]

To whom is this directed?

Greg

No one. Sorry it should be "Whatever it is please dont try to tell others how to run their country"

[Grunt]

We all know where this tread is heading. Whatever it is please stop telling others how to run their country.

This thread is aimed at Australia.

[bitingmidge]

This thread is aimed at Australia.
Then Craig's post is even more relevant!

P

:p

[Gumby]

I have no moral problems with the death penalty. Where there is NO doubt and the crime warrants it e.g. Bryant, Knight, Debs etc. String 'em all up and I couldn't care less.

But, in the Singapore case, the penalty doesn't match the crime. He should get 30 years for being a smuggler but death, no, not in this case. Having said that though, the penalty was in place before the guy went on his drug smuggling trip and he knew the consequences. I don't care about his reasons. Every damn smuggler ever caught says it was somebody else's or they only did it once etc.

Knowing you are going to die in a horrible way in less than 2 weeks must be a nightmare. For him and his mother particularly. Surely there's a better way to end a life if that is what they think must be done.

[journeyman Mick]

If those people that believe in the law enforcement/criminal approach to drugs would like to cast their minds back to the US prohibition on alcohol they would see that it was wildly successful at making money for moonshiners and bootleggers as well as giving the Mafia a really good kick start.

Q. Why is it that governments allow some recreational drugs and not others?
A. Votes

Votes from alcohol and tobacco users and those that profit from them, and the fear of losing votes from "moral majority" type people if they "relax" their stance on illicit drugs.

As long as demand exists then there will be people willing to risk death penalties to fill that demand (and make a lot of money). If the demand is removed by regulated, legal supply then the trade will stop. While there's probably still a bit of moonshining going on in the US, it's probably minimal and mainly to circumvent taxes and there's probaly no illegal importation happening at all.

Mick

[Gingermick]

It is fairly arbitrary as too which drugs are illegal and those that are not.
.

Good one Grunt. :) :) Good to hear some sense.


, lets face it he was a scumbag that was prepared to profit from other peoples misery without a thought to their suffering.
.

From another point of view he could just have been taking it into the country to alleviate addict's suffering. (Not mine, but another's)

[boban]

I remember watching footage of the Chinese executing their addicts. A bullet to the back of the head and into a pit. Same for the dealers.

I cant see why you should treat the addict and dealer too differently. One is supply the other is demand. My basic understanding of economics was that one did not function without the other.

On that note, I dont recall anyone forcing me to stick a needle in my arm. Nor the cigarettes which I took up at university and spent the next ten years trying to quit. I knew that cigarettes were addictive so I was the only one responsible for that. Same goes for any addict.

[Grunt]

I knew that cigarettes were addictive so I was the only one responsible for that.

So we should kill you for your stupidity?

[boban]

I dont agree with the dealth penalty. I've made that clear before.

My point was why should we adopt the softly softly approach with the addicts and the hard line with the dealers. Both know or knew what they were doing.

[Ausworkshop]

I think we also need to look at the facts about the World Wide problem of drugs. The worst problem in the drug scene is Heroin. To make the amount of Heroin the world uses today you need to grow alot of popies - Fields of them, HUGE FIELDS. These fields are easily seen by a helicopter, so how do they get away with it??

Fact 1
80% (or something like that) of the worlds heroin is made from popies grown in Afghanistan.

Fact 2
Bin Ladin had his finger in the pie. The Taliban had control over pretty much all of the popy fields.

THE MOST AMAZING FACT OF ALL
Ever since the USA & Australian forces fixed the country and returned the power to the government instead of the Taliban the amount of heroin now exported from the region has actually increased - like an 80% increase as well. Thats a huge difference and begs the question why?

Blame the dealers, blame the middle men, blame who you want but the fact is its allowed to grow in large amounts in certain countries that seem to have a large hold on the whole market. Without these large plantations the heroin trade would come to a grinding halt because there simply would not be enough fields to grow popies for the worlds huge demands.

The problem needs to be fixed by sourcing an alternative income for the poor farmers who are working for the corrupt governments.
And its no good blaming the third world goverments because from these facts it looks like ours are just as bad - actually worse.

All I know is Its obviously alot more complicated that what any of us would know. Anyone studied world economics?

[Gingermick]

The drug that causes the most problems is nicotine through its delivery agent the cigarette.
And as long as there is demand, there will be supply. Only way to cut demand is education, but as Boban said, even that mightn't work.
The current situation is working about as well as euneuch in a baby making factory.
There are idiots and they will be idiots and become addicted to smack whether it is legal or illegal.

[Stylesy]

Haven't studied world economics, but have studied the justice system enough.

Heroin was legal in this country up until the gold rushes of the nineteenth century. Previously it was widely used by doctors as a pain reliever, and also by the "upper class" as a party favour. It was only when the influx of Chinese immigrants raised population numbers at gold digging sites, that the questions arose. The simple reason was that the Chinese used heroin and other poppy based drugs, and in an attempt to remove them from the dig sites the drug was declared illegal. As a result many Chinese were arrested for possession and use of something that was already being used widely elsewhere.

There's always a political reason behind the decisions made by governments. Who knows what the drug scene would be like today if racism and greed for gold hadn't pushed the governments of the time to make that change? It might be proposed that the problems we encounter today might not exist.

[Ausworkshop]

an attempt to remove them from the dig sites the drug was declared illegal. As a result many Chinese were arrested for possession and use of something that was already being used widely elsewhere.

hmmmm?
So does this mean its the reason for it being illegal everywhere?
I don't think the Chinese caused a problem at gold fields worldwide did they, so why is it illegal in places with no gold field history?

I find it hard to believe that Heroin would be legal in Australia if it weren't for the Chinese gold diggers, it would have been made illegal for one reason or another by now anyway wouldn't it?

[silentC]

Heroin was prohibited in Australia in 1953:


"In May 1953, the Menzies government prohibited its importation after pressure from the World Health Organisation, in turn under pressure from the US, where a burgeoning drug problem was emerging. Yet in Australia there was no drug problem to speak of; instead heroin was used to manage serious pain, especially for the terminally ill.

"The ban went ahead despite objections from the director-general of health in NSW that 'heroin ... is quite effectively controlled in this state and ... I see no justification to enforce absolute prohibition'. And despite similar protests by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the predecessor to the Australian Medical Association, then the Australian Federal Council of the British Medical Association."

In fact, there is a case to answer that it was made it was made illegal due to pressure from religious groups who believe that addictive mind-altering substances are the work of the devil.

[Grunt]

In fact, there is a case to answer that it was made it was made illegal due to pressure from religious groups who believe that addictive mind-altering substances are the work of the devil.

I thought Al was the work of the devil?


Something else we can blame the U.S. for.

[Daddles]

I thought Al was the work of the devil?


Something else we can blame the U.S. for.

You mean the US are responsible for creating Al?:eek:

Richard

[bitingmidge]

I don't think the Chinese caused a problem at gold fields worldwide did they, so why is it illegal in places with no gold field history?

There's no real evidence of them actually causing a problem here either.

Come to think of it, I don't think any other country adopted the White Australia Policy either.

P

:rolleyes:

[Grunt]

You mean the US are responsible for creating Al?:eek:


No, Al is the work of the Devil. The U.S. are responsible for the Devil.

[silentC]

The yank prohibitionists tried to ban alcohol at the same time that they banned heroin. Unfortunately for them, drinking was already a well accepted social practice throughout society by the end of World War II, so it failed.

The reason they wanted to ban these substances was because they viewed any addiction as a moral weakness. This is the same reason that alcohol and any other drug is banned in Muslim countries. There's no medical basis for these laws, they simply don't think people should be allowed to indulge.

That doesn't mean to say that there aren't medical problems associated with them. Everyone knows what alcohol does to you. I don't completely buy the argument that heroin, even in it's pure form, has no harmful side affects. There's an item being read on the news as I type about a study recently concluded that claims heroin users have a higher instance of mental problems than the rest of the population.

Conservative people would consider legalisation of drugs like heroin and marijuana as a backwards step and, at the moment, they run the world and are getting more powerful by the day. So despite what a good idea it would probably be, I can't see it happening in the forseeable future.

[Bodgy]

Mental problems and their relation to 'recreational' drugs usage is a chicken and egg argument.

Are people with mental problems more attracted to/become addicted to these drugs at a higher percentage than the general population OR does use of/addiction to these drugs cause mental problems?

For each study pro there is another con

As with nearly all cases of psychotic illness you can demonstrate a clear genetic line back thru a few generations and the environmental argument regarding causation is generally discredited, I don't beleive drugs are a primary cause of severe mental illness (excepting organic illness and amphetamine type psychoses)

As far a neuroses and personality disorders who knows?

But as Silent says, with evangelical neo-cons on the ascendancy we've got Buckley's chance of a more rational approach.

[silentC]

Mental problems and their relation to 'recreational' drugs usage is a chicken and egg argument
True, however what the studies DO show at the very least is that, given a predisposition to this type of illness, there is evidence to suggest that drug use creates episodes that may not have occurred otherwise. Can you say that a heroin-addicted individual currently being treated for schizophrenia would have shown symptoms at all if they had never taken drugs? How many people are walking around now with a genetic disorder who will never know they have it because it is never triggered? I just think there is too much that is not well enough understood to be able to make definitive statements about it one way or the other.

[Bodgy]

I don't think we are in disagreement Silent.

I'm not arguing drugs do not precipitate an episode. As to whether a person would suffer an episode if they hadn't used drugs, no-one can say.

Equally can you say that some poor bugger with schizophrenia who does drugs, would have done so had they not had the illness? There is well documented research on 'self medication'

I guess all that I'm solid on is that (with aforesaid exclusions) illegal drugs are not the sole root cause of mental illness

[silentC]

Absolutely. So getting back to my original point, these drugs were banned not because of a perception that they are bad for our health, but because the yanks decided back in the 50's that they were immoral. And I bet that can be traced back to some form of religious fundamentalism.

In fact, you can probably trace the current push to discover that these drugs have serious long term physical side affects to a desire to provide a scientific rationale for a superstitious act. Well, I do love a good conspiracy theory ;)

[Bodgy]

Don't mention the Relig.... word, we shall be immediately rusticated to Orange County.

[Gingermick]

If they want to say that ###### causes long term ill effects on the mind then they are going to have to replace morphine as the number 1 pain killer.

[Ausworkshop]

We could all do with some more morals if you ask me. Something thats missing from society and everyone seems to think it was a bad thing driven by religious freeks. Anyway lets not get into all that, I just think some of the morals we used to have were not such a bad thing, its just a shame morals have such a bad rep. Soon there will be none left at all.
Oh well, i'll be in my shed working so who cares :p

[craigb]

If they want to say that ###### causes long term ill effects on the mind then they are going to have to replace morphine as the number 1 pain killer.

Heroin is a much more effective pain killer than Morphine. Trouble is that doctors aren't allowed to prescribe it to people who really need it. Eg terminally ill cancer patients.

For the reason they aren't allowed, see silentC's posts above.

[Gingermick]

Yes it's much stronger. but works in exactly the same way so it should have these mythical psychosis inducing properties as well. And there are enough people on long term Morphine to do a fairly comprehensive study on that. I say Myth Busted.:D