British Woman Faces Death Penalty

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
...I agree. The government will than tax it to the hilt - as they do - and no one will be able to afford it. Problem solved.

But if they can't afford it, drug smuggling will start again, same as fake cigarettes and booze
 
The problem is not the smuggling of drugs...but the whole war on drugs nonsense. Legalise it and give us all a break.

I think we do need a rethink on the war on drugs. I think part of the problem is that drugs are all treated the same as each other when perhaps we should look at each drug in turn and work out which are the "real problem drugs" and which ones are not so much of a problem.

For instance, they say that 80+ percent of all crime in the UK is drug related. So if we focussed on which drugs were behind these crimes specifically we'd likely find that drugs like heroin and crack were the chief problems with dependent users being behind much of the crime, simply to feed their habit. If these addicts were able to source the drugs they need (for free), in a very tightly and carefully controlled manner (this is the tricky bit), then pretty soon you'd have 'never seen before' reductions in crime rates.

Dealers would find that these particular drugs werent profitable any more and would move onto something else (less problem drugs hopefully) the addicts could be very gradually weened off and fledgling users wouldnt be exposed to these problem drugs on the street and become the addicts of tomorrow as they simply wouldnt be available anymore due to supply and demand. Within 5 years, heroin and crack addicts would be few and far between.

Meanwhile, the police would have much time on their hands to do greater more proactive things, the public will suddenly find their insurance premiums going down and the streets will be a safer place.

Those still smoking the odd joint or taking a pill whilst clubbing on a saturday night will still continue to do what they have always done and frankly go pretty much un-noticed because this subset of drug users were never really a problem in the first place.
 
Last edited:
But the problem Spike is that wherever there is something legal, someone will find something illegal to do with it. What I mean is, say you legalised drugs, particularly certain classed, hard drugs. Then miscreants will look for other substances with which to 'make a killing' so to speak. In the 70's people were smoking cannabis (I'm sure abuse of this drug goes back much further than this though), now there is 'genetically modified' cannabis with a higher potency. I dont think just legalising will stem the problem, I think there has to be a globalised stamping out, only then will it be stopped.
 
I never said legalise drugs, I said take control of the supply of the problem ones, give it away for nothing and put the dealers out of business.

Then take control of the addicts.
 
I think we do need a rethink on the war on drugs. I think part of the problem is that drugs are all treated the same as each other when perhaps we should look at each drug in turn and work out which are the "real problem drugs" and which ones are not so much of a problem.

For instance, they say that 80+ percent of all crime in the UK is drug related. So if we focussed on which drugs were behind these crimes specifically we'd likely find that drugs like heroin and crack were the chief problems with dependent users being behind much of the crime, simply to feed their habit. If these addicts were able to source the drugs they need (for free), in a very tightly and carefully controlled manner (this is the tricky bit), then pretty soon you'd have 'never seen before' reductions in crime rates.

Dealers would find that these particular drugs werent profitable any more and would move onto something else (less problem drugs hopefully) the addicts could be very gradually weened off and fledgling users wouldnt be exposed to these problem drugs on the street and become the addicts of tomorrow as they simply wouldnt be available anymore due to supply and demand. Within 5 years, heroin and crack addicts would be few and far between.

Meanwhile, the police would have much time on their hands to do greater more proactive things, the public will suddenly find their insurance premiums going down and the streets will be a safer place.

Those still smoking the odd joint or taking a pill whilst clubbing on a saturday night will still continue to do what they have always done and frankly go pretty much un-noticed because this subset of drug users were never really a problem in the first place.

This has been my line of thinking for a while now.

The tricky bit is the control but then you need to control the affected individuals - by separation or something similar.

Maybe have a town where they can arrive but 'never leave' unless it is in a box.

Prohibition certainly isn't working.
 
I've no doubt her family will be on the news soon saying what a wonderful mother / daughter and wife she is and was threatened by unknown persons to smuggle the drugs.

Petitions and marches will be organised and the Govt will be criticised for not doing enough.

Bali will be criticised for it's legal system and lack of human rights.

Britain will once again attempt to interfere in the affairs of foreign lands.

Eventually she will receive a reduced sentence, get released, return home and sell her story to the papers for £1000's.

It's not wonder these individuals continue to smuggle drugs.

Personally I have no sympathy with these people.

Signs are erected all over the place in these countries warning of the consequences of drug smuggling.

These individuals should serve their full prison term and pay for their crime.

If the can't do the time they shouldn't do the crime. :devil:

If you saw the article in The Independent today, all her neighbours were saying what a nuisance she was and how happy they were for her to move away (former neighbours) or to not be coming back (most recent neighbours)
 
If you saw the article in The Independent today, all her neighbours were saying what a nuisance she was and how happy they were for her to move away (former neighbours) or to not be coming back (most recent neighbours)

I read the above in one of the other papers.

Quote ' She only agreed to take the trip because her children in UK were being threatened ' - what a shock.
 
Many drug addicts are actually good people underneath. They have simply been consumed by their need to pay for their addiction.

You just have to make sure the addicts are administered their vice in front of a doctor/nurse and ensure that they dont take anything away that they could sell on.

Once the problem of being able to afford their habit is taken away they can pretty much get on with life as normal. No longer do they need to steal or spend food and rent money on drugs... life simply carries on without drama... even to the point of being able to hold down a responsible job. In fact you'd likely not spot a junkie at all if the habit was within their means.

A previous GP of mine was self administering pharmacutical opiates for decades without anyone knowing. He may have taken his secret to the grave had he not accidentally overdosed himself at his desk one evening.
 
Dealers would find that these particular drugs werent profitable any more and would move onto something else (less problem drugs hopefully)

Great post Spike - some sanity on the subject at last. Only highlighting the above part to mention that up till now it has been the reverse that has been happening - peeps looking for a harmless soft drug and being told there's none but there's this: heroin. Merely because it is more lucrative (and easier smuggled) for the dealer.

Elsewhere on this forum a member posted that the bulk of UK drug use was ''recreational and non-problematic''. So why criminalise these people?
 
Great post Spike - some sanity on the subject at last. Only highlighting the above part to mention that up till now it has been the reverse that has been happening - peeps looking for a harmless soft drug and being told there's none but there's this: heroin. Merely because it is more lucrative (and easier smuggled) for the dealer.

Elsewhere on this forum a member posted that the bulk of UK drug use was ''recreational and non-problematic''. So why criminalise these people?

Exactly, as I said earlier, the war on drugs is a nonsense. The problems for countries like Colombia and Mexico are incredible...forced on them by the West.

Prohibition of any type does not work...look at the US during the years of alcohol prohibition.
 
Prohibition of any type does not work...look at the US during the years of alcohol prohibition.

I disagree, it depends on how it is done. Suddenly announcing drugs/drink/fags illegal will not work unless you have decades to persevere.

You could test everyone for illegal drugs every week, and introduce escalating but draconian penalties.

Going gently and slowly, increasing taxes, introducing restrictions and bad publicity will probably(possibly) work quicker and better. Ultimately, public opinion will decide, once its takes seriously.
 
I disagree, it depends on how it is done. Suddenly announcing drugs/drink/fags illegal will not work unless you have decades to persevere.

You could test everyone for illegal drugs every week, and introduce escalating but draconian penalties.

Going gently and slowly, increasing taxes, introducing restrictions and bad publicity will probably(possibly) work quicker and better. Ultimately, public opinion will decide, once its takes seriously.

Did I not say the same...prohibition does not work.
 
I'm finding it difficult to imagine what £1.6M 'worth' of cocaine actually looks like...for a woman to carry.

@ between £40 to £50 per gramme you could estimate between 95 and 100 KG but who knows if it was cut or uncut ?

either way - it is sh!t loads.
 
I have no idea if it's a good idea or bad idea to outlaw drugs. And I am not sure that there are countries that do not outlaw drugs so that we can compare. And maybe legalising drugs will work. Who knows.

But - if something is illegal - and we punish those who offend - why do we say that we 'criminalise' the offenders? They know what the law is, and decided that abiding by it is just not for them.

In effect what we say is that we should forgive offenders just because we do not agree with the law they broke. But where do we stand as a society if do not insist that our citizens respect our laws?

It's a democracy. If we think drugs should be allowed - be it soft or hard drugs - let's try and change it through Parliament. But until then let's not say that we 'criminalise' offenders - these are people that chose to break the law. And they weren't addicts when they broke the law for the first time. Or second, or third.

I have no issue with treating offenders in rehabilitation centres instead of jailing them - if this is what's best for society. But they are offenders because they made a concious choice to break the law. On several occasions. And we should remember that.
 
Re post # 37.

In the case of most drugs the prohibition arrives after they are being used. How would the UK react if alcohol and/or tobacco were now prohibited? It's the same issue. A drinker or smoker criminalised? Or do you imagine they will just accept that government knows best for them and cease to drink and smoke?

As for democracy and parliament - they have failed us by refusing to acknowledge the facts and choosing instead to moralise. Forgotten Professor Nutt already?

As for countries without prohibition. The small pockets of a more enlightened attitude cannot and should not be used to judge on a wider scale as it is obvious that they experience much more than their own population's drug users, but even then, the outcome is rarely the horror story painted by the prohibitionists. Perhaps we should judge on former times when the world was a very different place and ask what part the changes have played rather than repeating ad-nauseam ''just say no''.
 
I neither agree nor disagree regarding legalising drugs... my view is that there's a continuum running from legal drugs i.e. alcohol and tobacco at one end, through soft drugs e.g. cannabis and its variants, and all the way to crack-heroin and its likes at the other end.

In fact, I believe that the current legislation where alcohol and tobacco are legal and other drugs are not, is simply down to a (arbitrary) status-quo that existed for many years and proves impossible to shift in either direction - i.e. there is not enough support to make alcohol and tobacco illegal, or to make cannabis (and other drugs) legal.

Ultimately, where we draw the line on what's legal and what's not along this continuum is entirely down to us as a society, and not down to any hard medical or scientific evidence.


However, I see two other issues relating to that. The first is that for me this is democracy at its best. The actual outcome is - to my mind - a price worth paying even in the event that some might not like it. The fact the neither a minority of moralistic puritans nor a minority of sandal-wearing hippies (no offence meant by these descriptions, they are made in jest) can impose their views on the majority is a triumph to our democracy.

Let's have a debate in parliament. Let's demonstrate in the streets, blog online, make speeches in Hyde Park... let's convince our fellow countrymen, if we can.

And we should also keep in mind that is in essence the same mechanism that protects our freedoms and protects us from other minority views being imposed on us.

The second issue has to do with upholding the principle of respect for the law. Whenever someone here gets a parking ticket, the views on this forum are immediately divided between those who say that if you park illegally and get caught then you should just pay the fine and not complain, and those who say that traffic wardens should fine something better to do with their time than dishing-out tickets to motorists who caused no inconvenience to anyone by their illegal parking (and other similar arguments).

I am firmly in the first camp. Whatever I think about where people should or should not park, parking illegally when you know the law (or any other traffic offence for that matter) is a conscious decision for which one should be willing to accept the consequences. I am not suggesting that I have never parked illegally - and I do not take the moral high ground on legal parking. But when I do park illegally and do get caught, I do not see myself as a victim.

The same, to my mind, should apply to drug users. I am not suggesting that they are all dangerous criminals - some of them are just minor offenders - but offenders they are, and there's no other way to describe it.
 
Last edited:
The fact the neither a minority of moralistic puritans .....

can impose their views on the majority is a triumph to our democracy.

But they do. Hypocritically at that (see the exploits of the Bullingdon Club). That they cannot read the public mood is one more aspect of their inability and reluctance to relate to the public.
I watched on TV (Jamie Oliver's programme IIRC) a young lad broach the topic of cannabis legalisation with David Cameron. DC's response was that the government knew best. Didn't listen - they never do. Not to professor Nutt, not to the public.

Let's have a debate in parliament. Let's demonstrate in the streets, blog online, make speeches in Hyde Park... let's convince our fellow countrymen, if we can.

And.....get busted.

The second issue has to do with upholding the principle of respect for the law. Whenever someone here gets a parking ticket, the views on this forum are immediately divided between those who say that if you park illegally and get caught then you should just pay the fine and not complain, and those who say that traffic wardens should fine something better to do with their time than dishing-out tickets to motorists who caused no inconvenience to anyone by their illegal parking (and other similar arguments).

I am firmly in the first camp. Whatever I think about where people should or should not park, parking illegally when you know the law (or any other traffic offence for that matter) is a conscious decision for which one should be willing to accept the consequences. I am not suggesting that I have never parked illegally - and I do not take the moral high ground on legal parking. But when I do park illegally and do get caught, I do not see myself as a victim.

The same, to my mind, should apply to drug users. I am not suggesting that they are all dangerous criminals - some of them are just minor offenders - but offenders they are, and there's no other way to describe it.

Illegal parking (to stick with your example) affects others. Drug use does not. Only the aspects created by prohibition cause drug use to impinge on the live's of others.

Incidentally, had it not been for Rosa Parks willingness to knowingly break a law - where would American race relations be? Some laws are so stupid that it is almost a public duty to question them by breaking them. What else when the government will not listen?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom