[Patrick]

Originally Posted by Sticks

When I was at university we heard the sad case of a 12 year old who died after taking one ecstasy tablet.

Drugs are not harmless

Those who gave that girl the tablet should have been done for murder

Ah Leah I believe her name was?

Yeah. Still amazes me how many people that has reached, the amount of Anti Drug Campaigns who use her as some sort of 'Poster Girl' because she died after one tablet.

For the absolute record though, it turns out she need by over-drinking in water and effectively drowning her brain. Which was - down to the ecstasy making her dehydrated, but all in all - it was the water.

[Sticks]

Originally Posted by Patrick

Ah Leah I believe her name was?

Yeah. Still amazes me how many people that has reached, the amount of Anti Drug Campaigns who use her as some sort of 'Poster Girl' because she died after one tablet.

For the absolute record though, it turns out she need by over-drinking in water and effectively drowning her brain. Which was - down to the ecstasy making her dehydrated, but all in all - it was the water.

This was before the Leah Betts case

[*mazedsalv**]

Originally Posted by Sticks

When I was at university we heard the sad case of a 12 year old who died after taking one ecstasy tablet.

Drugs are not harmless

Those who gave that girl the tablet should have been done for murder

However, people seem to look over the fact that the actual cause of death was not purely from the tablet, but from the litres upon litres of water she consumed after taking the tablet, which resulted in her drowning her body. It was not just the drug that killed her. I bet they kept that secret hidden from you though.

I thought this woman should have been taken back here and dealt with here. A few people I know have been killed, one was hit by a train after being pushed on a train track just last week... I bet the men involved in that will get peanuts. And one 2 years ago, whilst under the influence of drugs ran over a friend of mine, he got 18 months... that's it. The laws in some countries compared to others are ridiculous.

No wonder there are more killings in the world, people feel they can get away with it more than drug smuggling.

I personally don't agree with the death penalty. If someone does that and kills someone (whether by electric chair or firing squad), it makes you as bad as the person... and in this case, makes you much worse than the person. Firing squad shooting dead vs. a smuggler. (I know which is worse!). I believe for evil people (murderers, rapists), they should not kill them, but put them in REAL prisons where there are no luxuries, they are fed disgusting foods, no bed and a hole in the ground the piss.

[Apple202]

Sticks didn't you say you were a mod on a forum?

[Marcus.]

Originally Posted by Apple202

Sticks didn't you say you were a mod on a forum?

are they like

[Kizzy]

These are laws of another country, if you go there and break the law you have to suffer the consequenses.
No matter how severe, we all make choices in life...she made hers.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

These are laws of another country, if you go there and break the law you have to suffer the consequenses.
No matter how severe, we all make choices in life...she made hers.

Her decision was wrong and short-sighted, sure, but killing is inhumane and far more wrong than smuggling coke. Give her a prison sentence but I don't see the merit in murdering someone in cold blood over it. Doesn't that make you worse than her and the objective thus obliterated? I'd have thought that making choices in life wouldn't result in the end of it?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Redway

Her decision was wrong and short-sighted, sure, but killing is inhumane and far more wrong than smuggling coke. Give her a prison sentence but I don't see the merit in murdering someone in cold blood over it. Doesn't that make you worse than her and the objective thus obliterated? I'd have thought that making choices in life wouldn't result in the end of it?

We in the UK have chosen to take that stance, but we can't dictate laws to other countries.
If our citizens go there and break the law then they must take responsibility.
See the devestation drugs has caused this family?

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

We in the UK have chosen to take that stance, but we can't dictate laws to other countries.
If our citizens go there and break the law then they must take responsibility.
See the devestation drugs has caused this family?

And you don't think being murdered is going to cause the family even more devastation?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Redway

And you don't think being murdered is going to cause the family even more devastation?

You have to move away from this 'murdered' veiw, it is justice in this country.
It dosen't matter what our opinion is.

[Jack_]

Sandiford wept as judges handed down the sentence, covering her face with a scarf as she left the courtroom to return to prison. She earlier told the court she was forced into taking the drugs into the country by gangsters who were threatening to hurt one of her children, saying "the lives of my children were in danger".

In her witness statement earlier in the trial, Sandiford expressed regret for her actions. "I would like to begin by apologising to the Republic of Indonesia and the Indonesian people for my involvement. I would never have become involved in something like this but the lives of my children were in danger and I felt I had to protect them," she said.

During the trial, her lawyer read out a statement from her son that said: "I love my mother very much and have a very close relationship with her. I know that she would do anything to protect me. I cannot imagine what I would do if she was sentenced to death in relation to these charges."

Reprieve, a legal action charity, said Sandiford was a vulnerable target for drugs traffickers, pointing to an expert report from Dr Jennifer Fleetwood that was put before the court. Fleetwood concluded that Sandiford's vulnerability would have made her an ideal target for drugs traffickers, noting that: "There is … evidence to suggest that a trafficker would seek someone who was vulnerable. Having reviewed extracts from Lindsay's medical records I know that Lindsay has a history of mental health issues … This may have unfortunately made her an attractive target for threats, manipulation and coercion."

Harriet McCulloch, an investigator at Reprieve, said Sandiford maintained that she only agreed to carry the package to Bali after receiving threats against the lives of her family. "She is clearly not a drug kingpin – she has no money to pay for a lawyer, for the travel costs of defence witnesses or even for essentials like food and water," she said. "She has co-operated fully with the Indonesian authorities but has been sentenced to death while the gang operating in the UK, Thailand and Indonesia remain free to target other vulnerable people."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...on-death-drugs

Vile. Totally vile. And people support this punishment?

[CharlieO]

If she didn't want it she shouldn't have smuggled drugs, simple.

[joeysteele]

She must have known the harsh penalties for smuggling drugs in that area. I do hope she does not have to be killed but I do think she has to serve a extremely long prison sentence and I also,sorry to say, don't see any reason why the Birtish Govt,in other words the British Taxpayer should fund her appeal either.

I am sure our Govt could though write and make an appeal for mercy for her and I still think that would likely be enough to at least get her death sentence revoked.

[InOne]

It's not like she's being killed for something she didn't do. The fact is she commited a crime and she is a criminal. Just because she's a British Citizen doesn't mean she has the right to be above the law in another country. She knew what she was doing and got caught, end of. There's plenty more people to worry about than some middle aged drug pusher.

[Stu]

Totally wrote all of that baked. Go Cognitive Liberty!

[Redway]

Stu.

[Sticks]

With regards to the health effects these were comprehensively dealt with by Professor Susan Greenfield in her 1994 series of lectures at the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures for young people. She covered a range of narcotics including cannabis. This research informs such sites like Talk to Frank which I linked to earlier.

With regards to penalties for illegal use of narcotics, there is a range, from penalties for mere possession to those who produce and traffic this poison. This woman is to be executed, and she will be, was convicted of the most severest offences that of trafficking a large volume of class A drugs. The reasons she did it are totally irrelevant, there is no justification for what she did.

Her execution will send a clear message out to all who partake in this evil trade.

Meanwhile is it right to advocate potential actions that is infract the criminal law on a forum such as this? Could this not be a violation of terms and service of vBulletin who provides this forum. Can the moderators please give us a ruling on this as we do not want to cause this forum to be suspended?

[Ammi]

..she didn't traffick it though..she was caught...no drugs she carried will be out on the street...nothing will change by her death...except maybe damage the Bali tourist industry...

[Stu]

Well that's me told.

Kidding.

[Kizzy]

Why has this turned into yet another pro cannabis rant? ...
Seems it is ok the champion the opinion of one medical expert if they happen to mirror your personal view.
Though the numerous medical trials, papers and testaments from ex addicts count for nothing?
To return to the topic, this woman could at any time have sought help if she were being pressured or threatened.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Seems it is ok the champion the opinion of one medical expert if they happen to mirror your personal view.

I champion the opinion of lots of medical experts. Because lots of them agree with me. Lots and lots and lots of them. Plenty of credible ones. The former chair of the governments own advisory council is a biggie, though. He's a good man to have on our side.

I have detailed time and time again now how the dangers of Cannabis are either created, facilitated and or exacerbated by it's illegality. If you want to tackle the points I made in my wall of text above you're more than welcome to but I'm not getting into the same pathetic spiral with you as I did last time where you avoided specifics, cherry picked arguments and in general responded with blanket platitudes.

I'm only willing to engage with those who are willing to engage with me. That's more than fair.

Have your topic. The Cannabis argument I gave stemmed from a general debate on the judicial systems stance on drugs here and abroad. It was completely within the context of the topic and I'll raise it again if I feel like it.

[Kizzy]

You failed to acknowledge any data I supplied you last time, please don't claim any intellectual superiority for your half baked pseudoscience you post.
Fine take this thread off topic if you must, I haven't the inclination to discuss this again.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You failed to acknowledge any data I supplied you last time, please don't claim any intellectual superiority for your half baked pseudoscience you post.
Fine take this thread off topic if you must, I haven't the inclination to discuss this again.

That data I recall was a single link to a single study. I don't play link trading games. It's a long, frivolous exercise in futility. I enjoy engaging with someone who can actually talk. People who are educated enough on a subject to actually post themselves. I made lots of long, long arguments that you completely avoided or thought you could somehow magically make disappear by lazily Googling a single study on the subject. A study which my posts before that addressed in detail. You failed to adequately respond to any of it.

Half baked pseudoscience? You're damn right I'm claiming intellectual superiority over you. I've shot better fish in bigger barrels.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Stu

That data I recall was a single link to a single study. I don't play link trading games. It's a long, frivolous exercise in futility. I enjoy engaging with someone who can actually talk. People who are educated enough on a subject to actually post themselves. I made lots of long, long arguments that you completely avoided or thought you could somehow magically make disappear by lazily Googling a single study on the subject. A study which my posts before that addressed in detail. You failed to adequately respond to any of it.

Half baked pseudoscience? You're damn right I'm claiming intellectual superiority over you. I've shot better fish in bigger barrels.

It was several studies on the topic actually, as it is pointed out regularly my opinion is invalid as I am not a professional in the subject.
With respect stu neither are you.
You can begin with the insults if you wish it does not change my position, neither does it make your points anymore valid.
Do you have an opinion on the discussion here?

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It was several studies on the topic actually, as it is pointed out regularly my opinion is invalid as I am not a professional in the subject.
With respect stu neither are you.
You can begin with the insults if you wish it does not change my position, neither does it make your points anymore valid.
Do you have an opinion on the discussion here?

Of course I do. I posted plenty about it already.