drugs. you make the decision, not them.
Jezamine's post reminded me of my Social Behavioural Studies assignment on drugs. The comment left by some anonymous government lackey made my blood boil. I just had to leave a comment replying to his.
Just a few points that I have to state:
1) No one forces anyone to take drugs. Everyone has a choice to say no. Unless you were drugged and injected unwilling, I will not accept any other reasons as to why you have illegal substances running through your body.
2) Most commonly, escapism is the reason for drug abuse. To forget their worries, their pain, the situation that they are in. Remember, no one forces them. Someone may have approached them to purchase drugs, but if they had maintained a firm negative stand towards it, NO ONE would have the ability to make them into addicts.
3) Only when there is a demand, will there be a supply. So why is our government hanging this poor Indian man who was just taking orders for marijuana? Go look for the bloody mastermind who is aliasing both sides and hang him instead!
4) Our bloody government should realise that with progression of our society and economy, lifestyles tend to become more liberal. Youngsters go overseas to Australia, America and all over to pursue their studies. In the process of living there, they would be exposed to soft drugs like marijuana (commonly known as "weed", "grass" or "pot") to escape pressures of their school life. Do they come back as drug addicts? No. In fact, many come back as productive, matured young people simply because they have tried whatever it is that the government tries to hard to keep under wraps.
5) Curiosity kills the cat. Show more live examples of suffering drug rehabilitators and let the untainted get a better picture. Are there not enough drug abusers around to start a documentary like such? My detailed research for my project shows that there are way enough cases to compile a whole reality series, but as usual, our government wants to keep everything hush-hush. "Don't let neighbouring countries and interested investors know that we actually have a drug problem too. Shhhh..." How do you plan to scare teenagers out of trying drugs like that???
I do not understand why our government officials always make such controversial decisions as such when they claim to be doing the best for the people of Singapore. If you want to solve the problem, attack the root of the issue, not the branching issues. Just like a tree, if the roots remain, the branches will always grow out again. It is only a matter of time.
Our government has so much to criticise about that I think eventually I'll have to start a whole blog just for them. I have yet appreciated anything they've done except CPF. But since the recent modification of no longer being able to use CPF to pay the deposit of your HDB flat, I think CPF is quite useless from now on.
Now the next thing to do is to see how many hardcore gamblers are nurtured with the development of our Integrated Resorts (IR). You can prevent, but how many can you watch over? If they never admit to being addicted to gambling, there's no fucking way in hell you can assist them. *raises both middle fingers* Balls to you.
conception to action @ 1:48 AM //
2 raves:
You raise some interesting points in your post, but I find your argument a tad contradictory. While I have my own personal doubts as to the morality of the death penalty, I must disagree with many of the points you raised.
Firstly, with regards to choice, you claim that no-one forces anyone to take drugs. Without going into the details of peer pressure, let us simply accept your point. Why then are you trying to protect this indian man from the conseuqences of HIS choice? Let me further bring out the differences between the two. It is quite clear, in the trafficker's case, what the penalty would be, if caught. How many people try drugs knowing what risk they run of addiction? Let me also state that the consequences of that choice are not the addict's to bear alone. Beyond the family and the other social ills (like theft) that are perpetrated to fuel the addiction, let me ask you then whether the government has an inherent responsibility to clamp down on ANY segment of the entire drug food chain, dealer, trafficker and buyer. This is the same reason why there is this entire debate about Integrated Resorts, which you mention yourself in the end of your post. The choice is made by one person, the pain is borne by more. In such a situation, the government does take action to eliminate/reduce that pain, whatever the case may be.
Your second point of escapism is moot, as you will find no society where humans do not seek "escape". I disagree however that "escapism" is the reason for drug abuse. Escapism is the reason people try drugs in the first place. Drug abuse results from addiction, which may / may not be controllable. It is, sadly, not a function of willpower for most people.
For your third point, they will hang anyone who has anything to do with the proliferation of drugs. That includes the dealers and the traffickers. In this you cannot accuse the government of being lax. Perhaps you may want to state how you know that the government has not caught any masterminds. That may strengthen your case. Or perhaps you may also want to consider that proliferation of drugs is an international business. I do not have the right to fly over another country and bomb the poppy fields and kill the masterminds. We have to rely on the due process of law. What the government can do is watch its own backyard. Any trafficker, any money launderer faces the due process of OUR law, since the crime is committed here. While you may be sympathetic to the Indian family (surely not to the man!), we have to be realistic.
As for your fourth point, yes, perhaps that is so. Would you accept (risk would be a better word) your child doing that, I wonder. Being a father, I would not. Your statement is also factually incorrect. How does one become productive and matured BECAUSE they have tried drugs? I believe a better phrase would be "IN SPITE OF having tried drugs". Or was it something else you meant?
Point 5 - I believe you have missed the many documentaries that I watched as a kid (yes, here in Singapore) where drug addicts share about their addiction and the pain it has caused them. As for keeping it hush hush, well, perhaps you should check the website of the Narcotics Bureau. There are many programmes, but they are targetted. The frequent press releases on drug nabs etc seem to run counter to your point that the Government tries to hide anything. Also, you may be mistaken in that Singapore has a motive for keeping it hush hush. Our drug and alcoholism record is, in fact, much better than any of our surrounding countries, and almost anywhere else in the world. However, I hope you understand that it serves no purpose to broadcast this fact.
I don't work directly in Government, but I can sincerely assure you that they never just look at the branching issues. The main problem, I believe, is that in today's world, as Singaporeans get more sophisticated, there are simply too many branches. No choice will make anyone happy. I don't like IRs either. But what is the root issue? The economy. Can you accept that? Or are we all really quarelling about the "branching issues" of a small group of hardcore gamblers, or this or that religious convention?
As for your take on gambling, it is most unfortunate that your thoughts on gambling are so remarkably divorced from your thoughts on drugs. Gamblers, also, have a choice. Fortunately, addiction to gambling seems (and i say this with no qualification, since this is merely my opinion) to develop slower than an addiction to drugs. So unlike what you say, yes, it is more controllable. They may not admit it themselves, true. I am sure, however, that their families ought to do something about it. Unlike drugs however, counselling does work in gambling. Also, you can simply deny them entry into the casinos. if they go elsewhere to gamble, well, you can do that now, can't you. But you and I live with the reality everyday eh?
So in summary, I think this guy got what he deserved. It was not a surprise. Unfortunately, his family pays the price. Whose choice? His. Should we let him go? No, of course not. If his crime were rape, would you, as a lady, let him go because his family looks pitiful? Surely not.
It is strange though, that I do not, myself, truly believe that the government has the right to deny life. In this I am in agreement with you. What I disagree with is the emotionalism, if you pardon my saying so. I simply do not have a better solution at the moment. Do you? One that is realistic strikes at the "root", as you may say.
"Escapism" Very valued point!(With that in mind-A bit of empathy wouldnt go a miss-It helps not just to see the problem, but to look past it, Concentrating more on reasons) And at the end of the day people do things that doesnt conform with societies "norm"!If not life would be boring..
There was a recent study showing that thrill seekers are more likely to take drugs- as opposed to people who arent as prone to seeking novel experiences.
Post a Comment
<< back