Should the US execute the drug dealers?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Dec 4, 2017
906
14
0
#21
President Trump agrees that anyone who is found guilty of the crime of illegal drug trade in the US will be executed. Do you agree with this?
I thought trump was buddies with the drug cartels and is all talk no action against a real threat. Instead, doesnt trump just put on the act and provoke the little guy half way around the world?

A leader who is a coward has no place in the Lords Kingdom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_outlaw_motorcycle_clubs
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
7,870
82
48
#22
that's something third world countries do
 

oldethennew

Senior Member
Feb 28, 2016
7,634
443
83
#23
in God's world, yes' for they are supplying what 'kills'...done deal... talking 'hard-drugs' and
especially the 'new ones that some love to 'slip into' another's drink unawares...
 
Dec 4, 2017
906
14
0
#24
Jan 6, 2018
66
3
0
#25
That is a sick attitude. I hope you get caught very soon before you destroy your life or some one else's life.
Good luck. I have been expressing my thoughts through speech and writing for YEARS. I escape the fuzz EVERY TIME! :cool:

When a drug user purchases heroin and dies of a fentanyl overdose, do you think they agreed to that?
Yes. I would take responsibility for drinking bleach AND I wouldn't blame Clorox. I would much rather live in a world where I had the freedom to buy bleach than having the government protect me by controlling what I choose to put in my body

Or when a teen who pays her dealer extra NOT to have fentanyl in whatever dope she is using, dies of a fentanyl overdose, do you believe she was in agreement with that?
Who do you buy your dope from? That's not how the drug world works. You don't get to choose your drug's purity. You get what you get and you don't pitch a fit. Also, that's just grade A horrible parenting. This is why there is an incline on drug use. People keep attacking the drugs and the dealers (both of which are ALWAYS available) and they refuse to acknowledge the cause, which is that parents are sucking at being parents OR they aren't even in kids' lives. Drug abuse is a social/health issue. Not a criminal issue.


Here in British Columbia (the west coast of Canada), in 2017 there were 1,422 suspected drug overdose deaths. This is a 43% increase from the number of overdose deaths in 2016 (993). The number of illicit drug overdose deaths in 2017 equates to about 3.9 deaths per day for the year. (Source: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/p...th-investigation/statistical/illicit-drug.pdf)


Do you think that the majority of these people were informed that there was fentanyl in the drugs they were using? The amount of fentanyl required to kill a person is about the size of a grain of salt.
If their IQ was above 5 then they would have at least known about the possibility of their drugs being cut with fentanyl. I'm not even involved in the drug world and even I know it's a possibility.

Again, a FREE world is not a SAFE world. Libertarianism acknowledges the fact that a safe utopia can never be achieved (especially through law), so the goal should be freedom.
 
Last edited:

Desdichado

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2014
7,510
186
63
#26
AnCaps subsist off a steady diet of voluntarily-consumed Tide Pods...
 

Desdichado

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2014
7,510
186
63
#27
I'd argue though that in many cases freedom does bring safety. Saying it's one or the other is a false dilemma.

The case of fentanyl is a perfect example- legalize these substances and you'll very quickly see the price system take care of the purity issue. Granted, the drugs would be more readily available with adverts and the like, but cases of contaminated drugs would be less common.

Again, a FREE world is not a SAFE world. Libertarianism acknowledges the fact that a safe utopia can never be achieved (especially through law), so the goal should be freedom.
 

Desdichado

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2014
7,510
186
63
#28
The Night Watchman state would take care of manslaughter and false advertisement. Tie up dem loose ends. :p
 

AdolfHipster

Senior Member
Jan 15, 2018
221
8
0
#29
Cartel leaders murder people all the time. They are not just drug dealers. They're cold-blooded murderers as well.
Sure, no one is saying otherwise. Wouldn't you want to punish them in the way they fear most? It's like if a child fears something taken away more than a spanking, then taking something away would be the ideal method. It's more of a deterrent.

The history of extradition in some South American countries was quite bloody. Of course they may not want to die, but it's the better alternative for them.
 

AdolfHipster

Senior Member
Jan 15, 2018
221
8
0
#30
I'd argue though that in many cases freedom does bring safety. Saying it's one or the other is a false dilemma.

The case of fentanyl is a perfect example- legalize these substances and you'll very quickly see the price system take care of the purity issue. Granted, the drugs would be more readily available with adverts and the like, but cases of contaminated drugs would be less common.
I've read lots of people who made moonshine back during prohibition would do it incorrectly and when they drank it, would become blind. It was that important to them to get their drink that they would risk their vision. Once it was legalized again, I doubt the risk of going blind is worth making moonshine for most people (although there are still some people who make their own drink still).

This applies to what you said about drugs. If it's regulated, it hurts the cartel, we can tax it, and it's a lot more clean/natural than street marijuana.
 

Desdichado

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2014
7,510
186
63
#31
Bingo. The Prohibition really is the mother of all case studies in this regard.

I've read lots of people who made moonshine back during prohibition would do it incorrectly and when they drank it, would become blind. It was that important to them to get their drink that they would risk their vision. Once it was legalized again, I doubt the risk of going blind is worth making moonshine for most people (although there are still some people who make their own drink still).

This applies to what you said about drugs. If it's regulated, it hurts the cartel, we can tax it, and it's a lot more clean/natural than street marijuana.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
23,391
1,347
113
#34
Who do you buy your dope from? That's not how the drug world works. You don't get to choose your drug's purity. You get what you get and you don't pitch a fit. Also, that's just grade A horrible parenting. This is why there is an incline on drug use. People keep attacking the drugs and the dealers (both of which are ALWAYS available) and they refuse to acknowledge the cause, which is that parents are sucking at being parents OR they aren't even in kids' lives. Drug abuse is a social/health issue. Not a criminal issue.

If their IQ was above 5 then they would have at least known about the possibility of their drugs being cut with fentanyl. I'm not even involved in the drug world and even I know it's a possibility.

Again, a FREE world is not a SAFE world. Libertarianism acknowledges the fact that a safe utopia can never be achieved (especially through law), so the goal should be freedom.
None of which addresses the problem that the deaths of the victims AS YOU CLAIMED were voluntary, or that the now deceased victims were in in AGREEMENT with what was being sold to them.
 

Ezekiel8

Senior Member
Oct 26, 2017
403
5
0
#35
I think this probably would work. Now I don't think executing them is the ends, but rather a means to the ends. The ends is to instill fear into them because then once they fear you they just don't want mess with drugs in the first place. Like for the past few days since seeing this topic I been looking into stats on countries that execute people for drug crimes, and to my surprise I found that for the most part they don't really even execute that many people. It seems that pretty much once the fear to do or sell drugs is firmly in place you have so little drug use that you pretty much don't even need to have many executions for drug crimes because it becomes so rare for someone to do such a thing in the first place.

Also I think just domestically here in America, totally ignoring comparisons to where this was tried elsewhere in the world, we tried pretty much all the other ideas, and what happened? The problem only got worse! Not only does the direct problem of drug use get worse, but frankly it's not like the liberals loved us any more for all the compromises, all the leniency, all the legalization of "softer" drugs, all the rehab we subsidized, and all the other methods we did for them bending over backwards to appease them. Nope they didn't love us a single lick more, in fact they hate us now more than they ever did before. I mean let's just be real about it, they freaking played us for fools and despitefully used us. So at this point personally I don't really care what President Trump does to them, and yes, in fact I think he might have a valid idea here because to paraphrase President Trump, "what do we have to lose?"
 
Jan 6, 2018
66
3
0
#36
None of which addresses the problem that the deaths of the victims AS YOU CLAIMED were voluntary, or that the now deceased victims were in in AGREEMENT with what was being sold to them.
My first quote that you left out answered all of it. There's no such thing as safe crank, crack, or blow. You roll the dice every time you shoot or snort (or smoke in the case of crack/meth). All drug users know this. They don't care. Kids know that there is a 1 in 6 chance of getting killed when they play Russian Roulette with a revolver. They don't care. By participating in dangerous behavior, you accept the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY of dangerous consequences for the CHOSEN dangerous behavior.

I'm not saying that it isn't sad. It's REALLY sad, but that's life. Life is suffering and it always will be. Sometimes, people don't make decisions that are good for their lives, and that's sad. Sometimes, those decisions suck so bad that it gets people killed, and that too is sad, but as human beings we should reserve the right to have a freedom to make those bad decisions, because it also allows us to have the freedom to make good choices. Where does it end? We know for a fact that coffee causes hypertension that leads to strokes and heart attacks. Should our baristas be the first to the gallows?

I'm not saying drug dealers aren't trash human beings, but I am saying that to play like they are the only guilty parties involved (To the point of murdering them) is crap and crap logic.
 
Last edited:

Desdichado

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2014
7,510
186
63
#37
That and, typically, what happens after the first round of executions/punishments is a re-shuffling of sorts. There is still a demand for drugs and therefore a strong incentive to traffic in them. Only now, the government has made the opportunity cost far greater.

So who gets into the trafficking and production of these substances? People more willing to bear the opportunity cost- hard criminals. Or as we call them today, bad hombres.

China is a perfect example. They levy the death penalty on drug dealers, so the Chinese mafia comes along and picks up the business. Their drug problem was only getting worse as of a few months ago.

If your goal is killing drug dealers because you think it will create some new virtuous society. Well okay, that's a different moral argument. But I think most of us here have the goal of mitigating the great human cost of both drug use and the drug war. For that, the death penalty really isn't an effective deterrent.

I'm not saying drug dealers aren't trash human beings, but I am saying that to play like they are the only guilty parties involved (To the point of murdering them) is crap and crap logic.
 

Desdichado

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2014
7,510
186
63
#38
That said, I think that if a US state wants to give it a tug and see what happens. Fine. It'll serve as an example of how heavy-handed policies really come back to bite you.
 
Jan 6, 2018
66
3
0
#39
That said, I think that if a US state wants to give it a tug and see what happens. Fine. It'll serve as an example of how heavy-handed policies really come back to bite you.
You would think that lesson would have been learned by now *cough* Slavery *cough* Prohibition *cough* The War On Drugs *cough* The Middle Eastern Wars *cough*

I guess that's the saddest part for me. We HAVE already seen that heavy-handed policies aren't the way to go time and time again, but statists-I mean people don't learn from it. We just keep shooting from the hip to attack the symptoms of problems instead of the actual problems. Mass shootings have been increasing like crazy over the last 20 years? Let's go after guns....even though guns have been readily available since the start of this country...so it probably isn't the guns...but hey...it feels good to define a simple enemy and attack it.
 

Desdichado

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2014
7,510
186
63
#40
It's funny, right when I hit "Post Quick Reply", I was thinking about how the example of Prohibition alone disproved my comment.

They passed those stupid laws state, by state, by state. Then they got their amendment. Didn't matter.

Though a lot of those states never had a real booze "problem" to begin with. The culturally dry localities continued as they were. Those who drank responsibly did so in the open so long as local law enforcement got their portion.

Sometimes the "state laboratory" theory just doesn't work because a law is passed as a reflection of the local status quo, ignoring what would happen if it passed in an environment that would actually change as a result.

Ex) "Well gun control works in this small, homogenous New England town where the average age is 55."

Hmmmmmmmmmm


You would think that lesson would have been learned by now *cough* Slavery *cough* Prohibition *cough* The War On Drugs *cough* The Middle Eastern Wars *cough*

I guess that's the saddest part for me. We HAVE already seen that heavy-handed policies aren't the way to go time and time again, but statists-I mean people don't learn from it. We just keep shooting from the hip to attack the symptoms of problems instead of the actual problems. Mass shootings have been increasing like crazy over the last 20 years? Let's go after guns....even though guns have been readily available since the start of this country...so it probably isn't the guns...but hey...it feels good to define a simple enemy and attack it.
 
Last edited: