Seriously, plenty of other countries have avoided the opioid/fentanyl problem without the death penalty. Doesn’t that imply there’s something different? Perhaps extreme lobbying by opioid manufacturers for doctors to overprescribe them and turning the other way to pill mills? Given the opioid epidemic was driven by legal opioids and the black market grew to supply people who could no longer afford the legal supply, I think that suggests Singapore’s death penalty policy has nothing to do here.
Moreover, I suspect like all places, Singaporians don’t have that much difficulty accessing illicit drugs. Do you think this 1kg represents the totality of the illicit drug trade in Singapore? Heck. If anything the death penalty should be the cause of record profits for black market drug distributors - where there’s more risk you can charge more money because there’s less competition willing to take that risk. That increases prices to a point but it’s not going to price it out of complete reach (otherwise you have no customers).
I'm not sure if the "correlation != causation" argument works here. They have serious laws to prevent drug smuggling, and all the data shows that it is working. Logic suggests deterrent against serious crime => less serious crime
> "Moreover, I suspect like all places, Singaporians don’t have that much difficulty accessing illicit drugs."
"I suspect" is not a valid source.
"Singapore has one of the lowest rates of drug abuse in the world: 30 opiates abusers per 100,000 people" (source: The Washington Post)
Perhaps the law serving as a deterrent against heinous crimes works?
That's not what evidence about the death penalty shows.
If I kill anyone with a moderate amount of drugs and jail and charge huge fines to those with a small amount, and I curtail press freedoms heavily, how do we know that they’ve actually tackled the drug problem instead of pushing it into the shadows?
Also, for what it’s worth Singapore itself reported an increase in drug smuggling even as hangings increased [1]. So maybe there isn’t a correlation there. It all seems like wishful thinking to justify inhumane policies.
As another poster pointed out, it’s extremely suspicious that the penalized under drug policies seems to have a racial used tinge to it. Kind of how in America black people outnumber white people significantly for drug crimes even though by all metrics it seems like drug use rates are quite similar.
Did America’s strict drug laws create a better society than countries that tried more empathetic approaches with legalization and trying to help drug addicts get back on their feet? I think there’s a reason America’s laws are liberalizing with respect to drugs. There’s an understanding that draconian laws harm more than they help (if they even help at all).
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-singapore-law-drugs-idUSK...
And yet Singapore is in the top 5 nations for highest GDP per capita (nominal). They also have one of the lowest rates of drug addiction. Surely they are doing something right. Which one would most people rather have - a prosperous life, or freedom to smoke weed? I choose the former.
> "anyone with a moderate amount of drugs"
But why do they have drugs to begin with? Nobody forced them to smoke weed. How does society benefit from the legalization of recreational drugs, which have negative effects on health? I highly recommend reading the history of Singapore's drug addiction crisis.
> "As another poster pointed out, it’s extremely suspicious that the penalized under drug policies seems to have a racial used tinge to it."
A cause for concern indeed. This should be investigated.
> "Did America’s strict drug laws create a better society than countries that tried more empathetic approaches with legalization and trying to help drug addicts get back on their feet?"
Unlike Singapore, America has for-profit prisons, so it's unlikely helping addicts get back on their feet is even a priority for this nation to begin with.
What does one have to do with the other? Finland and Sweden have high GDP and low drug problems and score highly on press freedom and human rights. They don’t murder anyone either. Doesn’t that make them a strictly better model to learn from?
I think the fact that it’s a Chinese city state that’s the financial hub of Asia means that most Chinese business probably flows through Singapore really helps boost the per capita GDP. Still, there’s a lot to learn from Singapore’s successes. I just don’t think their approach to drug prohibition is where to look as a model.
> How does society benefit from the legalization of recreational drugs, which have negative effects on health?
That’s begging the question. The negative effects are not so clear and the line between recreational and medicinal is fairly fluid. I recommend you look at the history of drugs ping ponging back and forth from that characterization. You may also want to consider the US’s experiment with prohibition. Not everyone using drugs recreationally is a drug abuser. With the exception of opiates which are more dangerous and highly addictive, people can generally responsibly manage recreational drug intake. Same as with alcohol and alcohol is much more dangerous, harmful, and addicting than weed.
> Unlike Singapore, America has for-profit prisons, so it's unlikely helping addicts get back on their feet is even a priority for this nation to begin with.
Now we’re getting somewhere. This is true for Finland and Sweden too - their prison programs focus on humane rehabilitation no matter the crime and their recidivism rates are extremely low. So maybe, just maybe, that’s the key reason. The harshness on drugs may not matter so much but it’s a convenient cover for institutionalized racism that Singapore is engaging in.
I haven't seen a blatant double standard in Singapore, smugglers from every part of the world get similar treatment.
>Did America’s strict drug laws create a better society than countries that tried more empathetic approaches with legalization
US drug laws had a racial targeting component that most other countries do not. An attempt at a direct comparison probably wouldnt work since incarcerating specific outgroups was a goal of US law.
north america has a fentanyl crisis, most other parts of the world with a wide spectrum of drug policies don't. also, the gap between cannabis and fentanyl is enormous, not all "drugs" are the same. that's an absolutely crazy causation link to dream up to justify a death sentence.
additionally, i wouldn't assume the "dunce" did this to buy his 3rd lambo, he's probably just trying to survive given the cards he was dealt.
Are those two connected?
Please explain your thought process here.
Is it?
Is there any reliable data that demonstrates this?
By which I mean, data that isn't (directly or indirectly) controlled by the same government that wants to kill people for possessing drugs, and thus has a vested interest in justifying that policy.
I don't think there's generally any reason to doubt Singapore official data in general. Do you happen to know about any source on it being unreliable? Or even rumours that it is?
(FWIW, I totally agree thay killing citizens over weed is batshit insane, even if it was hypothetically proven to be very effective method to reduce drug usage/dealing)
So this is not the same thing as questioning data from just anywhere else. Singapore's government transparency is abysmal by international standards, especially by the standards of developed countries.
I don’t know it seems to be working in Singapore. They don’t have a fentanyl drug crisis.
On the other hand, this seems like a fairly excessive punishment given the safety and relative pharmaceutical use of marijuana.
On the other other hand, Singapore is pretty clear about the law and death sentence that will follow. You really have to be a special kind of dunce to violate that law (even if people think it’s excessive).
May God have mercy on that man’s soul, because Singapore certainly won’t.