in a thread about a guy being executed for transporting drugs in singapore

Singapore wants to run a law enforcement and deterrent experiment that fits in with their culture and goals as well as protects its citizens from a threat up to and including death themselves. I see no problem with that. The guy chose to play the game and lost. The game was completely consensual from the start just like two high school kids playing chicken. Sure, it is a shame when someone dies but you can't really call anyone a victim.

I agree with everything you said Broomstick. I am having a really hard time trying to understand the opposing viewpoint on this one. Singapore doesn't want to kill anyone. They don't want people to courier drugs through or into their country. If someone does, they have to follow through with the promise. This guy was willing to assume the rewards (cash) for a job with a very specific set of risks. The job paid a lot because those risk were there.

People die everyday. This guy is very lucky because he gets to die under circumstances that he conscientiously chose. Most people don't have that luxury.I am having problems with some of the questions thrown around. "Wouldn't you have a problem with an American woman getting executed in the Sudan for consciously engaging in this or that illegal thing?"
Hell, fuck, no. No unless she was wrongfully prosecuted, framed, or illegally coerced. One of the greatest human freedoms is to assume risk for conscience actions up to and including death. Anyone can opt out of that arrangement at any time.
Where is the call for tolerance of other cultures here? Singapore has a very thriving and well established culture. They don't randomly pick people to execute or torture I fail to see the problem. Does the tolerance of other cultures only extend to somewhat Americanized people that like to smoke pot?

Some of the legitimate criticisms of death penalty in the U.S. are that it takes too long and that it is unevenly applied. That makes it a less effective deterrent as well as needlessly expensive. Singapore is a good model in this regard. They institute it in a way that is fair and efficient. We should work to emulate their model. Kooks among us seem to love implementing Asian ideas when it comes to crackpot medicine and other things but draw the line when it comes to effective social and legal measures.

Again, why are so many people bigoted against a prosperous culture that most of their citizens admire and outsiders are never forced to step foot in? You should think about your level of cultural tolerance. You can't just take the superficial fruit-loop parts from around the world and call yourself enlightened. This is the real deal. Bigotry is frowned upon.
...

No, you are missing the point. It doesn't matter that that's the law in Singapore. What matters is that Singapore's law is wrong.

Why is the death penalty "wrong" in this case? If I say it is "right" two times does that cancel out yours? Drug trafficking is wrong on many levels and directly affects other people up to and including death of users and innocents. It is in no way comparable to simply "being" Jewish or anything else. It is an actively chosen and plotted crime with great risks to individuals and societies.

How is the law wrong in your own words? You must be evaluating it according to some external criteria. Is it direct from the word of God or is just part of a quasi-religious humanistic belief? Where did you get this information and how did you process it?

I just look at it like Singapore really doesn't want drugs in their country. That is understandable and it is hardly a victimless crime. People know the consequences and the reason for engaging in it is almost purely financial. I see no problem in opening it up detention, whipping, the death penalty, or live slow dissection if that is what they think is best.

...

Shagnasty, you refute that "societal context" has any relevance to the situation. However, here you admit that alcohol can be a drug with a terrible influence in some people's lives, and then condemn illegal drug dealers.

My "societal context" rebuttal simply means that the harm drug and alcohol addiction causes can't be controlled by overriding social influences nor can its effects be anything other than detrimental in any society. Those are fundamental physiological and psychological processes and they have nothing to do with any society once you get to the point of addiction.

You are correct that the re-legalization of alcohol was probably the best alternative in the U.S. That isn't necessarily true when you talk about crack, the opiates, and meth.

I am a libertarian. That means that I believe in few restrictions on individual freedom and that the ultimate accountability lies with the individual. I was once for the legalization of drugs. However, I sat down one night and tried to come up with a realistic way that this would be implemented. I could not do it. I have come to the conclusion that like, nuclear weapons, a good libertarian can be against the legalization of some things that cause mass harm.

I have yet to hear a workable plan on how the legalization of hard drugs would work at a detailed level. I would love to hear one.