Duterte's war on drugs. For, or against, and why?

I think we need a milder (non-slaughtering in literal sense) version of him here in my country. Our president is less lively than a dead fish.

People are being murdered out in the open without trial.
Any response other than condemnation is contemptible.

He’s actively encouraging people to commit murder. He’s apparently murdered people himself. He’s a thug.

Against. I do not agree with vigilantism, nor do I think extra- judicial execution is something that people should consider acceptable.

And, also I believe that drugs should be fully, completely legal.

Vigilante justice is not really justice. It’s government by thuggery.

Against.

From what I’ve read ,it’s similar to old witch hunts. If you have a problem with someone, call them a drug dealer ,and you can kill them. No trial even.

Duterte seems like a lunatic. More and more lunatics in charge these days…...

@MrGrimm888

Yeah, I can see a lot of personal beefs getting settled through this.

When I heard he was doing this, I could not understand how it could go on for so long.
I wanted to test the waters here to see if anyone thought it was acceptable for any reason.
It struck me too as being like the witch hunts.
The only smidge of seeing the other side I could muster, was trying to imagine a crime problem so intense somewhere that a leader would resort to such measures.
That left me feeling like trying to remember a dream that disappeared, like something was there, but I couldn’t reach it, good or bad its gone.
If anyonevhas a perspective they feel would justify that kind of choice, please explain it to me.
Also, how has no-one stopped it?

“How has no-one stopped it?”
Maybe they actually agree and support it. Just sayin’. Their country, their rules, after all.

That may be going just a bit too far. Drug dealers need to be removed, but killing them is rather extreme.

Against, but drug addiction causes tons of peoples physical injury, death, and homlessness….”

Is it true people promoting legalizing pot (and other drugs?) are being targeted as well?

I have no info on that.
If this is the best course of action, I just can’t imagine how out of control the drug problem is there.

@VenusFanelli

Best way to remove the drug dealers is to legalize the drugs.

@Darth Alger- Harmful drugs should never be legalized.

Because prohibition has proven to be so effective, right?

Prohibition cut off a product for which a market already existed, so I feel that is a poor comparison.
I find it no comfort that Duterte also compares himself to Hitler, and seems to take pride in that.

I’m not referring to prohibition on alcohol (although we should have learned our lesson from that), but rather prohibition in general. Prohibition does not work. People will want what they want and they will seek out what they want, regardless of legality. The only thing prohibition accomplishes is to empower ruthless drug cartels.

^Yeah. It’s not great,but legalization is by far the lesser of two evils.

Do you write your government representative, and plead for the legalization of a lot of prevalent crimes since you and a lot of people around you have had things stolen and the fight against them hasn’t been effective?

It is senseless to legalize any crimes. There will always be crimes, but we shouldn’t legalize murder, theft, rape, drugs, etc. Prohibition does more than empower drug cartels.

Asinine comparison. Those crimes harm others. Drug usage does not.

And do tell – what, exactly, has prohibition accomplish? What gain has it brought to society?

Drug usage harms many people badly. How can anyone claim that drug usage doesn’t harm others. Asinine reasoning causes such absurd utterances. prohibition of all crimes has certainly helped us all. If you refuse to see it, we can’t convince you.

The Volstead Act of 1918 did more to establish organized crime in the United States than any other piece of legislation before or since.

@VenusFanelli

Cop out. I’ll ask again – what gain has drug prohibition brought to society? We can see its destructive consequences all around, so what gain has it brought?

@Darth_Algar
1)http://kidshealth.org/en/teens/know-about-drugs.html
“The following is a list of notable people who have died from drug-related causes.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drug-related_deaths

2)How much harm does weed do?
in tiny url http://tinyurl.com/gmorb4f
In long url:
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=eEKJWPXQGYzF8geIuqzgDA&gws_rd=ssl#q=how+much+harm+does+weed+do

I see someone gave this drug apologist Darth Algar a good answer. We can see drugs’ destructive consequences… if we open our eyes and forget petty biases. Harmful drugs should certainly never be legalized. If we legalize them, we can legalize murder as well. People will commit crimes in spite of laws against them, but that isn’t logical justification for making any crimes legal.

Petty bias? Drug apologist? No, just someone who understands that outlawing drugs has not kept people from using them, has empowered ruthless cartels (some of whom have commuted brutal, terrorist actions on the level of Al-Quadi), and has only resulted in the waste of hundreds of thousands of lives, trillions of dollars and the needless ruin of millions more lives from imprisonments.

Do you want to eliminate most of the crime and violence around drugs? Then legalize them. Let the legit market take over. At least then in can be taxed and regulated and treated as a health issue that it is.

Now, care to do me the respect of addressing the question I’ve asked twice now?

@VenusFanelli People will commit crimes in spite of laws against them, but that isn’t logical justification for making any crimes legal.

I counter that if we can not learn from the mistakes of the past, we are doomed to repeat them. When the United States prohibited the sale and use of alcohol by with the Volstead Act, it did little or nothing to curb the consumption or production of alcohol in the US. What it did is drive production underground. The proliferation of “bathtub gin”, sometimes good, sometimes deadly; the arrest and prosecution of many otherwise upstanding citizens; the rise to power of organized crime; these are all symptoms that have effects that can still be felt in American society, a full century later.

Drug prohibition has more, wider reaching effects than alcohol prohibition. Any time there is a demand for a product, legal or illegal, a supply will turn up. That is the essence of capitalism. If there is a demand for heroin, and it can not be procured legally, guess what? Your friendly local street dealer can get it for you!

Look what’s happening in the legal marijuana industry. Here in Colorado, since pot was legalized for recreational adult use, millions in tax revenues have benefited schools and other great causes.

Pot has been called a gateway drug. The only gateway that pot has provided is access to the friendly local drug dealer. Entrepreneurs, legal or not, are always looking to make a sale.

People will commit crimes whatever we do. I can hardly believe that any sane person would even consider legalizing heroin. Darth Algar has no logical argument. There is some difference between alcohol and heroin. A child can surely se that. Marijuana shouldn’t be legalized. Apologists’ arguments for religion or drugs are biased, contrived and illogical. By their twisted logic, there should be no laws against murder, because people are going to do it in spite of laws against it. Some people need to take a course in Logic.

From 60 Minutes episode October 28 2016
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-colorado-governor-on-recreational-pot/
In Pueblo, Colorado
“Dr. Steven Simerville is a pediatrician and director of the Newborn Intensive Care Unit at Pueblo’s St. Mary-Corwin Medical Center. He has seen an increase in babies being born with marijuana in their system and the hospital has seen children coming into the ER after having ingested marijuana edibles, which are often candy and sweet baked goods infused with the drug. He tells LaPook there are infants on his ward with the drug in their bloodstream because their mothers have ingested marijuana.”

“You need to be able to protect babies…who are developing [their] brains,” Simerville says.”

From one of the pro marijuana legalization sites about the same town: ”...a significant increase in children born addicted to opiates last year.” Hi-lie-ree-yes. I guess that’s supposed to make people feel good about marijuana. Like look at the serial killer, therefore my cold blooded murder of 2 people is…good.

@VenusFanelli -

You’re being intellectually dishonest and you’re not even attempting to address the points Strauss and I have made. Why don’t you try to?

@flo _ ”...a significant increase in children born addicted to opiates last year.”_

It seems to me that that would be a direct effect of the increase in prescription (yes, legal) opioid addictions.

It’s also why there are ads on tv for prescription relief of opoid-specific constipation!

Darth Algar and Strauss haven’t made any valid points. Darth can only falsely accuse me. It’s infantile to call someone stupid who doesn’t agree with your dumb beliefs. Actually, agreeing with you is stupid.

@VenusFanelli Darth Algar and Strauss haven’t made any valid points.

You claim I haven’t made any valid points. I have yet to see you post any meaningful refutation of any points I have made.

Please explain what it is that a child can see that I cannot when it comes to the legalization of marijuana, for example.

@Strauss So, you’re arguing with yourself? It’s legal, and it’s bad? I thought yours and @Darth_Algar‘s falsehood or “alternative fact” (Kellyanne Conway’s term for falsehood) was making drugs legal, leads to less drug addicts… Besides the opiates are not meant to be recreational drugs.
@Strauss according to @VenusFanelli‘s point I believe, is not using drugs for recreation, at least, leads to no drug related problems, period.

What points? You are too illogical to comprehend. You’re biased for drug legalizationa nd so can’t be reasonable about it. You evade looking at the great harm drugs do. Flo knows what you guys are.

@VenusFanelli

I didn’t call you stupid, I said you were being intellectually dishonest. By claiming that I called you stupid you are proving my point.

@Strauss and @Darth_Algar you must make a point of not hiring drug users/addicts as your babysitters tutors , ...employees, ....am I right?

@flo

I don’t care what anyone does on their own time.

@Darth_Algar You do, though. You refer to all those ”... crime and violence around drugs…”(done at their own private time not at work) in your posts above, and how to eliminate them.

@flo

How is it humanly possible to miss the point that badly?

Because I like alternative facts.

@Darth_Algar What’s the difference if people hurt themselves at work or on their own time, if you’d rather they don’t hurt themselves?

What’s the difference between someone drinking at home or drinking on the job?

@flo

And at any rate you’re conflating separate issues. The crime and violence that surround drugs are because they are illegal, and thus control of the market is left in the hands of cartels who will resort to extreme violence to hold on to and expand their territory.

That is a separate issue from my feelings on drug use. I don’t care what a person does on their own time. It’s not my place to dictate what someone else can or cannot do with their own body. What you do on your time is your problem. Do it on my time and it becomes my problem.

Back to the OP, I think this policy has more to do with power than drugs..

@flo alternative facts? I’m not sure what you mean. Please enlighten me. What’s the meaning of alternative facts, and please give an example.

@Strauss

A new euphemism, coined by our new presidential administration, for bullshit.

“He didn’t state a falsehood, he presented alternative facts.”

If drugs were legal, lots of violent crime would stop overnight. There’s no reason to kill someone for riding your street corner if neither of you can sell drugs there anymore.

The cartels are killing over routes into America. On a street level, they kill one another for a place to sell the illegal product. Legalization nullifies both of those problems.

Plus ,if legal, the FDA could ensure that the drugs are at least clean (no cocaine cut with dishwasher detergent.)

Even non violent crime, like theft, should decrease. A legitimate store would not accept stolen goods as payment, like a crack dealer would.

Some of the tax money from the sales could go to treatment facilities.

Less people would be in prison.

Nobody is saying drugs are good. But they exist. And there is no way to stop their distribution.

Legalization is the only realistic solution.

I’ll play a small information birdy and whisper: countries that are least known to have problem with drugs are the ones that legalized them. Portugal, if I remembered well, legalized drugs recently, and the drug crimes rate fell significantly.

I heard it from a “little bird” (^^), so I’ll shout it to the world!

@Sneki95 countries that are least known to have problem with drugs are the ones that legalized them. Portugal, if I remembered well, legalized drugs recently, and the drug crimes rate fell significantly.

All you have to do is Google to see a number of different articles confirming this statement

Well, after reading all this, I am thinking Duterte is doing it right. He is ridding the Philippines of drugs, inspiring loyalty in his people, and reducing the population.
Nice.

^^^Do you seriously believe all that?

I may or may not, but my statement is on topic.
I have to wonder if you are keeping in mind the Philippines, and staying specific to their means of addressing the situation as pertains to them, or are you simply campaigning for how you want things to be where you are? Do you feel the same solutions work well everywhere, or do you believe culture, beliefs, and resources play so heavily they can make a variety of solutions be required?

@Darth_Algar . I can’t speak for @Patty_Melt , but some are just sick of people, and aren’t concerned about them killing each other.

One could argue (easily) that less people equals less problems….

I’ve personally known several people from the Philippines, and they were great, smart, hard working people (who have obsessions with karaoke. )

I’m sorry they have a lunatic for a leader. As an American, I can now empathize.

@Patty_Melt , I am thinking Duterte is doing it right.

Open season on drug traffickers! Last one standing wins the prize!

Well, the conversation had skewed a bit.
So, of those who have defined opinions of drug use and circulation, do you feel in regards to the specific subject of Duterte and his thoughts of allowable sacrifice of life are right for his people?
Could he be trying to kill two birds, or maybe even three?
He spoke of Hitler, and seemed to feel the reference applied to what he is doing. Could it be he views the drug affiliated persons as being lesser, and that by weeding them out, his country would yield a much more worthwhile crop of citizens?
I think it does seem like there is more involved for him than just drug related crime. It seems to me he is attempting to upclass his population, and drugs are his starting point.

What Duterte has done is effectively legitimized vigilantism and people taking the law, such as it is, into their own hands. Basically anyone now can kill anyone they have a beef with, say they were involved with drugs (which could be anything from peddling high volumes of heroin to smoking a joint) and get by with it no questions asked. It also makes it easy for police to carry out extra-judicial executions. That doesn’t benefit any society.

I can also see the possibility of narco-terrorism where one organization uses vigilantism to eliminate the competition.

There is a reason that police and judges have different jobs.

Police (or in this case citizens ) are not supposed to judge evidence, and hand down punishment. Police are to gather information / evidence, and then it’s up to the courts to give “fair” trials,and hand out significant punishment.

Other styles are simply vigilantism. Or worse.

This is one of those cases where the cure is worse than the disease.

@Darth_Algar Re. alcohol, it’s in the my previuos post, even if alcohol is not mentioned. So, whether it’s alcohol or marijuana or whatever else, same thing, if you don’t want your 17 yr. old (whether you have one or not) to hurt herself/himself, it doesn’t matter where they hurt themselves.

@Darth_Algar,
By the way, if your neighbour falls asleep smoking cigarettes, or doing whatever with other drugs, and fire destroys some/most apartments/ the whole building, kills your relatives injures you, what’s difference if they did it on their own time? It’s irrelevant.

@Darth_Algar If your employees do drugs from the time they leave work until they get to the door/gate of your comapany, no problem for you, right?

According to one of the pregnant mothers, with fetus/baby born with THC…(in the 60 Minutes episode If it’s harmful why did they make it legal? I wouldn’t have done (marijuana) if I knew…

@flo In Colorado, cannabis vendors, whether medical or recreational, are required to place warning labels on ALL products. These include, among others, warning not to use the product when pregnant, recommended dosage, in the case of edibles, and the fact that it is not legal outside the state of Colorado. I think label laws would be similar in other states that legalized.

@flo

The neighbor could also fall asleep with a grease-filled skillet burning on the stovetop and set the building on fire. As a matter of fact that actually did happen in an apartment building on my block last year. I suppose cooking on a stovetop should be outlawed.

^Yeah. Fire can start for a multitude of reasons.

Lots of fires do start from meth labs though. The process involves highly flammable ingredients. If it were legal, it would be produced somewhere other than residential dwellings.

In this case legalized meth would reduce fires…

@MrGrimm888

Yep, and it would have a much higher standard of purity, rather than being cold medicine mixed with Draino or whatever other household chemicals are on hand. Think something like Heisenberg’s super lab in Breaking Bad, only operated by Mereck or Pfizer rather than by a Chilean-American drug kingpin posing as a fast food chain owner.

^Agreed. Government imposed standards would improve the “safety” of many drugs.

@Strauss and @Darth_Algar and @MrGrimm888 All that to say you want your 17 yr. old, your employees (in my last posts) ....to do harmful things to themselves?

@Darth_Algar You mean cooking, eating, is not a necessity, and drug use is?

@flo . Nobody has said that…

And nobody said anything about a 17 year old. Among the warnings I didn’t mention that in my post above is one stating the product is legal only for adults over the age of 21.

Also, if I had employees it wouldn’t matter to me what they did, even on the job, as long as it didn’t interfere with the ability to do the job well and maintain safety in the workplace.

Remember, I am a musician, and over the past fifty years I have been friends with many musicians and other artists. I have seen marijuana enhance artists’ ability to express themselves.

I think we left the Philippines.

When I left the Phillipines in 1970…oh, never mind!

Do tell. What was the drug situation then, from your close up view?