Apparently, in Bali, one can get the death penalty for importing drugs. Bali prosecutors, however, have been “merciful”, and only asked for life in prison for Schapelle Corby, an Australlian beauty therapist accused of smuggling 9lbs of marijuana into Bali.
Although no-one should be imprisoned for selling, importing, exporting, or using drugs in the first place, Corby claims that someone placed the drugs in her bag after she checked in at the airport. Ms. Corby believes that her life is over.
Do you know what the alleged reason is for such barbaric punishments in Bali? According to Prosecutor Ida Bagus Wiswantanu, the reason is:
“The defendant’s actions can ruin the image of Bali as a tourist destination,” he told the three judges who will determine her fate. “The defendant’s actions can make Bali look like a drug haven and affect young people’s lives.”
Of all the worthless utilitarian arguments to justify life in prison, or death, for drug-use, that’s one of the most atrocious I’ve heard. Because the prosecution thinks that Corby’s actions “make Bali look like a drug haven”, that justified life in prison, or even death. I’m sure similar arguments are used to “justify” stoning women to death for infidelity. Bali’s punishments for drug-related crimes challenges the punishments given in the Middle East for adultery in terms of injustice and cruelty.
Incidentally, I don’t think that sentencing women and men to life in prison, or possibly death, for drug “crimes” has a positive effect on tourism. It seems more likely to make Bali about as attractive as a tourist spot as Afghanistan.
{ 37 comments }
Are you serious when you say nobody should be imprisoned for drug use, or import in the first place? (Do you mean even not punished?). Well, that’s an extreme statement I find!
I can understand you are in favour of economic freedom, and you are serious about it, because of the philosophical or ethical aspect. However, I wonder if you shouldn’t consider that people are serious about preventing drugs to disturb the natural human scale of value, because of philosophical reasons too. I for myself, believe that drugs in general mean to your body, something like what State subventions mean to free market…
You may think it’s not the State’s role to sanction that… preventing young people to get addicted to something that’s most probably going to destroy their individuality on the long run. Sure, at least, the monopoly of enforcement is questionable. But at this point I don’t see why you wouldn’t let people print Dollars in their cellar (or worse), in the name of freedom? Is such a political view realistic?
This being said, I’m sure the general fairness of trials on Bali can be questioned.
You may think it’s not the State’s role to sanction that… preventing young people to get addicted to something that’s most probably going to destroy their individuality on the long run
So, you’re going to prevent young people from destroying their individuality by preventing them the right to make decisions about their individual? That’s very…. interesting.
If by “young people” you mean minors, then their rights are already restricted by their guardians, and they can forbid or allow drugs as they please. But full citizens must be allowed to make choices about drugs, just as they do with alcohol or tobacco.
As to the issue, the separation from reality of the Bali court system is impressive. “We shall improve tourism by harshly prosecuting foreigners for petty crimes! That will surely work!”
I see your point. Yet I’m not a politician. I have so little power to change things, and I think I’d like to rather use this little power to address more important issues of liberalism, from a realistic point of view.
I’m also just saying I understand why some people, who may have seen relatives or friends sink into addiction… are not eager to liberalize consumption for the sole sake of “individual freedom”, they’re too emotional about it. We’d be thus talking about a big war of interest here, before you can amend actual prohibition laws, and I think you’d have no chance to overcome that much emotionality…!
Besides, let’s face it, quite a few people take drugs because they didn’t really know how addictive it was in the first place. .. Is speaking of an “individual decision” quite right here? Not always. Just take cigarettes (don’t get me wrong, for some practical reasons, I’m absolutely against sanctions against tobacco habit). The point is, the tobacco industry still finds doctors today who will tell you nicotine is not addictive, nor dangerous from a scientific point of view… (well, compared to other stuff it may even be true). Anyways, I think a lot of the drug thing is escapism (escape from the State?)… , and so when you think about it, everyone can get drugs without too much trouble in today’s Western world even though it’s illegal. (Remember that excellent movie called “drugstore cow-boy”, featuring Matt Dillon and Burroughs?)
Besides, let’s face it, quite a few people take drugs because they didn’t really know how addictive it was in the first place. ..
Two of the three most dangerous and addictive drugs are legal (tobacco, heroin and alcohol – in the order of decreasing mortality per user). There are no recorded deaths attributable to marijuana use. Cocaine is about as addictive as coffee (and as dangerous as coffee and aspirine combined). Ecstasy is less dangerous than aspirine. The figures are easy to find – just check the official US mortality actuarial tables, they are published, and check the methodics used in attributing death causes.
The major risk factors associated with drugs are contaminated or improperly dosed products (which is caused solely by the criminalization of drug sales, so it is run by criminals, not honest merchants who would care about their reputation) and the persecution by the State – not the drugs themselves. Literally, it is not drugs which kill people – it is the State which does that – both by its guns and by pushing people away from relatively safe illegal drugs to dangerous stuff like alcohol and tobacco.
Think about it. Better yet, do research, and check the sources – what government propaganda says about drugs is mostly lies, scare stories needed to justify the existence of the growing police state.
Brian:
“But full citizens must be allowed to make choices about drugs, just as they do with alcohol or tobacco.”
Most States, under the threat of the withdrawal of federal highway funds, now have a 21 year age requirement to buy liquor. Furthermore, in California, the DMV has a zero tolerance policy to alcohol consumption for citizens over 18 and under 21.(Mandatory license suspension.) . Shops in California will not sell tobacco to citizens over 18 but under 21. Some counties in Texas are dry. Wellesley, MA will not license any shop to sell liquor. It seems like we are a long way from freedom of choice. Isn’t it nice to have a self-appointed group of busybodies looking out for your well-being?
“So, you’re going to prevent young people from destroying their individuality by preventing them the right to make decisions about their individual? That’s very…. interesting.”
Of course. After all, freedom is slavery.
Wow, wow, hold your horses people, I thought this was a civil debate. I see a lot of frustration instead of it…
Who wants to play the game of just pointing out apparent contradictions?
…” Cocaine is about as addictive as coffee (and as dangerous as coffee and aspirine combined).”
“…relatively safe illegal drugs (compared) to dangerous stuff like alcohol and tobacco”
well I’ll just take your word for it, since…
“… what government propaganda says about drugs is mostly lies, scare stories…”
thanks for the research job anyways:
“…just check the official US mortality actuarial tables, they are published, and check the methodics used in attributing death causes…”
Let’s go back to economics for a minute, because this site is supposed to mainly deal with it, right?
Here are two facts:
“… There are no recorded deaths attributable to marijuana use ”
“… There are mostly … “scare stories needed to justify the existence of the growing police state ”
So what’s the conclusion?
Make pot legal!? Hell, I don’t care! I’m not emotional about it at all. It’s not my war.
Still, so much about that kind of logic:
Alcohol consumption is widely tolerated in Europe under 21, and Pot is partly legal over there … so what? If that’s all you want… why not take a vacation over there (…as long as it still lasts)?
Police state is less powerful (professional?) in Europe, true. Aren’t we all happy about it, right? Yet police costs efficiency for the european citizen is also soooo much lower, that you may wonder if that’s all what liberalism means? As for Statism, it is even more deeply rooted in Europe than in the US, believe it.
Believe me, I’ve been smoking pot, I did inhale. but that’s not the point.
All I’m saying is: you just have to know your priorities for yourself: do you fight prohibition laws for the sake of personal freedom or do you favor liberalism basically because you want to do drugs?
Is there… could there be, a website where people can , I dunno, lodge their complaint with this? Because for this very reason I would NEVER EVER travel over there. I sure would like to, but this is THE one thing that I could say is my stereotypical view of S.E. Asia.
All I’m saying is: you just have to know your priorities for yourself: do you fight prohibition laws for the sake of personal freedom or do you favor liberalism basically because you want to do drugs?
And I know. I’m a wimp — I can’t handle too much caffeine, never mind harder stuff. I have no desire to ever use any of the stuff I want legalized, and in my feelings on the negative effects of hard drugs (not entirely physical, but mental as well) I find myself agreeing with the traditionally anti-legalization crowd — but despite my revulsion for addiction, I recognize the freedoms of my fellow man.
It seems like we are a long way from freedom of choice. Isn’t it nice to have a self-appointed group of busybodies looking out for your well-being?
You are correct. Where I live, I see the hilarious “dry counties” ringed by booze shops just across the border. I was speaking in a relative manner — alcohol and tobacco are less regulated than marijuana. Ideally we’d lift restrictions (as well as oppressive taxes) on them as well.
Artisan wrote: you just have to know your priorities for yourself
Which is an excellent argument for the elimination of all statute prohibition.
do you fight prohibition laws for the sake of personal freedom or do you favor liberalism basically because you want to do drugs?
Irrelevant. What I wish to personally do has nothing to do with my position on statute prohibitions. Prohibition doesn’t prevent the act from occurring, otherwise there would be no “War On Drugusers”. There would be no speeding tickets. Murder has been illegal for as long as there have been laws, and against every major religious teaching in all of history in all lands.
Yet, murder still happens.
Prohibition only infringes with the liberties of those who do not, and never were going to, hurt anyone else. It doesn’t matter if I am included in the oppressed group for this or that particular prohibition, they are all equally crushing of individual liberty.
Are there any efforts to secure Corby’s release from the clutches of statist minions in Bali?
Are there any efforts to secure Corby’s release from the clutches of statist minions in Bali?
Artisan (all the way back to Comment 1): I think everyone should be free to create and distribute anything they think they can get people to take as money.
Counterfeiting (producing fake certificates binding one party to pay another) is already a punishable crime, unless you’re a government’s central bank, issuing fiat currency.
do you fight prohibition laws for the sake of personal freedom or do you favor liberalism basically because you want to do drugs?
If I wish I can do drugs during the prohibition just as freely, they are widely available, thank you. Oh, and are you still beating your wife?
Does that answer your question?
The reason why I’m claiming that government information about drugs is mostly lies while referring to government sources is very simple: the government is not monolithic, and departments not interested in waging the drug war (such as NIH, CDC and SSA) publish information (such as mortality statictics and research papers) which is wildly inconsistent with what comes from DEA and DOJ in general. However, it takes some thought and efforts to dig out relevant stuff from publications for the specialists, while public perception is shaped by the self-serving propaganda originating from DEA.
If you’re not in a mood for tracking down and checking the original sources, here’s a summary:
http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/statistics/statistics_info1.shtml
@ averros
“Does that answer your question?…”
I apologize, for I really meant that just rethorically, not personally (replace the “you” with an “I” in that post, if it sounds better.)
“…Oh, and are you still beating your wife?”
I dislike the mere thought of it. Leave my children out of this discussion from now on too. Ciao.
Either you own your own body or someone else does. If you own your own body, then you can ingest whatever you want. If someone else owns your body, you are a slave. It’s really that simple.
” “…Oh, and are you still beating your wife?”
I dislike the mere thought of it. Leave my children out of this discussion from now on too. Ciao.”
Artisan, it wasn’t that Averros was trying to imply something about your family, but to ilustrate the point that yours was a loaded question. When a loaded question is posited, the debater immediately dismisses it as a “Do you still beat your wife” kind of question. So it is merely an idiom, not an innuendo.
Yep, Francisco Torres provides the correct interpretation of my rhetorical question. Implying the false dichotomy between being a mere drug user and a principled defender of liberties was somewhat impolite, and certainly is an demagogic tactic which should be kept out of civilized discussions.
Personally, I resent any notion of anyone dictating me what exactly I’m allowed to ingest for recreational purposes and threatening me with violence if I won’t submit to their paranoid fears – and that has nothing to do with actual use of the prohibited substances (in fact, I have tried most kinds of them, and found the whole experience rather boring).
BTW, beating wife per se is not unconditionally bad – there’s such thing as consensual sadomasochism, and no matter what people think of it, it does satisfy the needs of the masochistic “victims”.
Malaysia (where i am based) has the same policies with regards to drug trafficing (similar policies with regards to gun ownership too). Inhumane, yes, over the top, yes, but wait a second…
Having tried many of the substances you’re all speaking about as a student abroad, i fully agree with the assertion that governments tend to overstate the effects of drugs.
I say this as a well informed individual with access to all the information in the world about the dangers of trying this and that substance. Like you, who have access to the internet and the news and tv and all the other trappings of a reasonable standard of living.
Now a large segment of the population in Mallaysia and Indonesia do not have access to all these resources, neither do they have access to sophisticated education or for that matter, medical facilities in rural parts of the country.
So, the government imposed a long long time ago very severe penalties for drug trafficing to circumvent potential socio economic problems that could possibly arise from the abuse of certain substances.
At the end of the day, caffine, cigarrettes, aren’t going to impair your abilty to drive a forklift if that happens to be your day job, Cocaine or heroin most certainly will.
Besides, waxing lyrical about the philosophical implications of the Law in a foreign country is pointless, especially if the intent is for the benefit of the people rather than to hold them down.
It is the law in Bali. They tell you about the severeness of the laws before you get there… So, if you are caught, in my opinion, whether it fits in to your world view or not, you are to answer to those laws.
The only thing one hopes for is the fairness of the legal system.
Indran
“It is the law in Bali. They tell you about the severeness of the laws before you get there…”
The point is that it’s still a stupid and unjust law, and that instead of encouraging tourism (as the government there claims), it will heavily discourage it. Good grief, I can get executed if someone hides some pot in my luggage? I think I’ll go somewhere else. Anywhere else.
Indran,
So what if it’s the fiat-law in Bali? In the Middle East, it’s the “law” that women are to be stoned to death for infidelity. It is unjust and barbaric. It doesn’t matter if they “tell you about it before you go there”. The Nazi’s were pretty explicit about what the laws were in Germany. Again, so what?
An injust law applied to everyone is not somehow more “fair”.
Regarding Mallyasian people not having a high standard of living, thus not having much access to resources on drugs, we can blame that on the governments there, so those very same governments can hardly use that as a justification for yet more meddling.
Oh please Indran, is that why southeast Asian governments prosecute idividual users and petty dealers, while letting the big fish operate untouched? To protect the people?
BTW, it is indisputable that alcohol use is more deadly than use of the drugs you mention (heroin and cocaine) — should alcohol be criminialized too, to “protect” people? And if that really is the goal, and the problem really is a lack of information, then why not just provide people with the information — instead of locking them up or killing them for harming themselves?
Oh please Indran, is that why southeast Asian governments prosecute idividual users and petty dealers, while letting the big fish operate untouched? To protect the people?
BTW, it is indisputable that alcohol use is more deadly than use of the drugs you mention (heroin and cocaine) — should alcohol be criminalized too, to “protect” people? And if that really is the goal, and the problem really is a lack of information, then why not just provide people with the information — instead of locking them up or killing them for harming themselves?
I used to read a columnist named Rodney Quinn who
once wrote that there is a difference between a law and mere legislation dreamed up by here today gone tomorrow bureaucrats. And by God he hit the nail on the head.Let people risk their own well
being if they want to.Law should involve harm to
others. Thus drug use is fine, driving while stoned is not.
As well, owners of private property have a right
to set any rule they like, if you disagree, stay
off.
First remove the beam from your own eye, then you will be able to see to remove the mote from your brother’s eye.
Where do we get off criticizing the government of Bali for doing the same thing we do routinely in the United States? We have mandatory sentencing guidelines that specify a minimum of 15 years in jail for even being associated with drug dealing. This has resulted in 75 year old grandmothers being sent to jail because they refused to plea bargain to crimes they did not commit, while the actual offenders got off with a reduced sentence. In another federal case an informant produced false information that resulted in about 20 innocent people being arrested and detained. On the advice of counsel, 15 decided to plead no-contest in return for immediate release (they had already spent several weeks in jail) and 5 years probation. The 5 who opted to go to trial remained in jail for several months. At trial, the informant admitted to making a false accusation, and the case was dismissed. What about the people who took the plea bargain? They were still required to complete their 5 years probation.
So, before we go criticizing other countries for unfair and draconian drug laws, we ought to put our own house in order. Incidentally, Malaysia and Singapore have even tougher penalties – death by hanging. Several years ago, a couple of Australians were executed. This caused so much concern that the Australian government placed a warning in passports, informing people of these harsh penalties.
“So, before we go criticizing other countries for unfair and draconian drug laws, we ought to put our own house in order.”
How do you propose we do that? The wonders of “democracy”?
As far as getting my house in order, it seems it already is. If someone came to my house with a few pounds of drugs to sell I would ask them to walk out the front door. Politely even. What do you do at your house?
Dear Walt D.,
You are assuming identity between individuals and States. This is not the case, or at least not for many people (perhaps it would be correct for Senators, Congressmen, and the President).
Your question to me is like asking, where would the victim of a crook get off criticizing a crook who victimized someone else; after all, that victim should get his or her own “house in order”.
Your statement is like asserting that a victim should first stop “his” criminal from victimizing him, before criticizing some other criminal victimizing someone else.
Pete:
Good question. This has been the perennial problem of the Libertarian Party. One thing that did work in the war against the “War on Drugs” was targeting incumbent politicians in the primaries. We did succeed in getting rid of Bob Barr, one of the most staunch supporters of harsh drug laws, using this tactic. Otherwise, we can work at the state level to undermine the (unconstitutional?) federal laws with (constitutional?) state laws, for example, by mandating drug treament instead of incarceration. Or we could put in ballot initiatives barring the state from paying for the prosecution and incarceration of people convicted under federal drug laws. Otherwise, I am pessimistic. The problem transcends party lines. Personally, I blame Nixon .
David:
Of course I agree that the individual and the state are different. What I really meant to say was the government of Bali is acting just like the government of the US. I did not mean to imply that every citizen of the US was collectively responsible anymore than every Bali citizen was responsible for the actions of the Bali government.
The question is, “what can we as individuals do about what we see as a travesty of justice?” One thing we can do is not to go to Bali on vacation. If enough people get spooked, this can have an effect. As a direct result of your post, I can now add Bali to my list of Colombia, Malaysia and Singapore as places I would not want to visit on a cruise or vacation.
Just to add about that part of the gov helping by outlawing drugs so people dont use drugs and, “drive forklifts” as it were. If that were the true motivation, then hand-eye coordination tests and questions such as, “did you get enough sleep last night” or “are you mad enough to spit bullets today Mr. Worker” would be daily. But they are not. So it seems quite simple, this is a control issue.
A religious person might even think that by not “owning yourself” in this manner, you cannot give yourself to any element of any religion other than the anti-religion of gov. which has established its title over those individuals who submit by the fact of control.
“Now a large segment of the population in Mallaysia and Indonesia do not have access to all these resources, neither do they have access to sophisticated education or for that matter, medical facilities in rural parts of the country.”
Oh! I am an educated man from a rich country. I know exactly what I do even when I take drugs.
Those poor people are silly, they don’t know what they do. You have to protect them from themselves.
That is exactly the same song all the way down from people, taking or not taking drugs, and protecting the others from themselves.
I thought is was obvious, it is stupid people who dont know what they are doing. Irrational and overly emotional people dont know what they are doing sometimes either. There is no “stupid person” test to screen out the incompetent workers. I would always/anywhere/anytime rather place my life in the hands of a smart person who knows whats going on and knows the job even though that persons intoxicated on whatever drug, rather than a sober stupid person who does not know what to do and when, or what is the best method.
There is probably a reason the capatins of ships of old were stereotypically known as drunks, they knew what they were doing, as opposed to the idiots running the ropes.
There may be cost studies for industrial losses due to intoxication, but I’d wager there has never been one that compares this loss, to the profits lost in hiring stupid intoxicatedless people as replacements.
This is by no means calling anyone posting here stupid.
Of the 100 men I know,when they are intoxicated, they all drive a car better than ALL the completely sober women I know. Observable fact.
Of all the reflex studies done on how a person is a terrible driver under the influence, they never (to my knowledge) have sober people side by side to compare.
Its a matter of wanting total human control.
What we eat.
What we drink.
What we smoke.
What we do.
How much.
How often.
This is the result of eliminating free will, individual responsibility, and consequences for the result of actions, but rather what might happen.
Outlaw horseback riding & bathtubs.
And on & on with no end.
In fact, I remember one of the US car companies (GM or Ford, I’m pretty sure) published a report where they’d discovered during employee drug tests that employees who used marijuana were consistently more productive, better at their jobs, took less sick leave, etc., than employees who didn’t, by a wide and very statistically-significant margin.
“At the end of the day, caffine, cigarrettes, aren’t going to impair your abilty to drive a forklift if that happens to be your day job, Cocaine or heroin most certainly will.”
Dr P sez: Actually, not. The effects of cocaine on driving ability are pretty minimal anyway and the very short half-life (30-40 minutes) means few people drive “under the influence” as a practical matter.
As for heroin and other opiates– Tolerance to the behavioral effects of opiates develops within a few weeks. Thereafter, people take the drug mostly to stay out of withdrawl. In fact, this is the primary basis for Methadone maintenance. People on methadone maintenance do not seem to have a particularly high rate of automobile accidents.
Interestingly, from our present-day perspective, it is clear that, before drug prohibition, many/most opiate addicts “self-maintained”, just taking enough to stay out of withdrawl. The classic example is William Halsted, MD, who founded modern American Surgery while severely addicted to morphine and cocaine his entire life.
As a practical matter, you do not see the junky phenomenon before drug prohibition, which is based on a now-discredited 19th century model for drug dependency.
BTW, I a twice board-certified MD, PhD Medical toxicologist.
Dr P
i think this is totally dumb. why would you put someone in prison for life for such drug like marijuna, wouldnt it better to put them into community service.
dumb ideaology, dumb
Hello,hi because I absolutely love Your site, i would feel honored if you would like to me post a review on your great wordpress site in my seminyak luxury villa website http://seminyak-luxury-villas.blogspot.com/ would you allow me that? Thanks, Seminyak luxury villas
Australians do not traffic drugs into Bali…They wrongfully convicted Schapelle for a crime she did not do.
Comments on this entry are closed.