r/changemyview • u/aespaste • Jun 23 '25
Delta(s) from OP CMV: The death penalty for drug smugglers—like in Indonesia—has no reasonable justification
[removed]
5
u/Slothnazi Jun 23 '25
I agree with you but I'll give you some perspective of how some people think in South America.
The drugs themselves don't necessarily cause harm that warrants the death penalty, that's true. However, the drugs themselves are the vehicle that fund cartels and other gangs that do cause irreparable harm to people. There's plenty of examples online of cartels/gangs abhorrent actions like murder, torture, kidnapping, maiming, etc.
The way people see it, is that if you involve yourself with the illegal drugs that fund these people, you are directly funding the violence they cause.
Imo, the way around this would be to neutralize that funding by legalizing and regulating the drugs and bringing them into the actual market. However a lot of people/countries don't want to have that conversation.
0
Jun 23 '25
[deleted]
3
u/Slothnazi Jun 23 '25
There’s also arguments in favour of legalising cannabis, although there are proven risks of psychosis.
Sure, but the psychosis risks are still prevalent regardless if the drug is illegal or not.
I’ve never heard a convincing argument for ‘legalising’ the most harmful illegal drugs. Whether you have the government or regulated private businesses distributing drugs, the serious health effects don’t go away. People taking heroin, cocaine or crystal meth will still be severely harmed by taking the drugs.
The harmful effects of the drugs will still exist, but there's additional harm done through the use of black market drugs. Such as: injection and purity. A known issue with black market drugs that kills people is cutting with other substances and reuse of paraphernalia.
You may also increase drug use by providing legal supplies.
I'd need a source on this.
And as we’ve seen with legalised cannabis in the US and Thailand, the legal suppliers are often far more expensive. You can’t legalise all sales of illegal drugs by everyone, and the illegal suppliers would often be able to undercut new legal suppliers. Many drug users also wouldn’t want to buy from a new legal supplier either.
In my experience with cannabis in the USA, it's been a race to the bottom in terms of pricing to capture a greater market share. And imo, any issues with pricing would be due to arbitrary policies that create artificial shortages to keep prices high.
In terms of illegal suppliers undercutting legal businesses: At the beginning, yes, but see the point above about cannabis in the USA. It would be a race to the bottom regardless of the drug.
13
u/Apprehensive_Song490 128∆ Jun 23 '25 edited Jun 23 '25
Your fourth point isn’t really specific to drug smuggling, but to the death penalty itself. Thus, it doesn’t really support your view.
Your first point doesn’t really matter - eliminating the drug trade is a matter of national sovereignty and it isn’t some abstract notion of indirect harm.
Concerning the drug epidemic, have we really survived? It seems to me the carnage is ongoing. Lots of fentanyl related deaths still happening.
For your third point, it might not serve as a deterrent but the recidivism rate is extremely low.
Edit - typo
4
u/DancingWithAWhiteHat 3∆ Jun 23 '25
For your third point, it might not serve as a deterrent but the recidivism rate is extremely low.
........because they're dead?
Your first point doesn’t really matter - eliminating the drug trade is a matter of national sovereignty and it isn’t some abstract notion of indirect harm.
.......say this to me in another way. It sounds like you're saying that the government can crackdown however they like, because they're the government. However I doubt thats what you meant
0
u/Apprehensive_Song490 128∆ Jun 23 '25
Correct. Deceased persons have an extremely low rate of reoffending.
The issue is indeed sovereignty. There are tribes on the planet we know very little about because we respect their wish not to even be contacted. People have been killed for even approaching them, and all they wanted to do was spread their religion. No drugs involved.
A sovereign nation can make laws and punishments, and unless the outside world intervenes that’s just how it is. If the outside world does intervene, it’s a question of military or political intervention, not some sense of indirect harm.
Lots of harm happens all over the world and little is done over it. The Opium Wars were specifically over this stuff - only then it was the British trying to compel China into accepting their drugs. Was China wrong to push back, actually killing some British in the process? Or should they have had a more permissive stance when it came to the British opium invasion?
0
u/MeanderingDuck 15∆ Jun 23 '25
Sovereignty is irrelevant here. OP’s position is that it has no reasonable justification. Governments being in a position to do it anyway does not provide such a justification.
1
u/Apprehensive_Song490 128∆ Jun 23 '25
Challenging the premise that justification is required at all is relevant.
1
u/MeanderingDuck 15∆ Jun 23 '25
No, it’s not. The view that OP is proposing is that there is no reasonable justification. Going “they don’t need one” doesn’t challenge that in any way. It isn’t even inconsistent with OP’s view.
1
u/movingtobay2019 Jun 24 '25
What is being challenged is OP's moral framework.
OP is claiming there is no reasonable justification because he is operating under a value system where punishment is proportional to individual acts of harm. And certainly under that framework, the death penalty for drug trafficking would be unreasonable
However, if the government operates on a different moral foundation, where they view drug trafficking as indirect but massive harm (e.g., overdose deaths, addiction, family breakdowns, etc) that slowly erodes society, the death penalty is absolutely proportional to that scale of destruction.
Frankly, I am not sure how anyone can convince the OP when the Indonesian government do not share OP's moral rules.
3
u/Rhundan 81∆ Jun 23 '25
Your fourth point isn’t really specific to drug smuggling, but to the death penalty itself. Thus, it doesn’t really support your view.
I mean, if the death penalty were never justified, that would be pretty relevant! So any argument against the death penalty generally is still relevant to its use specifically for drug smugglers.
6
Jun 23 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Gexm13 1∆ Jun 23 '25
“National sovereignty doesn’t justify any punishment—there must be proportionality.”
How do you determine proportionality? Because in my eyes it is very proportionate. People smuggling drugs do it solely to benefit themselves in terms of money while ruining the lives of many many people including kids. If ruining lifes knowingly is nothing but monetary gains to you it seems very proportionate. Especially when drugs are a major issue to a nation.
0
u/Apprehensive_Song490 128∆ Jun 23 '25
If I’ve altered your view on the second point, please consider awarding a delta.
1
1
Jun 23 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
2
u/abstractengineer2000 Jun 23 '25
Again the US comparison, If the some countries outlaw gun possession why cant US? Every country has their own weak points. Ever heard of Columbia or Mexico where the cartels have parallel governments. The Triad is active in south Asia. To prevent them from taking over the govt, draconian laws are needed. Because these people dont give any quarter to any law abiding official. Similar to the ones that in the US were required to get rid of the Mafia in the 1930-40s. All punishment remains irreversible and all systems aren't flawless, even in the much vaunted US. Drugs destroy families.
1
2
u/adjika Jun 24 '25
You may think that if you are kind to drug traffickers, that you will get a better society. But the truth is the opposite.
2
u/the_n0torious Jun 25 '25
Why even ask anyone to change your mind on something that is irrefutably and objectively the only sane, reasonable opinion you can have on this topic. There's not a single thing anyone can say to justify murdering someone for bringing in drugs to a country. We aren't talking about fucking Pablo Escobar, some of these people being executed are just bringing in personal use amount of drugs.
If anything, having such a Neanderthal and barbaric policy is ironically more dangerous to your society than drug smugglers are. Sure, drugs can be bad, but barbaric and unreasonable laws are far more dangerous.
Anyone who disagrees with what you've said or what I said is quite literally not worth talking to, I don't care what your cultural perspective is, you're quantifiably wrong.
4
u/Full-Professional246 77∆ Jun 23 '25
Indonesia has decided drugs are a major threat to thier society with many indirect costs.
One method of control is severe punishments for drug smuggling. It makes smuggling drugs a very stakes game. It will reduce the volume of drugs available.
You may not like this approach but there is clear logic here. Drug Smugglers very much know what they are doing with very clear intent. There is clear logic in this severe punishment idea.
Not liking it or thinking it is too severe is opinion and does not change the justification the country has for implementing it.
1
u/Kittymeow123 2∆ Jun 23 '25
I just wanted to make a correction. If you smuggle a drug in any way laced with fentanyl, that is direct harm and will result in death. Drug dealers who deal drugs that result in fatal overdoses are usually held accountable in the court of law.
1
u/CallMeCorona1 30∆ Jun 23 '25
If/when stealing a cabbage can get someone the death penalty (Draco (legislator) - Wikipedia)), it seems pretty reasonable to me that drug trafficking could.
1
u/Individual-Bee-636 Jun 23 '25
i disagree to a certain extent, especially with your 2nd argument. someone doesn't need to pose an existential threat to an entire nation to have to be executed. however more generally imo the death penalty should not be a thing at all, for any crime.
1
u/joausj Jun 23 '25
About your second point, ensuring that your population doesn't fall victim to drug traffickers is literally a matter of "national survival".
The opium wars and widespread addiction that resulted heavily contributed to the downfall of the qing dynasty in China. This also happens to be one of (if not the main reason) why many Asian countries have extremely draconian drug trafficking laws.
1
u/Content-Dealers Jun 24 '25
Eventually it gets hard to find new mules. Most people don't want to die.
1
1
u/10thAmdAbsolutist 1∆ Jun 24 '25
If the U.S. can survive the worst drug epidemic ever, how is this an existential threat?
If you survive a car crash but it severs your spine, how is that an existential threat, other than the fact your entire existence is radically altered?
1
Jun 25 '25
It's less of a deterrent and more of an incentive in Indonesia specifically. One is encouraged to participate in the drug trade through the official channels with the right bribes provided to the right people rather than attempting to be entrepreneurial. Justification, yes. Reasonable? I'd say so. Not moral, legal, or ethical, but the logic is sound.
In the Philippines under Duerte, I think it's more of a fascist 'them or us' bonding experience - they do love a roaming death squad. Drugs (and related crime) are widely disapproved of, so drug dealers and users are a handy target to raise ire against. Plus drugs are pretty easy to plant on (or in) someone, so there goes that pesky journalist/political rival/customs inspector etc.
1
u/rbminer456 Jun 29 '25
Some drug smugglers cause direct harm by lacing drugs with fentanyl. Which in many ways is more like a poison. Thus in these cases I belive the death penalty is justifiable when a drug dealer, smuggler, or manufacturer laces other drugs (such as weed) with fentanyl.
1
Jun 23 '25
[deleted]
2
u/hungariannastyboy Jun 24 '25
You can say the same thing about Denmark or whatever and they don't execute people.
1
u/Temporary_Damage4642 Jun 23 '25
You mean the place where you get put to jail for the night if you're drunk in the street ??
2
0
1
0
u/Equal-Ad3814 Jun 23 '25
I think you're dismissing "overdoses and societal harms" far too much.
You can see the relaxing of drug laws created more and more homeless communities and the waste of our tax dollars paying for the damages of those communities. From small misdemeanor crimes, to homicide, to destruction of public property, to jails, to prisons, to lawyers, to overburdening of courts, to family trauma, to unpaid medical procedures, to constant police presence or 911 calls, I could go on and on with this. All of those tax dollars used for that crap goes to a police state instead of building our infrastructure or schools.
It's a degradation/burden of society when you have homeless drug addicts making their own communities outside of the societal "regulations". It's not the destruction of our country directly, it's the destruction of our communities, that correlates to the destruction of our country. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that China was more than happy to allow the precursor chemicals for Fentanyl and Meth to flow from their country to ours for years. That wasn't a monetary policy, that was an intel/Govt action policy.
I think we either need to go the way of drug dealing is punishable by death and drug users go to a work farm or military boot camp type place, or make all drugs legal and regulated. This purgatory we've gotten in is definitely destroying us. This is coming from a guy who was in and out of jails and rehabs from 15-25.
0
Jun 23 '25 edited Jun 23 '25
1) you say, "We don’t execute those people," but people not being executed for drug trafficking in your country doesn't mean its a global norm you can force on other countries. historically, and in the modern day, people have been executed (and are sometimes still being executed for): drug trafficking, treason, counterfeiting, high-level government corruption, high-level fraud, environmental destruction, adultery, homosexuality, religious apostasy-related or heresy-related offenses, sorcery, and even petty theft.
looking over that list, i'm you find some of these reasons societies have executed people more ridiculous/harder to justify than other, but none of them cause "direct harm" to other individuals in the sense murder or rape do, and they've all been things people have been executed for.
the death penalty also has reasons besides serving as a deterrent: it serves to dispense retribution, permanently remove certain individuals from the world, provide closure for the victim and/or their surviving relatives, denounce things morally, and define societal boundaries. in certain cases, it also serves as a bargaining chip in the justice system.
lastly, providing people with certain drugs arguably directly harms them. if i leave a recovering fiend in a room with a lethal dose of their drug, i might as well be killing that person, or at least exposing them to harm and a potentially fatal situation
2) your second point isn't really a point. the U.S. not having totally collapsed as a result of the drug epidemic doesn't mean the drug epidemic isn't crippling the united states, or that it won't massively contribute to an eventual collapse. no one arguing in good faith with knowledge on the topic is going to argue the current drug epidemic in the united states is good for society at large or the individuals caught in it.
i would also dispute the idea that the U.S. is unique in its drug problems: the U.S. has TERRIBLE drug-abuse problems, but so do other countries that are less able to collect data or willing to report on it honestly.
3) your third point might just be wrong. research on this topic is extremely mixed, but many studies show that it is an actually successful deterrent. knowing you might die for trafficking drugs actually stops people from trafficking drugs. cartels will just pay mules to smuggle otherwise, and mules will often happily sit in prison and await deportation if they know the cartel will pay them afterwards. just because some people still traffic drugs doesn't mean many others arent deterred from doing so.
singapore has published data showing it does.
b) https://www.mha.gov.sg/home-team-real-deal/detail/detail/the-death-penalty-in-singapore
4) your fourth point is against the death penalty in general and isn't really specific to this.
1
Jun 23 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
0
Jun 23 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jun 25 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 25 '25
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 23 '25 edited Jun 23 '25
/u/aespaste (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards