Drug Dealers - Death Penalty?

[Wolfhound]

Generally speaking most conservatives are more accepting of gun ownership and sales and less so for drug use and sales. Liberals are the opposite, opposing gun ownership and sales and more accepting of drug use and sales. True Libertarians are more accepting of both.

There are always exceptions and most people think there is a varying line in the sand on restrictions.

I am a conservative with some Libertarian leanings not that it matters to anyone but me.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Without too much tongue in cheek in my answer, why not eliminate the drug dealer. The liberals should not have much to disagree with in that statement. My reasoning is that many liberals believe that guns should be eliminated because they are “responsible” for the death of others. In the same vein, it is not the drugs that kill, it is the dealer that supplies them.

Or perhaps my thinking is 180 degrees backwards. Since the drugs kill, perhaps we should outla them. Oh. . . . . . wait.

I'm honesty not sure of what your saying. If liberals believe that the that guns should be eliminated. Then I guess conservatives should believe that drugs should be eliminated. To ask, as a conservative "why not," eliminate the drug dealer, would be to the liberal "why not" eliminate the gun dealer.

 

[Jludo]

Generally speaking most conservatives are more accepting of gun ownership and sales and less so for drug use and sales. Liberals are the opposite, opposing gun ownership and sales and more accepting of drug use and sales. True Libertarians are more accepting of both.

There are always exceptions and most people think there is a varying line in the sand on restrictions.

I am a conservative with some Libertarian leanings not that it matters to anyone but me.

I'm saying stop calling ourselves liberal and conservatives, we tend to take whatever side of an issue that camp prescribes to us and it's ridiculous. Take issues individually as they come, the 'conservative ' or 'liberal' view be damned as those end up being meaningless divisive labels.

 

[Fargo]

Since the Supreme Court already says that the DP is "cruel and unusual" in the context of forcible rape of a child, it is pretty meaningless of a suggestion by POTUS.

There are a bunch of crimes way more heinous which already can't be DP'd. Those that still technically can be, seldom ever result in execution even when it is imposed. I don't know if he is blustering or ignorant, but it is legally and practically a pipe dream at present.

 

[Wolfhound]

I'm saying stop calling ourselves liberal and conservatives, we tend to take whatever side of an issue that camp prescribes to us and it's ridiculous. Take issues individually as they come, the 'conservative ' or 'liberal' view be damned as those end up being meaningless divisive labels.

Agreed that individuals should always think for themselves. I think most do. I have yet to meet anyone who has the exact same view on every single political and moral issue.

 

[Itchytriggerfinger]

I have not heard of a kid going up to an older person and saying "sexually molest me."
I have not heard a person walk up to someone and say "forcibly rape me."
I have not heard of a person asking another to kill them against their wishes

I have heard of, and witnessed, many times over, people approaching others, and asking to sell them drugs.

So if someone said "molest me", "rape me", or "kill me" it's all good? I completely forgot that drug dealers never get caught with guns or are responsible for anything but peddling a little weed. C'mon man, I know you're better than that.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So if someone said "molest me", "rape me", or "kill me" it's all good? I completely forgot that drug dealers never get caught with guns or are responsible for anything but peddling a little weed. C'mon man, I know you're better than that.

You're talking about a separate crime. If that other crime carries the death penalty then do so as appropriate. You can't simply say "he's a drug deal so he must have done something else really bad" to justify applying the death penalty.

 

[KLB]

So if someone said "molest me", "rape me", or "kill me" it's all good? I completely forgot that drug dealers never get caught with guns or are responsible for anything but peddling a little weed. C'mon man, I know you're better than that.

I would say most of those peddling a little weed are doing it more to get their own.

If you legalize it, then those selling it don't have to be criminals. Just as with alcohol prohibition, remove the illegality and most of the associated crime and violence would go away.

 

[Itchytriggerfinger]

You're talking about a separate crime. If that other crime carries the death penalty then do so as appropriate. You can't simply say "he's a drug deal so he must have done something else really bad" to justify applying the death penalty.

Alright. So let's say for arguments sake that the drug dealer doesn't own a gun, goes to church, and shovels his neighbor's driveway. Good guy who is only slightly afoul of the law.

But, this guy sells heroin and one of his customers dies from an overdose. Unfortunate circumstance? Or maybe, the customer gets so addicted to the nice drug dealer's heroin that he robs a house to get the money for his next hit. Homeowner catches him in the act and he's so out his mind that he kills the homeowner. Now who's to blame? Aren't bartenders legally responsible if they over serve and a patron plows into a school bus full of kids? Wouldn't a drug dealer share some culpability for over serving his own customer?

And please spare me (not necessarily you but anyone else who wants to respond) the drugs are a harmless crime argument. People are murdered every day directly or indirectly from the drug trade and I'm not just talking about Escobar levels of drugs.

This planet is overpopulated with good people and losing a few who can't seem to figure out a way to contribute positively, isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Alright. So let's say for arguments sake that the drug dealer doesn't own a gun, goes to church, and shovels his neighbor's driveway. Good guy who is only slightly afoul of the law.

But, this guy sells heroin and one of his customers dies from an overdose. Unfortunate circumstance? Or maybe, the customer gets so addicted to the nice drug dealer's heroin that he robs a house to get the money for his next hit. Homeowner catches him in the act and he's so out his mind that he kills the homeowner. Now who's to blame? Aren't bartenders legally responsible if they over serve and a patron plows into a school bus full of kids? Wouldn't a drug dealer share some culpability for over serving his own customer?

And please spare me (not necessarily you but anyone else who wants to respond) the drugs are a harmless crime argument. People are murdered every day directly or indirectly from the drug trade and I'm not just talking about Escobar levels of drugs.

This planet is overpopulated with good people and losing a few who can't seem to figure out a way to contribute positively, isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I have yet to meet the heroin addict that is surprised to find out that heroin can kill you. When the buy enters into a bargain knowing the risks, why is the seller at fault? You're second instance is a capital punishment case, but it's because of the crime of murder, not the selling of drugs. You'll find just as many drunk people that assault or kill people (if not more) than people that are high. You gave the example the bartender that over serves a patron, and that patron crashes his vehicle and kills kids. I can agree that the bartender is culpable. Death penalty culpable, no way. Would you support the DP for a bartend that over served a person, and they ended up killing someone why intoxicated?
I have no issue placing a certain amount of culpability on drug dealers, that's fine. Strapping them to a bed or a chair and ending their lives? That, for me, is beyond the pale.

 

[Itchytriggerfinger]

I have yet to meet the heroin addict that is surprised to find out that heroin can kill you. When the buy enters into a bargain knowing the risks, why is the seller at fault? You're second instance is a capital punishment case, but it's because of the crime of murder, not the selling of drugs. You'll find just as many drunk people that assault or kill people (if not more) than people that are high. You gave the example the bartender that over serves a patron, and that patron crashes his vehicle and kills kids. I can agree that the bartender is culpable. Death penalty culpable, no way. Would you support the DP for a bartend that over served a person, and they ended up killing someone why intoxicated?
I have no issue placing a certain amount of culpability on drug dealers, that's fine. Strapping them to a bed or a chair and ending their lives? That, for me, is beyond the pale.

I respect your opinion even though you don't respect mine.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I respect your opinion even though you don't respect mine.

If I didn't respect your opinion, you'd know it. Don't take disagreement for lack of respect for one's view.

 

[miguel]

 

[jbombelli]

The War on Drugs has been an abject lesson in failure. We should not be doubling down on the penalties because that won't solve anything. We need a new approach, not the same old thing with heightened penalties.

 

[Denny347]

The lunacy of this thread is depressing. Some of these comments I actually find concerning.

 

[phylodog]

The War on Drugs has been an abject lesson in failure. We should not be doubling down on the penalties because that won't solve anything. We need a new approach, not the same old thing with heightened penalties.

Agreed. Trillions of dollars spent, jail and prison overcrowding which has resulted in actual violent criminals being cut loose early and drug problems as bad or worse then they've ever been. Sentencing dealers to death only exacerbates the problem.

 

[Fargo]

The lunacy of this thread is depressing. Some of these comments I actually find concerning.

History shows that there have always been a large number of people who think that execution is some sort of social engineering tool to improve society in a general sense, rather than a last resort punishment for those who have truly earned it.

History also shows that that line of thinking leads to really dark and nasty places.

 

[Tombs]

I have no issue with forgiving individuals for drug use and giving them help.

On the flip side, I believe dealers should be met with the harshest consequences our laws allow for. Catch and release of organized crime figures should become a thing of the past, immediately.

The compromise to achieve this should be decriminalization of weed and a few other drugs shown to have medical benefits, such as mushrooms and LSD.
As everyone knows, the people dealing these drugs are nothing like the people dealing the nastier stuff.

 

[DragonGunner]

I voted no. I think stiffer penalties, like take everything you own literally and literally for the rest of your life….plus after that your fined another 100 million $. But how would it ever happen when vast amounts of people want drugs legalized…..? Never happen and most likely the real discussion will be when drugs become legal like in other countries…..sad as it is I'm afraid its going to happen, already has with grass and the tumble weed will roll to all drugs. Meth heads will get dealer license for 50.00 a year.

 

[Trigger Time]

I'm for legalizing drugs. I don't use any illegal drugs and I've been called out here before by people who say BS because only "druggies" would say legalize drugs, but I've been willing and still am willing to take a drug test anytime name the place and time.
I just believe in legalizing drugs. I believe it would eliminate more problems than it causes. I'm not saying drive on drugs. Im not saying shoot guns on drugs. We still have laws against doing things intoxicated or on drugs. I just think we are fighting a losing battle. The war on drugs is a sham