4 ms·

I don't understand your dismissal of the aspects to do with racial/economic profiling and homophobia. Isn't it irrelevant if the law is specifically targeting

I don't understand your dismissal of the aspects to do with racial/economic profiling and homophobia. Isn't it irrelevant if the law is specifically targeting gay people? If a law exists that makes unjustly targeting gay people a lot easier, that's bad. Police resources can be directed at pure discrimination ("just homophobia"), but logged in the crime statistics as just a successful drug operation. The argument is the same for other various forms of discrimination. All of this is doubly unjust if the law is ineffective for its stated goal. And it's often quite useful to note these minority discrepancies because they can explain why a large problem may be hidden because dominant groups ("preferred" racial categories, sexual orientations, classes) are unaffected. It shows that your lack of personal experience with the problem doesn't mean it isn't a significant or widespread problem. Of course, getting rid of the law doesn't decrease homophobia, but having such a law may be doubly illegitimate if there is common overt homophobia. It's like how you shouldn't be allowed to operate certain heavy machinery if there isn't the training/conditions in place to operate it safely.

spywaregorilla 5y ago
If you think singapore is worried about discrimination, then it shows your lack of experience with this problem. It is illegal for a man to have sex with a man in Singapore. I certainly don't agree with that policy, but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that the drug policy is an important part of that system. It definitely is not.
- dundarious 5y ago
  Fair enough, I didn't know the laws were that severe, but I only used homophobia as a shorthand/standin for all the other groups I mentioned as well (racial groups, lower classes).
blitzar 5y ago
> If a law exists that makes unjustly targeting gay people a lot easier, that's bad. Are gay people more likely to do heroin than straight people? Seems pretty sweeping and homophobic to say "gay people are more likely to be drug users / addicts / drug mules" > All of this is doubly unjust if the law is ineffective for its stated goal. Las time I walked in a park in singapore I did not see a single used needle on the ground. I frequently see them in the park in London.
- dundarious 5y ago
  That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying there can be targeted enforcement. And I'm using gay people as a single example, but the point applies to other minority groups. As for "needles in the park" as a measure of policy success, I don't think it works. If a city is more benevolent or actively brutal towards its homeless population, you're going to see a drop in needles in the park. In London, the homeless are largely ignored and just shuffled around (which is a kind of passive brutality). There are so many confounding variables there.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - blitzar 5y ago
    > I'm saying there can be targeted enforcement. How is this law different to any other then? Are drivers permits a racist and homophobic tool? Murder laws? Fraud? The singapore law is that it is illegal. The approach is zero tolerence, and the law is enforced. The western world, the US for example, it is also illegal. The approach is then to sort of enforce it when you want and to not the rest of the time. Some days you can shoot up next to a police officer, some days they put you in jail for it. Which of these two systems sound more likely to be problemeatic when it comes to enforcement. The zero tollerence one or the one where the law is enforced based on what the mood of the officer on the day is (or maybe just the color of your skin)? If junkies doing heroin in the kids playground and leaving their used needles in the sand pit is a sign of success, and a lack of them a sign of failure - I want to live in a society that has failed. The more it has failed, the less time I have to spend checking the sand for a needle before my child plays the better.
    - dundarious 5y ago
      > Many of Singapore's drug policies have a horrifying potential for cruelty. Singapore’s Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act allows the authorities to detain an individual indefinitely without trial, if they are suspected of drug trafficking. Singapore's Misuse of Drugs Act makes it an offence to not only traffic drugs, but also to provide information on drug use (even online). The authorities can also demand a urine test without a warrant, with refusal seen as a sign of guilt. In particular note the last sentence. I think it's pretty obvious how broad powers such as this, mixed with selective and targeted enforcement, is bad. And even with zero tolerance (in enforcement) you absolutely don't guarantee zero bias (in targeting). A pathological example for the sake of argument would be asking every person you think has Malay ethnicity to submit to a urine test. My whole point is just that you can't easily dismiss these factors when assessing the justice/injustice of the current policies, when answering the question in the subtitle: Who bears the brunt of Singapore's drug policies?

spywaregorilla 5y ago

If you think singapore is worried about discrimination, then it shows your lack of experience with this problem. It is illegal for a man to have sex with a man in Singapore. I certainly don't agree with that policy, but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that the drug policy is an important part of that system. It definitely is not.

dundarious 5y ago
Fair enough, I didn't know the laws were that severe, but I only used homophobia as a shorthand/standin for all the other groups I mentioned as well (racial groups, lower classes).

blitzar 5y ago

> If a law exists that makes unjustly targeting gay people a lot easier, that's bad. Are gay people more likely to do heroin than straight people? Seems pretty sweeping and homophobic to say "gay people are more likely to be drug users / addicts / drug mules" > All of this is doubly unjust if the law is ineffective for its stated goal. Las time I walked in a park in singapore I did not see a single used needle on the ground. I frequently see them in the park in London.

dundarious 5y ago
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying there can be targeted enforcement. And I'm using gay people as a single example, but the point applies to other minority groups. As for "needles in the park" as a measure of policy success, I don't think it works. If a city is more benevolent or actively brutal towards its homeless population, you're going to see a drop in needles in the park. In London, the homeless are largely ignored and just shuffled around (which is a kind of passive brutality). There are so many confounding variables there.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- blitzar 5y ago
  > I'm saying there can be targeted enforcement. How is this law different to any other then? Are drivers permits a racist and homophobic tool? Murder laws? Fraud? The singapore law is that it is illegal. The approach is zero tolerence, and the law is enforced. The western world, the US for example, it is also illegal. The approach is then to sort of enforce it when you want and to not the rest of the time. Some days you can shoot up next to a police officer, some days they put you in jail for it. Which of these two systems sound more likely to be problemeatic when it comes to enforcement. The zero tollerence one or the one where the law is enforced based on what the mood of the officer on the day is (or maybe just the color of your skin)? If junkies doing heroin in the kids playground and leaving their used needles in the sand pit is a sign of success, and a lack of them a sign of failure - I want to live in a society that has failed. The more it has failed, the less time I have to spend checking the sand for a needle before my child plays the better.
  - dundarious 5y ago
    > Many of Singapore's drug policies have a horrifying potential for cruelty. Singapore’s Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act allows the authorities to detain an individual indefinitely without trial, if they are suspected of drug trafficking. Singapore's Misuse of Drugs Act makes it an offence to not only traffic drugs, but also to provide information on drug use (even online). The authorities can also demand a urine test without a warrant, with refusal seen as a sign of guilt. In particular note the last sentence. I think it's pretty obvious how broad powers such as this, mixed with selective and targeted enforcement, is bad. And even with zero tolerance (in enforcement) you absolutely don't guarantee zero bias (in targeting). A pathological example for the sake of argument would be asking every person you think has Malay ethnicity to submit to a urine test. My whole point is just that you can't easily dismiss these factors when assessing the justice/injustice of the current policies, when answering the question in the subtitle: Who bears the brunt of Singapore's drug policies?