3 ms·

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 mi

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?

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?