Agree with the last two, they're just murdering people; killing someone over trade is barbaric and inhumane, no matter what's being traded; even just fines are unacceptable, the action is non-violent and beneficial to both parties by its very nature. All drug dealers do is supply a demand, and so long as there's the supply (point A, the drug lords) and demand (point B, the drug users), there will be these middlemen who get the drugs from point A to point B. This law will make the trade more expensive and risky, but the demand and the supply aren't going anywhere, so all they do is raise the price since finding willing & more experienced (to avoid detection) middlemen will be much more difficult. The only way to raise the price high enough for this to finally discourage completely is for the state to be all-encompassing and omnipotent--it must become totalitarian, think Orwellian levels of governing, to which there's no way to avoid detection anymore, your entire life is monitored to ensure you do no wrongdoing.
AND STILL that's not going to stop the market, it simply cannot be done. You can turn the whole thing black (see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union ), but so long as there's desire or need, it's going to happen. All this law does is make things harder on everyone (increased crime due to black market status, since trade is taken care of by, drum roll please...
criminals), make things esp. harder for the drug users (who are the only ones who can truly stop the drug trade), while giving the state increased ability to kill its own civilians, so I hope the Indonesian court system is perfect because inevitably someone innocent is gonna get accused of dealing and get the guillotine, whether by another civilian or by the state itself seeking to eliminate whatever unwanted individuals.
So even if you have complete contempt for drug users, you're not going to stop it even with the threat of death. As is usual when it comes to politics, the only true solution is outside of its scope; as it turns out, applying violence liberally over a non-violent situation winds up making things worse, whoever could have guessed? Who, in the thousands of years of using this as the solution to everything and having it backfire, could have ever known?
In pretty much every nation, there are laws against murder, and yet murder still occurs; the threat of prison or even death does not stop wrongdoing, all it has is the presumption that "wihout it, things would be a lot worse," like everyone's just a stupid animal until law enforcers come around, like everyone's a psychopathic killer without the threat of legal action to stop them from slaughtering others at will; funny enough, none of the other animals do this, but apparently human intelligence also makes us murderous machines, according to law. Legalism does not cure an ailing society (in fact it's an indicator of illness), all it does is provide the illusion of order; a society is just a collection of individuals, and if some of those individuals are not doing well--bad upbringing, chemical imbalance, or whatever it is--they will start doing things looked down upon (rape, killing, drugs, et al), no matter what is legal or illegal, no matter what the legal consequences of breaking the law, as is clearly observable today with all the killers, rapists, and drug users around despite all being illegal; they're around because, as said, the state is not all-encompassing so it cannot know who is or is not doing drugs, it's pointless to stop something without complete control over its citizenry (and even then it doesn't work because perfect control is impossible.)
Legalism is primitive, supported only by people who refuse the scientific method, for had they not, they would see how it doesn't work and only hurts everyone as time goes on. Killing people over trade is just a testament to its primitive nature, it's hard to imagine anything less civilized.
Poll
