[Closed] Indonesian Drug Laws?

Tom_W1987 - Member

Total bullshit, why doesnt the Philippines execute people for drug offences?

They do but just not reported. In Southern part the country they will even chop off the head. My advice is not to travel to Southern part of the country if you are a Westerner. Unless you can pay huge ransom ...

🙄

Yeah muslim mindanao.

Lol

This is going round in circles now.

I’ll leave you lot to it. I’ve got a flight to catch.

Tom_W1987 - Member

Yeah muslim mindanao.

Lol

Not only Mindanao but the entire old Sulu Kingdom.

I still don't get the OP's point.
Just accept it. She did wrong. Maybe she'll be executed, probably not.
Am I missing something?

iolo - Member

I still don't get the OP's point.
Just accept it. She did wrong. Maybe she'll be executed, probably not.
Am I missing something?

If you really want her back then pay their govt at tax payers expense ... problem solved.

🙄

Let's leave her there then eh. She got there quite un assisted.

Maybe I wasn't very clear in my original post. My abhorrence to the death penalty and the ludicrous 'war on drugs' was probably shining through and confusing the issue I was trying to raise. Anyway, some interesting replies...

Thisisnotaspoon, funny how the medical community feel that drugs should be dealt with as a health issue not a criminal issue.

And I agree with them, users have a health problem, not a criminal one. Thats not an argument for decriminalising drugs though is it, just moving the responsibility for 'treatment' of users and those addicted from the judicial system to the healthcare system?

However the smugglers, dealers etc aren't the users are they?

Same as someone compared them to bike deaths, which is going to be more effective at preventing future deaths? A life scentance for being involved in a traffic collision involving a cyclist, or ASL's and segregated bike/car lanes?

I dont agree with the death penalty. But if I were to draw up a list of crimes which deserved whatever the max penalty available was, then smuggling, distribution and dealing of illegal drugs would be high up on the list.

It would be a lot easier for healthcare professionals to help drug users if it was a properly regulated industry.

Remember the outcry about the government chief scientist who called for legalisation, all arguments against it are either ideological or emotional.

Chewkw, the sulu kingdom was muslim. Any cases of the death penalty in those areas are summary executions without due process.

jambourgie - Member

Maybe I wasn't very clear in my original post. My abhorrence to the death penalty and the ludicrous 'war on drugs' was probably shining through and confusing the issue I was trying to raise. Anyway, some interesting replies...

I get you.

The bottom line is the Western ideology on human rights/wrongs cannot be imposed on others. i.e. it's like trying to carry out an [u]ideology genocide [/u][b](TM)[/b] on others. Why should the world (developing nations and 3rd world) follow the Western rules?

What you are trying to argue or to justify is the twisted notion of legitimising the cause of harm to other population. i.e. let the trafficker(s) go because s/he comes from developed world with human rights or give him/her a short punishment.

What you have forgotten is that others do not have time for that and in that part of the world daily survival is already harsh, so why should a trafficker from another country be given the rights above their own people.

Life has no meaning if that life (one) is going to cause massive misery to many other families. The logical scientific statistical approach is to eliminate that cause to prevent multiplication of misery.

Like I say, the simplest solution is pay compensation to their gov't and people.

Oh ya, just don't try to be tight fisted by trying not to pay and yet try to dictate terms/ideology to others.

You pay! Good money!

🙄

p/s:

Tom_W1987 - Member

Chewkw, the sulu kingdom was muslim. Any cases of the death penalty in those areas are summary executions without due process.

Yes, quick and easy. Problem solved.

Haha...chewkw.....Honda Fireblades kill people. Does Indonesia line up Honda importers against firing posts?

The naivety is hilarious.

Yes, quick and easy. Problem solved.

See what I mean guys, death penalty advocates have very little respect for life.

I couldn't find anything really useful out with googling, I'm wondering what the history of this is- drugs are old but this sort of smuggling is relatively new, is this something that goes back to the earliest days of their trade with the world, or is it recent? If it's recent, who brought it in?

thisisnotaspoon - Member

In the UK ~4 people die each week directly from illegal drug use. IIRC that figure only includes OD's, bad batches, adverse reactions etc (i.e stuff you'll end up in hospital with accute problems) and ignores long term health effects from the drugs, catching HIV/HepC from needles, dying whilst on drugs for some other reason, or being killed for some other reason connected to the drugs (gangs, debt, etc).

Most of which are caused or worsened by criminalisation and proscription of course.

So, approximately 1/1923th as many people as die as a result of smoking.
The fact that the number is so small does make it hard to work out why we put so much effort into Wars On Drugs eh.

Tom_W1987 - Member

Haha, chewkw.....Honda Fireblades kill people. Does Indonesia line up Honda importers against firing posts?

Honda pays! Good money! You payyyy ...!

Tom_W1987 - Member

See what I mean guys, death penalty advocates have very little respect for life.

Don't change the topic. You payyyy ... ! Good money ...!

Northwind - Member

So, approximately 1/1923th as many people as die as a result of smoking.

Cigarette pay good money. You payyyy ...!

😈

p/s: don't be tight fisted ... there is a way out. You payyy ...! Good Money!

it is strange how a countries' perception of what is acceptable for the death penalty changes over time.

I recently visited Bodmin Jail and there was a notice up next to the execution chamber with people who met their end there and why.

There were the usual murderers etc but there were quite a few for theft, one for setting fire to some wheat and one for beastiality 😯

Chewkw's bedtime reading:

[img] [/img]

CountZero - Member

Chewkw's bedtime reading:

You paayyyy ...! Good money ...!

😆

I know it's a touch off topic but I'm inclined to agree with my local Chief of Police (Durham). Decriminalising hard drugs results in an instant cessation of drug-related crime. Instant. If done properly, overnight.

What's not to like? Those who wish to **** themselves up may do so with impunity and with no harm to old ladies collecting their pensions. And by, "...done properly", I also mean that there should be rehab programs put in place for those who want them, perhaps paid for by the new government tax on drugs, or by the savings made due to the police now having a 40% (guessed number) drop in their work. FWIW, I've never met a junkie who didn't bleat on about going clean and I've met many, so the underlying desire is there, but the means to do so are not.

The methadone programme is a complete and utter waste of resources and tax payers' cash. It doesn't work. Addicts treat the meth as a top up, or as a commodity to sell to those even more desperate than themselves.

And as for the argument that your children are more likely to try hard drugs if they are decriminalised - this is easily managed. Just ensure that addicts have to be referred into the legalised purchase system by a GP (in the same way as they currently are for the free meth programme). That is [i]instantly[/i] uncool. They are now patients in the medical system. Victims if you like. And I guarantee that 99% of addicts would go through the system because it's a hell of a lot easier than dealing with, well, dealers. And again, set up properly, there's no reason for the drug to be more expensive than that bought from a stinking flat in a sink estate, with all the attendant dangers.

By going through the system there is also the offer of real help through rehab.

I'd sleep easier in my bed if the above suggestions were implemented.

user-removed - Member
I know it's a touch off topic but I'm inclined to agree with my local Chief of Police (Durham). Decriminalising hard drugs results in an instant cessation of drug-related crime. Instant. If done properly, overnight.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, it's hardly evienced based. Take tobacco as an example, legal to buy, dont even need a percription as you suggested would be needed for the purchase of 'illegal' drugs. But theres still a huge black market of cigaretts being brought in and sold cheeper than the legitimate ones. If we sold morphine at £10/hit, they'd sell heroin at £9.

And thats without the more 'casual' drug users using coke, extacy, marajuana, rtc.

set up properly, there's no reason for the drug to be more expensive than that bought from a stinking flat in a sink estate, with all the attendant dangers.

The reason people buy black market / fake tabs is because they're cheaper than the real thing.

 

If we sold morphine at £10/hit, they'd sell heroin at £9.

But theres still a huge black market of cigaretts being brought in

No its a tiny market.

Harry_the_Spider - Member
As above the answer is.... Islam in particular sharia law, that is were the culture of harsh sentencing comes from.
Take a look at the list of countries that do it. China, Vietnam, Taiwan, Zimbabwe etc. I think if the country has strict laws, irrespective of religion, then you are going to get into trouble.

Fails to read question, fails to read reply.

The question was WHY it had strict laws. The reply was WHY it has strict laws? It was what makes their sentencing so different from our own?

And the answer was its a country which is strongly guided by a religion where harsh sentencing is the norm.

It was not why other countries have strict laws.
It was not whether it was a fair or just.
It was not wether it was likely to be seen through to carrying out the sentence.
It was not wether there are better ways to deal with it.

Why is it so difficult to read properly?

If we sold morphine at £10/hit, they'd sell heroin at £9.

Make the 'legal' product far purer and safer than the illegal one, make availability of the legal product much easier, and the vast majority will prefer paying the small premium. If I am in Amsterdam and I want Cannabis, I simply pop into a convenient coffee shop, and purchase in safe, comfortable surroundings. I don't have to venture into the bowels of some nasty 'sink estate' and deal with some scrote with a pitbull who's going to use the money to buy a gun. 😉

People are gonna use regardless. Decriminalisation creates a better environment for users, more openness about use (which leads to improvements in being able to administer healthcare), and the evaporation of the social stigma towards users.

I remember when Ecstasy was [i]de rigeur[/i]; everyone ignored the Daily Mail style scaremongering, and just got on with enjoying their weekends. Millions were taking the drug, yet deaths were extremely rare (and often caused by other factors). Violence at raves/clubs was very low compared to pubs etc, and the whole atmosphere was pretty good. The only thing that really soured the fun, was the criminal gangs distributing and controlling sales. Because a drug which is relatively far safer to use than alcohol was illegal. It's daft.

Decriminalising it?

Why should the taxpayers have fund it for minority?

Are the users going to hold the taxpayers ransom? i.e. if public don't fund their habits will they rake havoc by stealing etc to fund their habits?

Or are you suggesting that everyone should be addicts since they have already paid for it via tax so might as well have some?

I agree that addicts should be rehabilitated.

😯

Why should the taxpayers have fund it for minority?

Becuase treating drug addiction as a medical issue rather than a criminal one is far far cheaper.

gonefishin - Member

Why should the taxpayers have fund it for minority?

Becuase treating drug addiction as a medical issue rather than a criminal one is far far cheaper.

Or Health & Safety ... 😯

Other things wot get you shot in Indonesia:

Attempt with intent to deprive the President or Vice-President of his or her life or liberty or to render him or her unfit to govern (KUHP Art. 104)
Aiding or protecting Indonesia’s enemies at war (KUHP Art. 123 & 124)
Fraud in delivery of military materials in time of war (KUHP Art. 127)
Killing the head of state of a friendly state (KUHP Art. 140)
Premeditated murder (KUHP Art. 340)
Robbery or theft resulting in grave injury or death (KUHP Art. 365
Piracy resulting in death (KUHP Art. 444)
Instigating or inciting rebellion or riot against a state defense company during times of war (KUHP)
Extortion with violence (KUHP)
Possession and misuse of firearm and/or other explosive (Emergency Law No. 12/1951)
Criminal acts during air flights or against aviation infrastructure (Law No. 4/1976)
Production, transit, import and possession of psychotropic drugs (Law No. 5/1997 on Psychotropic Drugs)
Production, transit, import and possession of narcotics (Law No. 22/1997 on Narcotics)
Corruption under “certain circumstances,” including repeat offenders and corruption committed during times of national emergency/disaster (Law No. 31/1999 on Corruption)
Gross violations of human rights, including genocide and crimes against humanity (Law No. 26/2000 on Human Rights Courts)
Acts of terrorism (Law No. 15/2003 on Combating Criminal Acts of Terrorism)

Make the 'legal' product far purer and safer than the illegal one, make availability of the legal product much easier, and the vast majority will prefer paying the small premium. If I am in Amsterdam and I want Cannabis, I simply pop into a convenient coffee shop, and purchase in safe, comfortable surroundings. I don't have to venture into the bowels of some nasty 'sink estate' and deal with some scrote with a pitbull who's going to use the money to buy a gun.

People are gonna use regardless. Decriminalisation creates a better environment for users, more openness about use (which leads to improvements in being able to administer healthcare), and the evaporation of the social stigma towards users.

I remember when Ecstasy was de rigeur; everyone ignored the Daily Mail style scaremongering, and just got on with enjoying their weekends. Millions were taking the drug, yet deaths were extremely rare (and often caused by other factors). Violence at raves/clubs was very low compared to pubs etc, and the whole atmosphere was pretty good. The only thing that really soured the fun, was the criminal gangs distributing and controlling sales. Because a drug which is relatively far safer to use than alcohol was illegal. It's daft.

Careful Cybicle, you're veering dangerously into the realms of common sense here. Someone will be along shortly to shout "DRUGS ARE ILLEGAL" at you.

Hi all,

I have worked in Indonesia and the SE Asian region in a diplomatic capacity, though never in counter-narcotics.

The question is an interesting one as the severity stands in stark contrast to western policies on this issue. The best answer I can come up with is four-fold. First, the region has always had a problem with opiates given its proximity to the Golden Triangle. It is this concern that typically drove early posy-independence policy responses in Indonesia as much as it is Islam's traditional hostility/fear of intoxication of any kind. Proponents of a harsh response - at least in the early year's following independence - could also point to genuine opiate addiction problems among Singapore's ethnic Chinese community, and indeed the regional Chinese diaspora, as a warning.

Second, in an Indonesian context this fear was amplified as although the Chinese community in Indonesia have a long history - serving as a merchant class - their place in Indonesian society has always been uncertain (as evidenced by periodic and violent anti-Chinese riots, inc as recently as 1999). As such, the a policy of intolerance played neatly into long-standing ethnic rivalries and prejudice.

Third, the newly independent state had limited means for policing and even judicial enforcement so it was decided that the best means to deter the trade was a straight no questions approach, wherein it was hoped that the limited risk of being caught would be outweighed by the severe penalty. This approach, given the opportunity and likely means to bribe judges, also limited judicial discretion in sentencing.

Fourth, once Sukarno and his successor Suharto planted themselves firmly in the Anti-Communist camp the policy was actively supported by the United States. However, having worked on Free Trade Agreements, inc with Indonesia I can confirm that agreements are in no way dependent on adherence to US foreign policy prescriptions concerning narcotics and foreign aid budgets in support of such policies have never figured large among the flood of aid money into that country for fifty years.

Perhaps my final thoughts are that it is complex, Indonesia is plagued by corruption at every level, so while it is true that Indonesia does execute its own for drug smuggling, these are exclusively low level traffickers - Mr Big never ever gets caught in Indonesia. Moreover, it is widely rumored that the army have long controlled the drug trade (they are a law unto themselves) in Indonesia). Certainly `many prominent Indonesian I spoke with assumed Marijuana across Indonesia (excepting Bali where it is grown locally to supply the tourist trade)(grown in Sumatra) was trafficked by the military. Indeed, I can bear witness to shoot outs between the military and the police whenever the latter attempted to investigate the former, inc for drug trafficking.

There you go folks . . . for those that read until the end . . just doing my bit for informed debate on the forum!

Good to hear some views from our man in the [s]north[/s] east! It basically sounds like the army are protecting their cash cow then?

Brilliant! Thanks mjdcc 🙂

Something I think a lot about is how these laws came to be. I mean, when you take away the obvious problems associated with prohibition: crime, contaminated drugs etc, what damage does a recreational drug user cause to society? Was it an economic question, ie, the belief that people having fun on drugs wouldn't want to go to work? Doesn't happen generally with legal booze. Actually, I have two-day hangovers these days so... 😀

mjdcc - Member

Perhaps my final thoughts are that it is complex, Indonesia is plagued by [b][u]corruption at every level[/u][/b], so while it is true that Indonesia does execute its own for drug smuggling, these are exclusively low level traffickers - Mr Big never ever gets caught in Indonesia. Moreover, it is widely rumored that the army have long controlled the drug trade (they are a law unto themselves) in Indonesia).

That's the reason why you shouldn't be tight fisted if you are caught ... pay and you should be free.

🙄

You want live ...! You payyyy ...! Good Monney ...! You no eat cake for yourself ... You ppaayyy ...!

on one level you are right chewkw but it is a very high risk strategy. Again, there are several reasons for this. One, you have to pay the right person/people and foreigners in Indonesian jails do not know nor do they have access to the right people. And you can be guaranteed - in all but a handful of cases - that their local lawyer will be of dubious renown unless they are very rich (for this reason their lawyer will likely not know what to do either). Besides 99% of those caught couldn't afford the required bribes to make the problem go away. Moreover, it doesn't always work, I am aware of cases where monies changed hands amounting to 6 figures with no result. Finally, there is a socio-political element to enforcement. In the minds of many low ranking Indonesian police officers and bureaucrats an anti-drug policy has been woven into the 'nationalist psyche' so that arresting a bule (foreigner) for a crime associated with decadence (Judeo-Christian or otherwise) is seen as a way to strike back at an perceived/imagined Western dominance and meddling. This is, of course, supported by a bellicose brand of Islam in central Java, which stands ready to condemn a perfodious and immoral west. But again this is belied by the stark fact that the vast majority of foreigners executed in Indonesia for this are Nigerians - and here there is an added racial element.

My warning is this . . . sentencing authorities are keen to convict low level foreign traffickers and ven those caught in possession as doing so does not disrupt local distribution channels (power structures) and it brings rewards for local police chiefs who can use it to promote a tough on drugs image given foreign news coverage. Also, the law fails to discriminate between what we would call class A, B and C drugs.

mjdcc - Member

on one level you are right chewkw but it is a very high risk strategy.

Yes, it is a high risk strategy but is there any other option? At least you can have one last try ...

The British govt can intervene but this will be perceived as meddling with their laws, which might even stir up their (nationalist) hatred even more.

Historically, the Dutch treated them like dirt as when they were their colonial master and with brutality ... this feeling has not gone away put it this way.

What the British govt can do in future is to negotiate with the Indonesian govt a way out for future British trafficker(s) caught. i.e. an agreement to pay some sort of compensation or whatever is seen as acceptable to the govt there. I am sure such negotiation will work so long as the extreme elements (people with extreme belief) are not involved.

Also, the British media has essentially sentenced her to death too when they broadcasted the news loudly worldwide, which make it very unlikely for the Indonesian govt to back off because they would loose face ... even if they want to have a backdoor deal they can't because everyone is watching and they need to maintain their stance.

Same applies to ALL the neighbouring countries but I bet if the Queen personally asks them to pardon the crime/trafficker(s) the Indonesian govt will pardon them but don't over use it though.

However, if the British PM demands/asks for pardon I doubt it will work ... I think they think he is a bit too young ...

🙂

For once Chewkw you've posted something that reads quite well.

Keep it up instead of calling people maggots or making racist impersonations.

Tom_W1987 - Member

For once Chewkw you've posted something that reads quite well.

Keep it up instead of calling people maggots or making racist impersonations

I treat human kind with fairness 😆

They are all maggots unless I unchecked them from my list which can be very few.

p/s: I rather the British PM bow to ask to pardon the traffickers ... Not the Queen.

I've done a fair few drugs in my years on this planet, so I'm not coming from a moralistic viewpoint when I say that I couldn't give a rat's arse when they get nabbed and thrown into a hole for the rest of their lives. It's Darwin at work, removing their genes from the gene-pool.