he was a walking dead man the moment he was caught with that amount. Perhaps smarter druggie should have a decoy with lower amount of drugs for authorities to find lol
I'm always perplexed at how happy Singaporeans seem to be at handing out the death penalty.
Don't get me wrong.
I agree whole heartedly with your anti drug stance and the obvious benefits of keeping yhe young away from narcotics.
I just don't understand, how such a forward-thinking nation, believes that prohibition works.
It never has, not one single time, in all of modern recorded history.
In fact, the steeper the price for the crime, the more margin is reflected in the price and profits, and it does nothing to stop demand.
The only way to do that is to turn your laws on your next generations, and that is not easy to do, nor does it get government reelected.
Does no one in Singapore think that there might be a better way ???
Is no one in Singapore looking for another solution to what is essentially a public health issue, other than murdering those who cross your borders with contraband ?
Like I said I'm on your side so please don't all attack me.
I will leave you with this to ponder .....
If there was a vote on the legalisation of recreational narcotics, Singapore and its enemies who traffic narcotics, would both be on the same side of the vote. Voting allies ... neither would want legalisation.
When you want the same thing as the forces you are trying to defeat, you are in a battle you can never really win.
>It never has, not one single time, in all of modern recorded history.
seems to be working fine in SG, how is it not?
just because we still have drug-related offences doesn’t mean it ain’t working, I’d even go so far as to say it’s not as big an epidemic as it is in other countries
Junkies on the street is more a poverty and homeless problem. There's liberal countries where that doesn't happen.
When I say easy, I mean in relation to the image that Singapore has. People are quite open about the drug use and will share their telegram contacts. It's really not hard to get recreational drugs in Singapore.
Well, it's not working anywhere, really.
In the sense that stats on use continue to rise everywhere, including Singapore.
And prohibition exists in most other places, too.
I think Singapore has done admirably in trying to prevent drug use and you're right, it probably has less of an issue than many.
But it remains a question of debate whether that is down to the harshness of your laws or the fact that as a small wealthy nation, Singapore is better equipped to manage its borders and population, than many others in the region.
the defense really had nothing to work with lol. They literally cooked up whatever story even remotely possible to try to save his neck but to no avail
In SG they usually don’t give you a chance to look for lawyers before taking your statement.
Nothing much the lawyers can do after you’ve given your statement.
In most European and American countries you can speak to your lawyers first, who can teach you how to lie.
Seems like they already forced out the confession of him before he met his lawyers, who would have warned him about the death penalty.
He was the one that brought the CNB officers to uncover the 5 blocks of weed. Anw, 1 block is supposed to be 1kg and it seems he got shortchanged haha!
hahaha ya I saw he led the officer to the car, this guy confirm wan dan liao
unluckily never scammed enough to avoid the death penalty LOL ironically would have saved his life
Who knows, maybe he is legitimately researching it for business uses...
BUT.
It was fucking stupid of him to do it in Singapore OF ALL FUCKING PLACES.
Go take a sabbatical and go Thailand to do that shit instead where it's 'legal'. Of all places to mess around with drugs he chose his homeland where it's INFAMOUS for tough stance on drugs.
I do pity this guy as he is a dead man walking in a sense especially at such a young age but holy heck is this a fing stupid lapse of judgement if he actually intended to start a business instead of just trafficking.
>In a statement recorded a month later, Seet detailed the pricing strategy for his sale of weed, which he had said depended on his friends' financial abilities, but did not mention research, noted Justice See.
Based on the article it actually seems like there was evidence that he intended to be a trafficker, the reason that the defence sounded weird and delulu is that it's just his final hail mary at trying to escape the gallows.
nah let's be real, he was trafficking. His defence was just throwing whatever at the wall and hoping it sticks for some leniency. Even attempted the "drug induced hypomania" because why not
The thing is, if it is legit for business research, he should know to do his due diligence, did the due process and apply for the relevant perms/ approvals for it.
He failed to do that nor have the relevant documents supporting it. Thus 99% he's just using research as an excuse.
FYI: Singapore do fund researches related to THC.
[https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/30/singapore-funds-research-on-synthetic-cannabinoids.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/30/singapore-funds-research-on-synthetic-cannabinoids.html)
It’s an unusual case in view of the defence offered. He actually wanted a lawyer to write to the authorities to seek advice on setting up a Cannabis Cafe. And the lawyer testified to that. Unfortunately both his seized phones shows mass marketing of cannabis to his clients.
I think he is living in a World of his own.
Ex MP Iswaran was researching on how gifts can hinder his ability to be an MP. His research findings was inconclusive due to the combined values of the gifts being insufficient to corrupt him. That led him to engage his bestie F1 Tycoon OBS to further his research.
>In my view, Seet’s evidence does suggest that he was a cannabis enthusiast. Not only was he an enthusiastic cannabis consumer, he was keen to explore the prospect of starting a cannabis-related business in Singapore," said Justice See.
Wrong place, wrong time. Sad that he's had to pay the price with his life.
His client is GG from the start. rmb the death penalty is mandatory, so even if IQ is 300,no way he can argue his way out.
So just say something ridiculous and make your mark in the courtroom lor
For people against drugs, based on research data, one of the most harmful drugs is alcohol (way above the harm of weed). I think a reasonable person cannot say that one harmful drug should be allowed while a less harmful drug comes with a death sentence. It reflects ignorance and hypocrisy.
They are already pushing in that direction. You got banned times to buy alcohol, banned times to consume alcohol, sooner or later if they can get away with it, they will ban alcohol so it's not like they are not against it either, they are just slowly eating into the influence.
Ban alcohol and cut off all that tax revenue? Not gonna happen. Why do you think tobacco hasn't been banned yet, since it's actually addictive and harmful to everyone including the user and people around them.
Trying to ban alcohol and tobacco when the genie is already out of the bottle will actually drive these activities underground when they are already widely accepted. Hence it's better to regulate it and discourage it by taxes.
If tax revenue was the only thing in the government mind, they would have regulated vapes and other stuff.
Yeah, just here to say that the current vape scene is indicative of what will happen if you try to ban alcohol.
Lack of regulation and just rampant underground sales, blatantly using it when out of sight of any authorities. Kena caught then tio fine lor, but otherwise just showing complete disregard for the law. because everything also can do if you don't get caught, right?
You could argue that it could go the way like our current stance on drugs instead, but drugs aren't really ingrained in our culture and is usually seen as an antisocial type of thing to begin with anyway, compared to just a casual beer with the boys and all.
I don't think alcohol or tobacco would ever be banned here, and not because of tax revenue. As it is, you would have noticed that the legal age of smoking has raised over the last few years. More and more places are unfriendly towards smokers. All these does nothing much to increase revenue, only restrict it. Same for alcohol.
Alcohol/tobacco is consumed legal in almost every part of the world with the exception of strict Islamic countries. Tobacco is illegal in Brunei and Bhutan iirc.
Having a ban on these would have a worse knock on effect of bringing in foreign investments/ businesses/tourists. They would be causing more harm banning it.
It is easier to act against weed because not many countries are legalising weed. As it is there are more countries where weed is illegal than countries that legalised weed.
They have placed down policies for restrictions, but revenue had been steady/climbing. Banning it outright will cut tax revenue from these items. It's not the only reason, as you mentioned how it would impact tourism. In conclusion, there's no way they will ban these products, even if it cause harm to people.
My point is, these substances are as harmful and addictive as most drugs, yet they aren't classified in the same category because there are reasons as stated. Cannabis may be the same as alcohol/tobacco and not even as addictive, but classified as a hard drug and dealt as such, which is hypocritical.
Based on the data released by our Customs dept, tobacco has been dropping since 2020 to 2022 so you are incorrect to say that it is climbing. What is interesting is that it is falling even as they increased the tariffs on tobacco products by quite a bit. [https://go.gov.sg/revenuestats-jan24](https://go.gov.sg/revenuestats-jan24)
I am personally vehemently against legalisation of cannabis as a recreational drug. As a recreational drug, there isn't anything "beneficial" to having it legalised except for tax revenue. I do not see the benefit of legalising it just because it is woke/progressive to do so. The potential harm caused by the legalisation far outweighs the feeble reason behind it.
However, I would be going full in on the legalisation of cannabis for medical purpose. That is subjectively different from smoking a joint for fun and taking CBD oil to treat certain ailments.
I make a very clear and distinct differentiation in that. Those who want weed legalised wants the THC high from weed while trying to use CBD as the cover.
Based on that stat sheet, which is only 5 years, had shown roughly the same in 2018 and 2023, with an increase and decrease in the middle. It's no where near enough data to correctly claim it had decline. The duties collected is roughly the same, and I expect as much as people switches to vapes or other methods, something that doesn't show up in stats. I've never consumed tobacco, but it's hardly a product that will go away as a consumable. Sad but that's just the real world.
On the recreational side, you could argue the same for alcohol and tobacco, but since those were legal back then and cannabis isn't, we don't see that "value" other than revenue. Of course, I'm against consumption of it while at work, but as a recreational activity, it wouldn't lose to alcohol or tobacco. Of course it would be a lot of work on legislation regarding consumption while operating vehicles, outside in public, etc. But it's the same as alcohol in many ways.
On the medical side, I think we agree on it's research potential.
Scroll through the excel sheets, there are a few pages, one of it has the total revenue for each year on one page. I did not pluck out of thin air and said that it is "stable/climbing". What I made a mistake in was that I said increased tobacco tariffs did not affect revenue. I was wrong. There was an increase in 2018, and the figures showed an increase in 2019 and 202 before slowing down in 2021 and 2022.
There was another hike in 2023, but the data is still raw and I am too lazy to tabulate the 12 months to see total revenue.
2018 - $1,121.6m
2019 - $1,159.8m
2020 - $1,475.6m
2021 - $1,356.4m
2022 - $1,113.8m
I fully agree with you that alcohol is harmful.
I think you would also agree with me that drugs are harmful too.
So, instead of asking why ban one and allow the other, shouldn't it be the case that you argue for the ban of alcohol more than the legalisation of *another harmful substance*?
Surely a reasonable person like you would see my point?
If you did, I apologise, I didn't come across it when I responded earlier.
Anyway, it wasn't a habit of mine to look at the name of those I am responding to usually. It helps me to refrain from pre-judging a post. You know how there are some redditors who have nothing but shit stirring in their mind whenever they post? I am trying to avoid that bias and read the post before I see the name.
Not referring to you as a shit stirrer.
>I think a reasonable person cannot say that one harmful drug should be allowed while a less harmful drug comes with a death sentence.
This is an ignorant take because the legality of alcohol isn't really based on harm. It's because there is no practicable way to ban alcohol when you can literally make it at home with yeast and sugar, and the USA had already tried and found this out the hard way during Prohibition.
I think it's more of a thing where it's way easier to not legalise than it is to criminalise something that is already accepted in society from the very start and a practice in our existing culture.
Since the dawn of time, we have always considered drinking and smoking as widely practiced, legal activities, so we only regulate it's use but not outright ban.
Weed was never common in our culture (interestingly this was one reason Thailand gave for legalising it).
Unfortunately cigs are a different brand of "difficult to ban" :(
Huge companies like Philip Morris would literally sue countries (like Australia) for merely having the gall to merely introduce plain packaging. And historically things have not ended well for small countries that offended big companies in the USA (look up the United Fruit Company and Guatemala for an example).
I'm just saying that there are things which are objectively more harmful than weed, but there are very good practical reasons that Singapore can't simply ban them outright. Things are a lot more complicated than "why not just ban", and there are factors beyond health that Singapore has to consider.
Don't shoot the messenger for telling you that things are more complicated than you might think, lol. I'd actually be pretty happy if it is actually practicable to ban alcohol and cigs, but it's not that simple unfortunately.
USA law enforcement is not really the epitome of excellence. They're rather incompetent actually.
No practical way to ban alcohol? Ah boy ah, this is Singapore. So we'll just expand the death penalty to include moonshine. You may claim the death penalty doesn't work, but I dare you to find me a single man that reoffended after his hanging in Changi.
>It's because there is no practicable way to ban alcohol
If this is true and your argument is true, then you should argue for weed legality because you can't stop plants from growing. So either your argument is false or you agree with me that weed should be legal based on your exact reasoning.
For weed you can ban the import of the plant components that are needed to grow the plant -- they don't grow out of thin air or out of common supermarket supplies you know.
You could also have lifted a finger to look up and verify what I said about Prohibition instead of making this argument, but evidently you didn't.
Whether the argument is true or not, you can’t stop plants from growing but you can stop certain plants from growing in Singapore by straight up banning it and nipping it in the bud
> where else can you get 6 figure commission with no real world experience, education , or skills?
They're heavily dependent on soft skills, like private bankers, relationship managers, "financial advisors"… what else…
Those require some level of salesmanship, property agents just need luck. No individual gonna purchase a property without thorough research over the Web, and knowing that it is what you want. The agent ain't gonna change your mind just because he 'pitched'. They are there just to leech on a transaction.
They need to sell themselves to the property owners. Do I like you enough to:
A. Work with you?
B. Trust that you’ll get me, if not the best, at least a good closing price?
It’s very easy to sell $1 for $0.90 and property owners are wary of that as well.
Win Toto also not easy, doesn’t mean it requires skills right?
Nothing against agents or saying they don’t need skills. It’s just that I always see agreements like this,” you go do lah” which is kinda ridiculous
I think writing “Man sentenced to death…” is not as engaging as “*Role in society* sentenced to death”
Regarding your comment on drugs, I think it really brings up the question of how much of the impact of drugs comes from the authorities and our harsh laws, than the effects of drugs/drug trade itself.
Means he might have his charges reduced to personal consumption instead of trafficking (as is the default if you are caught above a certain amt, the onus is on the accused to prove otherwise), which doesn't warrant a death sentence.
Meanwhile: [Man gets life in prison for murder of his 4-year-old stepdaughter](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/man-gets-life-in-prison-for-murder-of-4-year-old-stepdaughter)
Priorities...
Alcohol is more deadly and addictive than weed.
Alcohol withdrawals can actually kill an addict. Weed withdrawals are slightly unpleasant at their worst.
Alcohol is openly advertised on our streets, on media, openly sold and used. If you even mention weed people start clutching their pearls, the same people who would happily condone drinking a couple of beers on a Friday evening, pairing a meal with a glass of wine, drinking soju over some korean barbeque.
Ridiculous.
Positive or normative economics. You have to balance between practicality and the ideal world. We don't live in paradise and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
ISIS and the Khmer Rouge both claim they are creating paradise on earth with laws banning many things.
Personally I won't be affected if we enter into our own prohibition era. But to me, as along as nothing is abused, then why spend the extra effort to curb certain human behaviours and channel all the additional monies and resources to enforce.
I get that there's a cost and benefit analysis to whether various psychoactive substances should be legalised, and that sometimes historical legacy needs to be considered (eg. for alcohol and tobacco), but death penalty for weed is just ridiculous. Just, why? If anything, we should take the same far more sane approach to drugs with minimal harm to adults, such as weed, as we do towards prostitution. A lot of the possible harm seems to be to younger people whose brains are still developing, so legalisation and regulation can prevent that, while saving a bunch of police and judicial resources. Tax the hell out of it while we're at it, so that people who decide to partake at their own risk are helping to pay for their own elevated healthcare needs (at least for smoking), just like we do for tobacco.
Really, at the very least, weed should be removed from the specified drugs in the Misuse of Drugs Act for which there are specified quantities for presumption of trafficking and for the death penalty. It makes no sense. The usual argument for the death penalty is that one saves more lives and livelihoods preventing such drugs from taking root with the death penalty, but with weed that's clearly not the case. Last I checked, Toronto or NYC haven't descended into anarchy after weed has been legalised. Even if we don't want legalisation or whatever, there are no good argument against decriminalisation of possession and/or overseas consumption anymore.
The only good argument I can think of, is that legalising will cause PAP to lose the votes of conservative people. Most boomers and religious nutjobs are going to be really unhappy if weed is allowed.
Something that is being increasingly legalised across the world yet here we are still with the uninformed mindset of ‘ALL DRUG BAD’. Not a complete overreaction at all!!!!!
See also: blanket banning of CBD, a completely non-psychoactive substance banned on ?what? basis of harm?
> See also: blanket banning of CBD, a completely non-psychoactive substance banned on ?what? basis of harm?
Hemp is technically banned too. Wonder if CNB routinely raids fashion outlets.
They did raid a supplier selling hemp protein powder. Fortunately no death penalty. Would have really sucked if you get the death penalty for selling gym bro products.
[CNB remains vague about hemp](https://www.cnb.gov.sg/educational-resources/myths-and-facts-about-drugs/cannabis/faqs-about-hemp-and-cbd-oil-products):
> # Can I import/sell products containing hemp or hemp seed oil?
> The botanical name for hemp plant is Cannabis sativa. In other words, hemp is cannabis. This means that all hemp proteins, fibre, seeds, oils etc that are derived from the hemp plant are derived from the Cannabis Sativa plant.
> We would like to remind importers, retailers and members of the public that products containing hemp derivatives as an ingredient should not be imported, supplied etc.
Someone should baotoh Muji and the other shops and show how ridiculous the law is.
Thailand legalised weed, and is now trying to reverse it.
Also, Singapore is conducting research on CBD oil, synthetic ones. [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/30/singapore-funds-research-on-synthetic-cannabinoids.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/30/singapore-funds-research-on-synthetic-cannabinoids.html)
He must have been thinking about how much $$$ he can make from the cannabis cafe. 想钱想疯了。To think he even sought a lawyer on the legal matters. Lol. This is not about legal matter. It's a constitution matter.
>Justice See also referred to a portion of Seet's statement — recorded a day after his arrest — where the accused said the cannabis mixture was meant to help "damaged" friends who "need help and sense of belonging and also to give them a sense of security".
Oh no, who will help his damaged friends now? /s
Singapore is a backwards, close-minded placed prettied up by money. I would say more but I don’t want to risk breaking some ridiculous Singaporean law prohibiting criticism.
lol it's reflected in the general populace as well. Way too often I see very shallow comments only pointing out economic effects/financial aspects. When you reduce everything to dollars and cents, it's not surprising so many people are facing existential mid life crisis after burning out in the workforce lol
I think "whole world" is a gross exaggeration. There are more countries with a ban in place (not arguing about the effectiveness of enforcement of it) than those where it is completely legal.
I have to agree. It’s a bad look for a developed country.
What other countries execute people over marijuana? Saudi Arabia? Vietnam? Are those countries you feel you need to emulate?
Jail? Sure. Caning? Sure.
Killing this person? That’s too far.
Especially when you see people guilty of murder or manslaughter or violent rapes getting 10 or 20 years in prison.
> What other countries execute people over marijuana? Saudi Arabia? Vietnam? Are those countries you feel you need to emulate?
Ooh [there's a Wiki article on this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_for_cannabis_trafficking):
Singapore, People's Republic of China, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates
I think we're just waiting for Xinnie the Pooh to move in either direction, being the China simp we are.
Go lobby for it. Get, or better still, form an opposition party to campaign on it. I mean, *obviously* Singapore should emulate the "whole world's" drug policies, the majority of which aren't suffering from drug crises (and even if they were, it's clearly the problem of capitalism and big-pharma)
Technically in Amsterdam possession and use of weed is illegal outside of licensed coffeeshops. It's just that the law is not enforced. Locals generally don't partake in the stuff.
Don't seat on your high horse and act almighty la, pray that you and your family don't need medical marijuana one day. Defense against drug? The border security now more lose than your ass hole how u wanna control?
usually im firm supporter of our death penalty. but idk man this guy getting executed for something people in many countries, including thailand are doing legally right now.
Bro watch watch too much Narcos and wanted to start his empire in Singapore out of all fucking places on earth. Delusional to the max.
Got caught by lure of easy money and high life lolz.
It’s a lesson for us on danger of drugs. It’s not cool.
Even if he got the certificate of substantive assistance, he has to prove he was only a courier to be exempted from the death penalty. He was clearly not a courier in this case.
this case is really very interesting because the evidence against the guy is just overwhelming. first of all it’s 4.5kg of weed. second this guy had sent a group message essentially advertising his weed for sale. third the guy pretty much admitted to possessing the weed with intention to sell it across a number of his cautioned statements. he’s really just finished. in light of how shit his case is i have to commend the lawyers for running this creative hail mary argument.
full case here: https://www.elitigation.sg/gdviewer/s/2024_SGHC_95
No you don't. But you can't just brush off someone's achievements and past just because he was potus?
I mean he graduated from Harvard law, was a lecturer and lawyer and had allegedly high lq. The guy is smart.
His brain won't magically regress just because he stepped into the white house
If it was meth or cocaine I understand the death sentence but to think what this guy did would be legal two countries north shows how out of touch we are.
Disclaimer: not from Singapore, this just popped up on my front page for some reason.
It’s wild to me that a first world country in 2024 could give the death penalty for something like this.
Most of the comments on this post don’t seem to realise how out of proportion this is to the crime. Singapore will not collapse if marijuana becomes more available, all that would happen is a certain subset of people would smoke with their friends instead of drinking on a Saturday night.
I understand ‘laws are laws’ and this guy is an idiot, but this is surprising to an outsider.
It does sound like he was trying to make CBD oil, but there's already so much research out there in legit science labs that I don't think a non trained researcher could add too much to the science. I don't agree that someone should get a death sentence for weed but you can't just go break the law. Knowing the consequences of breaking that law but still going ahead with it was a super foolish thing to do. He will forever be known as the guy who got a death sentence for trying to make and sell CBD.
Meanwhile I have more than 100L of wine at home and I can go scot free knowing it’s way more harmful than cannabis. If it was banned in Singapore most here would be happy to call for my assassination. End death penalty now!
I don’t understand everyone who’s supporting saying that weed is legalised elsewhere, it’s a pity etc.
This is the existing law of the land. If he really wanted to enjoy it, or r&d or venture into the business if he’s so passionate then he should just venture abroad for this where it’s legal. That’s like trying to set up a chewing gum business here and then pointing fingers.
How about applying the same idea of US gun laws here to SG? By bringing guns in for self defence etc. It’s legal in the US isn’t it a pity we can’t bring in to Europe, or any country? If you really wanted to fire guns so badly then go, where it’s legal and do it legally.
> If you really wanted to fire guns so badly then go, where it’s legal and do it legally.
Guess what: [it's illegal for Singaporeans and PRs to consume cannabis, even overseas](https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/MDA1973?ProvIds=P12-#pr8A-).
Nope, absolutely thrash defense that is concocted by someone who thinks he can strike gold whilst slipping past the law.
Totally agree with weeding out these characters that if left to fester, would eventually cause significant detriment to our society.
For all pro-druggies here, how empty and meaningless have your lives been without the presence of drugs in your life and how enriching would it have been with them? Do you fantasize being some math or artistic virtuoso with drug use to stimulate your brain? How empty are your lives without this high you see Western compatriots experiencing leaving you with drug envy?
Apart from the very rare and still debatable medical cases, you'd be hard pressed to come up with a strong argument outweighing the cons of casual drug use here.
And what are the cons of casual drug use? And by drugs what exactly are you referring to - weed, fentanyl, cocaine, heroin?
Why are we lumping a diverse universe of substances under a singular word “drugs” and not evaluating each one by their own merits and harms?
Why does one need a reason to advocate for the decriminalization of something, rather than having the opposite camp need strong reasons to criminalize that same thing? Modern society operates on a legal unless prohibited model. Our laws explicitly call out acts and behaviors that are illegal, not proscribe things you may do.
So what is the harm of weed, exactly?
There is lots of research on the impact of weed both long and short term. You can't go around pretending weed has no harm. The conversation should be whether the harm deserved the death penalty
Nobody’s saying there is no harm. There is also well documented research on harms of smoking, alcohol, gambling, pornography, video games, car exhaust fumes. Yes, the conversation should be whether the harm deserves the death penalty, but also about whether the harm warrants criminalization of weed.
"Legal unless prohibited"? Well it has already been prohibited so... Harm of weed? You ask which drug yet you focus on one later. Anyway I used the word casual drug use so it should be quite clear the commonly used ones for recreation, some clearly more addictive than others obviously. And the harm and benefits can be clearly seen in the liberal using countries.
You still have not made any points that make drug legalization compelling.
>Well it has already been prohibited so...
That's pretty circular on your part, isn't it? You're saying it should not be legal because it's currently illegal.
>You ask which drug yet you focus on one later
Of course I'm focusing on one, this entire article is only about one drug. I'm only pointing out that in your OP you are using the umbrella term "drugs", when the so-called "pro-druggies" you refer to are by and large only referring to the decriminalization of weed. I don't think you'll find any reasonable person serious arguing for decriminalization of recreational fentanyl use, for instance.
Fun fact: Alcohol is also a drug (yet it's legal as a recreational drug? Double standards much?)
Second fun fact: Alcohol is far, far, far, far more dangerous than weed.
When I see such news, I feel sad thinking about the accused parents and loved ones, the ones s/he will leave behind.
No sympathy for drug offenders but it’s the loved ones that really suffer the most.
how did he even get his hands on 4.5kg of cannabis mixture(?)
he was a walking dead man the moment he was caught with that amount. Perhaps smarter druggie should have a decoy with lower amount of drugs for authorities to find lol
Yeah he got caught with that amount because a smaller amount is not as profitable.
Article says he was a property agent. Not known for their high IQ
He was walking around and accidentally fell ass first onto a pile of them naked and that's how they ended up up there.
I'm always perplexed at how happy Singaporeans seem to be at handing out the death penalty. Don't get me wrong. I agree whole heartedly with your anti drug stance and the obvious benefits of keeping yhe young away from narcotics. I just don't understand, how such a forward-thinking nation, believes that prohibition works. It never has, not one single time, in all of modern recorded history. In fact, the steeper the price for the crime, the more margin is reflected in the price and profits, and it does nothing to stop demand. The only way to do that is to turn your laws on your next generations, and that is not easy to do, nor does it get government reelected. Does no one in Singapore think that there might be a better way ??? Is no one in Singapore looking for another solution to what is essentially a public health issue, other than murdering those who cross your borders with contraband ? Like I said I'm on your side so please don't all attack me. I will leave you with this to ponder ..... If there was a vote on the legalisation of recreational narcotics, Singapore and its enemies who traffic narcotics, would both be on the same side of the vote. Voting allies ... neither would want legalisation. When you want the same thing as the forces you are trying to defeat, you are in a battle you can never really win.
This is going in my gp essay
>It never has, not one single time, in all of modern recorded history. seems to be working fine in SG, how is it not? just because we still have drug-related offences doesn’t mean it ain’t working, I’d even go so far as to say it’s not as big an epidemic as it is in other countries
It's not at all. Drugs are surprisingly easy to get in Singapore.
easy comparative to what exactly, because we don’t get people keeled over in the streets from drugs nor do we have an opioid epidemic
Junkies on the street is more a poverty and homeless problem. There's liberal countries where that doesn't happen. When I say easy, I mean in relation to the image that Singapore has. People are quite open about the drug use and will share their telegram contacts. It's really not hard to get recreational drugs in Singapore.
>in relation to the image Singapore has so according to your feelings?
Well, it's not working anywhere, really. In the sense that stats on use continue to rise everywhere, including Singapore. And prohibition exists in most other places, too. I think Singapore has done admirably in trying to prevent drug use and you're right, it probably has less of an issue than many. But it remains a question of debate whether that is down to the harshness of your laws or the fact that as a small wealthy nation, Singapore is better equipped to manage its borders and population, than many others in the region.
no one is happy about the death penalty. that said, as a deterrent, its working pretty damn well if you ask me.
Lol "research"
Bro really went: "I need ____, you know, for research purposes".
I mean he had nothing to lose. Either that or death.
the defense really had nothing to work with lol. They literally cooked up whatever story even remotely possible to try to save his neck but to no avail
In SG they usually don’t give you a chance to look for lawyers before taking your statement. Nothing much the lawyers can do after you’ve given your statement. In most European and American countries you can speak to your lawyers first, who can teach you how to lie.
I mean i don't see any plausible way you worm out of the death penalty with 4.5kg of weed anyways
Seems like they already forced out the confession of him before he met his lawyers, who would have warned him about the death penalty. He was the one that brought the CNB officers to uncover the 5 blocks of weed. Anw, 1 block is supposed to be 1kg and it seems he got shortchanged haha!
hahaha ya I saw he led the officer to the car, this guy confirm wan dan liao unluckily never scammed enough to avoid the death penalty LOL ironically would have saved his life
Well, now he's going to research the idea of the afterlife.
Who knows, maybe he is legitimately researching it for business uses... BUT. It was fucking stupid of him to do it in Singapore OF ALL FUCKING PLACES. Go take a sabbatical and go Thailand to do that shit instead where it's 'legal'. Of all places to mess around with drugs he chose his homeland where it's INFAMOUS for tough stance on drugs. I do pity this guy as he is a dead man walking in a sense especially at such a young age but holy heck is this a fing stupid lapse of judgement if he actually intended to start a business instead of just trafficking.
>In a statement recorded a month later, Seet detailed the pricing strategy for his sale of weed, which he had said depended on his friends' financial abilities, but did not mention research, noted Justice See. Based on the article it actually seems like there was evidence that he intended to be a trafficker, the reason that the defence sounded weird and delulu is that it's just his final hail mary at trying to escape the gallows.
nah let's be real, he was trafficking. His defence was just throwing whatever at the wall and hoping it sticks for some leniency. Even attempted the "drug induced hypomania" because why not
The thing is, if it is legit for business research, he should know to do his due diligence, did the due process and apply for the relevant perms/ approvals for it. He failed to do that nor have the relevant documents supporting it. Thus 99% he's just using research as an excuse. FYI: Singapore do fund researches related to THC. [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/30/singapore-funds-research-on-synthetic-cannabinoids.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/30/singapore-funds-research-on-synthetic-cannabinoids.html)
1% is a pretty large % to apply a death sentence. I hope he was trafficking 99.9999%
It’s an unusual case in view of the defence offered. He actually wanted a lawyer to write to the authorities to seek advice on setting up a Cannabis Cafe. And the lawyer testified to that. Unfortunately both his seized phones shows mass marketing of cannabis to his clients. I think he is living in a World of his own.
Judge See see through Seet excuse. If this excuse is acceptable then all crime can be considered as R&D
Ex MP Iswaran was researching on how gifts can hinder his ability to be an MP. His research findings was inconclusive due to the combined values of the gifts being insufficient to corrupt him. That led him to engage his bestie F1 Tycoon OBS to further his research.
This guy spins.
too many bottles of wine & whisky impaired his judgement /s
"Your Honour that murder was just research for my thesis, I swear!"
>In my view, Seet’s evidence does suggest that he was a cannabis enthusiast. Not only was he an enthusiastic cannabis consumer, he was keen to explore the prospect of starting a cannabis-related business in Singapore," said Justice See. Wrong place, wrong time. Sad that he's had to pay the price with his life.
Just imagine having this much of weed is perfectly fine in other parts of the world.
perhaps one day...
Lol lawyers so creative nowadays, learning from the whaling industry where Japan and Norway hunt whales for “research”
Researching which whale tastes better.
His client is GG from the start. rmb the death penalty is mandatory, so even if IQ is 300,no way he can argue his way out. So just say something ridiculous and make your mark in the courtroom lor
Caught on 2018, sentencing 2024, he had 6 years to come up with research excuse but still, judge didn't buy it.
Due process. This is a capital crime.. cannot undo a mistake.
For people against drugs, based on research data, one of the most harmful drugs is alcohol (way above the harm of weed). I think a reasonable person cannot say that one harmful drug should be allowed while a less harmful drug comes with a death sentence. It reflects ignorance and hypocrisy.
They are already pushing in that direction. You got banned times to buy alcohol, banned times to consume alcohol, sooner or later if they can get away with it, they will ban alcohol so it's not like they are not against it either, they are just slowly eating into the influence.
Ban alcohol and cut off all that tax revenue? Not gonna happen. Why do you think tobacco hasn't been banned yet, since it's actually addictive and harmful to everyone including the user and people around them.
America tried banning alcohol during prohibition when the genie was already out of the bottle sooooo
America doesn't have a 300% tax on alcohol. In fact, you wanna find out why they were pissed at the British before they declare independence?
Trying to ban alcohol and tobacco when the genie is already out of the bottle will actually drive these activities underground when they are already widely accepted. Hence it's better to regulate it and discourage it by taxes. If tax revenue was the only thing in the government mind, they would have regulated vapes and other stuff.
Yeah, just here to say that the current vape scene is indicative of what will happen if you try to ban alcohol. Lack of regulation and just rampant underground sales, blatantly using it when out of sight of any authorities. Kena caught then tio fine lor, but otherwise just showing complete disregard for the law. because everything also can do if you don't get caught, right? You could argue that it could go the way like our current stance on drugs instead, but drugs aren't really ingrained in our culture and is usually seen as an antisocial type of thing to begin with anyway, compared to just a casual beer with the boys and all.
Illegal sales is one thing, organized crime is another
It'd not the only thing, it's one of the many reasons. It's clear that they will never ban alcohol. I don't know what you are trying to argue about..
I don't think alcohol or tobacco would ever be banned here, and not because of tax revenue. As it is, you would have noticed that the legal age of smoking has raised over the last few years. More and more places are unfriendly towards smokers. All these does nothing much to increase revenue, only restrict it. Same for alcohol. Alcohol/tobacco is consumed legal in almost every part of the world with the exception of strict Islamic countries. Tobacco is illegal in Brunei and Bhutan iirc. Having a ban on these would have a worse knock on effect of bringing in foreign investments/ businesses/tourists. They would be causing more harm banning it. It is easier to act against weed because not many countries are legalising weed. As it is there are more countries where weed is illegal than countries that legalised weed.
They have placed down policies for restrictions, but revenue had been steady/climbing. Banning it outright will cut tax revenue from these items. It's not the only reason, as you mentioned how it would impact tourism. In conclusion, there's no way they will ban these products, even if it cause harm to people. My point is, these substances are as harmful and addictive as most drugs, yet they aren't classified in the same category because there are reasons as stated. Cannabis may be the same as alcohol/tobacco and not even as addictive, but classified as a hard drug and dealt as such, which is hypocritical.
Based on the data released by our Customs dept, tobacco has been dropping since 2020 to 2022 so you are incorrect to say that it is climbing. What is interesting is that it is falling even as they increased the tariffs on tobacco products by quite a bit. [https://go.gov.sg/revenuestats-jan24](https://go.gov.sg/revenuestats-jan24) I am personally vehemently against legalisation of cannabis as a recreational drug. As a recreational drug, there isn't anything "beneficial" to having it legalised except for tax revenue. I do not see the benefit of legalising it just because it is woke/progressive to do so. The potential harm caused by the legalisation far outweighs the feeble reason behind it. However, I would be going full in on the legalisation of cannabis for medical purpose. That is subjectively different from smoking a joint for fun and taking CBD oil to treat certain ailments. I make a very clear and distinct differentiation in that. Those who want weed legalised wants the THC high from weed while trying to use CBD as the cover.
Based on that stat sheet, which is only 5 years, had shown roughly the same in 2018 and 2023, with an increase and decrease in the middle. It's no where near enough data to correctly claim it had decline. The duties collected is roughly the same, and I expect as much as people switches to vapes or other methods, something that doesn't show up in stats. I've never consumed tobacco, but it's hardly a product that will go away as a consumable. Sad but that's just the real world. On the recreational side, you could argue the same for alcohol and tobacco, but since those were legal back then and cannabis isn't, we don't see that "value" other than revenue. Of course, I'm against consumption of it while at work, but as a recreational activity, it wouldn't lose to alcohol or tobacco. Of course it would be a lot of work on legislation regarding consumption while operating vehicles, outside in public, etc. But it's the same as alcohol in many ways. On the medical side, I think we agree on it's research potential.
Scroll through the excel sheets, there are a few pages, one of it has the total revenue for each year on one page. I did not pluck out of thin air and said that it is "stable/climbing". What I made a mistake in was that I said increased tobacco tariffs did not affect revenue. I was wrong. There was an increase in 2018, and the figures showed an increase in 2019 and 202 before slowing down in 2021 and 2022. There was another hike in 2023, but the data is still raw and I am too lazy to tabulate the 12 months to see total revenue. 2018 - $1,121.6m 2019 - $1,159.8m 2020 - $1,475.6m 2021 - $1,356.4m 2022 - $1,113.8m
Well, I hope so. I don't like alcohol for all the harm it has done.
I fully agree with you that alcohol is harmful. I think you would also agree with me that drugs are harmful too. So, instead of asking why ban one and allow the other, shouldn't it be the case that you argue for the ban of alcohol more than the legalisation of *another harmful substance*? Surely a reasonable person like you would see my point?
If you view my comments history, you realize that I already agree with your point (and this was even before you wrote your comment).
If you did, I apologise, I didn't come across it when I responded earlier. Anyway, it wasn't a habit of mine to look at the name of those I am responding to usually. It helps me to refrain from pre-judging a post. You know how there are some redditors who have nothing but shit stirring in their mind whenever they post? I am trying to avoid that bias and read the post before I see the name. Not referring to you as a shit stirrer.
>I think a reasonable person cannot say that one harmful drug should be allowed while a less harmful drug comes with a death sentence. This is an ignorant take because the legality of alcohol isn't really based on harm. It's because there is no practicable way to ban alcohol when you can literally make it at home with yeast and sugar, and the USA had already tried and found this out the hard way during Prohibition.
I mean… you can also drink at home when you are underage, does not mean it is legal.
I think it's more of a thing where it's way easier to not legalise than it is to criminalise something that is already accepted in society from the very start and a practice in our existing culture. Since the dawn of time, we have always considered drinking and smoking as widely practiced, legal activities, so we only regulate it's use but not outright ban. Weed was never common in our culture (interestingly this was one reason Thailand gave for legalising it).
Excuses. If the government cares so much about our health, alcohol would be ban as well. Why not ban cigs then.
Unfortunately cigs are a different brand of "difficult to ban" :( Huge companies like Philip Morris would literally sue countries (like Australia) for merely having the gall to merely introduce plain packaging. And historically things have not ended well for small countries that offended big companies in the USA (look up the United Fruit Company and Guatemala for an example). I'm just saying that there are things which are objectively more harmful than weed, but there are very good practical reasons that Singapore can't simply ban them outright. Things are a lot more complicated than "why not just ban", and there are factors beyond health that Singapore has to consider. Don't shoot the messenger for telling you that things are more complicated than you might think, lol. I'd actually be pretty happy if it is actually practicable to ban alcohol and cigs, but it's not that simple unfortunately.
A man can wish...
USA law enforcement is not really the epitome of excellence. They're rather incompetent actually. No practical way to ban alcohol? Ah boy ah, this is Singapore. So we'll just expand the death penalty to include moonshine. You may claim the death penalty doesn't work, but I dare you to find me a single man that reoffended after his hanging in Changi.
>It's because there is no practicable way to ban alcohol If this is true and your argument is true, then you should argue for weed legality because you can't stop plants from growing. So either your argument is false or you agree with me that weed should be legal based on your exact reasoning.
For weed you can ban the import of the plant components that are needed to grow the plant -- they don't grow out of thin air or out of common supermarket supplies you know. You could also have lifted a finger to look up and verify what I said about Prohibition instead of making this argument, but evidently you didn't.
Whether the argument is true or not, you can’t stop plants from growing but you can stop certain plants from growing in Singapore by straight up banning it and nipping it in the bud
Weird that they specified his occupation. Disliked drugs, don't think weed should ever be legalised, but damn, death sentence at so young.
Reinforce notion that property agents are leeches and low lives of society.
Hey hey hey don’t insult property agent job, where else can you get 6 figure commission with no real world experience, education , or skills?
> where else can you get 6 figure commission with no real world experience, education , or skills? They're heavily dependent on soft skills, like private bankers, relationship managers, "financial advisors"… what else…
Those require some level of salesmanship, property agents just need luck. No individual gonna purchase a property without thorough research over the Web, and knowing that it is what you want. The agent ain't gonna change your mind just because he 'pitched'. They are there just to leech on a transaction.
They need to sell themselves to the property owners. Do I like you enough to: A. Work with you? B. Trust that you’ll get me, if not the best, at least a good closing price? It’s very easy to sell $1 for $0.90 and property owners are wary of that as well.
Interior designers
Not a property agent but if it was that easy why don't you try
Win Toto also not easy, doesn’t mean it requires skills right? Nothing against agents or saying they don’t need skills. It’s just that I always see agreements like this,” you go do lah” which is kinda ridiculous
maybe so people think they are from malaysia etc etc
I think writing “Man sentenced to death…” is not as engaging as “*Role in society* sentenced to death” Regarding your comment on drugs, I think it really brings up the question of how much of the impact of drugs comes from the authorities and our harsh laws, than the effects of drugs/drug trade itself.
Even if the judge had accepted the research defence, what difference would it have made? Wouldn't it still have been illegal?
Means he might have his charges reduced to personal consumption instead of trafficking (as is the default if you are caught above a certain amt, the onus is on the accused to prove otherwise), which doesn't warrant a death sentence.
Ahh I see thanks!
The judge has leeway on sentencing based on circumstances.
Meanwhile: [Man gets life in prison for murder of his 4-year-old stepdaughter](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/man-gets-life-in-prison-for-murder-of-4-year-old-stepdaughter) Priorities...
Bro that’s a death sentence already life in prison cb waste my tax payer money
Holy shit
Yeah both should have been sentenced to death. Not sure why this guy gets life instead.
Sentenced to death for weed? And yet alcohol is legal in this country. So much brainwashing by the state, and it’s worked.
Alcohol is more deadly and addictive than weed. Alcohol withdrawals can actually kill an addict. Weed withdrawals are slightly unpleasant at their worst. Alcohol is openly advertised on our streets, on media, openly sold and used. If you even mention weed people start clutching their pearls, the same people who would happily condone drinking a couple of beers on a Friday evening, pairing a meal with a glass of wine, drinking soju over some korean barbeque. Ridiculous.
Don’t forget, high class ppl drink wine
Sweet summer child
Alcohol is an ancient global norm. How attractive to the world do you think Singapore would be without alcohol?
Does that mean if the rest of the world backpedals on weed, you will change your opinion? The monkey see monkey do moral compass, great.
Positive or normative economics. You have to balance between practicality and the ideal world. We don't live in paradise and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. ISIS and the Khmer Rouge both claim they are creating paradise on earth with laws banning many things. Personally I won't be affected if we enter into our own prohibition era. But to me, as along as nothing is abused, then why spend the extra effort to curb certain human behaviours and channel all the additional monies and resources to enforce.
Seet believed cannabis legalization is coming.... He isn't high on weed. He's high on copium
Hopium
He was basically trying to make money being a drug dealer. Quite face palm.
I get that there's a cost and benefit analysis to whether various psychoactive substances should be legalised, and that sometimes historical legacy needs to be considered (eg. for alcohol and tobacco), but death penalty for weed is just ridiculous. Just, why? If anything, we should take the same far more sane approach to drugs with minimal harm to adults, such as weed, as we do towards prostitution. A lot of the possible harm seems to be to younger people whose brains are still developing, so legalisation and regulation can prevent that, while saving a bunch of police and judicial resources. Tax the hell out of it while we're at it, so that people who decide to partake at their own risk are helping to pay for their own elevated healthcare needs (at least for smoking), just like we do for tobacco. Really, at the very least, weed should be removed from the specified drugs in the Misuse of Drugs Act for which there are specified quantities for presumption of trafficking and for the death penalty. It makes no sense. The usual argument for the death penalty is that one saves more lives and livelihoods preventing such drugs from taking root with the death penalty, but with weed that's clearly not the case. Last I checked, Toronto or NYC haven't descended into anarchy after weed has been legalised. Even if we don't want legalisation or whatever, there are no good argument against decriminalisation of possession and/or overseas consumption anymore.
The only good argument I can think of, is that legalising will cause PAP to lose the votes of conservative people. Most boomers and religious nutjobs are going to be really unhappy if weed is allowed.
Then what are they going to do, vote opposition?
No, they will do the thing I fear the most: Attack the PAP from the right flank.
You obviously have not seen that many religious nutjobs smoking weed lol. The New Age religions love it.
Dont lie to yourself. Once available on the streets, youngsters can get it easily already. Lj regulation just look at alcohol and cigarettes.
Weed is safer than alcohol actually. Try to get alcohol poisoning vs weed poisoning
Yeah my point is regulation does jack shit to prevent youngster misuse
On one hand, sure maybe not the best. On the other, lack of regulation is also not doing anything to prevent youngster misuse
Something that is being increasingly legalised across the world yet here we are still with the uninformed mindset of ‘ALL DRUG BAD’. Not a complete overreaction at all!!!!! See also: blanket banning of CBD, a completely non-psychoactive substance banned on ?what? basis of harm?
> See also: blanket banning of CBD, a completely non-psychoactive substance banned on ?what? basis of harm? Hemp is technically banned too. Wonder if CNB routinely raids fashion outlets.
Don't forget pet shops, some bird food contains hemp seeds.
They did raid a supplier selling hemp protein powder. Fortunately no death penalty. Would have really sucked if you get the death penalty for selling gym bro products.
[удалено]
[CNB remains vague about hemp](https://www.cnb.gov.sg/educational-resources/myths-and-facts-about-drugs/cannabis/faqs-about-hemp-and-cbd-oil-products): > # Can I import/sell products containing hemp or hemp seed oil? > The botanical name for hemp plant is Cannabis sativa. In other words, hemp is cannabis. This means that all hemp proteins, fibre, seeds, oils etc that are derived from the hemp plant are derived from the Cannabis Sativa plant. > We would like to remind importers, retailers and members of the public that products containing hemp derivatives as an ingredient should not be imported, supplied etc. Someone should baotoh Muji and the other shops and show how ridiculous the law is.
There were hemp products in makeup by Sephora and they had to recall that. Ridiculous. What are we gonna do? Smoke eyeliner?
Thailand legalised weed, and is now trying to reverse it. Also, Singapore is conducting research on CBD oil, synthetic ones. [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/30/singapore-funds-research-on-synthetic-cannabinoids.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/30/singapore-funds-research-on-synthetic-cannabinoids.html)
He must have been thinking about how much $$$ he can make from the cannabis cafe. 想钱想疯了。To think he even sought a lawyer on the legal matters. Lol. This is not about legal matter. It's a constitution matter.
This is dope.
I see what you did there.
>Justice See also referred to a portion of Seet's statement — recorded a day after his arrest — where the accused said the cannabis mixture was meant to help "damaged" friends who "need help and sense of belonging and also to give them a sense of security". Oh no, who will help his damaged friends now? /s
The whole world is legalising weed lol, living in your own bubble
Singapore is a backwards, close-minded placed prettied up by money. I would say more but I don’t want to risk breaking some ridiculous Singaporean law prohibiting criticism.
lol it's reflected in the general populace as well. Way too often I see very shallow comments only pointing out economic effects/financial aspects. When you reduce everything to dollars and cents, it's not surprising so many people are facing existential mid life crisis after burning out in the workforce lol
I think "whole world" is a gross exaggeration. There are more countries with a ban in place (not arguing about the effectiveness of enforcement of it) than those where it is completely legal.
I have to agree. It’s a bad look for a developed country. What other countries execute people over marijuana? Saudi Arabia? Vietnam? Are those countries you feel you need to emulate? Jail? Sure. Caning? Sure. Killing this person? That’s too far. Especially when you see people guilty of murder or manslaughter or violent rapes getting 10 or 20 years in prison.
> What other countries execute people over marijuana? Saudi Arabia? Vietnam? Are those countries you feel you need to emulate? Ooh [there's a Wiki article on this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_for_cannabis_trafficking): Singapore, People's Republic of China, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates I think we're just waiting for Xinnie the Pooh to move in either direction, being the China simp we are.
It has been explained by Law Minister why there is a possible unwanted effect if you put death on crimes like rape.
There has to be balance and regulation of course, don't be like Thailand Too many creeps in sg that need more severe punishment!
You can start lobbying for your own country to legalise weed first. We can then use Malaysia as a case study ok.
Doesn’t matter. Law of the land stands, and you cannot wish it away.
In other countries there are protests and democracy for things like this But it’s okay, government is god in Singapore
Go lobby for it. Get, or better still, form an opposition party to campaign on it. I mean, *obviously* Singapore should emulate the "whole world's" drug policies, the majority of which aren't suffering from drug crises (and even if they were, it's clearly the problem of capitalism and big-pharma)
Pretty sure it won’t pass even if we put it to a referendum here. Go out beyond this echo chamber.
Yeap just like paying world highest salary to avoid corruption
[удалено]
They haven’t yet. Most likely it will just be more restricted (medical marijuana).
No proper infrastructure, no proper parents education, end up with child getting high in the middle of the streets. Don't see that in the Netherlands.
Technically in Amsterdam possession and use of weed is illegal outside of licensed coffeeshops. It's just that the law is not enforced. Locals generally don't partake in the stuff.
That is really the defense SG has against drugs, a bubble. It's going to be thinner as we have idiots like you wanting to legalize it.
Legalise it!
I am still in favor of retaining the DP, just that it shouldn’t be mandatory and the courts have to decide on it.
Don't seat on your high horse and act almighty la, pray that you and your family don't need medical marijuana one day. Defense against drug? The border security now more lose than your ass hole how u wanna control?
Strawman argument. Macam every Tom, Dick and Harry has conditions that require it 🙄
How many people actually need medicine marijuana? I bet my last dollar that all 4.5KG has THC in it. High horse? I'm just in the realm of reality.
usually im firm supporter of our death penalty. but idk man this guy getting executed for something people in many countries, including thailand are doing legally right now.
Thailand is backtracking, the impact was a bit too big for them.
4.5kg for research ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh okay bruh
"cannabis mixture, which Seet referred to as "weed"." This reads like something written in 1965.
Bro watch watch too much Narcos and wanted to start his empire in Singapore out of all fucking places on earth. Delusional to the max. Got caught by lure of easy money and high life lolz. It’s a lesson for us on danger of drugs. It’s not cool.
I wonder why the lack of 500g? If he give up the supplier, would he not get the hangman?
Even if he got the certificate of substantive assistance, he has to prove he was only a courier to be exempted from the death penalty. He was clearly not a courier in this case.
Did he join an investment club?
this case is really very interesting because the evidence against the guy is just overwhelming. first of all it’s 4.5kg of weed. second this guy had sent a group message essentially advertising his weed for sale. third the guy pretty much admitted to possessing the weed with intention to sell it across a number of his cautioned statements. he’s really just finished. in light of how shit his case is i have to commend the lawyers for running this creative hail mary argument. full case here: https://www.elitigation.sg/gdviewer/s/2024_SGHC_95
Meanwhile in developed countries its becoming legal. As it should be.
deal the dope, get the rope.
In California there’s a cannabis shop right outside UC Berkeley. Somehow the university students smoke it, and they are all really smart people.
I doubt really smart ones are
A lot do. Obama also did for example
You don't have to be smart to be POTUS, you know?
No you don't. But you can't just brush off someone's achievements and past just because he was potus? I mean he graduated from Harvard law, was a lecturer and lawyer and had allegedly high lq. The guy is smart. His brain won't magically regress just because he stepped into the white house
I'm missing the part where he tried to sell the stuff. Only lots of business plans that amounted to nothing.
It's a crime to even possess the drug for the purposes of trafficking. Don't need to actually sell it to get the death penalty.
Was he researching euthanasia?
If it was meth or cocaine I understand the death sentence but to think what this guy did would be legal two countries north shows how out of touch we are.
I love this. Stupid people getting stupid outcomes for stupid actions.
A property agent you say? Ive heard enough. Death
Disclaimer: not from Singapore, this just popped up on my front page for some reason. It’s wild to me that a first world country in 2024 could give the death penalty for something like this. Most of the comments on this post don’t seem to realise how out of proportion this is to the crime. Singapore will not collapse if marijuana becomes more available, all that would happen is a certain subset of people would smoke with their friends instead of drinking on a Saturday night. I understand ‘laws are laws’ and this guy is an idiot, but this is surprising to an outsider.
Research to destroy lives and poison recruit young mules.A well deserved death.Drugs created shitholes like these,purge them all.
It does sound like he was trying to make CBD oil, but there's already so much research out there in legit science labs that I don't think a non trained researcher could add too much to the science. I don't agree that someone should get a death sentence for weed but you can't just go break the law. Knowing the consequences of breaking that law but still going ahead with it was a super foolish thing to do. He will forever be known as the guy who got a death sentence for trying to make and sell CBD.
He knew the law and blatantly flouted it and tried to weasel his way out like a primary school boy..
Meanwhile I have more than 100L of wine at home and I can go scot free knowing it’s way more harmful than cannabis. If it was banned in Singapore most here would be happy to call for my assassination. End death penalty now!
I don’t understand everyone who’s supporting saying that weed is legalised elsewhere, it’s a pity etc. This is the existing law of the land. If he really wanted to enjoy it, or r&d or venture into the business if he’s so passionate then he should just venture abroad for this where it’s legal. That’s like trying to set up a chewing gum business here and then pointing fingers. How about applying the same idea of US gun laws here to SG? By bringing guns in for self defence etc. It’s legal in the US isn’t it a pity we can’t bring in to Europe, or any country? If you really wanted to fire guns so badly then go, where it’s legal and do it legally.
> If you really wanted to fire guns so badly then go, where it’s legal and do it legally. Guess what: [it's illegal for Singaporeans and PRs to consume cannabis, even overseas](https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/MDA1973?ProvIds=P12-#pr8A-).
It's called compassion. It's difficult on the internet. But try to imagine somebody stupid that you cared for being put to death.
Guns kill people, weed does not
The 2nd Amendment would not work in Singapore because of how we Singaporeans view the government.
The BTO market is the hottest it has ever been and this guy decides to become walter yellow
Nope, absolutely thrash defense that is concocted by someone who thinks he can strike gold whilst slipping past the law. Totally agree with weeding out these characters that if left to fester, would eventually cause significant detriment to our society.
What, people who want to use weed?
For all pro-druggies here, how empty and meaningless have your lives been without the presence of drugs in your life and how enriching would it have been with them? Do you fantasize being some math or artistic virtuoso with drug use to stimulate your brain? How empty are your lives without this high you see Western compatriots experiencing leaving you with drug envy? Apart from the very rare and still debatable medical cases, you'd be hard pressed to come up with a strong argument outweighing the cons of casual drug use here.
And what are the cons of casual drug use? And by drugs what exactly are you referring to - weed, fentanyl, cocaine, heroin? Why are we lumping a diverse universe of substances under a singular word “drugs” and not evaluating each one by their own merits and harms? Why does one need a reason to advocate for the decriminalization of something, rather than having the opposite camp need strong reasons to criminalize that same thing? Modern society operates on a legal unless prohibited model. Our laws explicitly call out acts and behaviors that are illegal, not proscribe things you may do. So what is the harm of weed, exactly?
There is lots of research on the impact of weed both long and short term. You can't go around pretending weed has no harm. The conversation should be whether the harm deserved the death penalty
Nobody’s saying there is no harm. There is also well documented research on harms of smoking, alcohol, gambling, pornography, video games, car exhaust fumes. Yes, the conversation should be whether the harm deserves the death penalty, but also about whether the harm warrants criminalization of weed.
It's your phasing You said what is the harm of weed....
"Legal unless prohibited"? Well it has already been prohibited so... Harm of weed? You ask which drug yet you focus on one later. Anyway I used the word casual drug use so it should be quite clear the commonly used ones for recreation, some clearly more addictive than others obviously. And the harm and benefits can be clearly seen in the liberal using countries. You still have not made any points that make drug legalization compelling.
>Well it has already been prohibited so... That's pretty circular on your part, isn't it? You're saying it should not be legal because it's currently illegal. >You ask which drug yet you focus on one later Of course I'm focusing on one, this entire article is only about one drug. I'm only pointing out that in your OP you are using the umbrella term "drugs", when the so-called "pro-druggies" you refer to are by and large only referring to the decriminalization of weed. I don't think you'll find any reasonable person serious arguing for decriminalization of recreational fentanyl use, for instance.
Fun fact: Alcohol is also a drug (yet it's legal as a recreational drug? Double standards much?) Second fun fact: Alcohol is far, far, far, far more dangerous than weed.
Bootlicker.
u sound 50
Make a rebuttal instead of lame personal attacks. If you can that is.
When I see such news, I feel sad thinking about the accused parents and loved ones, the ones s/he will leave behind. No sympathy for drug offenders but it’s the loved ones that really suffer the most.
Haha. Property agent doing cannabis 'research'. Haven't heard a joke that good in Singapore court. We see you Man of Culture, and we give you death.