[blueyoda]

> "I have a rock that keeps away tigers in my town. No one in the town I’ve lived in work my rock has ever been attacked by tigers. Would you like to buy my magical rock?"

I'm not sure if the "correlation != causation" argument works here. They have serious laws to prevent drug smuggling, and all the data shows that it is working. Logic suggests deterrent against serious crime => less serious crime

> "Moreover, I suspect like all places, Singaporians don’t have that much difficulty accessing illicit drugs."

"I suspect" is not a valid source.

"Singapore has one of the lowest rates of drug abuse in the world: 30 opiates abusers per 100,000 people" (source: The Washington Post)

Perhaps the law serving as a deterrent against heinous crimes works?

[vlovich123]

Given that Singapore ranks very low on human rights and press freedom, where is this data being sourced and how do we know it’s accurate?

If I kill anyone with a moderate amount of drugs and jail and charge huge fines to those with a small amount, and I curtail press freedoms heavily, how do we know that they’ve actually tackled the drug problem instead of pushing it into the shadows?

Also, for what it’s worth Singapore itself reported an increase in drug smuggling even as hangings increased [1]. So maybe there isn’t a correlation there. It all seems like wishful thinking to justify inhumane policies.

As another poster pointed out, it’s extremely suspicious that the penalized under drug policies seems to have a racial used tinge to it. Kind of how in America black people outnumber white people significantly for drug crimes even though by all metrics it seems like drug use rates are quite similar.

Did America’s strict drug laws create a better society than countries that tried more empathetic approaches with legalization and trying to help drug addicts get back on their feet? I think there’s a reason America’s laws are liberalizing with respect to drugs. There’s an understanding that draconian laws harm more than they help (if they even help at all).

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-singapore-law-drugs-idUSK...

[blueyoda]

> "Given that Singapore ranks very low on human rights and press freedom"

And yet Singapore is in the top 5 nations for highest GDP per capita (nominal). They also have one of the lowest rates of drug addiction. Surely they are doing something right. Which one would most people rather have - a prosperous life, or freedom to smoke weed? I choose the former.

> "anyone with a moderate amount of drugs"

But why do they have drugs to begin with? Nobody forced them to smoke weed. How does society benefit from the legalization of recreational drugs, which have negative effects on health? I highly recommend reading the history of Singapore's drug addiction crisis.

> "As another poster pointed out, it’s extremely suspicious that the penalized under drug policies seems to have a racial used tinge to it."

A cause for concern indeed. This should be investigated.

> "Did America’s strict drug laws create a better society than countries that tried more empathetic approaches with legalization and trying to help drug addicts get back on their feet?"

Unlike Singapore, America has for-profit prisons, so it's unlikely helping addicts get back on their feet is even a priority for this nation to begin with.

[vlovich123]

> And yet Singapore is in the top 5 nations for highest GDP per capita (nominal). They also have one of the lowest rates of drug addiction. Surely they are doing something right

What does one have to do with the other? Finland and Sweden have high GDP and low drug problems and score highly on press freedom and human rights. They don’t murder anyone either. Doesn’t that make them a strictly better model to learn from?

I think the fact that it’s a Chinese city state that’s the financial hub of Asia means that most Chinese business probably flows through Singapore really helps boost the per capita GDP. Still, there’s a lot to learn from Singapore’s successes. I just don’t think their approach to drug prohibition is where to look as a model.

> How does society benefit from the legalization of recreational drugs, which have negative effects on health?

That’s begging the question. The negative effects are not so clear and the line between recreational and medicinal is fairly fluid. I recommend you look at the history of drugs ping ponging back and forth from that characterization. You may also want to consider the US’s experiment with prohibition. Not everyone using drugs recreationally is a drug abuser. With the exception of opiates which are more dangerous and highly addictive, people can generally responsibly manage recreational drug intake. Same as with alcohol and alcohol is much more dangerous, harmful, and addicting than weed.

> Unlike Singapore, America has for-profit prisons, so it's unlikely helping addicts get back on their feet is even a priority for this nation to begin with.

Now we’re getting somewhere. This is true for Finland and Sweden too - their prison programs focus on humane rehabilitation no matter the crime and their recidivism rates are extremely low. So maybe, just maybe, that’s the key reason. The harshness on drugs may not matter so much but it’s a convenient cover for institutionalized racism that Singapore is engaging in.

[ashwagary]

>As another poster pointed out, it’s extremely suspicious that the penalized under drug policies seems to have a racial used tinge to it.

I haven't seen a blatant double standard in Singapore, smugglers from every part of the world get similar treatment.

>Did America’s strict drug laws create a better society than countries that tried more empathetic approaches with legalization

US drug laws had a racial targeting component that most other countries do not. An attempt at a direct comparison probably wouldnt work since incarcerating specific outgroups was a goal of US law.

[shkkmo]

> Perhaps the law serving as a deterrent against heinous crimes works?

That's not what evidence about the death penalty shows.

[blueyoda]

So how did Singapore go from a staggering rate of opium addiction to one of the lowest in the world? Would they have gotten here with laws lenient on substance abuse? I'm curious about the evidence you speak of.