[mrcartmeneses]

Singapore isn’t safe “because cameras” it’s safe because it has high social mobility, social housing, high levels of education, high levels of income equality and is generally wealthy and much wealthier than its neighbours.

And also it’s a police state where you get sentenced to death for drug smuggling and can be punished for doing drugs in another country while on holiday if you are a citizen, for example.

To the naive, Singapore is a paradise, but once you visit for long enough you realise it’s just a super nice prison and it’s not very fun being with the other lags

[ChrisMarshallNY]

William Gibson got a lot of hate for his "Disneyland With the Death Penalty" essay (in Wired), about 30 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disneyland_with_the_Death_Pena...

[janalsncm]

The United States has the death penalty and it’s certainly not Disneyland.

In the other hand calling it “Disneyland” probably oversells how fun Singapore is. It is a fairly boring place in my experience.

[shakes_mcjunkie]

"Disneyland" in this context is more about it being a highly managed place with no sense of local history.

[lupire]

USA's local history is genocide and slavery.

[mynameisvlad]

This is just straight up Whataboutism now.

Two countries can be bad. It’s not a competition.

[r00fus]

> To the naive, Singapore is a paradise, but once you visit for long enough you realise it’s just a super nice prison and it’s not very fun being with the other lags

It's not an American style of life, but I'm sure it's attractive to a lot of people who simply aren't into drugs, partying, or living the high life.

[fennecbutt]

Hilarious, because just like Dubai, nothing applies to the rich. When I was working there we were at Marina Bay Sands.

One night went up to the bar on the roof (god damn the drinks were pricey) clearly ultra wealthy peeps up there, group of very wealthy looking Africans with a magnum of champagne openly smoking weed.

[petre]

Yes, it's attractive to rich Chinese taking a break from Xi's regime. Others pick Canada or NZ instead.

[ted_bunny]

People complain that you can get fined (the caning is a myth in this case) for spitting your gum on the sidewalk or not flushing a public toilet.

But being a selfish prick is a privilege, not a right. Why do you feel entitled to do shitty things that make your city a worse place for everyone?

[lupire]

Many Americans prefer a non junkie style of life.

[temporarara]

This. I'm sure there are lots of things I don't like about Singapore, but the fact that doing and especially dealing drugs is kinda hard and may have death penalty level consequences is a non-issue for me. Cultures that promote drug usage are disgusting and once the drugs comes into your neighborhood there is no way to just ignore it if you care about your safety. I wouldn't care too much if it was just some guys using drugs for fun and that was the end of it, but drugs destroy whole communities and I hate it.

[LtWorf]

I think that's a USA centric view.

Drugs aren't linked to violence unless you make laws to link them.

[temporarara]

Sounds like you haven't met those nice druggies just yet. I don't live in the USA and the law here is extremely lenient for druggies. Yet, pretty much every newspaper I read has some drug related crime in it. Robberies, mindless violence, extortion, murders, damage to properties, lovely stuff. I hate them with passion, and applaud Singaporeans for dealing with the scum appropriately.

Like I said, I would not care if druggies were decent people who just wanted to get high sometimes. However, unfortunately that is not how it works in the reality. They are the worst kind of people and I have zero sympathy for them after all the shit I've seen them do.

[LtWorf]

You talk about meeting and then about newspapers? Have you met them yourself?

[jMyles]

> people who simply aren't into drugs

...are we still having to go over this?

There are no such people. Everybody does drugs, unless you adopt a definition of "drug" which is designed specifically to accommodate this assertion, rather than apply in some useful way to reality. It's difficult to even create a definition of 'drug' which convincingly excludes survival necessities like water and oxygen, but remains otherwise consistent.

There are some drugs which are, for reasons varying from racism to capriciousness to an intemperant desire for greater cartel income, prohibited to varying degrees in various jurisdictions.

You can go to Singapore and consume sugar, coffee, nicotine, alcohol, and many other drugs while enjoying the tacit endorsement of your behavior by the local state apparatus. You can also consume cocaine, opioids, and plenty of other drugs so long as you pay black market rates and do so shielded by privilege so as not to run afoul of an investigation. You can even consume cannabis, though of course it is very difficult to smuggle, so you pay a higher premium.

[LordShredda]

You know what we mean by drugs. Not coffee, not alcohol.

[jMyles]

No, I really don't know. Do you just mean drugs which the state prohibits?

If so, isn't that begging the question? If a person wants to go to a place where drugs are prohibited, and "drug" is defined as a substance which is prohibited, then doesn't every jurisdiction qualify?

If a person "simply isn't into drugs", with "drugs" defined by the local state, isn't that person just in favor of the state-prescribed diet? And it really has nothing to do with drugs?

If such a person goes from a place where drug X is prohibited to one where it is not, does their preference suddenly change?

One better: if a person goes from a place where drug X is prohibited to one where it is compulsory, do they suddenly fall in love with the drug?

Of course not. Because nobody's preferences work that way. Ergo, there is no actual real human who meets the critera, "simply isn't into drugs" upon close examination.

Sure, there may be people who are pro-prohibition, but I imagine nearly all of them are in a position to financially gain from it. In terms of outcomes, it's horrible policy, especially if a target is reduction of death and disease from drug use.

[mynameisvlad]

Why do you consider weed to be a drug and not alcohol? Alcohol can be far more damaging both to the person and those around them. Hell, caffeine probably fucks up your system more than weed too.

So why are they not considered drugs? Is it because of literally the comment you responded to?

[fennecbutt]

I went to Singapore for a week of work a few years ago. >high levels of income equality

Oh yes, I'm sure all of the Indians crammed into the back of a caged ute on their way to building sites have income equality. Saw loads of stuff like that there.

Or the fact that being gay is still illegal, didn't stop me "breaking the law" the second day I was there.

I put Singapore into the same category as Dubai; it's all a facade and all can be conveniently ignored with a veil of money.

[lupire]

When the choice is a civilized prison or a jungle, the prison isn't so bad.

How many children were murdered (by guns or drugs) in school in Singapore last year?

[jhanschoo]

> To the naive, Singapore is a paradise, but once you visit for long enough you realise it’s just a super nice prison and it’s not very fun being with the other lags

Oh come on, your yardstick is completely ill-calibrated. Among polities that

- didn't exist as independent polities until post-WWII

- were not modernized/westernized/democratized until post-WWII (thereby excluding NZ)

you'd be hard-pressed to name one that you'd be rather born as a random citizen in. Perhaps another of the Asian tigers, like TW. Presumably you have in mind, as Gibson probably did, a country that has had a longer history of independent or democratic rule and economic development.

[skhunted]

The claims made in your first paragraph are undermined by your third paragraph.

[bryanrasmussen]

the first paragraph did not claim it was not a prison, it just claimed it was safe not because it was a prison but for other reasons.

The third paragraph claimed it was a prison but it did not say the safety came from it being a prison.

the third paragraph and first paragraph are not in conflict.

[skhunted]

The fact that it is a prison with much surveillance has little to do with its low crime? This is not a credible belief.

[bryanrasmussen]

I wasn't saying it was wrong or not - I just said the two paragraphs were not inherently contradictory.

[skhunted]

That’s why I said “undermined” and not “contradicted”.

[skhunted]

I know it’s not true in American prisons but generally not much crime occurs in prison. If Singapore is prison like then it seems that this would at least be a contributing factor to its lack of crime.