Surviving Bali 9 Members Released & Returned To Australia

[faible]

Like I said, look at Portland, Oregon.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/28/oregon-drug-criminalization-portugal-00148872

Looks to me like it was a failure of implementation and a lack of sufficient time.

Prohibition hasn't really worked anywhere. Meth is already illegal here, people are still addicted.

'Tough on crime' sounds good but doesn't really work that well since it ignores so many things along the way, most of which are far more important than the punishment.

 

[ms finch]

Why wouldn't we want people to be fulfilled, connected and productive??? I agree that if people don't have families and don't work with other people, and hence their poor decisions aren't harming anybody and they have no responsibilities towards anybody, then yeah they can do what they want as long as they are paying for it and don't expect society to come to their assistance or pay for their healthcare. Like I said, look at Portland, Oregon.

It's not about us wanting it; it is about an individual's right to choose the sort of life they want. My point is that people have a right to choose their level of fulfilment, connectivity and productivity. What I consider my preference or what you consider your preference is not what someone else will consider their preference. We don't get to control another person's choices on that front. You have deviated from a discussion about drugs to literally policing every element of people's lives to determine what is right for them absent their own choices.

There are many decisions in life people make about what they want to do or not do that has nothing to do with recreational drugs. There are many people who are totally unfulfilled, unproductive and disconnected who don't touch drugs or even alcohol. You're completely ignoring the concept of personality and the impact of other life experiences.

Do you believe in forcibly medicating people with mental illnesses so they can have the fulfilment and productivity you or society thinks they should? Do you believe in controlling what people eat, because people ingest a lot of harmful stuff in their diets? Do you believe in genetic testing to determine what we should and shouldn't do with our lives? Do you believe in forcing a relationship when one person wants it and the other doesn't? Because these are all applicable to what you are saying if the test is fulfilment, productivity and connectivity.

 

[faible]

It's not about us wanting it; it is about an individual's right to choose the sort of life they want. My point is that people have a right to choose their level of fulfilment, connectivity and productivity. What I consider my preference or what you consider your preference is not what someone else will consider their preference. We don't get to control another person's choices on that front. You have deviated from a discussion about drugs to literally policing every element of people's lives to determine what is right for them absent their own choices.

There are many decisions in life people make about what they want to do or not do that has nothing to do with recreational drugs. There are many people who are totally unfulfilled, unproductive and disconnected who don't touch drugs or even alcohol. You're completely ignoring the concept of personality and the impact of other life experiences.

Do you believe in forcibly medicating people with mental illnesses so they can have the fulfilment and productivity you or society thinks they should? Do you believe in controlling what people eat, because people ingest a lot of harmful stuff in their diets? Do you believe in genetic testing to determine what we should and shouldn't do with our lives? Do you believe in forcing a relationship when one person wants it and the other doesn't? Because these are all applicable to what you are saying if the test is fulfilment, productivity and connectivity.

A number of Muslim countries aren’t big consumers of alcohol, they’re not exactly the happiest places in the world.

Almost like there’s more to it.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

Thing was a bunch of QANTAS baggage handlers did get done for smuggling stuff between states at the time. (Not sure it was drugs most likely but they were definitely goings dodgy goings on)
The rumours than started the Corbys were the biggest smugglers in Bali and old man Corby (terminally ill at the time) was the Godfather.
Interestingly a Michelle Leslie took the opposite approach. Shut the **** up.and convert to Islam. Was out in 3 months.
Interestingly I was in Bali around 6 months after the executions. The Balinese locals I spoke to weren't fussed either way. But one pointed out this was driven out of Jakarta where the political opinions were really flying. (Also not a lot of loved lost in some parts between the Balinese and main island Indonesians) so that is all going on in the background

No-one outside of Java likes the Javanese, most of the archipelago has been annexed by Java at one time or another.

 

[Bjchan13]

Took a risk at an illegal money grab and got caught. Did their time in Bali. Someone may pay them for an interview. Not sure what the options are from there but good luck to them. Talks at schools could be helpful if they dont try to glamorise it in any way.

 

[jason_recliner]

It's not about us wanting it; it is about an individual's right to choose the sort of life they want. My point is that people have a right to choose their level of fulfilment, connectivity and productivity. What I consider my preference or what you consider your preference is not what someone else will consider their preference. We don't get to control another person's choices on that front. You have deviated from a discussion about drugs to literally policing every element of people's lives to determine what is right for them absent their own choices.

There are many decisions in life people make about what they want to do or not do that has nothing to do with recreational drugs. There are many people who are totally unfulfilled, unproductive and disconnected who don't touch drugs or even alcohol. You're completely ignoring the concept of personality and the impact of other life experiences.

Do you believe in forcibly medicating people with mental illnesses so they can have the fulfilment and productivity you or society thinks they should? Do you believe in controlling what people eat, because people ingest a lot of harmful stuff in their diets? Do you believe in genetic testing to determine what we should and shouldn't do with our lives? Do you believe in forcing a relationship when one person wants it and the other doesn't? Because these are all applicable to what you are saying if the test is fulfilment, productivity and connectivity.

There are some good questions. I'm not a libertarian, I believe personal freedom and rights need to be balanced against responsibility to those around us and society more broadly, unless one is a hermit living off the grid. When people are high or drunk they are not present and that's not fair on people who care about them, and especially not fair on their children. Being high or drunk around children is not right, IMO, and I don't believe people have the "right to choose" to do it. A lot of users receive government benefits and a lot of users require healthcare related to their use, and I don' think it's right for our taxes to pay for their use (or the consequences of that use).

Ultimately, there are no benefits to use (getting high or drunk may seem like a benefit to users but the cost exceeds the benefit). I'm not saying use is the root cause of all unfulfillment, unproductivity and disconnectedness, but it sure as hell doesn't help. It's sad that people feel the need to use, and I think we as a society should be doing all we can to stop or reduce use - I don't believe users have an innate "right" to use. You do, I accept that. It's sad to me, tragic even, when people don't reach their potential and settle for less due to use.

"Do you believe in forcibly medicating people with mental illnesses so they can have the fulfilment and productivity you or society thinks they should?" That's a broad question, with so many forms of mental illness. if they are a significant danger to themselves or others, maybe? Generally, no, but it's tragic that many people suffering from mental health cannot see that they need medication e.g. when suffering severe depression. However, this question is a bit off as people don't choose to become mentally ill, and I and most people want the mentally ill to get healthy, if possible.

"Do you believe in controlling what people eat, because people ingest a lot of harmful stuff in their diets?" No, which is probably hypocritical of me. I do believe in education and encouragement, and restricting certain harmful and non-nutritious substances from foods e.g. taurine could be positive.

"Do you believe in genetic testing to determine what we should and shouldn't do with our lives?" Society pretty much does this with the education system. Not testing the DNA exactly - I from what little I know that wouldn't tell much anyway - but testing intelligence and 'fitness', to determine what options we have.

"Do you believe in forcing a relationship when one person wants it and the other doesn't?" No, I don't think a forced relationship will lead to fulfilment, productivity and connectivity.

 

[ms finch]

There are some good questions. I'm not a libertarian, I believe personal freedom and rights need to be balanced against responsibility to those around us and society more broadly, unless one is a hermit living off the grid. When people are high or drunk they are not present and that's not fair on people who care about them, and especially not fair on their children. Being high or drunk around children is not right, IMO, and I don't believe people have the "right to choose" to do it. A lot of users receive government benefits and a lot of users require healthcare related to their use, and I don' think it's right for our taxes to pay for their use (or the consequences of that use).

Ultimately, there are no benefits to use (getting high or drunk may seem like a benefit to users but the cost exceeds the benefit). I'm not saying use is the root cause of all unfulfillment, unproductivity and disconnectedness, but it sure as hell doesn't help. It's sad that people feel the need to use, and I think we as a society should be doing all we can to stop or reduce use - I don't believe users have an innate "right" to use. You do, I accept that. It's sad to me, tragic even, when people don't reach their potential and settle for less due to use.

"Do you believe in forcibly medicating people with mental illnesses so they can have the fulfilment and productivity you or society thinks they should?" That's a broad question, with so many forms of mental illness. if they are a significant danger to themselves or others, maybe? Generally, no, but it's tragic that many people suffering from mental health cannot see that they need medication e.g. when suffering severe depression. However, this question is a bit off as people don't choose to become mentally ill, and I and most people want the mentally ill to get healthy, if possible.

"Do you believe in controlling what people eat, because people ingest a lot of harmful stuff in their diets?" No, which is probably hypocritical of me. I do believe in education and encouragement, and restricting certain harmful and non-nutritious substances from foods e.g. taurine could be positive.

"Do you believe in genetic testing to determine what we should and shouldn't do with our lives?" Society pretty much does this with the education system. Not testing the DNA exactly - I from what little I know that wouldn't tell much anyway - but testing intelligence and 'fitness', to determine what options we have.

"Do you believe in forcing a relationship when one person wants it and the other doesn't?" No, I don't think a forced relationship will lead to fulfilment, productivity and connectivity.

There are a huge amount of recreational drug users, and of course people who drink, who lead incredibly successful lives and have very connected relationships. In fact I would argue that if you account for the statistics on the amount of people who have done drugs, many many more are perfectly fine than descend into any sort of problems. There are also plenty of people who, if they are going to get high or drunk, don't do so around their children or, for that matter, when they have to be responsible for something. A parent who spends every night glued to the television drinking cups of tea ignoring their children is far less present than someone who might choose to get high once a month.

As for relationships between adults, I do not believe that any adult has a responsibility to conduct themselves in a way that is what another adult wants. If Adult A wants to get high every weekend and Adult B doesn't like that, Adult B is free to no longer continue a relationship. It is up to the individuals on both sides how much they choose to care about other people. Moreover, people in relationships do things that are unpalatable to the other person in innumerable ways that aren't anything to do with drugs. Hygiene, cleanliness, choice of employment, emotional neglect, affairs - all of these things are problematic and having nothing to do with drugs.

What you're talking about are behaviours, and the use of drugs and alcohol don't automatically result in those behaviours. You are also making assumptions about cause and effect.

It is indeed hypocritical to deny services to people who use drugs without extending that to other activities in which people engage. If someone gets addicted to heroin for a year and then gets clean they have probably done less harm to their bodies than someone who ingests copious amounts of sugar for 50 years. Why would the former person be denied support but the latter person not be? A person who speeds and hits a tree and has serious injuries has likely been every bit as unlawful and reckless as someone who does lines of cocaine. So why would we say that the latter person isn't entitled to anything but the former person is? Point being that to deny things to people as a result of drug use is an incredibly arbitrary line in the sand that is not based on the law, morality, ethics, logic or. And to single drugs out as somehow the cause of problems in society is equally arbitrary and illogical.

While the line in the sand for behaviour is usually where that behaviour starts to harm others, we have never taken the view that issues such as productivity, connectivity and fulfilment are measures of harm of others. We can't, because those are totally subjective. Further, if we do start to see those as measures we will be denying people autonomy. We equally limit the denial of autonomy and take that very seriously. We have always balanced any concept of harm with the right to autonomy. The reason I brought up mental illness is because this is exactly where we will see this play out. Of course in extreme situations re mental illness we take away a person's autonomy, but those are extreme and there are significant checks and balances in place. If we extend our requirements of people, and particularly based on subjective measures, we will cross the line into controlling and usurping the autonomy of others simply because we want to. People with depression, for example, will be forced to medicate because their spouse isn't happy with them or they aren't working as much as someone else believes they should. This is extremely dangerous.

 

[jason_recliner]

There are a huge amount of recreational drug users, and of course people who drink, who lead incredibly successful lives and have very connected relationships. In fact I would argue that if you account for the statistics on the amount of people who have done drugs, many many more are perfectly fine than descend into any sort of problems. There are also plenty of people who, if they are going to get high or drunk, don't do so around their children or, for that matter, when they have to be responsible for something. A parent who spends every night glued to the television drinking cups of tea ignoring their children is far less present than someone who might choose to get high once a month.

As for relationships between adults, I do not believe that any adult has a responsibility to conduct themselves in a way that is what another adult wants. If Adult A wants to get high every weekend and Adult B doesn't like that, Adult B is free to no longer continue a relationship. It is up to the individuals on both sides how much they choose to care about other people. Moreover, people in relationships do things that are unpalatable to the other person in innumerable ways that aren't anything to do with drugs. Hygiene, cleanliness, choice of employment, emotional neglect, affairs - all of these things are problematic and having nothing to do with drugs.

What you're talking about are behaviours, and the use of drugs and alcohol don't automatically result in those behaviours. You are also making assumptions about cause and effect.

It is indeed hypocritical to deny services to people who use drugs without extending that to other activities in which people engage. If someone gets addicted to heroin for a year and then gets clean they have probably done less harm to their bodies than someone who ingests copious amounts of sugar for 50 years. Why would the former person be denied support but the latter person not be? A person who speeds and hits a tree and has serious injuries has likely been every bit as unlawful and reckless as someone who does lines of cocaine. So why would we say that the latter person isn't entitled to anything but the former person is? Point being that to deny things to people as a result of drug use is an incredibly arbitrary line in the sand that is not based on the law, morality, ethics, logic or. And to single drugs out as somehow the cause of problems in society is equally arbitrary and illogical.

While the line in the sand for behaviour is usually where that behaviour starts to harm others, we have never taken the view that issues such as productivity, connectivity and fulfilment are measures of harm of others. We can't, because those are totally subjective. Further, if we do start to see those as measures we will be denying people autonomy. We equally limit the denial of autonomy and take that very seriously. We have always balanced any concept of harm with the right to autonomy. The reason I brought up mental illness is because this is exactly where we will see this play out. Of course in extreme situations re mental illness we take away a person's autonomy, but those are extreme and there are significant checks and balances in place. If we extend our requirements of people, and particularly based on subjective measures, we will cross the line into controlling and usurping the autonomy of others simply because we want to. People with depression, for example, will be forced to medicate because their spouse isn't happy with them or they aren't working as much as someone else believes they should. This is extremely dangerous.

Users tend to associate with and relate to other users, so I wasn't referring to relationships between adults as much as families who have to see their child/parent/etc using drugs, and the impacts it has on all their lives.

I am not sure how you conclude that use is not a significant cause of problems people and society have.

Heroin, if pure, is not really harmful at all. The harm is the lifestyle that users adopt to fund their habit, the fall in their performance, and the impact on their loved ones seeing them waste their lives.

You're choosing other bad actions e.g. watching TV and ignoring kids as some kind of justification that use isn't bad. We should be seeking to improve ourselves, not lowering the bar. You're also missing the point that use makes people accept being mediocre. i.e. sitting on the couch playing video games or standing in a club being an egotistical self-absorbed w***er becomes acceptable to them, whereas without use we are free and motivated to find real fulfilment and connection.

 

[Xtreme]

They committed a crime on another countries soil - they deserved the punishment.
Personally think they should still be there but I'm just one person.

 

[Macca180]

Shooting them as should have been done would be a better way of stopping repeat. Can't really call it a war on drugs as we never fought it harshly enough (combined with more money for education and rehabilitation for Australian citizen users)

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app

so murder is ok?

and please don't reply like a naïve Karen that thinks everyone that takes powder and pills ends up dead or living under bridge.

and if they were smuggling alcohol you would still want them executed or alcohol is ok?

 

[Run n Spread]

Alcohol, a fully legal drug that is socially acceptable, kills a lot more people than any of the recreational drugs do, and also causes huge societal problems. A vendetta against recreational illicit drug use ignores the facts both about them and about what is harmful to society.

My argument about social security is well supported by enormous amounts of evidence. I did not say that if you have social security it fully prevents crime but that if you remove it you increase crime. If people do not have food to eat or a place to live they have no choice but to resort to crime in the immediate future, and it becomes cyclical. We know that a lack of support for people who are released from prison results in greater problems to society. You are ignoring the fact that not only is this completely removed from what we consider civilised, and also legal obligations, but that it costs more if we put people in positions where they are likely to continue a life of crime. The cost of subsequently incarcerating someone, not to mention the costs within society, are far greater than any social safety net we provide.

What the AFP did is directly relevant in this situation because it is what resulted in this happening; the situations are directly linked. If we accept what the AFP did as wrong then we accept that what happened to the Bali 9 was wrong, and we shouldn't just abandon them because they ended up being pawns in political games. On a broader level, there is no difference in people imprisoned for crimes overseas and those imprisoned here. People imprisoned in Australia are released after they have served their sentences, and paroled when they behave themselves in prison, and there is no difference in this or many other situations where people are imprisoned overseas and subsequently repatriated here. We have a responsibility to them as Australian citizens, and also given that it is Australia that shaped them to be who they are. It is otherwise an arbitrary distinction.

You need to stop singling out the churches in this situation just because some individual pastors are the ones in the public arena at the moment. The work to get the Bali 9 home was predominantly done by lawyers, advocates, academics and members of the general population. Some of these were people with a specific human rights background, but many came from other walks of life. Lumping people like Lex Lasry (now a Supreme Court Judge in Victoria) and Julian McMahon (nominated for Australian of the Year) into church groups or claiming they are part of a special interest group, not to mention the various researchers and broad spectrum of supporters, is both absurd and wrong. There were many, many non religious people involved in this, and also many church groups who were anti it.

Christie Buckingham is simply more comfortable in the spotlight than many of those involved. But also, she was the pastor who supported Myu through his execution. She literally counselled him while he was tied to a stake and stood metres away while they were all shot, comforting others who were also witnesses. Whatever else you may think of the crimes these guys committed, Christie took on one of the most horrific roles imaginable in all of this. While she subsequently advocated for her congregation to be supportive, her choice to get involved and do this was a personal decision. It showed a strength and courage beyond most of humanity, and no doubt had a profound impact on her. She also got to know the others due to the amount of time she spent involved with Myu. So the return of the remaining five is personally meaningful to her and is also certainly going to stir up some long held distressing emotions. Don't confuse her support role and personal involvement with some sort of broad ranging church campaign or something that is representative of everything to do with this situation. She's not my personal cup of tea, but I would never disparage nor twist what she did here.

It's as thou the reactionary conservatives on this board have never set foot out their front doors.
Drugs personally are not my cup of tea but they are literally everywhere. Talk to people across all ages and all walks of life and you would be stunned. I am pretty liberal on most things but I was staggered by the extent of it after holidays with friends earlier in the year.
And are we honestly that surprised? Our medical system is built on prescribed drugs.
Hell we were all forcibly (I don't care what any of the right wing lackies say) injected with an experimental mrna vaccine not 4 years ago with the support of the majority of morons calling for death to drug dealers.
They were kids who made a mistake. End of.
You want to fix the drug problem fix the structural inequalities in society.

 

[ms finch]

Users tend to associate with and relate to other users, so I wasn't referring to relationships between adults as much as families who have to see their child/parent/etc using drugs, and the impacts it has on all their lives.

I am not sure how you conclude that use is not a significant cause of problems people and society have.

Heroin, if pure, is not really harmful at all. The harm is the lifestyle that users adopt to fund their habit, the fall in their performance, and the impact on their loved ones seeing them waste their lives.

You're choosing other bad actions e.g. watching TV and ignoring kids as some kind of justification that use isn't bad. We should be seeking to improve ourselves, not lowering the bar. You're also missing the point that use makes people accept being mediocre. i.e. sitting on the couch playing video games or standing in a club being an egotistical self-absorbed w***er becomes acceptable to them, whereas without use we are free and motivated to find real fulfilment and connection.

You are lumping all users into one category, though. There are plenty of recreational users who don't neglect their responsibilities, and have fulfilled relationships, and live successful lives. It's also untrue to say that users tend to associated with predominantly other users because again, amongst recreational users, the friendship groups are varied and some people will partake and others won't. You probably associate with many people who do drugs and you have no idea precisely because, aside from enjoying a few lines in the same way as someone else would have a few drinks, it is not having any adverse effect on their lives. In fact, some of the most successful people in this world use drugs recreationally.

We are under no obligation to not disappoint people nor to preserve relationships to keep others happy, nor are people under any obligation to live up to your standards of being motivated, fulfilled and connected. You don't get to decide what that is for anyone but yourself.

And again, I point out that there are numerous other reasons people aren't living up to those apparent standards that have nothing to do with drugs. People have different personalities and some people are naturally less motivated, less productive, less interested in connecting with others. Lack of money is probably the biggest issue for people reaching their potential. The reason I raise things like some foods and television (and by extension social media and gaming) is because those things can impede us from reaching our full potential and even be harmful to our lives, to absolutely the same degree as drugs. If that is the standard - potential - then we would have to limit and control many, many things. To single out drugs for this is an arbitrary line in the sand that isn't based on impact at all.

Your arguments about the impact of drugs are actually more arguments for decriminalisation and greater social supports rather than the banning of drugs. Many people who develop problems with drugs are self medicating because they cannot otherwise get help. Sometimes this assists them in actually having a better life; sometimes it results in issues. But if the supports were there they wouldn't be as likely to develop the problems. In addition, it is the criminal component to drugs that is the reason for a lot of the issues you describe. Because of the criminal component, people have to hide things, take risks and get into trouble and that has significant detrimental impacts on their lives. Take away the criminal component and you remove a lot of the problems.