@ISIDEWITHQuestionsCriminal IssuesStarted 7yrs agoActive 6mos ago

Should drug traffickers receive the death penalty?

Since 1999, the executions of drug smugglers have become more common in Indonesia, Iran, China and Pakistan. In March 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump proposed executing drug traffickers to fight his country’s opioid epidemic. 32 countries impose the death penalty for drug smuggling. Seven of these countries (China, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Malaysia and Singapore) routinely execute drug offenders. Asia and the Middle East’s tough approach contrasts with many Western countries who have legalized cannabis in recent years (selling cannabis in Saudi Arabia is punished by beheading).

+
Expand
+ Settings x  

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 214 73 voters.

8%
Yes
92%
No
6%
Yes
81%
No
2%
Yes, but only if there is proof someone died from the drugs they trafficked
6%
No, I do not believe in the death penalty
0%
Yes, but only if they are repeated offenders
5%
No, sentence them to life in prison without parole instead
0%
Yes, as long as they are given a fair trial

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 214 73 voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 214 73 voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from 73 voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9RZ5GZ6from Missouri  answered…6mos6MO

No, but depending on the severity and if they are a repeat offender, they should be given lengthy sentences

 @9NVRQCKanswered…8mos8MO

Yes, but only if that person can be proven beyond doubt that the drugs they trafficked led to the deaths of others.

 @9NRRQCCanswered…8mos8MO

Only when it can be proven, that they added deadly substances to the drugs, thereby causing a death or deaths.

 @9JQ2KY4from Michigan  answered…1yr1Y

let them be and have their punishment be to only eat cheeseburgers for 2 years and also cheeseburger

 @9JNC66Qanswered…1yr1Y

Only if public security is under a big danger, for example for fentanyl traffickers. Drug dealers that sell to kids should receive death penalty.

 @9DX7LCKanswered…1yr1Y

Yes, but for mostly hard drugs. No, but for mostly zaza.

 @9DLJ5FCfrom Georgia  answered…1yr1Y

Yes, but only for synthetic narcotics.

 @8ZXQ4JFanswered…3yrs3Y

Abolish drug restrictions.

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Drug Trafficking Penalties” news articles, updated frequently.

 @MercifulFr33m4rket from Florida submitted…12mos12MO

Mexican Drug Cartels Expand Under "Hugs, Not Bullets" Policy

Gangs affiliated with Mexico’s two largest drug cartels—battling to the death over market share—have grown in number and influence since President Andrés Manuel López Obrador took office in 2018. He eased up under a policy he called “hugs, not bullets.” Arrests by Mexico’s national guard, created under López Obrador to replace federal police, fell to 2,800 in 2022 from 21,700 in 2018, according to the national statistics agency.More than 200 criminal gangs are engaged in turf wars compared with 76 in 2010, according to the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based think tank that studies violent conflicts worldwide. Most of the disputes involve the Sinaloa or Jalisco cartels, among the world’s largest criminal organizations and the top traffickers of fentanyl—the low-cost, high-margin synthetic opioid that kills tens of thousands of Americans a year.Criminal gangs behind the U.S. drug epidemic are seeing accelerated growth, commanding greater control over more territory in Mexico, where they are largely free to murder rivals, neuter police, seize property and strong-arm municipalities into giving them public contracts.In December, farmers from a village in the state of Mexico attacked local cartel members with machetes and sickles, revolting against demands they each pay as much as $600 to work their own land, authorities said. The fight killed 10 gang members and four farmers.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2wks2W

Jon Stewart Begs Democrats To ‘Please Stop Trotting Out Chuck Schumer!'

Jon Stewart criticized Democrats for repeatedly using Chuck Schumer as their spokesperson against Trump, calling his performances ineffective and monotonous.Stewart mocked Schumer's response to Trump's trade war threats, particularly his simplistic explanation about Mexican imports like Corona beer and avocados.The former Daily Show host expressed frustration at Schumer's basic observation that "guacamole is made of avocados" as a response to complex trade policy issues.Stewart sarcastically highlighted the Democrats' poor strategic choice in selecting Schumer to counter Trump, whom he described as "one of the most savvy presidential media manipulators in history."The comedian ridiculed Schumer's appearance and presentation style, particularly mocking his use of reading glasses positioned low on his nose.Stewart's criticism centered on the Democratic leadership's judgment in repeatedly choosing an "uninteresting" and "monotone" spokesperson.The commentary addressed Trump's threats of tariffs against Canada and Mexico, though focused more on the Democratic response than the policy itself.Stewart used hyperbole to emphasize his point, stating that Schumer's speaking makes him "want to bomb Canada."The piece highlighted the perceived disconnect between Democratic messaging strategy and effective opposition to Trump's policies.Stewart's criticism suggested a broader frustration with Democratic leadership's media strategy and public presentation.

▲  4817 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…7 days7D

Gavin Newsom Defends Immigrants With $25 Million

Governor Newsom signed legislation allocating $50 million total to protect California's policies from Trump administration challenges and defend immigrants facing deportation, split evenly between the state's DOJ and legal defense groups.The funding comes as California anticipates renewed conflicts with Trump's administration, following over 100 legal actions against his first term policies on issues including climate, water, and immigration.Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas justified the funding by characterizing the Trump administration as "out-of-control" and threatening to Californians' constitutional rights.The signing occurred just after Newsom's Washington visit to secure federal disaster aid for January's devastating Los Angeles wildfires, which claimed more than two dozen lives.California recently enacted a separate $2.5 billion fire relief package, with expectations of federal reimbursement for disaster response costs.Republican lawmakers criticized the legal defense funding as a political distraction from wildfire recovery efforts, with State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones calling it a "slush fund."Critics raised concerns about the possibility of funds being used to defend immigrants with serious felony convictions, though Newsom indicated this wasn't the intended purpose.The legislation emerged from a special session Newsom called shortly after Trump's election in November, demonstrating California's proactive stance against anticipated federal challenges.During Trump's first term, California initiated more than 120 lawsuits against his administration, spending approximately $42 million on legal battles.Annual legal expenses fighting federal policies during Trump's first term ranged from $2 million to nearly $13 million per year.

▲  1120 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1 day1D

China Blacklists U.S. Companies In Trade War Escalation

China's blacklisting of PVH (Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger) and Illumina marks the first time American companies with major Chinese operations have been targeted on national security grounds, signaling an escalation in trade tensions.The blacklisting came in response to Trump's imposition of additional 10% tariffs on Chinese imports, alongside Beijing launching an antitrust probe into Google.A record 30% of American Chamber of Commerce member companies were considering or already moving operations out of China, according to a recent survey.China's "unreliable entity list," introduced in 2020, mirrors the US "entity list" and could result in fines, trade bans, and restrictions on staff movement for targeted companies.PVH, which derives 6% of revenue and 16% of pre-interest/tax income from China, was specifically targeted over alleged "unreasonable boycotting" of Xinjiang cotton.The blacklisting's implications remain unclear, leaving approximately 1,000 PVH employees in China uncertain about their future.China's Commerce Ministry has declined to specify potential sanctions, stating only that companies operating with integrity have "nothing to worry about."The move contradicts China's public stance on wanting more foreign investment, creating increased uncertainty for multinational companies operating in the country.The blacklisting strategy appears selective, with China typically avoiding targeting market leaders to minimize domestic employment impact.US companies were already struggling to navigate rising Beijing-Washington tensions before this latest escalation in trade conflicts.

▲  2011 replies