Is there really a way to overstate the insanity of state-sponsored killing people for this? Please let's not stray too far from the subject of, what justification for killing this drug user are you looking for?
I think it's a bad law, but surely not as bad as you originally tried to mislead people into believing.
> Is there really a way to overstate the insanity of state-sponsored killing people for this?
Apparently yes, by intentionally making a false claim that you get executed for smoking a joint.
> Please let's not stray too far from the subject of, what justification for killing this drug user are you looking for?
They won't get executed for being a drug user, but for trafficking drugs. Given that 500 grams is a huge amount, I think it's reasonable to consider the offenders to be drug traffickers (even if I don't agree with the punishment).
It's certainly very easy to stay under this limit if you're growing at home. It's difficult to cross that threshold accidentally, for sure.
500 grams is roughly a pound. 2 pounds (or more) of trimmed flower per plant is very achievable growing outdoors with many strains (not autoflowers).
(this is actually inconsequential to the point of the article I just wanted to point it out).
It seems very obvious why someone could get worked up over demonizing a relatively benign psychedelic over literal poison that is responsible for myriad health issues and daily violence.
If you can't meet in the middle and actually discuss the substance of the topic rather than nitpicking their comment, why comment at all?
In this case, it was attempt to sneak in lies.
No, it isn't. Secondly, you're assuming malice where it doesn't appear there is any. Third, you're perfectly capable of communicated despite this, and certainly more than pointing out a disagreement over facts. Why comment at all if you only want to point out disagreement and don't appear willing to discuss the bulk of the commentary?
Meanwhile, "good faith" actually is a precondition for decent conversation.
EDIT: Meanwhile, googling "marijuana death penalty singapore" turns up way, way too many results for this to be likely to be an entirely false claim. So from my perspective you basically killed the conversation while contributing nothing of value. Eg https://apnews.com/article/singapore-death-penalty-drugs-exe...
I take such an extreme case of misrepresentation / exaggeration as an attempt to mislead readers, which for me is malice.
> Why comment at all if you only want to point out disagreement
I didn't point out a disagreement, but a wrong fact.
> Meanwhile, googling "marijuana death penalty singapore" turns up way, way too many results for this to be likely to be an entirely false claim
Let me cite from the article you linked: "The man, ..., had been imprisoned for seven years and convicted in 2019 for trafficking around 1.5 kilograms (3.3 pounds) of cannabis" - how is that strengthening op's case that you get executed for smoking a joint?
> So from my perspective you basically killed the conversation while contributing nothing of value.
I'm happy to discuss things once facts are settled. You're killing the conversation by this weird insistence that setting facts straight is wrong?