Let sleeping addicts lie

Re: “Death penalty ineffective”, (Editorial, March 21).

Even if the death penalty were effective, its use would remain indefensible as a remedy to the social harms caused by drug use. Singapore, for example, wrongly treats its citizens, not as free persons deciding their own lives, but as tools of the state, in the name of which it terrorises decent citizens who would use, without harm to others, drugs not approved by the politicians making up this unreasoning law. Thaksin’s wildly popular “war on drugs” was an equally ugly crime against Thai citizens.

There is as much reason to execute the dealers of the addictive drug alcohol as there is the dealers of other popular drugs. In fact, not only do exactly the same arguments apply, but since alcohol is generally more harmful to others, with such harm being the only reason justifying any punishment, both reason and moral consistency demand that the dealers and users of alcohol be punished more harshly than those whose preferred drug is one of the many drugs typically less harmful to others, such as marijuana, ya ba, even opiates.

Foolishly suicidal as their drug use might be for them personally, junkies do not tend to commit the rape, domestic abuse, pub fights and other violence that is so common with alcohol use. And then there are the families torn apart by those killers who drink and drive.

But does Trump care either for reason or for moral consistency? Rather than copying the violence of Duterte’s, Singapore’s and Thaksin’s failures, the US president would do better in every sense to follow the lead of the Portuguese success story in reducing drugrelated harm to society.

FELIX QUI