can someone please explain...

[MIKA27]

11 hours ago, oliverdst said:

Good picture. Her Facebook will be a success.

Judging by the size of those parcels, it's truly fortunate she wasn't dumb enough to try smuggling them in more "Conventional" means....

[gweilgi]

22 hours ago, kuma said:

Just make all drug use legal as Portugal and Spain have.  It has been found that it is a "win, win" situation for all

involved expect the drug dealers.  I think in Portugal it is legal to have up to 10 grams for personal use any more and

the authorties will ask you if you want help.  From what I have read in the news Portugal considers it a sickness / illness.

Would never work in the states.  The prison system is so ingrained in this culture that if they made it legal to use

small amounts for personel consumption the  (prison system / legal system) law inforcement / prison industry

would raise"holy hell" because they would be without a job.  The percent of young men in prison in the states

for casual drug use is astronomical.  Making it legal would most likely drop the crime / murder rate.

But it will never happen here (legal) to many people making legal careers: judges, lawyers, police,

prison officals, etc, etc.....  Shit even the phone company makes money when the imprisoned person

makes a tel. call from jail.  Not sure of course how ths girl got involved with that amount of stuff

but looks bad for her.

 

 

 

You forget the government!  Both at the federal and state level, US governments are quite happy to use their captive labour pool to make a killing.  The federal agency UNICOR had $44m in net income off $500m in revenues, achieved by outsourcing prison workers who are paid as little as $0.23 an hour.  In California, prison labour is expected to generate $232m this year in sales.  Given such figures, I am reasonably confident that neither the government nor their private business partners are keen to give up on exploiting convicts...

[kuma]

And I'm sure there are other groups taking full advantage of this legal way to make money.

Forgot about some of the new correction facilities that are also being built, "state of the art".

[mrretrohale]

That's one hell of a wedding with that much coke going around


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stormin691]

What a shame. smh

[PapaDisco]

Must have been "Beats" headphones.   

Dr. Dre is famous for his love of the nose candy . . .  

[Capt. Brett]

I can only pray that those who say legalize it are referring to pot. If not I invite you to do a ride along with the local PD. An average of an overdose a night from heroin. 

[Winchester21]

The numbing sensation in her ears should have been a dead giveaway ???

[gweilgi]

36 minutes ago, Capt. Brett said:

I can only pray that those who say legalize it are referring to pot. If not I invite you to do a ride along with the local PD. An average of an overdose a night from heroin. 

The side effects of drug addiction are nasty, without a doubt.  The issue, though, is that many of those consequences are the result not of addiction itself but of its illegality.  The argument goes that people tend to overdose because the quality and purity of their poison is unreliable, and that they would be far more unlikely to do so if their drug were legal and thus safe to ingest (relatively speaking).  

The obvious comparison here is with the Prohibition.  Before alcohol was outlawed, people did drink and there were problems associated with excessive alcohol consumption.  When it was banned, crime flourished and people still got their hands on hooch ... but it was unregulated, uncontrolled, and drinkers ran a far higher risk of consuming contaminated drink that would lead to all sorts of unhappy outcomes.  

Thus, if drugs were legalised and properly regulated, we should see a significant drop in crime as well as associated healthcare costs.  

Just my tuppence, of course, and YMMV...

[Ken Gargett]

19 hours ago, JohnS said:

“Cassie would never do anything like what she has been accused of,” her sister Khala wrote.

“Our hearts break, because we know she is innocent, but stands little chance of proving it in such a corrupt country.”

and we thought the one caught was stupid! wow! way to get sympathy from the court.

you can't chose your family but you might want them to stop helping.

[Ken Gargett]

1 hour ago, Capt. Brett said:

I can only pray that those who say legalize it are referring to pot. If not I invite you to do a ride along with the local PD. An average of an overdose a night from heroin. 

not to mention the crime to get hold of the stuff in the first place.

or does legalising it mean that the tax payers will provide free smack to addicts?

[Ken Gargett]

19 minutes ago, gweilgi said:

The side effects of drug addiction are nasty, without a doubt.  The issue, though, is that many of those consequences are the result not of addiction itself but of its illegality.  The argument goes that people tend to overdose because the quality and purity of their poison is unreliable, and that they would be far more unlikely to do so if their drug were legal and thus safe to ingest (relatively speaking).  

The obvious comparison here is with the Prohibition.  Before alcohol was outlawed, people did drink and there were problems associated with excessive alcohol consumption.  When it was banned, crime flourished and people still got their hands on hooch ... but it was unregulated, uncontrolled, and drinkers ran a far higher risk of consuming contaminated drink that would lead to all sorts of unhappy outcomes.  

Thus, if drugs were legalised and properly regulated, we should see a significant drop in crime as well as associated healthcare costs.  

Just my tuppence, of course, and YMMV...

i understand this is far from black and white but for me, very hard to compare a bloke wanting a drink after work with a bloke wanting to shoot up heroin. the bloke wanting the drink most likely can pay for it. i'm sure plenty of addicts can as well but i'd bet the percentage is far lower. so how does he afford it? yes, it might be way cheaper if not illegal but are we to make it free? end of prohibition certainly did not see alcohol become "free".

[awkwardPause]

Judging by the size of those parcels, it's truly fortunate she wasn't dumb enough to try smuggling them in more "Conventional" means....

No. 1, 4, and 11 are rolled to PSP/HQ quality.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[gweilgi]

6 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

i understand this is far from black and white but for me, very hard to compare a bloke wanting a drink after work with a bloke wanting to shoot up heroin. the bloke wanting the drink most likely can pay for it. i'm sure plenty of addicts can as well but i'd bet the percentage is far lower. so how does he afford it? yes, it might be way cheaper if not illegal but are we to make it free? end of prohibition certainly did not see alcohol become "free".

Oh, I would not make it free!  But the margins between production and street price are so eye-poppingly huge that a regulated market could reduce prices to levels that are affordable and low enough not to force addicts into crime, while still ensuring a healthy profit for licensed operators and satisfactory tax revenues for governments.  

Another factor would be the massive reductions in cost: law enforcement, the criminal justice system, healthcare, right down to the insurance premiums for individual home owners.  Much of this would have to be ploughed back into public health systems (one hopes) to manage and mitigate the effects of addiction, but the savings would still be quite significant.  

[Ken Gargett]

16 hours ago, wabashcr said:

I agree with you.  She was caught with drugs in her possession trying to leave the country.  That's a crime.  The prosecution doesn't need to prove anything.  She's guilty.  If there are mitigating circumstances, like she didn't know she had the drugs, the burden of proof is on her (and her attorney) to convince the court.  The prosecutor doesn't need to prove she knew anything, unless they try to charge her with some conspiratorial crime in addition to possession and smuggling.  They have her trying to board a plane with drugs.  

Ok so obviously I don't know anything about the legal system in Colombia (other than that drug possession and smuggling laws can carry draconian penalties).  But my point is that even if she's presumed innocent until proven guilty, the facts of the case deem that the burden of proof has been shifted back onto her to prove why her case would qualify for any kind of exemption from the possession and smuggling charges.

On a personal note, while the courts may be required to consider her innocent until proven guilty, I'm under no such obligation to extend the same courtesy.  I don't see any way she's not guilty.  It would take a herculean effort on the part of her attorney to convince any reasonable thinking person otherwise, I'm afraid.

we are completely in agreement as respect the sentiments expressed in your ultimate para. not so much in the rest of it - except i suspect we are both working from a minimal knowledge of columbian law and we are both assuming the system not too dissimilar to that found in most of the world.

so i would ask - and some of this might seem like semantics (or perhaps not).

"The prosecution doesn't need to prove anything.  She's guilty." i do not understand this. of course the prosecution has to prove she is guilty. assuming, of course that at the appropriate time, she does not plead guilty. i think we agree that it should not be a difficult job but if she stands up in court and pleads 'not guilty', then of course the prosecution must prove that she is. she can claim she has no knowledge of the coke. the prosecution should not have a hard time proving that is absurd, but they still have to do it. mitigating circumstances are a completely different thing.

"the facts of the case deem that the burden of proof has been shifted back onto her". again, don't agree (leaving aside the actual intricacies of the columbian system). you can't say this until we actually see what happens in the court. we all know the problems about trying a case in the media. who knows what will emerge (personally, i suspect that what will emerge is more evidence of her guilt). we have already seen the story change numerous times already. but the burden of proof remains with the prosecution.

 

 

 

 

 

[MIKA27]

I just read an article that it was revealed Cassie was caught because the US Drug Enforcement Agency alerted Colombian authorities to their suspicions about her plane ticket, reports suggest.

[NJP]

This twit has ticked every box for every authority to raise a red flag. And like Schapelle we will watch the lot on bloody Everything. The Aussie "Fair go" gets in the way of people being objective when taking sides. As for Schapelle her sister and local husband Bar sold Aussie Hydro for years B4.Her old man and brother were both done for dope previously.  Cassie will have a connection as well. 

[Ken Gargett]

31 minutes ago, NJP said:

This twit has ticked every box for every authority to raise a red flag. And like Schapelle we will watch the lot on bloody Everything. The Aussie "Fair go" gets in the way of people being objective when taking sides. As for Schapelle her sister and local husband Bar sold Aussie Hydro for years B4.Her old man and brother were both done for dope previously.  Cassie will have a connection as well. 

please! poor old schapelle took fifty trips to bali over a couple of years purely for holiday purposes, even if she did have a specially modified bag. outrageous to think otherwise. merely because the rest of the family were scumbag dealers, i'm sure she was completely unaware of that. and i for one don't believe for a second that she was hooking on the side. scurrilous slander! she was a "beautician" (stop laughing) with an extraordinary amount of holidays.

[wabashcr]

6 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

so i would ask - and some of this might seem like semantics (or perhaps not).

"The prosecution doesn't need to prove anything.  She's guilty." i do not understand this. of course the prosecution has to prove she is guilty. assuming, of course that at the appropriate time, she does not plead guilty. i think we agree that it should not be a difficult job but if she stands up in court and pleads 'not guilty', then of course the prosecution must prove that she is. she can claim she has no knowledge of the coke. the prosecution should not have a hard time proving that is absurd, but they still have to do it. mitigating circumstances are a completely different thing.

"the facts of the case deem that the burden of proof has been shifted back onto her". again, don't agree (leaving aside the actual intricacies of the columbian system). you can't say this until we actually see what happens in the court. we all know the problems about trying a case in the media. who knows what will emerge (personally, i suspect that what will emerge is more evidence of her guilt). we have already seen the story change numerous times already. but the burden of proof remains with the prosecution.

Well of course the prosecution has to go through the legal procedure of presenting their evidence.  But again, they've caught her red-handed with a lot of drugs, trying to board a flight out of the country.  In this case it seems to be a mere formality.  It then becomes her legal defense's job to prove why, in spite of being caught with drugs trying to get on a plane, she is not in fact guilty of a crime.  Maybe Colombian law allows exceptions in the case of someone unknowingly being used as a drug mule.  Perhaps there was something illegal about the search and seizure.  Whatever the case, the burden is now on her to prove whatever her defense is to being caught in possession of the drugs.  

If she raises the claim that she didn't know about the drugs, her defense will need to present evidence beyond just her testimony, especially since the circumstances of the case don't seem to support that defense.  Procedurally the burden may still be on the prosecution (again, allowing for differences in Colombian law), but effectively she has to prove her innocence here.  So yes, I suspect our disagreement probably does hinge on semantics to an extent.  

[dicko]

So yes, I suspect our disagreement probably does hinge on semantics to an extent.  

With respect your disagreement hinges on you being incorrect and Ken being correct.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

[Fuzz]

1 minute ago, dicko said:

With respect your disagreement hinges on you being incorrect and Ken being correct.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
 

Shhhh! Never tell Ken he's correct!

[RijkdeGooier]

Colombia uses a derivativeof the Napoleonic Code - no presumed innocent applies. 

 

As an aside those cans are easily earcovering judging by the picture in the white dress?

[Ken Gargett]

7 hours ago, Fuzz said:

Shhhh! Never tell Ken he's correct!

ahh, morning all!

actually, i think that there is probably mostly semantics. i think we agree in our thoughts on this in general.

one question i have not heard asked was about the claims she is a personal trainer. seriously? training what? whales at seaworld? she's fatter than i am!

[Ken Gargett]

29 minutes ago, RijkdeGooier said:

Colombia uses a derivativeof the Napoleonic Code - no presumed innocent applies. 

 

As an aside those cans are easily earcovering judging by the picture in the white dress?

and thanks for that. helps clarify.

[Lotusguy]

actually, i think that there is probably
one question i have not heard asked was about the claims she is a personal trainer. seriously? training what? whales at seaworld? she's fatter than i am!

Yeah - anyone still think she's good looking? FB and Instagram pictures are almost always altered these days...