Rep Ronald Singson pleaded guilty to smuggling cocaine into Hongkong.

He told the judge,


    “I apologise to the people of Hong Kong. This was a very big mistake and in the process, I have ruined my name and reputation, embarrassing my family and causing pain to my girlfriend.”

    “I’ve never been more remorseful in my life. This is just the beginning of my problems. Not knowing my fate back home has cause me a great deal of pain.”

    “I ask you to find it in your heart to… sentence me with leniency. There’s nothing more I want than to go on with my life.”

I sympathize with Singson. He didn’t steal, he didn’t hurt anybody. He only went to Hongkong to attend an Usher concert and he brought along his favorite party drug. I know it is illegal but is it wrong?

For as long as alcohol is legal and doctors are allowed to prescribe anti-depressants, sleeping pills, pep pills, and all sorts of drugs that are bottom-line mood enhancers, I find no legitimate reason why some drugs should be illegal and some not.

Singson is a victim of wrong headedness, of a system that says, “We can decide how and what adults can or cannot consume in the pursuit of happiness, we can define and decide what should or should not make you happy. Because we can.”

Manuel Buencamino (241 Posts)

Buencamino was a weekly columnist for Today and Business Mirror. He has also written articles in other publications like Malaya, Newsbreak, "Yellow Pad" in Business World, and "Talk of the Town" in the Inquirer. He is currently with Interaksyon, the news site of TV5. MB blogged for Filipino Voices, blogs for ProPinoy and maintains a blog, Uniffors.com. Game-changers for him, as far as music goes, are Monk, Miles, Jimi, and Santana.


Share →
Buffer
  • OMG

    PUT)@(#$)INA! ang bobo nitong writer na ito!
    bakit pa to nagsulat e puno ng kabobohan ang article na to.
    magkano ang nabayad sayo Manuel para ideklarang BIKTIMA ang DRUG ADDICT na si SINGSON???
    Isa kang kahihiyan sa bansang Pilipinas. Dapat sumunod ka na sa mga mabitay!

    • manuelbuencamino

      OMG,

      Hindi tungkol kay singson ang article. Ang pinupunteriya ko ay ang dobol standards na ginagawang legal ang ibang drugs at ang iba naman ay illegal.

      Gusto ko sana na yun mga matatalino at genyo na katulad mo ay mag isip at magtanong kung ano nga ba ang batayan para sa mga ganitong klaseng batas.

  • GabbyD

    i’m watching the charlie sheen thing play out…

    this illustrates the effect of addiction. attacking people, insulting them, asking them to fight, using weird analogies to himself… thats crack for you…

    same with singson, at least he says he’s in rehab and is working out his issues.

    • manuelbuencamino

      You can’t generalize based on charlie sheen. Or Singson for that matter. Individuals behave individually.

      • GabbyD

        i’m using this to ILLUSTRATE (not generalize!) the effects of addiction.

        now i will generalize: addiction will present similarly across different people.

        while “individual behave individually”, ADDICTION presents similarly.

  • manuelbuencamino

    Drug addiction is a complex illness characterized by intense and, at times, uncontrollable drug craving, along with compulsive drug seeking and use that persist even in the face of devastating consequences. While the path to drug addiction begins with the voluntary act of taking drugs, over time a person’s ability to choose not to do so becomes compromised, and seeking and consuming the drug becomes compulsive. This behavior results largely from the effects of prolonged drug exposure on brain functioning. Addiction is a brain disease that affects multiple brain circuits, including those involved in reward and motivation, learning and memory, and inhibitory control over behavior.

    Gabby D, that’s exactly what tobacco and alcohol do.

    • GabbyD

      i agree with this. the KEY POINT is that:

      1) some “drugs” are more addictive than others (to prove it, look at physiological effects, and statistics on addiction rates for various drugs)

      2) some drugs are more destructive, and can be “improved” to deliver ever more higher and destructive doses.

      i AM NOT saying that tobaco and alcohol arent addictive. THEY ARE.

      but thats NOT THE POINT.

      • manuelbuencamino

        GabbyD

        I say the law classifying drugs is discriminatory, arbitrary, and capricious

        What’s your point?

        • GabbyD

          my point, is that the classification makes sense because, and i’m quoting my earlier comment:

          “1) some “drugs” are more addictive than others (to prove it, look at physiological effects, and statistics on addiction rates for various drugs)

          2) some drugs are more destructive, and can be “improved” to deliver ever more higher and destructive doses.”

          clearer?

          • manuelbuencamino

            Based also on your earlier comment: Alcohol and nicotine were more addictive than drugs like marijuana, lsd, and ecstacy. Why are the former legal and the latter criminalized? Because the classification system is arbitrary.

          • GabbyD

            i thought we were talking about cocaine?

            thats just one prong of the argument.

            there are TWO PRONGS. the second prong is also important — increase in product potency!

  • GabbyD

    addictive potential of cocain/heroin VS others:

    “Three factors were used to determine the harm associated with each drug: the physical harm to the user, the drug’s potential for addiction, and the impact on society of drug use.

    Among the twenty testing subjects was cocaine (snow), heroin, Ecstasy and LSD. Expert psychiatrists with backgrounds in addiction, as well as those officials with medical or scientific expertise, were asked to assign a score to each. However, these experts would only agree with their collective conclusions and not with the top-ten rankings determined by the study researchers.

    According to the list, heroin and cocaine ranked top (surprise) while alcohol ranked five and tobacco in ninth. Cannabis ranked eleven while Ecstasy was at the bottom. “

    • manuelbuencamino

      addicting is the operative word. More addicting or less addicting are relative terms. One is addicted to one or more of those substances or one is not.

      Funny that the 5th and 9th most addicting substances are legal while eleventh and 20th are not. That proves my point that drug laws are arbitrary and capricious.

  • UP nn grad

    When all is said and done, when it comes to RepSingson — Pinoys in Pinas say “Karma”, Pinoys in Pinas are Pinas are happy that RepSingson is headed to jail, Pinoys in Pinas only wish that Pinas airport personnel and courts have half the integrity of Hongkong bureaucrats.

  • gabbytots

    I might be crazy and stupid, but this issue is not about drugs or addiction at all. Singson VIOLATED a LAW, he got CAUGHT, and he should be PUNISHED according to the law. It’s not about if the law is right, debate on that why don’t you, congressman siya diba? Tapos law pa ng ibang bansa ang linabag, and now he’s a VICTIM?

    I’m sorry, this article makes no sense to me.

    It’s moot and irrelevant that alcohol and cigarettes are legal, the DRUGS that singson were caught with WASN’T.

    • http://www.uniffors.com/ Manuel Buencamino

      Gabbytots,

      The issue I raised was over the nature of the law itself, not whether Singson violated it.

      • gabbytots

        OK. So why is SIngson a victim? Out of his own free will, he went to another country where, unfortunately for him, laws are actually enforced… whether you’re a congressman or not. He violated the law. He got caught. Regardless of what law he broke, why is he a victim?? Are the Hong Kong authorities victimizing him?

        • manuelbuencamino

          Once upon a time there were laws against inter racial marriage. Those who broke that law were victims of a law that was discriminatory and capricious.

          In like manner Ronald Singson is a victim of drug laws that are discriminatory and capricious.

  • J_ag

    Missing the point. .. MB was expressing his libertarian views. His libertarian value system. However in real life things are more complex. Most especially with the Chinese in HK and the Mainland.

    Unfortunately those nasty white devils had imparted an exploitative historical narrative on the use of drugs. The British Empire rode on the sale of opium to gain strategic control of parts of China.

    Even Singapore’s early days the state then had to depend on the opium trade to survive. That changed off course.

    I agree with MB philosophically with qualifications. Singson plead guilty to possession for personal consumption. The law qualifies that to be a lesser offense. But that is the law in HK.

    We actually should go back to those days of liberalized drug laws but unfortunately/fortunately the state will regulate its use for safety reasons.

    I am also in favor of legalizing the possession of firearms for all heads of households. (male or female)Most especially for the Philippines. I would not mind rules on allowing households to have guns exclusively in the home or in the car when driving.

    People who are hungry for food or for their next drug fix would pose a hazard for those around.

    The same with legalizing prostitution to promote sex for relaxation. In some countries the legal age is as low as 13.

    It would open up revenues for the state.

    Regulation is still important as the state will have to provide some guidelines as drug use amongst children of all ages would be detrimental to their growth potential.

    Another example of values vs individual self interest.

  • GabbyD

    both. but i believe we can safely say that alcohol is less addicting, and less prone to abuse.

    nicotene is less prone to abuse too. there are no such thing as smoking junkies…

    part of the reason is chemical.

    part of the reason is that the delivery system isnt as “effective” as in harder drugs. this goes to the product innovation argument i’ve put forth earlier.

    IF they invent a delivery system that is able to pump (i’m guessing) 5x-10x of alcohol in a beer at the same rate as drinking regular beer, you’ll see a ban.

    right now, nicotene in a commercial cig is relatively small.

    ____________

    if u wanna talk about gambling, exercise, etc… you’ll hit a slippery slope.

    practically anything pleasurable , theoretically, can be addictive.

    the answer isnt “dont do anything”. it isnt “do everything” either.

    a line ought to be drawn.

    _______________

    you ask: what about regulation? i.e. arrest people when hey commit criminal acts that endanger people?

    this goes back to abuse and how that affects other people and society.

    IF you think the ONLY way society is hurt by an addict is via the crimes they commit, you are wrong.

    they can hurt themselves, their families, relationships, etc without necessarily committing crimes (i.e. traditional ones, like murder, etc).

    Now, if your position is, the ONLY thing the state ought to care about are crimes, then i submit thats wrong too. i think that society can benefit if the people focus their lives NOT on the aquisition and abuse of chemicals, but by building relationships, creating wealth, etc.

    • manuelbuencamino

      alcohol is not less addicting than cocaine and less prone to abuse.

      withdrawal alcohol addiction is just as difficult if not more so than cocaine. As a matter of fact the physical symptoms of alcohol addiction are worse

      —————————————

      “nicotene is less prone to abuse too. there are no such thing as smoking junkies…”

      smoking junkies are more popularly known as chain smokers. those are the ones who consume two or more packs of cigarettes a day

      —————————————-

      “right now, nicotene in a commercial cig is relatively small.”

      It does not take a lot for it to become addictive. Nicotine like cocaine is a progressive high in the sense that you start out with needing only a little to satisfy your want and you need more as your use increases because your tolerance grows.

      ————————————–

      “a line ought to be drawn”

      precisely. and that line starts with xxx offense under the influence of….

      —————————————-

      “IF you think the ONLY way society is hurt by an addict is via the crimes they commit, you are wrong.

      they can hurt themselves, their families, relationships, etc without necessarily committing crimes (i.e. traditional ones, like murder, etc).”

      Excuse me but now your are now creating a heirarchy where addiction to drugs is not in the same class as addiction to alcohol and addiction to nicotine.

      I don’t have to itemize the non criminal behavior that alcoholics do to their families relationships etc.

      I don’t have to remind you that smokers’ second hand smoke harm other people

      —————————————–

      “Now, if your position is, the ONLY thing the state ought to care about are crimes, then i submit thats wrong too. i think that society can benefit if the people focus their lives NOT on the aquisition and abuse of chemicals, but by building relationships, creating wealth, etc.”

      Like I said I do not advocate drug use.

      Now to address your point directly. You are now imposing your values on others. Not only that but you present them as superior.

      I recognize that you are advocating the orthodox view and that’s your prerogative. However there are other views/lifestyles around and that’s their prerogative.

      • GabbyD

        1) “alcohol is not less addicting than cocaine and less prone to abuse.

        withdrawal alcohol addiction is just as difficult if not more so than cocaine. As a matter of fact the physical symptoms of alcohol addiction are worse”

        Response: i guess we can let science determine what is more addicting.

        we can do that if ur up to it.

        2) “It does not take a lot for it to become addictive.”

        you mis-understand the argument. if u can increase the dosage per hit, it becomes easier to abuse, and easier to get addicted, and its ill effects are magnified. This is the problem with illegal drugs. the EFFICIENCY of the delivery system IS an issue.

        this is why u can ONLY get nicotine via cigs. u CANNOT/its ILLEGAL, for you to get it any other way that increases the hit.

        3) “smoking junkies are more popularly known as chain smokers.”

        i know chain smoking. its NOT the same as being a crack junkie. both physiologically (science!) and socially (their lives revolve around the aquisition of drugs)

        4) “precisely. and that line starts with xxx offense under the influence of….”

        i dont get this…

        5) “I don’t have to itemize the non criminal behavior that alcoholics do to their families relationships etc.”

        hhmm… my argument is centered around the QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCE between alcohol and cocain (etc…). hence, its extremely possible for one to not abuse alcohol. its also possible to control addiction via support (ie. AAnonymous).

        alcoholism rates in the US is 2-3%… persumably practically 100% of the pop has been exposed to alcohol. thats pretty good odds…

        because of the QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES, its OK merely REGULATE ALCOHOL.

        we could use science for this….

        5)”I don’t have to remind you that smokers’ second hand smoke harm other people”

        INDEED! and here, regulation does beautifully because it doesnt affect relationships, productivity, etc… smoking NEVER CONTROLS YOUR LIFE.

        6)”You are now imposing your values on others. Not only that but you present them as superior.”

        this is STRANGE. building relationships, being productiive… is there NO DOUBT that this is superior?

        is there a sense in which NOT BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS is SUPERIOR? pls. share.

        7) “I recognize that you are advocating the orthodox view”

        again, i wouldnt characterize this as “merely” orthodox.

        its common sense to support healthy relationships between people, to encourage people to have interests, full lives…

        did i fall asleep and suddenly living a “good life” is suddenly passe?

        trust me, i completely understand RELATIVISM, ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLES, etc…

        people can believe whatever gods they want! gay people can marry, etc… people can eat only veggies.. etc

        those are lifestyles!

        but if being permissive about drugs is about “lifestyle” choices, then i respectfully suggest you reconsider the concept of lifestyles.

        i dont even think its possible to be a recreational cocaine taker. pls correct me if i’m wrong.

        • manuelbuencamino

          1) re #4: “precisely. and that line starts with xxx offense under the influence of….”

          “i dont get this…”

          That was in reference to: “a line ought to be drawn.”

          Yes, “under the influence of…” as in accident under the influence of alcohol or cocaine or whatever; as in rape under the influence of….

          But you don’t get it all. Points 6 and 7 are mere reiterations. If you want to get into it then define what you mean by healthy in terms of relationships and what are those interests who want to encourage?

          2) “i dont even think its possible to be a recreational cocaine taker. pls correct me if i’m wrong.”

          You’re wrong. I know recreational cocaine users who only use it at parties and social occasions. They are like social drinkers. They see the drug as the spice rather than the entree.

          3) As to letting science decide the issue. Who’s source, yours or mine? What are the effects of alcohol on the brain and internal organs/what are the effects of cocaine?

          Abuse of either substance can lead to major health problems that will hasten your death or cause death by overdose. In either case you’re dead because of substance abuse.

          So instead of comparing lesser evils and using that comparison to argue for the legalization of one drug and the criminalization of the other why not compare a non-user of alcohol with a user, and a non-abuser alcohol with an abuser.

          In other words, justify the legalization of alcohol and tobacco, not as a lesser evil, but purely on their own merits.

          Let’s hear it. You can use your scientific sources if you want

          • GabbyD

            alright! i would love to see a science debate about the RELATIVE DANGERS OF ALCOHOL VS COCAINE :)

            shall you start?

          • GabbyD

            “But you don’t get it all. Points 6 and 7 are mere reiterations. If you want to get into it then define what you mean by healthy in terms of relationships and what are those interests who want to encourage?”

            the interests are to encourage people to have RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE IN SOCIETY.

            ADDICTS do not have healthy relationships.

            from http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/treatmeth.html

            Drug addiction is a complex illness characterized by intense and, at times, uncontrollable drug craving, along with compulsive drug seeking and use that persist even in the face of devastating consequences. While the path to drug addiction begins with the voluntary act of taking drugs, over time a person’s ability to choose not to do so becomes compromised, and seeking and consuming the drug becomes compulsive. This behavior results largely from the effects of prolonged drug exposure on brain functioning. Addiction is a brain disease that affects multiple brain circuits, including those involved in reward and motivation, learning and memory, and inhibitory control over behavior.

  • GabbyD

    addiction is in fact the central issue of why these drugs are better off banned.

    addiction creates effects on people around you. it makes your life revolve around the drug.

    the moment OTHER PEOPLE are involved, addiction becomes a public concern.

    IF you can ensure that you can live a productive life while being addicted, then thats the time the debate can go the other way.

    the other issue is product advance. these drugs can be altered (improved…) be become more addicting and damaging. the same isnt true for other regulated (legal) drugs such as alcohol and nicotene.

    BOTH these reasons tell us that regulation is a responsibility of the state.

    (hehe… its funny that i dont really wanna argue legalization, as i’d rather focus on airport security, yet here i am, doing it anyway… am i addicted to argumentation?)

    • manuelbuencamino

      Gabby,

      By addiction do you mean physical or psychological or both?

      If it is addiction in either or both forms then you have to ban/criminalize alcohol and tobacco as well.

      But what about psychological addiction and being able to live a productive life? Now you’re going into activities like gambling, jogging etc. that are said to trigger pleasure inducing, morphine-like chemicals in the brain.

      Regulate all drugs as you would alcohol and tobacco. For example, drunk driving, smoking in enclosed public places etc. It’s the activity associated with the drug that can be regulated and penalized if so warranted.

  • KG

    So I missed the point so thanks for the clarification.

    I have a feeling that we had this discussion before Jeg …the comment where you were narrating your visit to the Netherlands.

    (Back in FV )

  • KG
    • Jeg

      KG, youre missing the point. Nicotine is harmful yet legal. Alcohol is harmful yet legal. Pork fat is harmful yet legal. If the government is going go full nanny, why dont they declare these things illegal as well?

      Im not advocating the full nanny option so Im advocating government stay out of my decision what to ingest.

      (Full disclosure: I do drugs like alcohol and enjoy an occasional bowl of nicotine in my pipe.)

  • carl

    I agree with MB’s libertarian stand on drug use. I don’t use drugs myself, but I like to hit the bottle every once in a while and enjoy the freedom of personal choice I am afforded. I do think that a more controlled approach to the drug problem would do better than the system which we have now.

    However, I cannot agree that Singson is a victim or should be pitied. He is a congressman, and I know that we don’t think much of our congressmen, are witness to petty bickering, lack of attendance in sessions, and well, alam na natin lahat ng reklamo tungkol sa kongresista.

    Despite these things I do believe that being a congressman he is a representative of the people. I believe that if you are a representative of your people, your country, you should hold yourself to a higher moral code. You should remember that you no longer just represent yourself. You can’t go out partying and get crazy, because it’s not just you that others see, but your constituency.

    He, being a representative of the Republic, did not only embarrass himself and his girlfriend (and please, man, that is just a sad thing to invoke, even for a high schooler “nag-drugs ako dahil sa girlfriend ko” and this guy holds public office?) but I believe that he dishonored our country.

    Aside from facing drug charges, I think that Singson should do the honorable thing and resign from public office.

    • manuelbuencamino

      Carl,

      I see your point. Yes, congressmen are expected to behave in a manner befitting their office.

      However, my point was Singson would not be in the trouble he is in if not for double standard drug laws.
      He is a victim of that.

      I hope you see my point. I’m not disagreeing with what you said about how congressmen should behave, I addressed the root cause of his predicament: double standards.

  • http://thesocietyofhonor.blogspot.com/ Joe America

    More dangerous than drugs are people with brains locked into the notion that they are the all-knowing center of propriety and those of differing view deserve to be crushed or at least reduced in stature. Name callers and Ampatuans have the same psychological flaw, an inhospitably to a different way to think.

  • manuelbuencamino

    Guys,

    I am not advocating drug use. What I am pointing out is the discriminatory nature of our drug laws where some harmful drugs are criminalized and other harmful drugs are allowed and even made a part of social and family celebrations. Cocaine, weed bad. Champagne good.

    Also, I don’t think anybody has any right to dictate what I ingest. Same thing for safety nazis who insist on making seat belts and crash helmets mandatory. Those are personal choices. If I smoke then I have the right to choose tobacco, weed, or opium. If I drink then I have the right to choose water, soda, or alcohol. It’s a question of individual right and liberty to do what one wants with and to his body.

    • GabbyD

      but what about addiction? despite what jeg says, are we saying that cocaine ISNT addicting?

      • Jeg

        Isnt physically addicting. Some people have psychological needs though.

        • GabbyD

          cocaine isnt physically addicting? from your own link, it says there is physical addiction (it induces a “high” feeling from affecting the nervous system)

          this also creates psychological addiction, of course.

          • Jeg

            Here’s the pertinent quote again, GabbyD:

            “Cocaine … is probably the most benign of illicit drugs currently in widespread use …. Short acting — about 15 minutes — not physically addicting…”

            I suppose the little word ‘not’ is easy to miss. No worries.

          • GabbyD

            you just chose the ONE QUOTE that says its not addicting.

            what about characterizing the scientific consensus jeg?

          • Jeg

            Gabby, being from the DEA site, I chose it for its irony quite frankly. I could have chosen to quote a different scientific study. You might like this link. It says cocaine is evil. It also says it’s not physically addicting. http://www.scienceclarified.com/Ci-Co/Cocaine.html

            In any case, the government (which funds these studies, directly or indirectly) seems to have a vested interest in painting cocaine as an evil drug, so take consensus science with as much grains of salt as you will. Or was you won’t.

            Be that as it may, the central issue of MB’s post is not whether coke, or weed, or indeed pork fat is harmful or not. It is this: Does the government have a right to interfere with what I put in my own body? You seem to be on the side of ‘Yes they do.’ Im not.

      • manuelbuencamino

        alcohol and tobacco are addicting, why are they legal?

    • http://getrealphilippines.com benign0

      That’s because you assume everyone is as smart and level-headed as you, MB. Trouble is, most Pinoys — including their politicians (who reflect them by virtue of The Popular Vote — are stupid. So by that simple logic, STUPID people DESERVE tighter control.

      It’s simple, really;)

      • GabbyD

        ah i c. thats why the majority of countries impose controls on drug use… coz the majority of people in the world are stupid.

        thanks for the classy and useful comments. name calling has always been useful.

      • Bert

        “So by that simple logic, STUPID people DESERVE tighter control.”-benignO

        China, Singapore, Australia, etc. have tighter control on the use of drugs.

        So, by that simple benignO logic, the Chinese, the Singaporeans and the Australians are more stupid than the Filipinos. Hmmmn.

      • Jeg

        Trouble is, most Pinoys — including their politicians (who reflect them by virtue of The Popular Vote — are stupid. So by that simple logic, STUPID people DESERVE tighter control..

        Pfsh, benny. Youre demonstrating your unique brand of illogic again.

        Your premise is Pinoys are stupid so they vote politicians into government who are also stupid. So your recommendation is stupid government does the controlling?

        • http://getrealphilippines.com benign0

          Spot on as usual, Jeg. Thus bringeth the argument back to whether Pinoys have (1) earned the right to govern themselves and (2) earned the right to be “free”.

          All roads lead back to The Truth about Pinoys. :D

          • Jeg

            I see youre not a believer in inalienable rights that says humans dont have to earn the right to be free; that they already have it by virtue of being human. That explains a lot about you.

            As for governing ourselves, that is the crux of the matter. Do I have the right to govern what I put in my own body or do I need the imprimatur of the state? You say I need tighter control by the government, and I say bollocks.
            :-D

          • http://getrealphilippines.com benign0

            Sorry, you misinterpret me, Jeg. I believe in a human being’s “inalienable right” to freedom. Every human deserves to be free as an initial state — and then the evaluation begins. You need to be free to be be subject to this “evaluation”, otherwise there is no basis for it.

            For example, there was no basis for evaluating Filipinos’ fitness to be free in the Marocs years, because there was no opportunity to observe what they do given said freedom. Now, 25 years since Filipinos “became free” we have the benefit of that 25 years of hindsight to evaluate what Pinoys do with their freedom.

            And so now we can ask the question: Have we earned the right to be free?

            ;)

          • Jeg

            My apologies if I misinterpreted you, benny. So let me get this straight: You believe humans have these rights but then they have to be evaluated if they deserve them. Evaluated by whom? Let’s say you have the authority to do the evaluation and you come to the conclusion that they dont deserve to be free (because you conclude theyre so stupid) so you recommend that they be tightly controlled… again by whom? The government is the only one with the guns to impose such control, and I assume you agree that that’s a bad idea (because you conclude that it’s so stupid). See how your line of reasoning leads nowhere?

            Since government is inept and corrupt, the only logical conclusion is to limit government’s power to do damage. That each individual should be responsible for their actions. Not more control, but less. This avoids the vicious circle of your recommendation where an inept and corrupt organization would be given more power to control.

            Last word yours, buddy.

      • manuelbuencamino

        Benigno,

        By Filipinos do you mean Filipino citizens or the Filipino race?

        If you mean race, then you are talking about the Malay race. Is the entire Malay race stupid or is it just the Filipino?

        Is the stupidity you ascribe to Filipinos genetic?

        If the stupidity is genetic then it must be common to all Malays unless the gene mutated into a Filipino stupid gene. Identify the Malay stupid gene or its Filipino mutation.

        If the stupidity is cultural, then identify which Filipino cultural group it came from; which cultural group- native and/or foreign- contributed stupidity to our nation?

        If the stupidity comes from language then which native or foreign language did it come from?

        It is simplistic to make sweeping statements. It becomes simple once you fill in the details.

  • http://getrealphilippines.com benign0

    Who gives a sh1t about Singson anyway? I know who… idle minds. :-D

    • manuelbuencamino

      It’s not about Singson. It’s about the right to make personal choices.

      It’s not about advocating drug use. It’s about laws that calls some harmful drugs legal and other harmful drugs criminal.

      Simple and simplistic are not the same, Benigno.

      • UP nn grad

        You have your blinders on, ManuelB. That’s not too cool. The reason why some harmful drugs are legal while some harmful drugs are criminal is because of the laws passed by the intelligent members of Congress (based on suggestions by the intelligence of the medical community). Acetaminophen kills — ingest 100 pills, see where it gets you. Marijuana, different story, but pop 5 shabu seven days in a row, see what happens next. Now pop 2 Tylenol tablets seven days in a row, see what happens. [You'll have to pop the tylenol first, then the shabu.]
        ——————-
        Bottom-line, though, is this. Shabu may make you cool be hip be avant-garde be liberated, but don’t let shabu fry your brains so bad you find yourself walking into Hongkong airport with ‘dem products in your pocket.

        [I think the Hongkong courts are less concerned about Rep Singson's brains had been friend on coke or on something else. What Hongkong court wants to know now, the last question was about his intention to share the coke with other people.]

        • http://www.uniffors.com/ Manuel Buencamino

          UP,

          Legal harmful drugs are tobacco, alcohol, and all those prescription pills that fall in the category of mother’s little helpers. You cannot put acetominophen and ibuprofen in the same class.

          And like I said those intelligent members of Congress and those intelligent members of the medical community combined have no business imposing on my personal choices. What I do to my body is for me and not for them to decide.

          To repeat, I do not advocate drug use. But I respect your right to use it if you so choose, It’s your brain, it’s your body, it’s none of my business.

          Someone shit faced drunk on booze is just as dangerous and obnoxious as someone high as a kite on coke or on prescription mother’s little helpers. So if safety of the community is the issue then you have to criminalize them all.

  • GabbyD

    the debate about the ethics of drug use is cute, but i have a more pressing concern…

    my own question is:

    since he’s admitted to owning the drugs in court, HOW did he pass thru the philippine airport authorities?

    whatever you believe about drugs, someone should be disciplined for this.

    • Jeg

      The issue really isnt about drugs but the role government plays in our lives. For example, why is a highly addicting and deadly drug like nicotine legal while a harmless one like weed is not? What factors were input towards reaching that decision?

      • GabbyD

        i thought we were talking about cocaine?

        weed is harmless. i guess… i’m no expert…

        • Jeg

          Weed. Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

          As for cocaine, here’s something from the DEA site:

          “Dr. Peter G. Bourne, a drug expert who would later become President Carter’s Special Assistant to the President on Health Issues, wrote in 1974: “Cocaine … is probably the most benign of illicit drugs currently in widespread use …. Short acting — about 15 minutes — not physically addicting, and acutely pleasurable, cocaine has found increasing favor at all socioeconomic levels in the last year.” Peter G. Bourne, “The Great Cocaine Myth,” Drugs and Drug Abuse Education Newsletter 5: 5 (1974). See also, F.H. Gawin and H.D. Kleber, “Evolving Conceptualizations of Cocaine Dependence,” Yale Journal of Biological Medicine 61: 123-136 (1988).”

          Yes, you read that right. DEA. Cocaine is relatively harmless. The plant has been cultivated and used in South America for thousands of years. Now imagine legal cocaine. The price for it will drop since there will be no need to maintain an army of fully armed thugs, no need to bribe government officials, no need to hire high-priced lawyers. The market for the dangerous and highly addictive drug crystal meth (shabu) would shrink.

          • UP nn grad

            That’s cute.. cocaine, not addicting.

            Tobacco plants have been raised for eons; coca plants have been raised for eons; rice have been raised for eons; and rice is healthful (except it makes people fat when they eat too much of it with lechon)… so cocaine is cool-safe.

        • Jeg
  • Bert

    I think that MB is serious, but, actually, with MB, we can never really rightly tell.

    As to the system, well, indeed, why should it be the state’s concern to control what would make it’s people happy?

    Are governments playing God, giving it’s people free will, on selective basis?

    Why is governments strict on people resorting to the use of cocaine as a means to personal happiness and not on people resorting to suicide to attain spiritual happiness?

    • UP nn grad

      Now this is where China’s attitude towards cocaine helps Pilipinas. You know that Beijing-politburo is NOT making soft whispers into Noynoy for Pilipinas to legalize shabu even though in an instant, China will dominate shabu exports to Pilipinas (as it already is doing today).

  • Jeg

    MB is serious and I agree with him 100%.

  • http://www.artofchangemaking.com Nina Terol-Zialcita

    Manuel,

    ARE YOU SERIOUS???

    Man, please tell me this is a product of irony.

    This guy deserves to rot in–whichever place in purgatory is reserved for trapos and abusive officials like him.

  • UP nn grad

    Even Rep Singson knows that he is not a victim — he has not said anything that his arrest was illegal or that the proceedings in Hongkong courts violate his human rights as a person with a cocaine addiction.

  • GabbyD

    i think MB is serious. if so, thats sad.

  • http://cocoychronicles.com Cocoy

    Lmao!!!!!!