Several decades of the so-called war on drugs have taught one thing: that criminalizing drug possession and use serves only to create violence and prevent sick people from getting the help they need. EJK makes the situation even more dire.

The UN is now looking into a harm reduction approach that has produced good results so far in several countries. One of the most important parts of that approach is legalizing drug use. This takes drugs out of the hands of criminals and is far more effective than the kind of violent response we are seeing in the Philippines, the US, or other countries.

I believe this is a far better approach for all of society. It can even result in lower taxes, as well as the funding of schools and health care facilities with profits earned from licensed drug sales. It is more effective at keeping drugs away from children, and can even result in lower addiction rates.

No matter what societal concern we are trying to address, we will never be successful when fear and power over others are the keys to the strategy employed.

What is the real scenario of the PH as far as illegal drug users and pushers are also concerned. This seems like the situation that dogs kill dogs. It is very obvious that those have been killed are ordinary citizens. They belong to the lowest level of society. They are the poor who eat once a day, or even never. In short, they have to work hard to survive, not for themselves but for his family. Since they didn’t have any work or a good source of income, they resort to selling illegal drugs which eventually tempts them to be using them.

Killing them is like a tree which only its leaves or branches have been cut, but its roots still untouched. Thus, it is still lives and continues to produce new leaves and grows branches. In like manner, it is the symptoms that have been treated, and not the source or origin of the disease. Thus, the disease keeps on recurring and recurring after the medicine’s effect subsides.

They were killed because they resisted arrest.they should surrender so they can get free rehab. Philippines has almost million drug users and the drug lords are getting richer.What must people do, not to be influenced with illegal drug.They should work to have something to eat.Shabu in the Philippines is made ordinary for one can buy in a sachet wort P20 pesos.They better be dead than to victimized more and the benefits go to bull shit drug lords. May the drug lords rot in hell.

In any way, you are right for they were killed after they resisted arrest. And if they do surrender they may given a free rehab and appropriate medical attention. But do you think it will work? Justice doesn’t work well in the Philippine setting. Are you aware of that?

Well, based in your declaration that Philippines has almost million drug users and the drug lords are getting richer, we can infer then that there is a double standard in implementing justice as far as the influential is concerned. That is bad!

What would be the solution? How could this illegal trade be avoided or stopped?? Is there a way? What else then? Livelihod should be a practical solution or legalization of drug for medicinal or therapeutic purpose.

Going back to your question: What must people do, not to be influenced with illegal drug? I have cited some possible and practical solution for that matter. Hope it will be carried. Sop be it!

I think they should just surrender. There is a question that’s lingering in my mind for quite some time now and this is it: Are we even sure that those who are killed were killed by the president’s personnel? In my opinion, there is a big possibility that their co-drug users/pushers killed them.Why? maybe because they dont want to expose where the drugs came from. Another thing is that maybe those that against the administration is just making a black propaganda.

Capital punishment is must to make peace on earth because we all must keep in mind that war and peace demand power, solute power and nothing else. The Philippine president’s decision is right because bullet is the treatment of killers and drug users in all countries because they effect the whole society,

The crimes of rape, torture, treason, kidnapping, murder, larceny, and perjury pivot on a moral code that escapes apodictic [indisputably true] proof by expert testimony or otherwise. But communities would plunge into anarchy if they could not act on moral assumptions less certain than that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west. Abolitionists may contend that the death penalty is inherently immoral because governments should never take human life, no matter what the provocation.

But that is an article of faith, not of fact. The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor able to control his own destiny for good or for ill; it does not treat him as an animal with no moral sense

But is a fact that T]here is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than long terms of imprisonment. States that have death penalty laws do not have lower crime rates or murder rates than states without such laws.

And states that have abolished capital punishment show no significant changes in either crime or murder rates. The death penalty has no deterrent effect. Claims that each execution deters a certain number of murders have been thoroughly discredited by social science research.