Peru drug smuggling case - READ OP BEFORE POSTING

HensVassal

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

Do you really think she considered the morals of the drug and its possible end users before she agreed to smuggle 11kgs of it?

I don't really know what point you're trying to make here. There are people on here who are trying to exaggerate her culpability by engaging in moral fingerpointing. They wring their hands and talk of the lives that the drugs she was smuggling would have ruined. That, quite frankly, is a pathetic attempt at elevating the argument via emotional blackmail and is a crock of sh1t. They are not satisfied with the justice that was meted out to her so are now trying to introduce new causes for further punishment by tugging on heart strings. Alcohol, tobacco and gambling also ruin lives in ways that dwarf the ramifications of cocaine but they don't breathe a word about that and when they're called on it they switch back to the legal angle.

HensVassal

wingbacknr5 wrote: »

What about sugar and the untold damage that is doing?

Do you put newsagents in the same category as drug mules as well because they sell sweets and fizzy drinks?

How about salt, should chipper and restaurant owners be in there with the Guinness lorry driver as well?

Bottom line is cocaine is illegal, alcohol is not.

I agree alcohol is a hugely destructive influence on society, but to try and assert that Michaella McCollum is no worse than a guy driving the Guinness or Heineken lorry is just plain wrong IMO.

If the bottom line is that cocaine is illegal then people should desist from bringing up the "lives it ruins" canard.

wingbacknr5

HensVassal wrote: »

If the bottom line is that cocaine is illegal then people should desist from bringing up the "lives it ruins" canard.

I never mentioned anything about the "lives it ruins".

I was simply disagreeing with the assertion by bajer101 that people who transport alcohol for a living are as bad as drug mules.

HensVassal

wingbacknr5 wrote: »

I never mentioned anything about the "lives it ruins".

I was simply disagreeing with the assertion by bajer101 that people who transport alcohol for a living are as bad as drug mules.

I know you didn't but others did.

Now legally there is a big difference between those who transport alcohol and those who transport cocaine.

But morally there is no difference.

I notice that you skew your terms here as well. You use the nice clean "people who transport alcohol" for one and the seedy, sleazy "drug mules" for the other. Right there you're trying to introduce bias.

Refer to both activities as "people who transport alcohol/cocaine" or smear both with the "booze/drug trafficker" moniker.

Bacchus

HensVassal wrote: »

Now legally there is a big difference between those who transport alcohol and those who transport cocaine.

But morally there is no difference.

Yes there is. As I stated in my post (only a couple of posts earlier), the links to criminal activities and the direct connection between the smuggling of those drugs to fund criminal activities makes a very strong moral distinction.

wingbacknr5

HensVassal wrote: »

I know you didn't but others did.

Now legally there is a big difference between those who transport alcohol and those who transport cocaine.

But morally there is no difference.

I notice that you skew your terms here as well. You use the nice clean "people who transport alcohol" for one and the seedy, sleazy "drug mules" for the other. Right there you're trying to introduce bias.

Refer to bother activities as "people who transport alcohol/cocaine" or smear both with the "booze/drug trafficker" moniker.

You are really getting into semantics here, drug mule is a common term for these people I didn't mean it in a derogatory sense. But fair enough I'll re-phrase it that I don't think you can equate people who transport alcohol for a living with people who transport narcotics.

To widen the argument, do you think people who sell products with a high sugar content are as morally corrupt as people who sell narcotics?

ohnonotgmail

HensVassal wrote: »

I know you didn't but others did.

Now legally there is a big difference between those who transport alcohol and those who transport cocaine.

But morally there is no difference.

I notice that you skew your terms here as well. You use the nice clean "people who transport alcohol" for one and the seedy, sleazy "drug mules" for the other. Right there you're trying to introduce bias.

Refer to bother activities as "people who transport alcohol/cocaine" or smear both with the "booze/drug trafficker" moniker.

perhaps we can refer to them as drug transport operatives? would that help?

armaghlad

Bacchus wrote: »

Ah ok, thanks for clarifying. If she considered the effect on end users of the drugs she was smuggling (if she gave any consideration at all) is that not implicit of her considering the morals of her actions too?

Perhaps. I'm going on the assumption that she either used or was around people who did use cocaine while in Ibiza. It might be that she was that used to the substance and being around it, that morals just didn't come into it imvho.

You're probably right that she didn't give much thought at all to the morals of her actions or their consequences. That doesn't absolve her in any way though. Even the "stupid and young" excuse isn't an excuse for me. If she was 15/16 when she did it, then yeah ok you could say that but she was an adult when she committed the crime (and subsequently paid for that crime) so she is completely responsible for her actions (morally and legally) and shouldn't be given excuses like "sure we all make mistakes", "she's was young and stupid" or "she's the victim here, targeted by drug gangs".

Young, stupid, naive etc should not be used as excuses. But they should be considered mitigating factors. The first time she left this island, she ended up in jail in South America. I think she was impressionable, naive and a bit of a show off. I know these types of girls. They're the ones smoking at 14 thinking they're the bees knees. The ones going off in fellas cars at age of 16. Getting into overage nightclubs and chasing older men etc. I think she saw the opportunity for quick money and took it without actually thinking about what she was doing.

HensVassal

wingbacknr5 wrote: »

You are really getting into semantics here, drug mule is a common term for these people I didn't mean it in a derogatory sense. But fair enough I'll re-phrase it that I don't think you can equate people who transport alcohol for a living with people who transport narcotics.

To widen the argument, do you think people who sell products with a high sugar content are as morally corrupt as people who sell narcotics?

I think people who make a living selling consumables that they know are bad for people are essentially morally bankrupt whether it's junk food, alcohol or drugs. Now I am not talking about the burger flipper at a fast food joint, I'm talking about those higher up the food chain who profit handsomely from poisoning people with the sh1t they produce. They would never consume this crap themselves but spend their waking hours dreaming up ways of getting people even more addicted to sugar and grease.


You can be a publican with a conscience and sell beer to a few regulars while at the same time refusing to serve the local alco whose kids go hungry while he pisses it away, but very few publicans are like that because they know their gesture isn't going to change anything.

I'm going to get a lot of stick for this but one could also be a purveryor of narcotics with a conscience, i.e. one who sells recreational drugs like cocaine to party people but refuses to contribute to a community's misery by selling the likes of heroin and crystal meth.

One can profit from legal sales and yet have zero moral conscience. Arms dealers are an example. Do we apply the "moral" aregument when something is illegal like cocaine sales but omit it when something is legal like alcohol, firearms, gambling, pornography?

Bacchus

armaghlad wrote: »

Perhaps. I'm going on the assumption that she either used or was around people who did use cocaine while in Ibiza. It might be that she was that used to the substance and being around it, that morals just didn't come into it imvho.

I'd be inclined to agree. I doubt she thought about anything outside of "money!" and "what if I get caught".

armaghlad wrote: »

Young, stupid, naive etc should not be used as excuses. But they should be considered mitigating factors. The first time she left this island, she ended up in jail in South America. I think she was impressionable, naive and a bit of a show off. I know these types of girls. They're the ones smoking at 14 thinking they're the bees knees. The ones going off in fellas cars at age of 16. Getting into overage nightclubs and chasing older men etc. I think she saw the opportunity for quick money and took it without actually thinking about what she was doing.

I do get where you're coming from, that she was naive, but only that she was naive in thinking she'd get away with it. She was an adult and made a decision. It was a stupid decision but if that counts as a mitigating factor then overcrowding would not be an issue in prisons. I'd consider her "first time offender" status to be more of a mitigating factor. I'm probably getting a bit pedantic though as you could just lump it all together that she was a "young, naive, first time offender" I'd say that was taken into account though, she only served 3 years.

HensVassal

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

perhaps we can refer to them as drug transport operatives? would that help?

You've missed the point. Throwaway comments such as yours offer nothing.

wingbacknr5

armaghlad wrote: »

I think she saw the opportunity for quick money and took it without actually thinking about what she was doing.

I just don't buy that argument, maybe I would if she was caught selling untaxed cigarettes or pirated DVDs at a car boot sale.

But she flew half way around the world in order to collect and transport a big quantity of a Class A illegal drug. I don't agree that is something you get into without thinking it through and deciding if the reward merited the risk.

VinLieger

HensVassal wrote: »

If the bottom line is that cocaine is illegal then people should desist from bringing up the "lives it ruins" canard.

Incredibly blinkered view of the statement "the lives it ruins" not everyone affected by illegal drug use is an illegal drug user, the vast majority affected by drug use are friends and family who have to deal with the fallout through no fault of their own. Not to mention the burden and cost it puts on society as a whole to have to deal with them as well

HensVassal

VinLieger wrote: »

Incredibly blinkered view of the statement "the lives it ruins" not everyone affected by illegal drug use is an illegal drug user, the vast majority affected by drug use are friends and family who have to deal with the fallout through no fault of their own. Not to mention the burden and cost it puts on society as a whole to have to deal with them as well

I don't even know where to begin with this without sounding abrasive or exasperated.

I'm WELL AWARE that families, friends and relatives suffer as a result of drug abuse by an individual. The same applies to alcohol and gambling.

What point are you trying to make or have you completely missed mine?

Bacchus

This thread has gone way off topic arguing the relative damage/pain caused by alcohol, cocaine and (most bizarrely sugar/salt). This is about a girl who broke the law by smuggling cocaine and spent 3 years in jail for it. Recently she had a "15 minutes of fame moment" which caused various levels of outrage over her inability to take responsibility for her actions and what was perceived as a PR stunt by many. That this has been derailed to comparing to a Guiness driver or claiming that her actions were no different (morally) than selling products with high sugar content is beyond ridiculous and, to me, shows the lengths to which her sympathizers will go to excuse her actions and deflect any negative opinion of her.

I'll restate again (almost like a disclaimer at this point) that I think that some of the OTT outrage on the likes of Facebook against her is uncalled for but at the same time, she brought herself back into the public eye and that can be quite unforgiving at the best of times.

armaghlad

wingbacknr5 wrote: »

I just don't buy that argument, maybe I would if she was caught selling untaxed cigarettes or pirated DVDs at a car boot sale.

But she flew half way around the world in order to collect and transport a big quantity of a Class A illegal drug. I don't agree that is something you get into without thinking it through and deciding if the reward merited the risk.

Well she'd been partying x amount of months in ibiza living a lavish lifestyle. I'd be inclined to think she literally did not consider the possible repercussions of her actions and did not think at all about what she was letting herself in for

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Kidchameleon

Fred Swanson wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0514/788379-melissa-reid-peru/

The Scottish one is getting chucked out completely after paying a €2600 fine. Micheala has got the worst deal here having to report to her parole officer once a month.

Nobody cares because the scottish one is ugly

Keane2baMused

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Nobody cares because the scottish one is ugly

You care enough to comment, even if it is a crass & irrelevant comment about her looks.

Kidchameleon

Keane2baMused wrote: »

You care enough to comment, even if it is a crass & irrelevant comment about her looks.

I think you misinterpreted my comment. Ive been on this thread since the begining. I do care. I was having a pop at all the people who only seem to care about how the two look.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Allyall

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Her Lawyers didn't come in with a fanfare and badmouth the legal system over there. Amongst other things.

Keane2baMused

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I think you misinterpreted my comment. Ive been on this thread since the begining. I do care. I was having a pop at all the people who only seem to care about how the two look.

Aaagh apologies, I think my sarcasm detector is off today!

VisibleGorilla

I wonder why they both got different deals?

One is free to return to the UK while the other is stuck in Peru for how many more years?

SouthernBelle

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

I wonder why they both got different deals?

One is free to return to the UK while the other is stuck in Peru for how many more years?

They have different legal teams so I guess different negotiations.

Allyall

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

I wonder why they both got different deals?

One is free to return to the UK while the other is stuck in Peru for how many more years?

It was the different terms that their lawyers went for.
Michaela wanted out of the prison asap. Melissa it seems wanted out of Peru, so stayed in prison the extra bit longer.

It wouldn't surprise me if MMcCC was to disappear soon, and turn up here.

Allyall

All over the papers today.
Melissa Reid comes clean about everything. Something I'm pretty sure the other one still hasn't done.
She says she was offered €5,000 to do the trip, she hadn't met Michaella before and she only did it for the glory that she thought it would bring.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3660137/I-knew-exactly-doing-admits-drug-mule-Melissa-Reid-comes-clean-claims-dead-Ibiza-s-hedonism-hadn-t-gone-jail-fears-cocaine-barons-coming-her.html

'In Ibiza there are strong influences and everyone is taking drugs – it becomes completely normal. I got swept up in that. If you are not living like that you're the odd one out. In the UK, taking drugs is frowned upon but over there it's right in front of your face. People who wouldn't do it at home do it there.'

She continues: 'I was an easy target as I was up for anything. I met this English girl in my apartment complex who was a tout and was the girlfriend of one of the Ibiza mafia who controlled the drugs.
'She went around the clubs, she was the go-between.
'She was honest with me and asked if I wanted to go to Argentina to pick up a package. She didn't say what drugs or how much, but said it would only be for a day. I thought it sounded like a challenge and was blasé about it.

'I was offered €5,000 but it wasn't just about the money. I had saved up before I left Scotland so I had cash for rent.
'I didn't owe any money or anything. I just wanted to be able to boast about it.'

Reid explains: 'I wasn't in the right state of mind, was living this ridiculous life and wanted to show I could manage it. I now realise that I put myself at risk and no one would have known where I was if anything had happened to me, but I didn't care at the time.'

Reid said she was introduced to an English man called Jake at a nightclub and a South American man named Hector, who gave her a plane ticket to Madrid via Majorca and a BlackBerry mobile phone.

She stayed for two nights in a house in Majorca with a group of Peruvian men before continuing on to Madrid, where she was taken to a travel agency and given an itinerary for a trip to Peru.

One of the Peruvian men, named Julio, said she would be given a package in the Peruvian capital Lima to bring back but that she would first complete a four-day sightseeing trip around some of Peru's famous tourist spots and had to take photographs to make it seem legitimate.

'I didn't realise I was going to be sent to Peru until I was in Madrid,' Reid says. 'I just went along with it. The guys had guns but I was never threatened.'

On arrival in Lima at the end of July, she was taken to Hotel San Agustin Colonial in the upmarket district of Miraflores before returning to the airport the next day to meet Michaella, whom she had met briefly for the first time in Majorca.

Mint Sauce

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sounds like she kept her mouth shut and head down, up until telling her story on arrival home.

Mam of 4

Fair play to her for telling the truth now , that she knew exactly what she was doing , instead of continuing the pretense of
being held/threatened with guns. At least she's being honest now.

jack923

Mam of 4 wrote: »

Fair play to her for telling the truth now , that she knew exactly what she was doing , instead of continuing the pretense of
being held/threatened with guns. At least she's being honest now.

The threatened with guns thing was pretty funny haha