Schapelle Corby Case: Australians Misjudge Indonesian Justice System

[Soilwork]

It's embarassing to be an Australian at the moment.
I'm not sure if any of you have heard of the Schapelle Corby case, but it's getting beyond ridiculous.
The majority of Australians support her for no reason at all...including Russel Crowe who said that "Indonesia shouldn't forget that Australia gave it aid after the Tsunami".
How the hell can this be related to a convicted drug smuggler?
The main media has taken the side of Corby so now people have just lost their minds. They haven't bothered reading the facts, learning the operation of the Indonesian judicial system or even looked at the dodgy Corby family.
Indonesians have been accused of being inhumane, stupid and corrupt.
Even though you couldn't have asked for a more fair trial and lenient sentence by Indonesian standards. She should have got life or the death sentence and all she got is 20 years (this was for smuggling 4 kg of marijuana). I think Australia is backwards with its justice system since it only gave 12 months community service to a school teacher caught with 29 kg. Oh and as soon as the teacher has finished that sentence she gets to carry on teaching 'cause she didn't lose her teaching license.
If you look at her background and her family's background then you will see that it is more likely that she is guilty than innocent. I'd say that there is maybe a 1% chance that she is actually innocent.
I'm sorry if this is the wrong section, but I had to vent my anger at how Indonesian's lives are being threatened because people are believing the word of a retired prostitute (practically).
I can't believe the Prime Minister is also trying to help these people.
I wouldn't actually care if people did think she was innocent as long as they didn't start threatening others and starting fights.

Anyways like I said I wasn't sure if this should go in the political section or not so I just posted here.

 

[Zygotic Embryo]

She should have got life or the death sentence and all she got is 20 years (this was for smuggling 4 kg of marijuana).


um, no.

Death for smuggling Mary Jane?

 

[Mk]

4 kg. is not enough for life. No amount is enough for life. I think you're overheating.

This should be moved to politics and world affairs.

 

[Soilwork]

no what I was saying is that she should have according to Indonesian law.
I don't think someone deserves death for smuggling marijuana at all.
I mean I think a couple of years for marijuana is fine, but yes I think that 29 kg of marijuana shouldn't get 12 months community service as it did in Australia.

 

[Mk]

Ok, I understand now, and I agree with you. I'm guessing Indonesia runs on a mix off Islamic and Parlimentary law? I'll check.

 

[hypatia]

If you visit another country, you need to know that you will be ruled and judged by there laws. Smuggling drugs is just stupid, and your right, she is very lucky.
oh, and the Indonesian judiciary is a conventional civil system adapted from the Franco-Dutch model. They even think your innocent, until the evidence makes you guilty. In everything I've read on this trial, I have reached the same conclusion, she did it and must face the punishment of that nation.

 

[cronxeh]

dude, wtf?

20 years for 4 kilos of weed?

are you aussies nuts!

Edit: If i was the judge, I won't give her more than 4-5 years in a medium security prison. A 20 year sentence is just as insane and ignorant as that guy that got 35 years for stealing a TV set back in 70's

 

[FredGarvin]

The last time I saw anything, she was pleading innocent, saying she didn't do it. Did she ever change her story?

When one travels to a different country, you come under their laws. I hate to say it, but she got what she had coming to her.

 

[Smurf]

20 years for 4 kilos of weed?

He still smuggled in another country, he knew the punishment would most likely be worse, but he still did it, it's his own fault.

are you aussies nuts!

It was indonesia.

When one travels to a different country, you come under their laws. I hate to say it, but she got what she had coming to her.

I agree.

 

[hypatia]

In Michigan you can get up to life, for selling or growing large amounts of pot. 4 kg would be considered large. Small amounts will get you a fine slap on the hand.
If you think that's bad in Nevada, a single seed is a felony, and can get you 4 yrs in jail on the first offence.

 

[BobG]

Indonesia's drug laws are a lot more strict than I would think reasonable. But it's their country and they have every right to set their laws up to match their cultural beliefs. You have to abide by the laws of the country you're visiting, choose not to visit, or pay the price. She doesn't deserve any sympathy.

 

[Evo]

I agree, it's was an incredibly stupid thing to do and I have no sympathy for the person.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Edit: If i was the judge, I won't give her more than 4-5 years in a medium security prison. A 20 year sentence is just as insane and ignorant as that guy that got 35 years for stealing a TV set back in 70's

That guy had a previous assault conviction, and there was reason to believe, the article said, that he'd assaulted the 87 year old woman from whom he stole the television. For some reason he wasn't charged with the second assault. I'm thinking it may be because the woman was afraid to press that charge. His long sentence for the TV may have been someone's best solution to the fact they couldn't get him for the assault.

 

[kaos]

In malaysia (or singapore) she woulda been hanged.She was lucky she was given 20 years. Drug dealing is a very serious crime around here ( SE Asia).
15grams of heroin and you're a goner.

 

[LeBrad]

Indonesians have been accused of being inhumane, stupid and corrupt.
Even though you couldn't have asked for a more fair trial and lenient sentence by Indonesian standards.

Regardless of how ridiculous 20 years for smuggling marijuana is, it's hard to take a legal system seriously when they hand this verdict down after sentencing the man who blew up Bali to 2 years.

 

[gerben]

You should not be embarassed of being an Australian. It is a good thing that people are protesting against such extreme harsh, barbaric punishment.

 

[cronxeh]

That guy had a previous assault conviction, and there was reason to believe, the article said, that he'd assaulted the 87 year old woman from whom he stole the television. For some reason he wasn't charged with the second assault. I'm thinking it may be because the woman was afraid to press that charge. His long sentence for the TV may have been someone's best solution to the fact they couldn't get him for the assault.

boo-hoo

it said he 'roughed her up' - that may mean anything. he certainly didnt rape her. he didnt break her skull or anything - he may be pushed her aside when she got in his face..

So what? She is old anyway. Why put a man in jail for most of his life for a damn TV set that isn't even worth those 140 something dollars anyway?

Thats why we have over 2 million people in jail in US today - from things like marijuana possession to burglary. Sure some are there for rape and domestic assault charges - but most of those got a life imprisonment and it is not fair to put a rapist in jail with someone who was classified under 'possession' or even perhaps 'with intent to sell'

 

[zoobyshoe]

boo-hoo

"boo-hoo"?!?!

it said he 'roughed her up' - that may mean anything. he certainly didnt rape her. he didnt break her skull or anything - he may be pushed her aside when she got in his face..

He had no right to touch one hair on her head. If all he was was a TV thief, he should have bolted as soon as she found him. The effort he put into roughing her up is worth jail time in my book.

So what? She is old anyway.

This, I'm afraid, is absolutely the most idiotic thing I've ever heard anyone say at PF.

Tell me, oh wise judge, at what age do people become exempt from protection against assault?

 

[milkshake14]

yea i agree with all u guys, i knew she was guilty from the beginning.
i mean, like if u surf all the time, wouldn't u know how heavy ur surfboard is? and wouldn't u notice if it was 4KG heavier??! DUH!
she's so dumb
and another thing, its just a bit odd how she's been to Bali over like 35 times in only 3 years!? RIDICULOUS! She got what she deserved and was lucky the judges were lenient on her.
and by the way: WHAT AN ACTRESS! DRAMA QUEEN GALORE, THATS WHAT SHE IS!

 

[hypatia]

So what? She is old anyway.

Funny how in one statement a person can loose their manliness, and turn into some sissy @#&*

 

[cronxeh]

Funny how you evade the argument by attacking the statements

Some people get 30 years for a 2nd degree murder, a "rough up" with minor burglary does not grant 35 years in jail. Even most corporate white collar criminals only get 20-25 years for highest financial crimes - and not one old lady gets hurt in such a process, but millions do.

 

[hypatia]

I addressed the statement in its original thread..not to ramble off topic in another persons thread.

 

[Danger]

"boo-hoo"?!?!

He had no right to touch one hair on her head. If all he was was a TV thief, he should have bolted as soon as she found him. The effort he put into roughing her up is worth jail time in my book.

This, I'm afraid, is absolutely the most idiotic thing I've ever heard anyone say at PF.

100% agreement on that, Zoobie. My mother is 92, and a simple shove could be crippling or worse. If anyone ever lays a hand on her I will, without hesitation, kill the son of a ***** on the spot. If I have time, I'll make it hurt for a while too.

 

[Hurkyl]

Or you could detain him and call the cops...

 

[Huckleberry]

I don't think the offending comment had anything to do with age.

 

[cronxeh]

100% agreement on that, Zoobie. My mother is 92, and a simple shove could be crippling or worse. If anyone ever lays a hand on her I will, without hesitation, kill the son of a ***** on the spot. If I have time, I'll make it hurt for a while too.

yes that's wonderful and all, and extremely egotistic.

What humanity fails to realize is that the Earth is a petridish, and the humans are the bacteria. Even in the petri dish the bacteria share between each other, communicate, and compete. This case of robbery and wars is a typical example of that. Your mother lived on this petridish for 92 years - that's great, far beyond typical average, however as the world's population grows exponentially bigger (thanks to the religious instutitions that prohibit condom use), we will see the cut-throat competition - and most differential equations that use 'limiting factors' won't ever include the factor of human stupidity that will overflow the population in a decade from now.

Now if you think about it, that old lady is, in fact, a burden on society.

However way you view this message - I really couldn't care less - your opinion about me or my statements won't change the reality. You may as well just face it.

 

[Hurkyl]

Now if you think about it, that old lady is, in fact, a burden on society.

The more you think about it, the less "obvious" this assertion becomes.

 

[Danger]

Or you could detain him and call the cops...

I appreciate that it's the appropriate response, but I wouldn't be Danger if I thought that way. (Maybe I wouldn't actually kill him, depending upon circumstances, but I would certainly make him wish that I had.)

I don't think the offending comment had anything to do with age.

Perhaps. My response was to a specific circumstance which is extremely unlikely to arise. In other cases, including attempted assaults against me, I'm far more restrained.

Now if you think about it, that old lady is, in fact, a burden on society.

How the hell can you possibly say that when you don't know anything about her. My mother is still a contributing member of the community. The woman in the assault case could very well be a tutor, or a child-care worker, or a counsellor or any of a dozen other things that make her far more valuable to society than the scumbag who ripped her off. At the very least, she probably earned what she has, rather than stole it from someone else.

However way you view this message - I really couldn't care less - your opinion about me or my statements won't change the reality. You may as well just face it.

So the scum of the Earth, the sociopathic parasites, have more right to existence than people who try to fit into their cultures? Okay, assume that someone has every right to bash my mother's head in and take her purse. By the same token, I have every right to make sure that he severely regrets it and is never in any condition to do it again. If a pitbull attacks my cat, I'm going to shoot the damned thing, not call the dogcatcher.

 

[cronxeh]

Perhaps if we both address the problem, it would become pretty self evident that its the law that is the problem - drug laws particularly.

Tobacco is far more dangerous than marijuana to a human body, and alcohol is far more damaging than mushrooms to human body. Which one should be outlawed, by following standard logical conclusions that you use to sentence a man to 35 years in jail?

 

[Soilwork]

To answer the protesting of barbaric behaviour:
To think that people don't deserve harsh penalties for breaking the law because it's barbaric isn't exactly right.
I do think Indonesian law is quite harsh, but in no way do I think that the Indonesians should be threatened or boycotted because of it.
While it is harsh it doesn't exactly bother me too much because it's a criminal who knew the laws of that country.


Also the criminal you are referring to is more of a burden on society than the old lady. First of all he has done stuff all for society, and it is more than likely that he won't ever do anything for society. Criminals don't have rights and depending on the circumstances should be given a sentence to match. Grievous bodily harm can get a pretty hefty sentence and for this case it isn't so bad that he got such a harsh sentence.
A rapist here in Perth the other day was let out (not sure if it was on bail or he had served 1/20th of his sentence). Anyway that same day he went out and raped a 16 year old girl walking home from school. To me something like that should get the death penalty but here it gets hardly anything.
I know you aren't referring to the same sort of situation, but a criminal is a criminal and the majority of them don't do a thing for society.

 

[Danger]

Soilwork; I was about to edit my last post to apologize to you for carrying things even farther off-topic, but you seem to have saved it nicely. I don't know enough about the case you referenced to comment definitively. The little snippet that I overheard on a newscast said that she was claiming to have be 'set up' by the Australian Customs (or whatever you have there). That just doesn't make much sense to me. Regardless, if she is indeed guilty, then she deserves whatever the country of jurisdiction deems appropriate. Whether or not that law is harsh, or even unreasonable, is irrelevant.

 

[cronxeh]

Soilwork; I was about to edit my last post to apologize to you for carrying things even farther off-topic, but you seem to have saved it nicely. I don't know enough about the case you referenced to comment definitively. The little snippet that I overheard on a newscast said that she was claiming to have be 'set up' by the Australian Customs (or whatever you have there). That just doesn't make much sense to me. Regardless, if she is indeed guilty, then she deserves whatever the country of jurisdiction deems appropriate. Whether or not that law is harsh, or even unreasonable, is irrelevant.

Oh really?

Are the people of that country suffering due to her 4 kilos of weed? She is the only one who is affected by this law - and there is no 'other' party involved - as in case of an old lady and her ($140) loss.

How is this law applicable or even relevant if there is no harm done? She wasnt busted dealing this drug or administering it to anyone. She will be in that jail for 20 years for smuggling a blob of chemicals that happens to be slightly different than something that is legal.

 

[Danger]

Oh really?

Yes, really. Whether or not you or anyone else outside of Indonesia agrees with it, that is the law. It's applied equally to everyone. Why should a foreign visitor, who, if guilty as charged, deliberately violated that law, be exempted from a penalty that would be applied to their own citizens for the same crime? If you want to take that argument, then terrorists have every right to do whatever they want in the States because in their own country it's legal to kill Yanks. I can't see anyone accepting that.

 

[cronxeh]

One thing I picked up from answering everytime to posts like these, is that the audience is usually not aware of the argument

 

[gerben]

To think that people don't deserve harsh penalties for breaking the law because it's barbaric isn't exactly right.
I do think Indonesian law is quite harsh, but in no way do I think that the Indonesians should be threatened or boycotted because of it.
While it is harsh it doesn't exactly bother me too much because it's a criminal who knew the laws of that country.

Whether you feel it is right or not depends on the sentence that you feel is appropriate for the commited offense, and I feel that 20 years imprisonment for transporting marihuana is not right.

Some of the protesters may overdo it a bit by threatening Indonesia with boycots, but I feel it is a good thing because these anti drug laws are a serious wrong.

 

[Huckleberry]

One thing I picked up from answering everytime to posts like these, is that the audience is usually not aware of the argument

What are we not aware of? All you have to do is point it out. If that doesn't work then the problem isn't that people aren't aware. It is either that we misunderstand or that we disagree. If everyone seems to be misunderstanding you then it is more likely that you are wrong.

 

[gerben]

Yes, really. Whether or not you or anyone else outside of Indonesia agrees with it, that is the law. It's applied equally to everyone. Why should a foreign visitor, who, if guilty as charged, deliberately violated that law, be exempted from a penalty that would be applied to their own citizens for the same crime? If you want to take that argument, then terrorists have every right to do whatever they want in the States because in their own country it's legal to kill Yanks. I can't see anyone accepting that.

The fact that it is the law does not make it right.


Would you not protest against a law stating that "it's legal to kill Yanks"?
Would you simply feel that:

Whether or not that law is harsh, or even unreasonable, is irrelevant.

 

[cronxeh]

What are we not aware of? All you have to do is point it out. If that doesn't work then the problem isn't that people aren't aware. It is either that we misunderstand or that we disagree. If everyone seems to be misunderstanding you then it is more likely that you are wrong.

The argument is that the people have a right of choice - whether they want to smoke weed or take pills or sleep in their car naked, parked on the highway - its a choice, and no government should have a right or capacity to interveine. If they want to take drugs - its their choice, its has to be their right. The governments of the world are full of hypocracy - I already mentioned the alcohol/tobacco inconsistancy, as well as religious idiocy

 

[Danger]

Would you not protest against a law stating that "it's legal to kill Yanks"?

Keeping in mind that I'm not one...

One of the primary reasons that the US is almost universally detested in most of the world is that very attitude of 'I don't like it, even though it's none of my damned business, so I'm going to change it.'

 

[zoobyshoe]

What humanity fails to realize is that the Earth is a petridish, and the humans are the bacteria.

This is deluded ranting.

Even in the petri dish the bacteria share between each other, communicate, and compete.

Deluded ranting. Humans aren't bacteria.

This case of robbery and wars is a typical example of that. Your mother lived on this petridish for 92 years - that's great, far beyond typical average, however as the world's population grows exponentially bigger (thanks to the religious instutitions that prohibit condom use), we will see the cut-throat competition - and most differential equations that use 'limiting factors' won't ever include the factor of human stupidity that will overflow the population in a decade from now.

This is what I call "deprivational thinking." It is generated by fear. The operational notion is "There's not enough for everyone! Not enough space, food, or money!"

Deprivational thinkers are afraid and they spread fear. Their solution to everything is "Grab what you can, cause there isn't enough!"

Now if you think about it, that old lady is, in fact, a burden on society.

Actually, no one is more of a burden to society than people who believed they are deprived amidst plenty. You, and the television thief, are much more of a burden than any old lady minding her own business. The false notion there isn't enough to go around has been used to start wars, and justify theft and looting from time immemorial.

I have heard these deprivation rants before.

However way you view this message - I really couldn't care less - your opinion about me or my statements won't change the reality. You may as well just face it.

I'm not buying the view of reality offered by anyone who thinks he's had an insight in viewing humans as bacteria.

 

[cronxeh]

This is deluded ranting.

Deluded ranting. Humans aren't bacteria.

This is what I call "deprivational thinking." It is generated by fear. The operational notion is "There's not enough for everyone! Not enough space, food, or money!"

Deprivational thinkers are afraid and they spread fear. Their solution to everything is "Grab what you can, cause there isn't enough!"

Actually, no one is more of a burden to society than people who believed they are deprived amidst plenty. You, and the television thief, are much more of a burden than any old lady minding her own business. The false notion there isn't enough to go around has been used to start wars, and justify theft and looting from time immemorial.

I have heard these deprivation rants before.


I'm not buying the view of reality offered by anyone who thinks he's had an insight in viewing humans as bacteria.

1. There is more bacteria cells in human body (gut) than eukaryote cells. Humans are mostly bacteria.

2. Rational thinking is not a deluted ranting. Your response, which is a) unscientific and b) based on sociological standards is a deluted ranting

Thank you, come again.

 

[Danger]

1. There is more bacteria cells in human body (gut) than eukaryote cells. Humans are mostly bacteria.

2. Rational thinking is not a deluted ranting. Your response, which is a) unscientific and b) based on sociological standards is a deluted ranting

Thank you, come again.

1. Those bacteria are symbiotic and/or parasitic organisms that in no way contribute to the thought processes that separate humans from non-rational creatures. Their presence, for the purposes of this discussion, is irrelevant. You might as well say that people are stalactites because their bones are primarily calcium.
2. While Zoob's response might not be cross-referenced and foot-noted enough to go into a professional journal, it is scientific in that is thought-out and backed by observation.

 

[zoobyshoe]

1. There is more bacteria cells in human body (gut) than eukaryote cells. Humans are mostly bacteria.

Why are you focusing on the quantity of bacteria we have in our gut? Is it so you can rationalize depersonalizing the rest of the human race in your mind? Sounds like it to me.

2. Rational thinking is not a deluted ranting.

True, but that doesn't change the lack of rational thinking in your post.

Your response, which is a) unscientific and b) based on sociological standards is a deluted ranting

My response was psychologically sound. Don't you realize where your deprivation thinking comes from? Think back. Where did you learn that attitude?

 

[cronxeh]

Danger: What good is a thought process if you won't last without your body for more than a heart beat? All of a sudden the little bacteria, as well as their function, starts to play an important role not only for you, but for society at large. If you don't have enough of food you will have a riot - by your organism - by your bacteria - through their signals to the brain. If you don't have enough of freedom you will riot - by your thought process.

And you seem to know what contributes to the thought process - please, Mr. Danger, do contribute - I'm sure there is a group of people who would like to know your insight on this

Zoob: Psychology is only as advanced as knowledge of Biology. It is not exactly a common sense to assume that 3 people will have different opinions - perhaps based on their physiology or certain microbiology - but certainly you, me, and Danger have different opinions which only means that psychology is not as good of an indication

 

[Huckleberry]

The argument is that the people have a right of choice - whether they want to smoke weed or take pills or sleep in their car naked, parked on the highway - its a choice, and no government should have a right or capacity to interveine. If they want to take drugs - its their choice, its has to be their right. The governments of the world are full of hypocracy - I already mentioned the alcohol/tobacco inconsistancy, as well as religious idiocy

A right to choice? I am a firm believer in human rights. Sleeping naked in a car is not a human right. Smoking weed is not a human right. Human rights are based on what is necessary for human survival and well being in society. A person sleeping in a car because they were homeless is something that I believe they should not be punished for. A person who smokes weed because it is the subscribed pain killer for their cancer should not be punished.

A person has a right to life, not the right to act a fool and steal what doesn't belong to them and push around old ladies and be disrespectful of the sovereignty of other nations by disregarding their laws. They have decided on these laws as what they consider best for their society. That is not your choice regardless of how many bacteria are in your pitri dish. People use those dehumanizing analogies to strip human rights, not to promote them.

 

[Danger]

If you don't have enough of food you will have a riot - by your organism - by your bacteria - through their signals to the brain.

I'm beginning to suspect that microbiology isn't your specialty.

If you don't have enough of freedom you will riot - by your thought process.

No, that's the reactionary response of frightened people who abandon rational thought.

And you seem to know what contributes to the thought process - please, Mr. Danger, do contribute - I'm sure there is a group of people who would like to know your insight on this

What constitutes the thought process is electrochemical action in the brain, which I think that you might be artificially altering. Innumerable factors contribute to it. I know enough about it to know that someone like Moonbear is qualified to elaborate whereas I'm not.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Zoob: Psychology is only as advanced as knowledge of Biology. It is not exactly a common sense to assume that 3 people will have different opinions - perhaps based on their physiology or certain microbiology - but certainly you, me, and Danger have different opinions which only means that psychology is not as good of an indication

Where did you acquire your attitudes about humanity? Think back. "...people are the bacteria..." Where did you pick that attitude up? "...and most differential equations that use `limiting factors' won't ever include the factor of human stupidity that will overflow the population of the Earth in a decade from now." Humans are stupid, We don't have much time left. Where were you, cronxeh, exposed to these ideas, this kind of desperation?

 

[gerben]

Keeping in mind that I'm not one...

One of the primary reasons that the US is almost universally detested in most of the world is that very attitude of 'I don't like it, even though it's none of my damned business, so I'm going to change it.'

Yes I know you are Canadian, I am not American either but that is not important here. Your remark about why many detest the US is a bit too simple I think. I believe it is good to object to certain laws or customs, even in foreign countries. It is much better than having the indifferent attitude of 'it is their way of handling things so that is how it is'. You should just choose some peaceful way of protesting, which is what the US have not been very good at.

 

[Soilwork]

Well I was going to post a reply earlier, but I had to go out so I will post it now.
Anyway I wanted to put Corby's sentence into perspective here.
She is a semi-attractive lady who has said what all drug dealers say when they are caught..."Those aren't mine, I'm not guilty".
This combined with the fact that her family are feeling bad that it's most likely their fault she could have got the death penalty have led to the recent media frenzy.
How many other Australians have been 'victims' so to speak, of this law??
A LOT! and a lot more from other countries as well.
As an example there are 4 males awaiting the death penalty in vietnam for a similar crime and 2 more have already been killed because they got the death sentence.
Why isn't the media latching on to them?? because they didn't have the looks and their families didn't get enough attention.
While it is a harsh penalty as I've repeated and is most obvious to everyone, it isn't fair to the other criminals that haven't had the media behind them and have received the harshest of verdicts.

Some of the protesters may overdo it a bit by threatening Indonesia with boycots, but I feel it is a good thing because these anti drug laws are a serious wrong.

Sorry I need to clarify this. I didn't mean that they threaten Indonesians BY boycotting I meant that they literally threaten the lives of Indonesians, as well as boycotting them. There have been quite a lot of assault cases recently of idiots beating up Indonesians because they blindly believe the word of a woman they don't know and who isn't an angel in the slightest.

I have to go along with Huckleberry on the rights argument. Doing drugs isn't your right as a human being. You can choose to do it, but it definitely isn't a right. Marijuana isn't such a big deal but ecstacy, speed, cocaine and heroin for example are a huge deal.
I didn't used to take this view, but I can see this side of the story with respect to drugs. The view is that drug dealers can severely stuff people's lives up because in some cases the people who end up taking drugs have a lot initially going for them.
That is, you have to factor in the possibility that some people have little or no will power. If they have no will power then they can easily be coaxed into taking drugs by the people they might hang out with. It will either stuff their life up by initiating an addiction or by killing them straight away.

But yeah thanks for a good discussion guys :)

 

[Mk]

Let's all go to Cunédeeuh!