|
I think what KA24 was getting at is, why was Mr. Shaikh penalized for what is essentially a victimless crime?
The consumption of illicit substances is an inherently personal decision. No doubt there are severe risks associated with the consumption of many illegal substances. But these risks must be evaluated solely by the individual engaging in said activity.
Unless Mr. Shaikh was personally restraining other individuals and shooting them up with heroin, I do not see how he committed any crime whatsoever. Rather, I would submit that Mr. Shaikh was the victim of an arbitrary set of laws that fall in line with the PRC authoritarian principles.
Would you think appropriate to execute your local bartender for supplying alcohol to his patrons, justified on the notion that the consumption of alcohol may lead to an occurrence of DUIs and alcoholism?
|