habidaccus comments

****This was only because it involved banned prescription drugs. If she had smuggled cannabis or some other drug she would have to do prison time and could even involve some hard labor.

Indeed, which would have been even more foolish.

A good decision not to charge her. I'm glad that we're slowly seeing governments moving towards the decriminalization of drugs, but I doubt we're going to see such a revolution in East Asia for quite some time. People should be free to learn the consequences of drug abuse firsthand, rather than arbitrary punishment and career destruction due to outdated laws and philosophy.

Good thing the police are wasting time on this dumb crap, when the only person being hurt is herself, if anyone. Mind boggling. Yes, we know it's illegal, and yes, it was dumb to try and import it. The law itself is also flawed. Drug addiction - if this is the issue - should be treated as the illness it is.

To be honest I don't know if there's any clear answer. Bad, good: these things are relative. You can casually link multiculturalism to the success of the U.S. while simultaneously blaming it for holding societies back. But being able to change is what ensures survival, and Japan can't remain static any longer. Gender equality, diversity, a less psychotic work regime. They're all necessary changes that will alter Japan, but history has shown that change has always been beneficial, but being inflexible is a huge detriment. From a shallow observation, the downsides of being diverse appear heavily outweighed by the benefits.

This is useless controversy. I could care less who went or not, but it's definitely a kick in the jowls of those that think they can impose their beliefs on others. It's remarkable there are people that are saying things like "I'm against the killings, but...."

As an ideal, guns have no place in any society. In reality, some places are so corrupt, they will never get rid of guns, and if I were to live in such a country (not that I ever would), I would probably own a gun too. But that said, my comment was that guns have no place in a healthy society. And that means all healthy societies. Any society that has guns is by definition unhealthy.

This isn't a fact.

Healthy societies don't feel the need to give their populace killing tools that serve no other purpose.

Nor is this.

Because a non-prison sentence sends the message that you can possess guns, and you will not have to go to jail. That is a weak and diluted response, and not in proportion to the damage that is caused to society by manufacturing guns within that society.

Conjecture. You can't prove what message is sent or not, nor can you show me how his making of these guns has damaged society at this point (because it hasn't done any!).

Not with the manufacturing of guns. Their very existence is harmful to society, whether or not the person has negative intent. The guns can be stolen, children can accidentally get them and shoot each other. Their very existence is a poison that needs to be eradicated. Therefore intent is irrelevant.

Wow.

The very creation of the guns is a destabilizing influence, and therefore a harsh punishment is required. That's why we need to jail the academic, doofus or not.

Any guns harm the fabric of society. The very creation of guns, with a weak punishment if caught, simply encourages more to create guns. As for 'society is still functioning', American society still functions, even with all their guns. But there is no denying that their country is broken, that they have a gun addiction, and a gun problem. Japan is smart not to wait until they have descended as far down the hole as the Americans. It's kind of like the Ebola thing - if it had been taken care of properly at the start, we wouldn't see it potentially threatening the entire world. The Japanese are smart to stamp out this fire while it's still just a hot-spot. Because once it gets passed that point, it's too far.

And this is why we won't agree. There is no logical reason you can provide for why you support the sentencing - it's all speculation rooted in your personal hatred/fear of guns. Sorry, but 'because guns are evil' isn't enough to convince me of anything. I need facts bro. And the only facts present are that some curious intellectual was playing around and made something he shouldn't have, and has two years of his life taken away when all that was needed was a warning not to do it again.

Here is your rational response: guns have no place in the hands of civilians in a healthy society, and serve no positive purpose whatsoever.

It depends on the setting. I'll assume you mean Japan, and not ALL societies. In Tokyo, you don't need a gun for hunting or self defense, in other places, they have a purpose. Be that as it may, in rural Japan firearms might have some use.

Therefore a harsh response is required when someone feels that their desire to create something that harms the very fabric of society takes precedence over the greater good of that society, as a means of showing others the seriousness of these actions, and a warning not to do the same actions. You will disagree and claim rhetoric, but unless you can provide a good reason for lenience, your argument will sway me as little as mine has swayed you.

Why two years? Why not probation, community service such as educating others on the dangers of firearms? Why not one? A month? Half a day? Intent is a crucial part of deciding guilt when crimes are committed, or at least it should be: that is why we don't just execute everyone who breaks the law. Making one out of sheer curiosity, as seems to be the case, is different from harboring the intent to distribute them, or use them in a murder/robbery. Can you admit there is a difference between the two? Why do we need to jail an academic who was bit of a doofus to make a point, when you can save it for the people who actually are a destabilizing influence, and who are doing it for profit or more malicious motives?

As for "harming the fabric of society", society is still functioning, so I see no measurable damage from what he did. Were he mass producing them with the intent of selling them, or even worse parceling them out to people to incite chaos, I would say that his intentions warrant a harsh sentence. Probation is enough for him to understand that he shouldn't do this again.

Of course intent is irrelevant. The law says you may not possess or manufacture firearms--both of which he is guilty. Your intent with said firearms has nothing to do with the law; you're not allowed to have them without a license--period.

You're missing the point. I know what the law says, I'm questioning the law itself and the wisdom of how he was sentenced. Two years is too much, straight up. If someone can give me a rational response free of emotion and rhetoric, I'll consider it.

No, but that doesn't mean that jailing someone doesn't effectively make that point. In this case, it made the point very clear - if you manufacture handguns in Japan, you will be sent to jail. And that's a great point to be making.

But WHY? Why not just put him on probation, or give him community service? That would make the same point clear. Tell me why this wouldn't work. Why insist on being harsh just because you think guns are evil?

And those people will go to jail, where they deserve to be.

Subjective.

The sense is in making a clear definitive statement on the position of firearms in Japan - they will not be tolerated. This is the stance every country in the world should be taking on this matter. But at least Japan is smart enough to do so

You don't need to take two years of a person's life to make that point. And, there are circumstances where firearms are useful, especially in rural environments. I'll concede that in Tokyo, I can't see why you would need them, though that doesn't justify the sentence.

In this case, the law was most definitely just.

Intent is irrelevant in this case. He manufactured an illegal handgun, the very existence of which is a poison to society. He got off lucky with two years.

Intent is irrelevant? Just illegal = bad? So there is no difference between someone making a gun out of curiosity or one doing it for the sake of selling them to criminals, use it in violent acts, etc? Absurd. Your view is so one dimensional because of your zealous opposition to firearms, thereby making debate with you futile, since you will never reflect or acknowledge any point made by the other party.

OK, let's consider Imura's background: "a former employee of the Shonan Institute of Technology" who recorded the weapons being created and then posted the video online. (Translation: the man knows his way around the internet and is well versed on the controversy surrounding 3D-printers and weapons)

Right, so not a weapon's dealer, or an employee of any criminal organization, just an academic who was completely upfront about what he was doing. Whether or not he was well-versed in the controversy is just conjecture on your part,

What if... and this might be considered crazy talk... they jailed him not because they wanted to make a point, but because he broke the law regarding the manufacture and possession of firearms? Or is it your stance that nobody manufacturing illegal lethal weapons should go to jail for their crimes?

I don't think it matters if it was to make a point or not, it's stupid no matter what. I'm wondering what the sense is in giving him two years? As another poster mentioned, house arrest? Probation?

Maybe I was being too subtle, but just because something is against the law doesn't mean the law is just. This is a problem in a lot of different countries: zero tolerance legislation that doesn't consider circumstances. The intent of the perpetrator and nuances of each case need to be considered, and unless he had more sinister intentions that we are not being informed about, it doesn't seem they were here.

Sentence was over the top. You don't need to jail someone to make a point, especially considering his background and the nature of the case. In the end people will do what they will, regardless of what the 'authorities' say. Then again, whoever said justice had logic?

Nice sensationalism.

History is cyclical, with ebbs and flows of power from one group of people to another. The US has been unpopular for quite some time, starting when public opinion and government policy shifted from isolationism before WW2 to being a superpower along with the U.S.S.R. in the post-war period. A century ago, China was the victim and Germany one of the most despised and feared nations, while now Germany is benign and China is being aggressive. And before that, France, the UK, Spain, and so on.

I don't see the point in getting caught up in pointing out the hypocrisy of China or the US, especially when you consider they are only symptoms of a larger problem. Espionage is hardly new, nor is the prosecution of spies or the feigned outrage by governments when they are accused of it. Neither is the fact that whomever has power will use their influence to defend their interests, often in unjust ways to benefit their own people. Expect the pattern to continue as long as national identities and the concept of nation states persists.

I'm sorry if you have friends or family affected by drug abuse, but prohibition obviously didn't prevent it feom happening. More people will probably use it, especially in the period right after legalization, but it is abundantly clear that pot in particular is not as harmful as many once thought. It's less habit-forming than caffeine, and impossible to overdose on. Considerthat information, along with the toll in lives lost or destroyed, families broken, and money spent while trying toprevent people from doing something that they will do regardless of the legal status or harm it causes, as you say. You're basically reiterating my argument: there WILL be consequences, as I said, but less destructive than trying to stop people from using. So why bother, when we already have legal access to substances far more detrimental to society and the individual, and when pot actually may have health benefits?

Also not sure what to say about thw ambulances, but unless you have a log to confirm how many and why there are more, it's weak anecdotal data.

Let me amend that. I'd like to know how much rescues like this cause the average taxpayer before insisting on charging the victims' families.

They don't charge them for it? Either put in place a system like you suggest or don't rescue them, but anything beyond that is unreasonable.

It's interesting how many people already have a judgement formed from an article that gives very little information whatsoever. Police say she called the boyfriend and said so-and-so. Did he tell them that? Was it recorded? Let's hope nobody passing judgement on here ever gets jury duty.

Remember if we just legalise everything, everybody will be happy in la-la-land where nobody ever suffers negative consequences from extremely poor choices. (Strong sarcasm)

Rational people that support legalization don't think the decision will be free of consequences, just that it's the realistic solution for society to deal with substance abuse. And let's not forget that cannabis prohibition in particular has been a farce.

The U.S. has done a lot of troubling things, nobody can deny that. And believe me, plenty of people are all for abandoning all the bases overseas, because although some good has also been done, to a lot of people it hasn't been worth the cost in lives or the negative opinions many people have of America now. The question is how stable the world would be if the States became isolationist again.

If they're willing to eat their own kind, they'll definitely eat another species of shark.

@virgio

As a westerner going there is more about the education. There is a museum there with interesting artifacts from the war

As someone interested in history, that museum is offensive in how much it warps the truth. That being said, I agree with everything else in your post for the most part. I'm completely disinterested in Bieber, but not everyone knows what is going on in every conflict over the globe.

They're talking now, which is the one feasible option of the two. Bringing up the issue at every possible moment in a beligerent way didn't work too well for SK, justified or not. Diplomacy 101.

So we agree. But their viability as a means to quit smoking should be examined more thoroughly. If, at the very least, it draws people away from cigarettes, then that is good enough. I am very much against movements to ban e-cigarettes though.

Kcjapan , i agree that e cigs should be regulated, but nicotine itself is not what causes cancer. It is the delivery system, ie combustion. Vaporization removes that risk. Your claim that nicotine is/was used as a pesticide is correct, but it is a poor example because it affects the human body differently than insects. It is certainly addictive, hence the reason it should be regulated, but the serious effects on health come from burning and inhaling tobacco.

This wouldn't be an issue if people like ishihara were ostracised from politics. The fact that these people still have jobs, or the ability to spout their profound lack of historical knowledge in general, speaks volumes.

I wonder how outraged the public is about this event? The sad reality is that until people start speaking out against the current justice system instead of just accepting what they are told by the media and the government , it will never change.

Some astute observations here about how people supporting legalization probably smoke(d) it. Indeed, and on the same coin, people against it probably haven't ever, still taking stock in all of the negative propoganda surrounding it.

Anyhow, I can't say that legalizing pot would stop the usage of these knock offs - maybe people just like poisoning themselves. But even without "the removal of demand for fake herb" as another positively for legalization, science, history and plain common sense demand it anyways.

If believing that and killing dolphins is awful and pointless makes me ethnocentric then fair enough. If the people there had to eat them in order to survive then I would have no qualms with that, but that isn't the case. And seeing as how their intelligence comes very close to that of man, who can easily choose to find other sources of food, it becomes even worse.

I'm not up in arms about this to the point of insulting people or telling them how backwards their country is...but there it is.

Open you eyes and look at the big picture, sheeple. This blathering by both countries is just the means to distract people from the real issues at hand. Instead of asking why either side dares to say what they do, we should be wondering why these leaders still have jobs.

@smith rather than regulations that make it harder for the average person to make online transactions, why not just have parents mind what their children do? I'm assuming these phones come with some sort of parental controls built in. If not they should, but I can see no reason why we should limit transactions of any kind because people can't control themselves.