The death penalty is inherently a very bad idea, and there is no evidence that Singapore's laws against drug dealing is why the country is happy, as opposed to having stronger social safety nets and a relatively tiny nation compared to its wealth accumulation.

No state should be trusted with the power to execute those who are not an active danger to society, and especially those they already have in captivity and isolated from society, no matter how depraved and evil that person is.

Reason being is it sets a precedent that normalizes state sponsored killings. All it takes to expand the criteria to killing dissidents or marginalized groups is shifting the definition of crimes that receive that penalty.

Ex: Florida intentionally making it easier to sentence pedophiles to death.... while also redefining existing as a trans person or in drag in the general vicinity of a child as "child sex abuse".

Every human has the right to live. This right cannot be taken away by a judge. In a state such as Singapore, with very restrictive laws and an authoritarian state, this is doubly important as proper legal conduct may be compromised.

Besides, using the actions of a state comprised of people of whom none are alive today to disregard criticism against a vast portion of the global population goes against any and all good rhetoric conduct.

Some aspects that come to my mind:

1. Is the safety of Sigapore exclusively liked to strict drug regulation or aren't there many other confunding factors which might have an even bigger influence?
2. Given we see this approach as successful and therefore legitime (assuming that in 1 the policy is the main/only driving factor): Would this be applicable to other countries? Singapore is a verry wealthy city state... comparing it to a country like Britain with more area, less population desity and also lower ecomonic performance per area seems missleading. Prosecution becomes more difficult and costly the bigger the area gets I guess.

All-in-all if the approach is sucessful for Singapore: Excellent! Accunsing other countries with different prerequisites of failing on this basis seems to be nonsense as comparing countries and societies in a single aspect while ignoring the gaszillion other factors at play itself is a pointless approach besides populism.

You can't say that because less people use drugs that peoples lives have been saved. That's political logic, logic you employ to maintain a political stance. It has nothing to do with reality.

You can only justify a death penalty when you see drug addicts as lost lives. And that's just plainly wrong.

Portugal has completely decriminalized all drugs and have clearly shown that this didn't lead to a rise in drug use, it never lead to a rise in criminality either.

Singapore law is unnecessarily cruel and barbaric.

It's not about health or safety because if it were they wouldn't still allow the most dangerous and destructive drug to be sold, yet you can buy alcohol as young as 18. It's all about social control. Their preferred drug is legal even though it's the least healthy and most unsafe of the commonly used recreational drugs.

I say let people live their lives, it's up to them what they do with their bodies, providing they aren't bringing harm to others. Put in place rehab and assistance, and legalise babey!

I think it's based on a discredited view of addiction; I think the intentions are less about reducing human suffering than social engineering.

Wide gulf between having a permissive attitude to drugs and going full draconian like Singapore. Being draconian like that is a huge rule of law issue IMO, you can put someone in prison by smearing some drugs on their shoes.

IMO the issue with the west isn't that they're too soft, but that they often don't go all the way - even the Netherlands, which is known for letting people legally buy and sell cannabis, doesn't actually allow growing cannabis. There's no way to legally acquire cannabis for the sellers in NL, it's incredibly stupid.

I don’t believe there is any situation in which a penalty of death is ethical.

Even putting aside the morality of killing someone, you can never rule out mistakes, miscarriages of justice, or political abuse.

I don't agree with their approach, but I'll admit that their argument is sound.

Particularly the part about rejecting the opinions of an outsider.

I don't want to live in Singapore, bit if this is genuinely how Singaporeans wish to run their society I do not consider it my place to meddle. Especially because, as they note in the response, all of us should focus on getting our own houses in order before prescribing to others.

The European Union has an ideological focus on the death penalty, but I would like to ask them if they have a better solution.

Mr Branson is entitled to his opinions. These opinions may be widely held in the UK, but we don't accept that Mr Branson or others in the West are entitled to impose their values on other societies. Nor do we believe that a country that prosecuted two wars in China in the 19th century to force the Chinese to accept opium imports has any moral right to lecture Asians on drugs.

Nothing we have seen in the UK or in the West persuades us that adopting a permissive attitude towards drugs and a tolerant position on drug trafficking will increase human happiness. Where drug addiction is concerned, things have steadily worsened in the UK, while things have steadily improved in Singapore.

Man they are absolutely cooking here. Both in calling out the white supremacist attitudes of the west and in being rational.