I would say No, nobody deserves that. I guess some people deserve it but a civilized society shouldn't do that. A lot of people would disagree with me.

I say no.

However, this also brings up the question "What is torture?"  In many countries, imprisonment over 20 years is considered "torture".  That is why Mexico is such a safe haven for people who are facing murder charges and other extreme crimes.  If your sentence would be either death penalty, LWOP, or imprisonment for over 20 years Mexico will not extradite you.

I say: only the worst of them...although, I don't believe in torture..there are more humane ways of doing it.

I say no. Like Mushroom has pointed out, "What is torture". I hear Bill O'Reilly saying something about how the bleeding hearts are crying about the guys in Gitmo being subjected to water boarding and how it is NOT torture-to which I say "BULLS**T". I would love to see Bill O'Reilly be subjected to that and THEN see if he says if it is torture or not. (I guess that makes me a bleeding heart according to Bill O'Reilly.  ::) )There are just too many sadistic people in this world and if you allow them to even give a little bit of pain, they will probably get off on it and it will escalate-look at Abu Ghraib. What started as just a few minor incidence, escalated BIG TIME. 


Of course to me torture would be having to share a cell with Dick Cheney.  :D



Cat

For Bill O'Reilly, torture is a top marginal tax rate of over 35%.

No, torture doesn't work.  I also happen to think it is immoral. 

For Bill O'Reilly, torture is a top marginal tax rate of over 35%.

No, torture doesn't work.  I also happen to think it is immoral. 


but what about to the guy who kidnapps and tortures, and kills children? how could you say that punishing the killer in the same way he punished others (and for nothing) is immoral? i don't think it should be done either but for other reasons. to many people would dissagree and it would be terrible if someone was falsely accused, but i don't think immoral is the right world. i'd call it fair justice.

No, only because there are some people in jail who are innocent of their crimes.  There have probably in the past been innocent people sent to the chair for crimes they did not commit

No, only because there are some people in jail who are innocent of their crimes.  There have probably in the past been innocent people sent to the chair for crimes they did not commit



yup, that's the only real problem i can see.

Mushroom has a point, "What is torture?"  Therefore this question set before us may be do vague.  Some people would say 8 years with George Bush as President is torture.  I always thought of torture as things like "the rack" and in later years "the Hanoi Hilton". 

but what about to the guy who kidnapps and tortures, and kills children? how could you say that punishing the killer in the same way he punished others (and for nothing) is immoral? i don't think it should be done either but for other reasons. to many people would dissagree and it would be terrible if someone was falsely accused, but i don't think immoral is the right world. i'd call it fair justice.


This is one reason why I am for the death penalty. Not any suffering in prison, but a swift execution of somewhat humane means only after he is found guilty in a court of law.

"Fair Justice" is different in every part of the world. Ever seen someone stoned to death? Had their hands cut off for stealing? Beheaded by knife? I've seen all three, and, in some cases, more than once. It's not anything pretty or fair: arterial spurt from someone having his head cut off and the sidewalk covered in blood is not something any civilized society would ever endorse, especially if they knew how gruesome these *really* looked. Watching someone have seizures and ultimately die from being hit in the head from chunks of concrete is not justice, it's sickening.

As for torture, IMO it's a crime worse than rape or murder, only short of treason and genocide. Torture is also self defeating as a method of extracting reliable information from anyone. I'm pretty sure that if someone hooked electrodes to YOUR genitals, made you go w/o sleep for five days, or *only* made you stand on your toes for 12 hours, in the cold, while listening to Christina Aguilera would say anything to make that end.

(Not directing the following toward anyone in particular):

Next time you whine about the heat, the cold, the humidity, the long line in the grocery store, that you are "starving to death", etc., THINK, REALLY THINK about that situation being 1000X worse (at least), and THEN tell me you support torture in any form.

In Nanking, one of the things Japanese soldiers were reported to do was pour acid all over the face of their enemies, thusly eating their faces away. A form of very painful and permanently disfiguring torture, to say the least.

If you think you can handle seeing what *that* actually does to a person who lives, click here.

*warning: disturbing content*

As far as torture goes, that link is actually pretty mild compared to some of the ways one can be tortured...

Ant

whistledog is sexy. whachoo doing with your fine self, whistledog?

Torture is just plain wrong.  Doesn't matter whether you happen to think someone deserves it (or whether they actually *do*) - the state should never be a party to it.  If only because someone has to administer it - either they enjoy what they do (and should probably be jailed themselves), or they don't and you'll give 'em a breakdown 'cause of it.

I do sometimes feel, though, that if there is an argument about whether something constitutes torture, then it probably isn't.

Oddly.. my original comment vanished.

I was saying, I'm for it, it could probably be used to gain revenue. I will clarify this statement though, you'd obviously have to reserve it for the worst crimes. Kind of like I support hanging for Treason, same concept.

This is one reason why I am for the death penalty. Not any suffering in prison, but a swift execution of somewhat humane means only after he is found guilty in a court of law.

"Fair Justice" is different in every part of the world. Ever seen someone stoned to death? Had their hands cut off for stealing? Beheaded by knife? I've seen all three, and, in some cases, more than once. It's not anything pretty or fair: arterial spurt from someone having his head cut off and the sidewalk covered in blood is not something any civilized society would ever endorse, especially if they knew how gruesome these *really* looked. Watching someone have seizures and ultimately die from being hit in the head from chunks of concrete is not justice, it's sickening.

As for torture, IMO it's a crime worse than rape or murder, only short of treason and genocide. Torture is also self defeating as a method of extracting reliable information from anyone. I'm pretty sure that if someone hooked electrodes to YOUR genitals, made you go w/o sleep for five days, or *only* made you stand on your toes for 12 hours, in the cold, while listening to Christina Aguilera would say anything to make that end.

(Not directing the following toward anyone in particular):

Next time you whine about the heat, the cold, the humidity, the long line in the grocery store, that you are "starving to death", etc., THINK, REALLY THINK about that situation being 1000X worse (at least), and THEN tell me you support torture in any form.

In Nanking, one of the things Japanese soldiers were reported to do was pour acid all over the face of their enemies, thusly eating their faces away. A form of very painful and permanently disfiguring torture, to say the least.

If you think you can handle seeing what *that* actually does to a person who lives, click here.

*warning: disturbing content*

As far as torture goes, that link is actually pretty mild compared to some of the ways one can be tortured...

Ant



Ant, you witnessed these atrocities in person?  Where was that?

When you see something like what happened to that poor young woman in Detroit, being blinded and horribly disfigured with excruciating acid burns, you feel like catching that maniac and throwing a pitcher of battery acid in HIS face!
>:(
It might satisfy the primeval need for revenge temporarily, but revenge and justice are two different things.

well, cutting off one's hand for stealing is not really eye for an eye. that crime needs jail time or fine. but what about that women who drowned her kids, or the parents who put their kid in a tub of water so hot that he had to get his legs amputated?

Now let me make a clarification here.

I 100% dissagree with the use of torture as punishment.  It is wrong and inappropriate.

However, there are times where I am willing to accept a limited form of torture.

If somebody is captured that has knowledge of a violent crime that would result in the deaths of others, then I would be willing to "turn a blind eye" on things like water boarding if it saves the lives of others.  A good example would have been if it was done on Mr. Zacarias Moussaoui.  If he had been made to talk earlier, 9/11 might have been avoided.  And if somebody was found in a lab with anthrax residue, I would be willing to accept almost anything if it would prevent the release of something like that among the general population.  And if John Couey had been captured earlier and made to talk, Jessica Lunsford may not have had to die being burried alive.

Yes, torture is inhumane.  But to me, people that are willing to commit such horrid crimes have proven themselves to be inhuman, and are below contempt.

Now let me make a clarification here.

I 100% dissagree with the use of torture as punishment.  It is wrong and inappropriate.

However, there are times where I am willing to accept a limited form of torture.

If somebody is captured that has knowledge of a violent crime that would result in the deaths of others, then I would be willing to "turn a blind eye" on things like water boarding if it saves the lives of others.  A good example would have been if it was done on Mr. Zacarias Moussaoui.  If he had been made to talk earlier, 9/11 might have been avoided.  And if somebody was found in a lab with anthrax residue, I would be willing to accept almost anything if it would prevent the release of something like that among the general population.  And if John Couey had been captured earlier and made to talk, Jessica Lunsford may not have had to die being burried alive.

Yes, torture is inhumane.  But to me, people that are willing to commit such horrid crimes have proven themselves to be inhuman, and are below contempt.


Ditto.

Torturing one terrorist (or a hundred of them for that matter) to prevent one more 9/11 is worth it.  It's about time to stop all this namby pamby crap and realize that we are not dealing with conventional combatants and therefore must utilize whatever means possible to gather intel.

If we take torture as an acceptable means of gathering info, and we mistakenly torture one innocent, so be it...better one suspected terrorist than 5000 or so of our own known innocent civilians perishing...

You are not going to prevent "the next 9/11" by torturing anybody.  Nice hypo, but it ain't gonna happen.  And bombing the bejesus out of Third World countries isn't going to help either!
::)

No, the way you do it is through effective intelligence gathering.  Spy.  Real espionage.  Speak the language, know the culture, understand the customs, get to know the folks.  You don't accomplish that by sending in the military, spewing anti-Muslim rhetoric, and firing speakers of Arabic because they're homosexuals.

Sheesh!

You are not going to prevent "the next 9/11" by torturing anybody.  Nice hypo, but it ain't gonna happen.  And bombing the bejesus out of Third World countries isn't going to help either!
::)

No, the way you do it is through effective intelligence gathering.  Spy.  Real espionage.  Speak the language, know the culture, understand the customs, get to know the folks.  You don't accomplish that by sending in the military, spewing anti-Muslim rhetoric, and firing speakers of Arabic because they're homosexuals.

Sheesh!



I see !  Thanks for that wonderful clarification !

Now, after we've done all that "real" espionage stuff, and we have the ones we're looking for....do we put them up in the Hilton and offer them unlimited virgins in exchange for info??

Personally..beating it out of them through whatever means necessary seems a more effective tactic instead of coddling them to talk....

First off, we don't torture.  By legal definition, we can't torture -- so under the law, it's not torture when we do it.

And in answer to the question at hand:  No, we shouldn't torture.  Since we can't torture (see above; by law, it'd cost a lot of folks their careers if it were torture), we should simply outsource that business function to organizations who can do it slower, better, cheaper, and with more plausible deniability.

Totally against it. So hypocritical, too harsh even for the worst criminals.

I would say No, nobody deserves that. I guess some people deserve it but a civilized society shouldn't do that. A lot of people would disagree with me.


  I agree with you...

  In my opinion, the "one life to save many" argument, while seemingly logical, is illusionary - life is what is sacred, not how many lives...

  And you only have to see the effect that the Abu Ghraib photos had in the Arab world to realise that inhumane and degrading treatment is a great way to encourage more voices to rise up against the torturer.  If you claim to be fighting to defend freedom (I could spit...), it doesn't play well for you to practice the things you are fighting against...

  I also wonder if you can successfully torture people who are prepared to die for their cause.  Just administer a ploygraph test (I only half joke about this...) groove ;) on...

I see !  Thanks for that wonderful clarification !

Now, after we've done all that "real" espionage stuff, and we have the ones we're looking for....do we put them up in the Hilton and offer them unlimited virgins in exchange for info??

Personally..beating it out of them through whatever means necessary seems a more effective tactic instead of coddling them to talk....

You can run that one by the world's top intelligence analysts, but I don't think they would agree with you.
::)

    In my opinion, the "one life to save many" argument, while seemingly logical, is illusionary - life is what is sacred, not how many lives...


If you noticed, I did make restrictions when I made that statement.

There are forms of torture that I could justify, but only in extreme situations.  Water board, sensory deprivation, and forms like that which are of a psychological nature.  But I could not endorse electric shocks, rubber hoses, amputation, or anything of that sort no matter how vile the "subject" is.


No, the way you do it is through effective intelligence gathering.  Spy.  Real espionage.  Speak the language, know the culture, understand the customs, get to know the folks.  You don't accomplish that by sending in the military, spewing anti-Muslim rhetoric, and firing speakers of Arabic because they're homosexuals.


But every time you turn around, another form of intelligence gathering is taken away.  Monitoring suspicious communications, mionitoring suspicious money transfers, it seems like every time a new form of intelligence gathering is discovered by the media, it is then screamed that it is a violation of "civil rights", and then stopped.

So covert gathering of information is out because it may violate the rights of others.  Agressive questioning is out because it violates the rights of due process (not to mention the "5th Ammendment").  Profiling is out because it is discrimination.  It always makes me wonder, what is allowed then?  Inviting the terrorists over for a cup of tea, and asking them what they intend to do next?

If you noticed, I did make restrictions when I made that statement.

There are forms of torture that I could justify, but only in extreme situations.  Water board, sensory deprivation, and forms like that which are of a psychological nature.  But I could not endorse electric shocks, rubber hoses, amputation, or anything of that sort no matter how vile the "subject" is.



  Yes, I noticed...

  It's interesting - I've read somewhere that CIA operatives who voluntarily underwent waterboarding are said to have "cracked" in something like 14 seconds.  Simulated drowning.  Whew...

  You bring up a good point - many of us seem to know what we don't want, so what would be an effective method of gathering information from those who don't want to give it up..?  Can we look to our own law enforcement community who've been investigating murders and other crimes for quite some time..?

  Aw, I seem to be forgetting, the WOT isn't a legal matter but a political one...

   You bring up a good point - many of us seem to know what we don't want, so what would be an effective method of gathering information from those who don't want to give it up..?  Can we look to our own law enforcement community who've been investigating murders and other crimes for quite some time..?


And that actually brings up a fairly interesting point.

Another thing I would probably require:  any information gathered in this was is not admissable in a court of law.

Remember, something like this should be for prevention, not prosecution.  In short, people who go through something like that are given a "free ride" in reguards to anything collected.  The idea is preventing the loss of life, not gathering evidence to use in a trial.

And for the most part, "law enforcement" does not deal with crimes of a serious enough nature to justify the use of something like this.  That is unless they capture another Zacarias Moussaoui.  And something like that happens only once every 5-10 years.

well, cutting off one's hand for stealing is not really eye for an eye. that crime needs jail time or fine. but what about that women who drowned her kids, or the parents who put their kid in a tub of water so hot that he had to get his legs amputated?



I agree with you there. These types of people do NOT deserve to live, IMO. Why should they be able to live, whenever they TORTURED someone else..an innocent person. This is my one exception to the rule, I believe.

  it seems like every time a new form of intelligence gathering is discovered by the media, it is then screamed that it is a violation of "civil rights", and then stopped.


Then perhaps we'd best consider the sources of the leaks to the media.  You think our spies don't know their tradecraft well enough to keep this sort of thing out of the public eye?

Either we need to fire our current spies and hire spies who are more loyal to the Committee for State Security.  Committee or Department?  State or Homeland?  Old bureaucracies never die, they just change their names.  Some guy looked into some other guy's eyes and saw that his heart was good, right? 

Or we need to ponder why our spies are leaking such things.  Maybe because they knew better than most of us, how the Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti actually worked, and because the leakers believe that the things that made the USA distinguishable from the USSR were features, not bugs. 

Pun intentional.

Sure makes me wonder who really won the cold war, though. 

And that actually brings up a fairly interesting point.

Another thing I would probably require:  any information gathered in this was is not admissable in a court of law.

Remember, something like this should be for prevention, not prosecution.  In short, people who go through something like that are given a "free ride" in reguards to anything collected.  The idea is preventing the loss of life, not gathering evidence to use in a trial.

And for the most part, "law enforcement" does not deal with crimes of a serious enough nature to justify the use of something like this.  That is unless they capture another Zacarias Moussaoui.  And something like that happens only once every 5-10 years.


   I mean law enforcement as a viable alternative...

   Invasion forces are just not suited for tracking down terrorist links within societies.  Armies disrupt societies, creating cover and fertile ground for terrorists.  Unpopular occupations create failed states.  Failed states and unpopular occupations are the prime breeding ground for terrorism.  We could have learned this from Israel.  But then Israel hasn't learned, because they are trapped in the cycle too, and it may ultimately destroy them...

   There is a ready pool of people qualified to hunt terrorists within and without the intelligence and international law-enforcement communities.  They aren't your usual cops: They must have particular linguistic and cultural backgrounds.  There are many people possessing both the skills and the sense of duty.  Given sufficient resources, terrorist elements would have an extremely difficult time interfacing with the societies they now enjoy a parasitic relationship with...

   So, we go get 'em, with our cops and spooks, and cops and spooks from all the other governments who are their enemies.  Effective counterrorism is more mundane than war fantasies.  It must be similar to tracking down any murderers groove ;) on...

   Edited:  I never spell check...

If you noticed, I did make restrictions when I made that statement.

There are forms of torture that I could justify, but only in extreme situations.  Water board, sensory deprivation, and forms like that which are of a psychological nature.  But I could not endorse electric shocks, rubber hoses, amputation, or anything of that sort no matter how vile the "subject" is.

But every time you turn around, another form of intelligence gathering is taken away.  Monitoring suspicious communications, mionitoring suspicious money transfers, it seems like every time a new form of intelligence gathering is discovered by the media, it is then screamed that it is a violation of "civil rights", and then stopped.

So covert gathering of information is out because it may violate the rights of others.  Agressive questioning is out because it violates the rights of due process (not to mention the "5th Ammendment").  Profiling is out because it is discrimination.  It always makes me wonder, what is allowed then?  Inviting the terrorists over for a cup of tea, and asking them what they intend to do next?


Sometimes it seems futile trying to explain.  Once you're tapping the line, it's too late.  British secret service agents lived candestinely abroad among other cultures for years; decades.  You don't tap the line, you tap the mind.

And you know something, this crew of thugs aren't in the intelligence business.  They couldn't find their own dicks in the dark.  These guys are in the business of tearing down democracy; they're in the paranoia business; they're in the fascism business.  I'm not just shooting hyperbole.  I mean that.

Ant, you witnessed these atrocities in person?  Where was that?

When you see something like what happened to that poor young woman in Detroit, being blinded and horribly disfigured with excruciating acid burns, you feel like catching that maniac and throwing a pitcher of battery acid in HIS face!
>:(
It might satisfy the primeval need for revenge temporarily, but revenge and justice are two different things.


Not in person, but I have seen real video clips of people being beheaded, having their hands cuts off, stoned to death, etc. Not surprisingly, all of these appeared to take place in Middle Eastern countries.... not that there is any lack of atrocities committed in America or elsewhere in the world.  If you ask via PM, I'll send you a link of the double beheading video I recently saw, though I suggest you do not ask for it: it is beyond graphic. It makes Faces of Death look like Nickleodeon.

There will be no true justice for that woman who got her face burned by acid.  In cases like that, the perpetrator should forfeit all his belonging to her (probably just a broken crack stem...), be summarily shot, and the cost of the bullet(s) repayed by his family or "friends". Throw his corpse into a ditch for all I care - he doesn't deserve a proper funeral. But, there should be no suffering, just swift action.

There's aggrivated assault, and then there's "Damn, that's totally f**** up": her case falls squarely into the latter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is the second time today I've used a Star Trek: TNG quote, but what the hell:

"As morning comes again, Gul Madred shares a breakfast of taspa eggs with Picard. Picard, finding his egg contains a still-living taspa, eats it greedily anyway. Madred, amused, talks of eating his first live taspa when he was six years old, and of having other eggs from the same nest taken from him forcibly by an older boy. Rather than accepting this, however, Picard pursues it. "It must be rewarding you to repay others for all those years of misery."

"What do you mean?" "Torture has never been a reliable means of extracting information. It is ultimately self-defeating as a means of control. One wonders why it is still practiced." "I fail to see where this analysis is leading," says Madred dully. Picard pounces, despite his tired voice. "Whenever I look at you now, I won't see a powerful Cardassian warrior. I will see a six- year old boy who is powerless to protect himself." Madred erupts into a rage, turning the lights on Picard full blast. "Be quiet!" "In spite of all you have done to me, I find you a pitiable man." "Picard, stop it -" Madred raises the pain inducer. "- or I will turn this on and leave you in agony all night." Picard laughs. "Ha! You called me Picard." "What are the Federation's defense plans for Minos Korva?" "There are four lights!"

Ant

Not in person, but I have seen real video clips of people being beheaded, having their hands cuts off, stoned to death, etc. Not surprisingly, all of these appeared to take place in Middle Eastern countries.... not that there is any lack of atrocities committed in America or elsewhere in the world.  If you ask via PM, I'll send you a link of the double beheading video I recently saw, though I suggest you do not ask for it: it is beyond graphic. It makes Faces of Death look like Nickleodeon.


That's quite alright.  I've seen atrocities on video.  I find them disturbing, but not traumatizing.  For me, I think seeing it happen in the flesh would be traumatizing.  Internet video is a document of something that happened; I didn't make it happen; if I didn't see the video, it still would have happened.  I don't think everybody should watch them, but I don't think they should be censored either.  It's like a little window into the horrors visited upon humanity every day.  However, I still think being a witness at the scene would be a whole different experience. 

Most of "Faces of Death" was bogus.

I had a mechanic once who told me the auto engineering program that certified him required students to watch grisly death scenes from car accidents--car accidents resulting from mechanical failures.  Don't f**k up on the job, here's what can happen!
:o

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is the second time today I've used a Star Trek: TNG quote, but what the hell:

"As morning comes again, Gul Madred shares a breakfast of taspa eggs with Picard. Picard, finding his egg contains a still-living taspa, eats it greedily anyway. Madred, amused, talks of eating his first live taspa when he was six years old, and of having other eggs from the same nest taken from him forcibly by an older boy. Rather than accepting this, however, Picard pursues it. "It must be rewarding you to repay others for all those years of misery."

"What do you mean?" "Torture has never been a reliable means of extracting information. It is ultimately self-defeating as a means of control. One wonders why it is still practiced." "I fail to see where this analysis is leading," says Madred dully. Picard pounces, despite his tired voice. "Whenever I look at you now, I won't see a powerful Cardassian warrior. I will see a six- year old boy who is powerless to protect himself." Madred erupts into a rage, turning the lights on Picard full blast. "Be quiet!" "In spite of all you have done to me, I find you a pitiable man." "Picard, stop it -" Madred raises the pain inducer. "- or I will turn this on and leave you in agony all night." Picard laughs. "Ha! You called me Picard." "What are the Federation's defense plans for Minos Korva?" "There are four lights!"

Ant





As a BIG TNG fan, I remember this episode (we have all the series on DVD but haven't gotten to this episode yet). Very powerful and definitely appropriate in this debate. Karma to you.



Cat

I am beginning to side with a professor I recently heard speak of the 'war on drugs' solution...
As we have invested millions/billions over the years and there is barely a dent in the trade, we are losing money letting cartels push drugs to our population and keep the rewards...So, let's adopt the policy China took as they became communist and ended the Opium dealers by EXECUTING ALL DRUG DEALERS and registering the addicts!

It certainly had an effect that did something positive towards the problem!    >:(

I am beginning to side with a professor I recently heard speak of the 'war on drugs' solution...
As we have invested millions/billions over the years and there is barely a dent in the trade, we are losing money letting cartels push drugs to our population and keep the rewards...So, let's adopt the policy China took as they became communist and ended the Opium dealers by EXECUTING ALL DRUG DEALERS and registering the addicts!

It certainly had an effect that did something positive towards the problem!    >:(


   So, you're probably against legalization, then...

I am beginning to side with a professor I recently heard speak of the 'war on drugs' solution...
As we have invested millions/billions over the years and there is barely a dent in the trade, we are losing money letting cartels push drugs to our population and keep the rewards...So, let's adopt the policy China took as they became communist and ended the Opium dealers by EXECUTING ALL DRUG DEALERS and registering the addicts!

It certainly had an effect that did something positive towards the problem!    >:(


I'd agree, if you went in and wiped out a few dozen of these crack houses in each city, the remainder of the crackheads would certainly take notice, but I'm sure some civil liberties crackpots would scream bloody murder....

As we have invested millions/billions over the years and there is barely a dent in the trade, we are losing money letting cartels push drugs to our population and keep the rewards...So, let's adopt the policy China took as they became communist and ended the Opium dealers by EXECUTING ALL DRUG DEALERS and registering the addicts!


We tried that.  Then we realized that the War on Drugs had been placed into the highest law of our land, we were still losing money letting cartels push drugs to our population and keep the rewards, but since Communism hadn't been invented yet, we went withthis crappy option instead. 

Fortunately for the ChiComs, the free country that once adopted that a crappy solution no longer exists. 

Fortunately for me, it hasn't gotten around to repealing the Twenty-First Amendment, and so I'm able to tell you (on a monitored communications network) that I'm really enjoying the hell out of this glass of Cabernet Sauvignon. And at $50/bottle (including at least $20 to various State, Local, and Federal governments), I'd damn well better be enjoying it. 

I mean, I coulda gotten just as drunk off Two-Buck-Chuck, and only contributed $0.50 in taxes to the government's coffers!  One of these days, Atlas is gonna shrug... or at least fall over dead stinking drunk, and then what'll they have to prohibit for the good of our citizens' health.

Oh, right, our potato chips and soda pop.  That's also already started. 

Well, like I said, fortunately for the ChiComs, they've won this war.  I just hope I manage to drink and eat myself to death before the Bureau of Soda, Fats, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms comes to get me.

 
  Prescription drug abuse deadlier than use of illegal drugs

  Prescription drug abuse set to exceed use of illicit narcotics globally

  'Sides, I'd rather share the freeway with a million paranoid, right-lane hugging, slow-moving pot-heads, than the usual assortment of finger-stabbing, tailgating, horn-blowing caffeine junkies that are out there every single damn morning...

   So, you're probably against legalization, then...

No!  He's for a communist revolution!  Git 'er duuun!

http://www.kim.is/myndir/five_star.gif

It's not so much that the Chinese wanted opium, it's more that the British empire wanted the Chinese to have opium.
They don't call it dope for nothing.  Ever get in a fight with a guy on 8 Percocets?  K.O., no prob!
The Chinese emperor got sick of his courtiers getting all hopped up all the time, so in 1729 he banned the distribution and sale of opium. The British forced them to legalize it again after the Chinese lost the second opium war in 1858.  As it was there and then, as it is here and now, the drug trade is very profitable and dope addicts don't agitate for political change, just for more dope!
So Mao said, not here and not now!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/drunken_smilie.gif
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/drunken_smilie.gif

   So, you're probably against legalization, then...

I wouldn't think legalization is out...because if addicts are registered, THEY would get drugs distributed or whatever they need to rehab from them..

Then you know it is a money matter...trying to keep the money out of the other countires from the profits..and  get people away from addictions..perscriptions are deadly but the US gets the money..

Oh UTOPIA where are you????

Even if you could be a registered addict and get your dope from the government, there would still be a black market.  If the government controls it, it's subject to restrictions and rationing.  Addicts who don't want to play be the government's rules will go to the black market.

Your best way to beat the black market is the free market.

Even local government control leads to a black market.

After the Prohibition was repealed, moonshining remained a vibrant enterprise, especially in all those "dry" counties!

Even if you could be a registered addict and get your dope from the government, there would still be a black market.  If the government controls it, it's subject to restrictions and rationing.  Addicts who don't want to play be the government's rules will go to the black market.
But the amount of money going into that black market & to the drug dealers would drop by millions, probably billions - which would be a boon to society of itself.

My personal feeling is that registered addicts on things like heroin and cocaine should be able to get free, pharmaceutical quality (not necessarily pure, but a known strength and cut with something known to be harmless) doses of their fix - if only to get the street price so low there's no incentive to sell.  To forestall the usual argument against: the market economics argument of a lower price means more people buying doesn't quite hold true for the drugs market: the majority of first-timers do not pay large amounts for their drugs at the moment - in Tom Lehrer's words: "He gives the kids free samples, because he knows full well / That today's young innocent faces will be tomorrow's clientele".  Once an addict is hooked, there is a huge amount of money to be made from each one - that is the lure that needs removing.  If there were no chance of making large amounts of money from each addict, there would be a much lower incentive to try and get new users hooked.

Of course, you'd still get the upper-class tossers snorting cocaine 'cause it shows they're rich... but that is not inherently a problem to society: where their money goes, *is*.

Even if you could be a registered addict and get your dope from the government, there would still be a black market.  If the government controls it, it's subject to restrictions and rationing.  Addicts who don't want to play be the government's rules will go to the black market.

Your best way to beat the black market is the free market.

Even local government control leads to a black market.

After the Prohibition was repealed, moonshining remained a vibrant enterprise, especially in all those "dry" counties!


Not meaning to hijack the thread, but that cynical statement about the government having their hands in things would also apply to universal health care, right??

Sorry.....

Not meaning to hijack the thread, but that cynical statement about the government having their hands in things would also apply to universal health care, right??

Sorry.....


In order for addicts to take advantage of a program to help addicts there must be a type of health care to cater to them.  I guess what they do have now is universal health care for addicts, it is down at that clinic where they line up everyday to get there dose.

Not meaning to hijack the thread, but that cynical statement about the government having their hands in things would also apply to universal health care, right??

Sorry.....

Now that you mention it....
Back when American drinkers couldn't get their booze, Al Capone smuggled it from Canada. 
If Capone was alive today, he'd be smuggling Prozac, Lipitor, Cardizem, and so on....

We tried that.  Then we realized that the War on Drugs had been placed into the highest law of our land, we were still losing money letting cartels push drugs to our population and keep the rewards, but since Communism hadn't been invented yet, we went with


And with the laws the way they are, we never will win the war on drugs.  And the reason is simple:

There is to much money to be made with drugs.

The only countries that seem to have a handle on the drug problem are the ones with the most draconian punishments.  A lot of people are willing to risk 3-5 years if it can make them $1-2 million.  Not many are willing to risk it if it means a bullet in the back of the head or 20-life in a hell hole prison.

Here we catch a celebrity with cocaine in their pocket, and they get a slap on the wrist.  In Japan, they catch a major singer with a few joints, and they threaten to put him in jail for 7 years.  A lot of people forgot that Paul McCartney was banished from Japan forever because he was caught with a few joints in 1980.  And if it was anybody but Sir Paul, they would have been sentenced to 7 years.

But Sir Paul is lucky, if that happened in China, India, Indonesia, and most of the Middle East he would have gotten a noodle, and in China Linda would have had to pay for it.

"gotten a noodle"? is that getting whipped with a wet noodle? because that's actually not that bad. :P

And with the laws the way they are, we never will win the war on drugs.  And the reason is simple:

There is to much money to be made with drugs.

Absolutely.  You can lock up (or even kill) as many dealers as you like, but while there are millions living in poverty, you can guarantee a regular supply of distributors wanting to make a quick buck.


The only countries that seem to have a handle on the drug problem are the ones with the most draconian punishments.  A lot of people are willing to risk 3-5 years if it can make them $1-2 million.  Not many are willing to risk it if it means a bullet in the back of the head or 20-life in a hell hole prison.

er.. t'ain't that simple: plenty *are* willing to risk it, but by and large it's your unknowing carrier whose new "boyfriend"/"girlfriend" slipped a package into the luggage without telling... and these countries (thinking of places like Thailand, Malaysia, etc.) who do have draconian measures in place still have levels of opiate usage that match (or even exceed) ours; Japan is relatively forgiving of opiates, but cracks down hard on cocaine & marijuana and especially anyone trying to smuggle anything in.

ISTM that the only solution that is rational (rather than the common emotional knee-jerks) is full legalization with sale under license (IMO, there should also be prescription of the physiologically addictive drugs such as cocaine and heroin for those already addicted - so there isn't a huge stream of money to be made from each new addict).

Absolutely.  You can lock up (or even kill) as many dealers as you like, but while there are millions living in poverty, you can guarantee a regular supply of distributors wanting to make a quick buck.
er.. t'ain't that simple: plenty *are* willing to risk it, but by and large it's your unknowing carrier whose new "boyfriend"/"girlfriend" slipped a package into the luggage without telling... and these countries (thinking of places like Thailand, Malaysia, etc.) who do have draconian measures in place still have levels of opiate usage that match (or even exceed) ours; Japan is relatively forgiving of opiates, but cracks down hard on cocaine & marijuana and especially anyone trying to smuggle anything in.

ISTM that the only solution that is rational (rather than the common emotional knee-jerks) is full legalization with sale under license (IMO, there should also be prescription of the physiologically addictive drugs such as cocaine and heroin for those already addicted - so there isn't a huge stream of money to be made from each new addict).
i was seeing this before and wondering by what flight of fancy are we classifying the US system as anything but "draconian." don't they have mandatory sentences for crack possession that are pretty much life-destroying sentences for possessing only a handful? i mean, yes, lindsay lohan and her ilk get a slap on the wrist but that's definitely the exception rather than the rule.

so if draconian measures worked, they would work here. is my point.

Should we torture our criminals for punishment/justice?

I quote Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK):

"No!"

;D

Should we torture our criminals for punishment/justice?  I quote Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK): "No!"


"They want to deliver vast numbers of people into the prisons. And again, a prison is not something you just dump people in. It's not a big truck. It's a series of cubes!"

"gotten a noodle"? is that getting whipped with a wet noodle? because that's actually not that bad. :P


Actually, "Getting a noodle" is a term that goes back to WWII Germany.

When somebody was picked up by the Gestapo (or SS) and given a bullet in the back of the head, the slang term was that they "Got a noodle".


i was seeing this before and wondering by what flight of fancy are we classifying the US system as anything but "draconian." don't they have mandatory sentences for crack possession that are pretty much life-destroying sentences for possessing only a handful? i mean, yes, lindsay lohan and her ilk get a slap on the wrist but that's definitely the exception rather than the rule.

so if draconian measures worked, they would work here. is my point.


"Draconian"?  Hell, most are basically a slap on the wrist.

And can you honetly think of a country much poorer then China?  Or Cuba?  Or Iran?  Or Turkey?  A lot of people there really live lifestyles that are not much different then those in the Bronze Age.

Yet all of them deal with drug trafficers in the same way, and they all have relatively low drug rates.

Personally, I do not care much for the users.  It is the manufacturers and traffickers that I want to see punished.

And come on, "a hand full of crack"????  A handfull of crack is far above what is reasonably considered "trafficking".  If somebody is arrested with a handfull of crack, I say they should be put in jail for life.

You say "draconian measures do not work".  Well, maybe that is because we do not employ them.  If you look at countries that truely employ them, they work rather well.  Most people are not willing to bring drugs into countries like Malaysia, Iran, Turkey, China, or Japan because they really do have "Draconian Measures".

And guess what, they work very well.

too funny about the handful thing! when i say handful i'm using it in the colloquial sense to mean "a negligible amount," you know, like a couple grams or less, i was not referring to the volume described by a spheroid of four inches in diameter approximating the span of the average human palm. :P you're taking me a bit too literally, mate.

i've never been quite sure to make of the propensity among the right to compare ourselves favorably with countries like china and iran. i mean, okay, yes, our drug laws are less severe than china's. so what? china's a screwed up country. compared to actual civilized countries america's drug laws are among the most severe. (and what's funny is, if i read the above correctly, you're actually comparing us unfavorably to china! what does it mean that we're supposed to be taking these despotic regimes as a model for our drug policy? or am i reading you wrong?)

anyway, drug policy in america ends up penalizing many addicts and casual users to the degree of actually destroying their lives. particularly with idiotic "mandatory minimums," which take away the discretion of the judge to assess the character of the defendant and adjust the sentence accordingly. and i'm not sure what the purpose is.

i appreciate your saying this about not caring about the users but only caring about keeping the pushers off the streets, but the policy as it exists definitely penalizes users quite harshly.

too funny about the handful thing! when i say handful i'm using it in the colloquial sense to mean "a negligible amount," you know, like a couple grams or less, i was not referring to the volume described by a spheroid of four inches in diameter approximating the span of the average human palm. :P you're taking me a bit too literally, mate.

i've never been quite sure to make of the propensity among the right to compare ourselves favorably with countries like china and iran. i mean, okay, yes, our drug laws are less severe than china's. so what? china's a screwed up country. compared to actual civilized countries america's drug laws are among the most severe. (and what's funny is, if i read the above correctly, you're actually comparing us unfavorably to china! what does it mean that we're supposed to be taking these despotic regimes as a model for our drug policy? or am i reading you wrong?)

anyway, drug policy in america ends up penalizing many addicts and casual users to the degree of actually destroying their lives. particularly with idiotic "mandatory minimums," which take away the discretion of the judge to assess the character of the defendant and adjust the sentence accordingly. and i'm not sure what the purpose is.

i appreciate your saying this about not caring about the users but only caring about keeping the pushers off the streets, but the policy as it exists definitely penalizes users quite harshly.

They send the addicts to jail for doing drugs...and what do the addicts find in jail?  More drugs!
:D

i appreciate your saying this about not caring about the users but only caring about keeping the pushers off the streets, but the policy as it exists definitely penalizes users quite harshly.


Actually, most users really do get off with a "slap on the wrist".  Almost universally, if somebody is picked up for simple possession, they are given a chance to go into rehab.  The sentences only get stiff if they are repeat offenders.  Since the 1970's, there have been rather generous programs available to those who are willing to take advantage of them.

And yes, I honestly see it as a problem of trafficking, not use.  I do not care to much about locking up Susan Smith, who gets caught with 2 rocks of crack in her purse.  But I do want to see John Jones locked up for 5-10 years when he is caught with a kilo of grass in his truck.  That is far above "Personal Use", and clearely intended for sale.

Sadly, most people do not take advantage of the detox programs.  This is obvious by looking at the large numbers of people who cycle in and out of rehab.  I am even willing to give them a second chance.  But my patience runs thin when it comes to third, or even fourth chances.  By that time they have pretty much shown that they have no real interest in stopping their habbit, and will only continue to break the law.

And yes, I honestly see it as a problem of trafficking, not use.

But without the demand, there would be no trafficking...

Incidentally, there is no statistical proof of which I am aware that shows any causal link between how stringent and draconian the treatment of drug dealers, runners or users and levels of drug usage: for any comment like this:


You say "draconian measures do not work".  Well, maybe that is because we do not employ them.  If you look at countries that truely employ them, they work rather well.  Most people are not willing to bring drugs into countries like Malaysia, Iran, Turkey, China, or Japan because they really do have "Draconian Measures".

And guess what, they work very well.


you could find an equal or greater number of countries with far less stringent drug policies with far lower smuggling/usage rates. The amount of trafficking that goes on is far more dependent on the amount of money there is to be gained - people don't run drugs thinking "I might be caught and killed/locked up", they do so thinking of the money they're gonna get.

If you're going to claim that draconian anti-drug measures "work very well", you're going to need to provide some proof to back it up.

And guess what, there isn't any.

you could find an equal or greater number of countries with far less stringent drug policies with far lower smuggling/usage rates. The amount of trafficking that goes on is far more dependent on the amount of money there is to be gained - people don't run drugs thinking "I might be caught and killed/locked up", they do so thinking of the money they're gonna get.

If you're going to claim that draconian anti-drug measures "work very well", you're going to need to provide some proof to back it up.

And guess what, there isn't any.


Oh yes, like Denmark.  They simply de-criminalized marijuanna and hashish because they got tired of fighting it.  That is not a solution, that is surrender.  You might as well stop locking your doors because you are tired of being burglarized.

And the evidence is out there.  Look at areas like LA, where drugs and drug related crime are rampant.  Then look at similar sized cities in countries that deal with traffickers harshly.  There are far less people involved in the trade, because far less people are willing to take the risk.  There are probably more traffickers in South-Central LA then there are in the entire country of Malaysia.

Of course, the only people that would execute you in LA are other drug dealers.  And at least you can shoot back at them.

Actually, most users really do get off with a "slap on the wrist".  Almost universally, if somebody is picked up for simple possession, they are given a chance to go into rehab.  The sentences only get stiff if they are repeat offenders.  Since the 1970's, there have been rather generous programs available to those who are willing to take advantage of them.

And yes, I honestly see it as a problem of trafficking, not use.  I do not care to much about locking up Susan Smith, who gets caught with 2 rocks of crack in her purse.  But I do want to see John Jones locked up for 5-10 years when he is caught with a kilo of grass in his truck.  That is far above "Personal Use", and clearely intended for sale.

Sadly, most people do not take advantage of the detox programs.  This is obvious by looking at the large numbers of people who cycle in and out of rehab.  I am even willing to give them a second chance.  But my patience runs thin when it comes to third, or even fourth chances.  By that time they have pretty much shown that they have no real interest in stopping their habbit, and will only continue to break the law.

I want to see marijuana legalized.  It's absurd to make pot illegal and keep booze legal at the same time.  It's a complete wast of law enforcement resources and more destructive to people's lives than a pot habit could ever be.

What happens is people underestimate the power of addiction.  Neither the addict nor anybody concerned about the addict realizes the recitivism rate.  It might take a dozen or more tries before the addict quits for good, and the addict might never live to see that day.

I still say putting addicts in jail is counterproductive.  If the prospect of jailtime stopped people from getting hooked, people would have stopped getting hooked by now. 

Oh yes, like Denmark.  They simply de-criminalized marijuanna and hashish because they got tired of fighting it.  That is not a solution, that is surrender.  You might as well stop locking your doors because you are tired of being burglarized.

I've been trying to find published statistics on relative cannabis usage before and after decriminalization in Denmark, but can't find any. Which is a shame, 'cause I'm betting that there is no significant difference in usage levels: if that were the case, it would mean that all the money spent "fighting" cannabis usage has been simply wasted.

In any case, calling it "surrender" is emotive and ridiculous.  But then, nearly all the arguments used in the (emotively and ridiculously-named "drugs war") are also emotive and ridiculous.  There are no standards for categorizing drugs - even for defining what "drugs" are.  Decisions about how illegal a drug should be are not based on how harmful or how addictive they are, but on something randomly picked out of a hat.  And most of all, nobody has proven that anti-drug legislation and enforcement have any effect on usage whatsoever.  So, as a taxpayer, are you happy that the tens of billions of dollars being spent on enforcement and incarceration are not having any measurable effect on usage/traffic rates?


And the evidence is out there.  Look at areas like LA, where drugs and drug related crime are rampant.  Then look at similar sized cities in countries that deal with traffickers harshly.  There are far less people involved in the trade, because far less people are willing to take the risk.  There are probably more traffickers in South-Central LA then there are in the entire country of Malaysia.

There's far more money in LA than in the majority of Malaysia.  And I wouldn't mind betting that there are more traffickers in LA than in Denmark, too.  OK, a simple question for you: why is cannabis illegal?  Ignore the others for a moment, what reason is there for cannabis to be illegal?


Of course, the only people that would execute you in LA are other drug dealers.  And at least you can shoot back at them.

Best way to get rid of the drug dealers (or at least the ones that shoot): legalize the drugs.  That ain't surrender to these people, it's removing their source of money.

You could summarily execute any person caught with so much as a joint, and that would certainly eliminate marijuana usage--but is that a country in which you would want to live?

Whatever happened to "Land of the free, home of the brave"? 

Punishing citizens for smoking an herb makes us neither free nor brave.

You could summarily execute any person caught with so much as a joint, and that would certainly eliminate marijuana usage--but is that a country in which you would want to live?i'd have to be stoned nonstop just to even put up with it.

You could summarily execute any person caught with so much as a joint, and that would certainly eliminate marijuana usage--but is that a country in which you would want to live?


That is a far cry from anything that I would ever want.  And I have stated my views about punishment differences between use and traficking very clearly.

But this is something that could be said about almost any non-violent crime.  Gambling, prostitution, steroids, and just about anything else that is illegal and non-violent.  There are always people that will do them, and simply giving up and making it legal is not a solution.

And I am against summary execution for any reason.  I am even against the death penalty for anything other then murder or an incident that puts a large number of people at risk (like possessing chemical weapons or something like that). 

That is a far cry from anything that I would ever want.  And I have stated my views about punishment differences between use and traficking very clearly.

But this is something that could be said about almost any non-violent crime.  Gambling, prostitution, steroids, and just about anything else that is illegal and non-violent.  There are always people that will do them, and simply giving up and making it legal is not a solution.

And I am against summary execution for any reason.  I am even against the death penalty for anything other then murder or an incident that puts a large number of people at risk (like possessing chemical weapons or something like that). 

LOL!  Of course I didn't think you favored summary execution.  It was hyperbole. 
;D

With marijuana prohibition in particular, I don't consider it giving up when it's a battle that should never have been fought in the first place.  I don't think pot is harmless--I know it is not, believe me--anymore than I think alcohol is harmless. 


BTW, even during Prohibition (1919--1933) you could not get arrested for possessing or consuming alcohol.  The amendment prohibited the manufacture, transport, and sale and purchase of alcohol.  Thus, you could get arrested for patronizing a speakeasy but you could not get arrested for having a bottle of gin in your house.  Most everyone who saw Malone in The Untouchables pouring a shot of liquor in his apartment thought he was breaking the law, but he wasn't.  Not per se.  Most likely Malone purchased the bottle during prohibtion; that was against the law; however the cops couldn't bust you for having it in your home. 

They send the addicts to jail for doing drugs...and what do the addicts find in jail?  More drugs!
:D

Not if they KILL those dealing them...drugs may then POUR into the prison , but who then would give their life for them? :-\\l

Not if they KILL those dealing them...drugs may then POUR into the prison , but who then would give their life for them? :-\\l
see, though? if we live in a miserable world where people are getting killed for every other offense people are gonna be desperate for drugs -- cuz we'll all be craving any escape we can find from the awful society we'd be in.

Not if they KILL those dealing them...drugs may then POUR into the prison , but who then would give their life for them? :-\\l

So how many innocent people are you willing to see killed?

And (as I said earlier), your supposition that killing dealers will mean people don't deal is flawed - it's based on an over-simplistic and unthinking view of the situation: while there is a lot of money to be made dealing drugs, you will get drug dealers.  If there's a source and supply outside the country, and a demand inside the country, you can kill as many dealers as you like and it won't make a damn bit of difference.

My personal feeling is that registered addicts on things like heroin and cocaine should be able to get free, pharmaceutical quality (not necessarily pure, but a known strength and cut with something known to be harmless) doses of their fix - if only to get the street price so low there's no incentive to sell.


Who pays for this?  Taxpayers?

Who pays for this?  Taxpayers?

It'd be a heck of a lot cheaper than the tens of billions currently being spent on the "war on drugs".  You could supply an addict with heroin for a fraction of the price of keeping him (or her) in prison.

Surely you right-wingers should be able to see the economic benefits of reducing the amount of money that addicts have to find and pass on to their dealers?  Less crime, less money going into the illegal drug trade.  What *is* your problem with it?

Who pays for this?  Taxpayers?


Hey, I am addicted to cigarettes, so they should give me free smokes as well.  And my buddy that is an alcoholic, should he get free booze?  And for those that are addicted to sex, should the government give them free hookers?  And I am not even going to go into what they should give the pedophiles.

Now I have no problem with giving an addict free methadone to help him end his horse problem.  But I am 100% against turning our government into the worlds leading enabler.


Surely you right-wingers should be able to see the economic benefits of reducing the amount of money that addicts have to find and pass on to their dealers?  Less crime, less money going into the illegal drug trade.  What *is* your problem with it?


I would rather see the money spent helping the person end his addiction.  That is a much better use of money.

Not to mention the other problems with drug addiction.  The health issues, and long term medical would probably end up costing far more then the "war on drugs" would if our government actually supported people's addictions.

Hey, I am addicted to cigarettes, so they should give me free smokes as well.  And my buddy that is an alcoholic, should he get free booze?  And for those that are addicted to sex, should the government give them free hookers?  And I am not even going to go into what they should give the pedophiles.

What are you on?  (Other than nicotine, obviously).  You're not even trying to think about what I've said: making idiotic paedophilia comments is simply pandering to the scaremongers.

Bringing tobacco addiction into the debate doesn't help your cause, either: in tobacco you have something which is more harmful than many illegal drugs; more addictive than most; and some believe causes harm to third parties not smoking themselves - that makes it a far worse contributor to ill health than pretty much all the illegal drugs combined.  So where's the rationale in keeping cannabis, ecstasy and LSD illegal?


Now I have no problem with giving an addict free methadone to help him end his horse problem.  But I am 100% against turning our government into the worlds leading enabler.

I would rather see the money spent helping the person end his addiction.  That is a much better use of money.

Fine words, but methadone is simply replacing one opiate with another.  It's just another morphine derivative (in much the same way that heroin was originally marketed by Bayer as a "cure" for morphine addiction, though at least methadone is less potent than the drug it's aiming to replace).  If you're happy with methadone being prescribed, then why not morphine or heroin?  Why the distinction?



Not to mention the other problems with drug addiction.  The health issues, and long term medical would probably end up costing far more then the "war on drugs" would if our government actually supported people's addictions.

Check out the research: the overwhelming majority of medical problems associated with drug addiction are due to impurities, sepsis and a lack of general hygiene in drug users.  In supplying clean, consistent drugs to those already hooked, you'd be spending a fortune less in ongoing health costs.

The cost of supplying clean heroin to users would be miniscule in comparison with the current cost of the "War on Drugs".

Not if they KILL those dealing them...drugs may then POUR into the prison , but who then would give their life for them? :-\\l

WHO WOULD JESUS KILL?  Muuah-hahhahaha!!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/firedevil.gif

You guys make me n-n-n-nervous!
:o


Hey, I am addicted to cigarettes, so they should give me free smokes as well.  And my buddy that is an alcoholic, should he get free booze?  And for those that are addicted to sex, should the government give them free hookers?  And I am not even going to go into what they should give the pedophiles.

Now I have no problem with giving an addict free methadone to help him end his horse problem.  But I am 100% against turning our government into the worlds leading enabler.

I would rather see the money spent helping the person end his addiction.  That is a much better use of money.

Not to mention the other problems with drug addiction.  The health issues, and long term medical would probably end up costing far more then the "war on drugs" would if our government actually supported people's addictions.

This all beyond the point.  The U.S. prison-industrial complex is inhumane and corrupt.  Criminals come out worse than when they went in, and the best way to turn a drug addict into a hardcore criminal is a few years in the joint.  The age of the second chance is over.  They run a CORI check on you applying for a job at the frikkin' 7-11!
::)

What are you on?  (Other than nicotine, obviously).

Bringing tobacco addiction into the debate doesn't help your cause, either: in tobacco you have something which is more harmful than many illegal drugs; more addictive than most; and some believe causes harm to third parties not smoking themselves - that makes it a far worse contributor to ill health than pretty much all the illegal drugs combined.  So where's the rationale in keeping cannabis, ecstasy and LSD illegal?


So what drugs do you give away for free via taxpayers dollars and which ones don't you?  Marijuana, free or do you have to pay for it?  Cocaine, free or must you pay for it?  Methamphetamine?  Heroin?  Certain prescription drugs or all of them?  If not all, which ones?  Alcohol?  Tobacco?

Then you think about non-deadly addictions like caffeine.

I really just don't get people who argue for all these drugs and then act like tobacco is what really should be banned.  It's seems more like a culture thing than anything else.

It's just another morphine derivative (in much the same way that heroin was originally marketed by Bayer as a "cure" for morphine addiction, though at least methadone is less potent than the drug it's aiming to replace). 


Methadone is a purely synthetic drug: it is not derived from morphine nor any other chemicals found in the poppy plant family.

It is less potent than heroin, but in many ways much worse. Complete methadone detox for chronic, heavy dose users can take anywhere from 10-24 months.

Other than that, you are correct (and I agree with) you other posts on this thread.

I do wonder how expensive heroin would be if the government here actually controlled its legal distribution to addicts. Add a new agency (Department Heroin? or better yet, the Drug Unenforcement Agency...), the purifying it to insane levels for human consumption (even though street smack is hardly pure at all...), distribution, security, manufacturers and lots of lots of red tape and it wouldn't surprise me in the least in the government managed to make heroin cost five times what local street values are now and still lose money in the process.


So how many innocent people are you willing to see killed?

And (as I said earlier), your supposition that killing dealers will mean people don't deal is flawed - it's based on an over-simplistic and unthinking view of the situation: while there is a lot of money to be made dealing drugs, you will get drug dealers.  If there's a source and supply outside the country, and a demand inside the country, you can kill as many dealers as you like and it won't make a damn bit of difference.


I remember watching an episode of "Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way". One former DEA agent said that cocaine has a 17,000% mark up. He pulled an ordinary pen from his shirt, and said if one could make that pen for 1$ and sell it for 17k$, there would be no stopping it. There is no stopping the illegal drug trade with more laws, and draconian policies for drug users (or even torture for dealers/manufacturers/suplliers) lead to this:


see, though? if we live in a miserable world where people are getting killed for every other offense people are gonna be desperate for drugs -- cuz we'll all be craving any escape we can find from the awful society we'd be in.


Well said, Tia.

Ant

So what drugs do you give away for free via taxpayers dollars and which ones don't you?  Marijuana, free or do you have to pay for it?  Cocaine, free or must you pay for it?  Methamphetamine?  Heroin?  Certain prescription drugs or all of them?  If not all, which ones?  Alcohol?  Tobacco?

If I were to answer your question, would you actually think about the answer I gave?  If not, then I don't see why I should bother answering.


Then you think about non-deadly addictions like caffeine.

I really just don't get people who argue for all these drugs and then act like tobacco is what really should be banned.  It's seems more like a culture thing than anything else.

What we have in place are double standards: alcohol and tobacco are legal for cultural/historical reasons, less harmful substances are banned.  People like me (and Jack, I guess) are after a set of standards based on rationality rather than emotive reactions.


Methadone is a purely synthetic drug: it is not derived from morphine nor any other chemicals found in the poppy plant family.

Should have remembered that: make it a "morphine substitute" rather than "derivative".  Been looking: it's a completely different size, shape and chemical - it's hard to see how the brain uses it as a substitute for heroin.  Have to do the research some other time.

I remember watching an episode of "Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way". One former DEA agent said that cocaine has a 17,000% mark up. He pulled an ordinary pen from his shirt, and said if one could make that pen for 1$ and sell it for 17k$, there would be no stopping it.
To be somewhat pedantic, if it were a 17,000% markup, if you made the pen for $1, you'd be selling it for $171 (if you sold it for $17k, that'd be a 1,700,000% markup (well, to be really, REALLY pedantic a 1,699,900% one).

Joking aside, that's very much the point I was trying to make: making punishments more draconian, even to the point of killing the dealers, is not going to stop the trade while there is so much money to be made.  You'd think the free marketeers amongst us would be the first to recognize this...

Methadone is a purely synthetic drug: it is not derived from morphine nor any other chemicals found in the poppy plant family.

It is less potent than heroin, but in many ways much worse. Complete methadone detox for chronic, heavy dose users can take anywhere from 10-24 months.


Methadone has two advantages in clinical treatment for addiction:
1. It's longer-acting than heroin.
2. It's administered p.o., so it gives the addicts veins a break.
The recitivism rate post treatment is quite high (not what I meant, wise guy!)
From the anectdotes I have heard and the clinical evidence I've examined, rehab treatment isn't what gets 'em off the horse.  Either the addict grows out of it or dies.
The reason I am still in favor of clinics is the addict is more likely to stay out of trouble with the law, less likely to consort with the unsavory characters of the drug underworld, and far less likely to O.D. or contract hepatitis or HIV.  A competent methadone clinic will also provide therapeutic support and help the addict maintain the self-discipline it takes to take care of his or her own needs. 
Unfortunately, addicts who in their hearts don't really want to quit won't. 



So what drugs do you give away for free via taxpayers dollars and which ones don't you?  Marijuana, free or do you have to pay for it?  Cocaine, free or must you pay for it?  Methamphetamine?  Heroin?  Certain prescription drugs or all of them?  If not all, which ones?  Alcohol?  Tobacco?

Per above, opiate addiction is a different beast from cocaine addiction.  Only nicotine is tougher to quit. 
Philbo is correct.  It would be cheaper for taxpayers in both the short run and the long run for the government to give addicts heroin.  Heroin isn't expensive.  The black market drives up the price.  Here's what is expensive for taxpayers:
a.  Cops chasing dopes and dealers.
b.  Court costs.
c.  Incarceration.
d.  Treatment in public clinics of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, sepsis, and the rest of the raft of health hazards to which addicts are prone.*

* Yes, I know the Libertarian solution here, but letting them die on the street is not only a danger to public health, but is generally considered inhumane and bad for morale.
::)

Decriminalizing or legalizing is one thing.  It would save a lot of money used on the war on drugs and free up a lot of jail space, so much so that maybe they could stop letting illegal aliens just walk free.  I get that argument.

I don't get the argument of handing out the drugs free paid for by the U.S. taxpayers.  Why must government be involved?  When has the govenment ever done anything right or gotten involved in something and made it better?  I can see pharmacists selling them though.  Wouldn't that be enough to drive down the costs, save the taxpayers a ton of money and take the money out of the bad guys' hands?

  Why must government be involved?  When has the govenment ever done anything right or gotten involved in something and made it better? 

Well, this is the religion of Gingrich conservatism.  You mention "government," and this is the answer.  It's as reliable as shave-and-a-haircut!
::)

Going way off topic here for a moment...


Methadone has two advantages in clinical treatment for addiction:
1. It's longer-acting than heroin.
2. It's administered p.o., so it gives the addicts veins a break.



It has five other major ones as well:

3. It's legal.
4. It's extremely cheap to manufacture, cheaper than most OTC drugs, actually.
5. It can't be injected, so it breaks that habit as well.
6. It's pharmaceutically pure.
*7. It counteracts or nullifies the effects of most opiates.


The recitivism rate post treatment is quite high (not what I meant, wise guy!)
From the anectdotes I have heard and the clinical evidence I've examined, rehab treatment isn't what gets 'em off the horse.  Either the addict grows out of it or dies.



True in most cases, however lifelong methadone addiction is not an uncommon thing.

Many, if not most, rehabs are modeled off of 12 step programs, which are dismally ineffective in helping addicts quit.


The reason I am still in favor of clinics is the addict is more likely to stay out of trouble with the law, less likely to consort with the unsavory characters of the drug underworld, and far less likely to O.D. or contract hepatitis or HIV.  A competent methadone clinic will also provide therapeutic support and help the addict maintain the self-discipline it takes to take care of his or her own needs. 


Clinics are a good thing, but they also have major flaws. The big one is that there are not enough of them to treat all the addicts that need them. That's not a clinic's fault though, but is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Because methadone is so long acting (especially if one already has a substantial amount in his/her bloodstream), and because it is only available on the street from people who have prescriptions, methadone is also a black market drug. Methadone users, after a while of good behaviour and clean urinalyses, will get "take homes", which are pills for the weekends or holidays. Many sell these on Friday and buy heroin, and then go back on Monday and start taking the liquid methadone again. It's a cycle I've seen first hand and heard about too many times to be discounted as a non-issue.

*This can be good because the addict won't feel the high from opiates, but bad in that ODs are much more likely while taking methadone.


"and far less likely to O.D. or contract hepatitis"


Unfortunately, I know all too well about these aspects of previous heroin addiction...


Unfortunately, addicts who in their hearts don't really want to quit won't. 


Quitting is different for everyone. For me, waking up with a shot of Narcan and five paramedics over me, two days in the ICU, five digit medical bills and substantial legal trouble resulting from that day in October 04 prompted me to quit for good. I've been nearly three years off that sheesh. I'll be 32 tomorrow, and can't believe I was fudgeing stupid (or desperate) enough to waste the better part of my 20s chasing something that is akin to a Bunny Ranch mirage. Anywho, the past can't be undone, but I still have some cards left in the deck I can play.  You never know when a joker will give ya 5 deuces.  ;)

Ant

Decriminalizing or legalizing is one thing.  It would save a lot of money used on the war on drugs and free up a lot of jail space, so much so that maybe they could stop letting illegal aliens just walk free.  I get that argument.

Yep.


I don't get the argument of handing out the drugs free paid for by the U.S. taxpayers.  Why must government be involved?  When has the govenment ever done anything right or gotten involved in something and made it better?  I can see pharmacists selling them though.  Wouldn't that be enough to drive down the costs, save the taxpayers a ton of money and take the money out of the bad guys' hands?

:)  So the argument for you is not necessarily about drugs/anti-drug policy, but the usual government vs the market?  TBH, I'm not dogmatic about the modus operandi, be it government or private industry.  Whichever it happens to be, the controls applied must be fairly stringent - you don't want your private companies having any incentive to push drugs onto new users, otherwise nothing much will change: as I see it, the biggest cause and the hardest thing to deal with is the amount of money there is to be made out of selling drugs.  If a drugs policy could completely remove the financial incentive, there would be far fewer people getting addicted in the first place: those sorts of conditions may make it less appealing for private industry, though (if you see what I mean).

Just to stick in a PS: my biggest worry with going down the route of starving the drug barons of cash is their reaction to it.  ISTM that they won't simply take being deprived of new funds lying down, and any clinic/pharmacy is going to be at risk from these guys, and they do have rather a lot of cash at the moment.  Certainly in the short term the "war on drugs" could easily turn into the "war on drug lords"...

Because methadone is so long acting (especially if one already has a substantial amount in his/her bloodstream), and because it is only available on the street from people who have prescriptions, methadone is also a black market drug. Methadone users, after a while of good behaviour and clean urinalyses, will get "take homes", which are pills for the weekends or holidays. Many sell these on Friday and buy heroin, and then go back on Monday and start taking the liquid methadone again. It's a cycle I've seen first hand and heard about too many times to be discounted as a non-issue.


Ant



My friend, who is a counselor for a methadone clinic, talks about her clients* and their "take homes" and the various complications.  The pull for H get's so strong the addicts will indeed sell M for H, which, of course, leads to discrepancy in the methadone scrip and opiates in their systems.  They know for certain they're going to get busted, but they've got to have it, which indicates to me how powerful the addiction is.  I know if I had ever started, I wouldn't be here today.

Methadone is also an effective painkiller sometimes prescribed to patients are either allergic to opiates or have a history of opiate abuse; other times physicians determine methadone is simply the right drug and prescribe it

Sometimes addiction is lifelong.  In Britain some addicts (a fair number of whom were doctors) got a maintenance dose of medical heroin daily in perpetuity and led productive lives.  I don't think the British do that any more.  Anyway, I said the addict either grows out of it or dies--not of old age, but of overdose or health problems aquired via addiction--but some cases are lifelong.  The sad thing for the addict is all the pleasure vanishes and ingesting the drug becomes a routine to avoid the crippling withdrawal.

* No names, of course, confidentiality is a top priority.