If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   Prisoners set to win cash settlements from government after being unable to use heroin in jail, arguing cold turkey withdrawal was tantamount to assault   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 149
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

4344 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Nov 2006 at 1:51 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



149 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
cot
2006-11-13 02:47:29 AM
WaffenSS: You can also go ask most LEOs. Using drugs to bust people is an easier way of controlling gangs on the street, as well as other violent criminals.

Wow, you're really out there.

You're rebuttal to the argument that something is not inherently morally wrong and should not be illegal is that we should keep it illegal so that the police can use it as a tool to go after people who are breaking the law in other ways?

Hell, lets make breathing illegal, pretty much all criminals breathe last I heard, and they can more easily circumvent those pesky laws that keep them from busting down random doors and hauling people off for questioning.

As for LEOs, they are part of the whole flawed system, and I hardly expect them to have an objective rational perspective. Besides, it's not like they have a monopoly on common sense or morality.
 
2006-11-13 02:47:58 AM
WaffenSS, replace the word "drugs" with "race" in what you stated. If using an excuse to search for cause is reasonable, then either should be acceptable in your mind, right? Otherwise, what decides the differences for you?

Secondary causes are bullshiat reasons to launch unreasonable searches on people. If we're going to raise an issue, let's do it head-on. Scavanging for bullshiat reasons is a chicken-shiat attitude I won't support.
 
2006-11-13 02:48:00 AM
Shadow Blasko: Withdrawl can kill, and it can fark a body up just as much as the drug can. Any long time or high dose user should have a medically supervised clean up period.

Solution:

Don't get addicted. Don't go to jail. Doubly so, don't combine these two.

I suppose a volunteer program. The jackasses here who think that drug addicts deserve drugs in jail? You pay for it. You don't care enough to pay for it yourself but you do care enough to insist that the goverment pays for it instead? Congratulations, you're a textbook example of a farking moron.

/fark the crackheads
//fark the prisoners
 
2006-11-13 02:48:25 AM
WaffenSS: MWeather, planting evidence is bs, wrong, and illegal, and putting him away for drugs is legal and probably a good thing for the community.

Putting them away for a victimelss crime is bs and wrong too. The fact that it's legal is beside the point.
 
2006-11-13 02:49:30 AM
Ok, so I lied about the popping part.
 
2006-11-13 02:49:42 AM
Also, a drug arrest can lead to warrant (and if a car, a warrant isn't needed) were evidence for another crime can be found legally. Were if we could not search for drugs, we could also not find other evidence for other crimes.


Drugs are a "gateway" for information. You want some drugs to be illegal because it allows cops to be able to access things legally were otherwise it might be impossible, so i nreality keeping certain drugs illegal can be very helpful for law enforcement.


How very.... 'SS' of you.

You know what we should do? You should have to have a permit to own a computer or use the internet. I bet a lot of people doing illegal things would never get that permit, and then the police could use this to search their houses and find out what people are doing.

Fascist much?
 
2006-11-13 02:51:10 AM
theoretical pants, from your source:

"For example, the homicide rate begins rising about a decade before constitutional Prohibition takes effect, a fact that potentially reflects demographics (the enormous levels of immigration during the early part of this century), the violence-inducing effects of World War I, or perhaps merely changes in the sample of states used to compute homicide rates (Miron 1999)."
 
2006-11-13 02:52:03 AM
WaffenSS

You have got to be one of the most entertaining armchair solvers-of-the-worlds-problems posters on fark. I'm an avid follower of your work. It reads like satire.
 
2006-11-13 02:53:46 AM
howdoibegin, some of it is, some of it is devil's advocate.
 
2006-11-13 02:53:50 AM
rcain, I don't think that this is a strictly Republican matter, but I agree on almost everything you said. However, one must watch what one says about users. I personally know many hard drug users, and know that not all of them want to change. So, having a system set up would be the proper route, but how many examples have you heard where the patient goes through rehab just to wind up back on the streets?

WaffenSS Legalization will occur, at least up here in Canada. The government cannot control what they do not regulate. Soft drugs will eventually be leagalized for all citizens, namely marijuana. This is because the government knows that it won't be able to stop people from using it. Instead, why not make a profit? Alcohol and Tobacco should be taken away from people long before Marijuana ever was. And the violent criminals due to legalization point?
Say that all hard drugs are legalized. Which, just to set the record straight, I am NOT for. How many people do you know would suddenly stand up and say "Hey. That was a great glass of merlot. Lets get us some heroine, and beat up some hookers!" Wait. None. It wouldn't increase. You would only see the actual problem come to the surface of society which could be dealt with as it comes. Eg. Rehab and the what-have-you.

And cot, my good Farker, you owe me a new keyboard. Exactly what I was thinking.
 
2006-11-13 02:54:21 AM
darklordseth

You don't care enough to pay for it yourself but you do care enough to insist that the goverment pays for it instead? Congratulations, you're a textbook example of a farking moron.


What you're saying here is that everyone who doesn't personally and directly contribute money to the services that taxes pay for is a 'farking moron'.

Is that really what you're trying to say? Or do you want to clarify that so that it makes some sense?
 
2006-11-13 02:54:59 AM
howdoibegin, I love how people always say I am a Republican or try to use my name to belittle me. It's bloody funny.
 
2006-11-13 02:55:35 AM
MWeather
"Wait, you actually think using selective enforcement of a victimless crime as a pretext for a search that would otherwise be prevented by the 4th ammendment is a GOOD thing? Are you serious?"

You know, there are people who did vote for Bush both in 2001 AND 2004.
And thse same people seem to be A-OK with locking up all LIBERALS in concentration camps simply for being liberal. Because well, locking up people in concentration camps is the American way and being Liberal is the Godless Commie Pinko way.

So yeah, the good man is serious. But, I beg that you forgive him. He usually conducts himself in a far more polite and gentlemanly manner, as to be expected of any high-brow educated fellow of esteem. But he's been rather deep in his cups the last week seeing that his beloved Cosmopolitan Mecca of Montana has gone blue all of a sudden. A disturbing thing, truly.
 
2006-11-13 02:56:09 AM
darklordseth

Solution:

Don't get addicted. Don't go to jail. Doubly so, don't combine these two.


Are you familiar with the term moot? Whats next .. is the solution to not winning the Superbowl not to lose? Thats incredibly insightful of you.
 
cot
2006-11-13 02:56:53 AM
darklordseth: I suppose a volunteer program. The jackasses here who think that drug addicts deserve drugs in jail? You pay for it. You don't care enough to pay for it yourself but you do care enough to insist that the goverment pays for it instead? Congratulations, you're a textbook example of a farking moron.

Essentially, you're advocating the death penalty, randomly applied to some subset of the people arrested for being drug addicts, or even just alcoholics arrested for whatever crime (alcohol detox can kill).

Is that actually your intent?

The latter part of the quote above is pretty nonsensical. There are lots of times where it makes sense to advocate spending tax money on something even when you wouldn't just throw in your own contribution. Tax money is essentially guaranteeing that we all kick in a share, and enough money goes to it to fix the problem. If I donate $100 to fix the schools in my city, it amounts to jack shiat. If I vote to pass a bond measure which amounts to me paying $100 to fix our schools, along with every other property owner, the schools get fixed.
 
2006-11-13 02:57:18 AM
I remember something my father once told me... something about not feeding trolls, or somesuch. It sounded like complete bullshiat at the time, but the true meaning of it just hit me like a ton of bricks. Well, a ton of anything really.
 
2006-11-13 02:57:54 AM
GenesisExodus, I don't care if pot and certain fungi are legalized, I am actually for it. I am a totally for the use of hemp for industrial and commercial uses as well, was happy when hemp was finally legalized in California. It also sets a path for the total legality of marijuana.
 
2006-11-13 02:58:23 AM
darklordseth

Seriously, I don't get that kind of thinking. Do you actually believe that we put people in prison so that they are not in our way anymore?

Do you not understand that the idea is to help these people? Because it is the case. You can't just can people in a cell and forget about them. The justice system is not here to protect you by locking people away, it's there to protect you by preventing crimes using deterance and rehabilitation.
 
2006-11-13 03:01:27 AM
You can't help people who don't want to be helped.

It's funny that people say we should help criminals rehabilitate, but are against habilitating innocent Iraqis. ;)
 
2006-11-13 03:01:33 AM
darklordseth: Don't get addicted. Don't go to jail. Doubly so, don't combine these two.

Ahh, retroactive treatment. Excellent. When your time machine is working, please submit your treatment program with your patent form.

Addiction always has and always will happen. Doesn't mean the person is a throwaway. I don't think we need to cut them any extra checks, I think we can afford proper medical care for those we see fit to hold while they have a treatable medical condition.

Its just the right thing to do and you know it.

You just don't wanna pay for it.
 
2006-11-13 03:02:34 AM
Cluckles

I assumed that trolls would be more subtle. Am I expecting too much?
 
2006-11-13 03:03:29 AM
Not that it matters, but for the record, heroin withdrawal can't kill you. It's withdrawal from alcohol and benzos that will do you in. Heroin withdrawal is a sonofabiatch, but you'll live through it.

/agrees with the lawsuit, none-the-less
 
2006-11-13 03:04:31 AM
Cluckles, I agree.
img221.imageshack.us

/Does anyone have a spare "Do not feed the Trolls!" sign laying about?
 
2006-11-13 03:04:47 AM
WaffenSS: You can't help people who don't want to be helped.

If you're not trying to help them, and they haven't committed any other crimes, why put them in jail at all?
 
2006-11-13 03:06:44 AM
MWeather, if they haven't committed any other crimes, they usually aren't put in jail. They usually get sent to rehab, do some community service and are on probation. Which is fine by me. Just some bastards are dangerous to society, and those are usually the ones that go to jail.
 
2006-11-13 03:07:08 AM
btw some of you seem to be under the impression that these guys were in prison solely for using heroin - Very unlikely in the UK tot be so and not said in TFA.

These guys are likely criminals of all varieties (thieves, rapists murderers) who have heroin addiction too and are now suing as mentioned
 
2006-11-13 03:08:33 AM
WaffenSS: You can't help people who don't want to be helped.

You know as well as I do that we have no choice but to try. For the simple reason that we have no other choice. Here are your options:

a) Get rid of them for good, either by exile or death (immoral and unaceptable)
b) Stuff them in a cell and cross your fingers that when they come out, we will catch them again before they do anything too bad (akin to just keep the lid closed on that old leftover because you are afraid of what it has become)
c) Try to help them
 
2006-11-13 03:08:55 AM
WaffenSS: They usually get sent to rehab, do some community service and are on probation.

But that doesn't work if they don't want help. Why arrest them and compel them into taxpayer funded treatment if it's not likely it will help them?
 
2006-11-13 03:10:57 AM
Sohta, I am not against helping people who solely have a drug habit.
 
2006-11-13 03:11:49 AM
WaffenSS

Uh, youre talking about other posters there, right? I don't care about your name, your party affiliation, your race, sexual orientation, or favorite football team.

I do care when people seem to espouse views that put people in situations of extreme weakness or vulnerability in more vulnerability. Nobody here is advocating murder, but a person who is addicted to a drug, while they may only have themselves to blame, is still a living breathing person.

The problem I generally have with these threads is the concept that people are islands. This simplified notion that they are who they are, because they chose that. That millionaires are millionaires because they're hardworking earnest people, that drug addicts are drug addicts because they were too stupid to realize that, apparently, being a drug addict is not all wine and roses.

People like you and I affect other people to do things. We also are affected by other people. I am not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. A large portion of my salary goes towards taxes, and I'm absolutely 100% okay with that, because I benifit from the hard work of others, and people who havn't been exposed to the same role models and people who have helped me become who I am today don't deserved to be punished for partially circumstantial reasons. However, between jailing (or killing, as some obviously highly compassionate farker suggested earlier in the thread) drug addicts or providing medical, supervised care, I pick providing medical care.

The US has historically taken the line that if you punish drug users, the problem of addiction will go away. Or die out. Or whatever. Statistically, hasn't happened. Socially, hasn't happened. Culturally, hasn't happend. Many nations have figured out that perhaps if you view addicted people as a medical problem rather than a hostile problem, you pay more in taxes, but ultimately enjoy a higher quality of life. When the stakes are as high and ubiquitous as they are when it comes to drug addiction (your family, your neighbourhood, etc,) why does the concept of money being used to help rather than punish become such a hot button issue? I make a very good salary, lived in one of the worst drug addled neighbourhoods in downtown Toronto. I honestly believe that much of the attitude towards drug addiction is a 'not in my backyard, lalalala' attitude. It doesnt make the problem go away, and it certainly doesnt solve it. If you feel that massive incarceration rates is a good solution to social ills, you may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater for the sake of your blip of an existance on the long road of history and human suffering.
 
2006-11-13 03:12:30 AM
GenesisExodus
No, nothing is ever black and white, but clearly on the whole, the US Republicans more than any US Social group would like to see any and all forms of Social Welfare in this country either erradicated or severely hindered.

And yes, you are quite right, there are may people who do not want help or who get help and just return back to the patterns of addiction.

For those people, it is also a societrial and mental thing. No one doctor (unless very gifted) may treat those, they need a barrage or mental health care for their societary views, drug treatment and social rehabilitation to a degree that not only gives them job skills but takes them out of their "known" environment into a new place wth new people and a bit of a hope for a future. And you know what? You can do all that and there will still be those that fall right back into that pattern.

However, we don't smirk at the Educator at the University who says that if he can truly reach even one student during his tenture, his job has been a success. The fact that there are systems in place that can and do effect change and there are people who are truly concerned with providing those systems and working with those in need is enough I would think to provide no excuse to the State as to the denial of those systems to the inmates in their care who are in need.
 
2006-11-13 03:12:33 AM
MWeather, because it is the right thing to do, I think that is only fair for all victimless crimes. Now, once given the chance to change, and they don't, then their ass is grass.
 
2006-11-13 03:12:41 AM
WaffenSS:Sohta, I am not against helping people who solely have a drug habit.

Conviniently, it's the criminals that I'm talking about here.
 
2006-11-13 03:13:46 AM
WaffenSS who is against helping the people in Iraq through real measures in this thread? You're throwing together a specious argument without a proper connection.

Personally we need to decriminalize all possession of any drugs. Drug usage during crimes creates mandatory fines to the punishment. Trafficking, unlicensed production, distribution, etc., are all punishable, as would any medical supplies, food, and so forth. Legalize Marijuana, Mushrooms, and whatever others feel is appropriate based on studies for degeneration to the body. Notice that possession of non-legalized drugs over and between specific amounts (such as if you are carting around four bricks of heroin, lets face the facts...but if you have a baggy then nothing is said) do not amount to intent to distribute, but can be confiscated.

As well, we need to rehabilitate any prisoners we can, especially afford services to offenders who are not overtly violent or specifically non-violent offenders, as well as drug users. The money we expend here to get low risk offenders back into society, with a job, will be returned to us in the future by not having to pay for prison cells and upkeep, officer's time and such supplies, as well as in taxes back from them. Not to mention, the reason we are willing to pay for officers is to help keep us safe, if I can have them stop expending so much effort on people who do not threaten me, perhaps they will be more available on call to larger disturbances and threat to my direct safety, as well as helping to clean impoverished neighborhoods.

I would be willing to pay higher taxes to help non to low violent criminals become rehabilitated, find suitable jobs, and release the stigma of being in jail. It will turn back to me in enough time. Just removing the war on drugs mentality will help us, and even more than that, I would rather funnel that money into their children's education, I live around many nice public schools and a couple of private schools, the money would not be back here, but better educated children means less necessity for crime. That alone will help to pay for itself.
 
2006-11-13 03:13:50 AM
howdoibegin: Many nations have figured out that perhaps if you view addicted people as a medical problem rather than a hostile problem, you pay more in taxes, but ultimately enjoy a higher quality of life.

Actually, treatment is cheaper than prison, and has a lower rate of recidivism.
 
2006-11-13 03:17:08 AM
Sohta I would like to make a couple of seemingly random points. Well, at least one.

a) Get rid of them for good, either by exile or death (immoral and unaceptable)

Immoral? Unacceptable? Maybe by today's standards. My great-grandfather told me a story about growing up in the Western USA. He used to tell me that they either sent people off for good, or shot 'em dead. The only people who went to jail were the minor offeneders. Usually the drunks from the late night partying. But you know, they never had any problems with serial murders, rapists, etc. Because anyone who tried it was dead.

Immoral? Only because we as a society have softened up on criminals. Don't even bother to tell me that I am wrong. I'll just laugh. It's foolish to believe otherwise. Kids are killing kids on the streets, and getting a couple months in Juvenile Dentention. Drug dealers get a slap on the wrist! No one can do wrong anymore. It's that attitude that's killing our standards. Grow a pair, and start realizing that not everyone has "A special silver lining in their heart, where a good person exists, and not a criminal."


Unacceptable? Maybe to you pal.
 
2006-11-13 03:20:17 AM
WaffenSS:

MWeather, because it is the right thing to do, I think that is only fair for all victimless crimes. Now, once given the chance to change, and they don't, then their ass is grass.

Why should they be punished if they don't want help?
 
2006-11-13 03:21:44 AM
howdoibegin, I think you might have understood me, I can be pretty over the top (damn drama class... I kid I kid... maybe).

I do not have a problem with helping addicts rehabilitate, if they so choose, I do have a problem with paying for said addicts addiction in the fact I would essentially be paying for his habit to continue.

These guys may suffer pain, but they would will not die. I would love to see evidence showing how an addict died from going coldturkey.

I have seen people die by smashing their own heads against a wall, but, some of those weren't drug addicts (though my their actions it would seem otherwise). They just had mental issues that even with large amounts of care and supervision would eventually succumb to in one way or another.

Some people should not be allowed into society with out restraints of some form.

My problem is not with being addicted to something, but their actions they take for their addiction. Some people went through college, became educated, got a good paying job and could pay for their addiction. Other people do not do that, so they have to pay for things criminally.

It's a social problem that is difficult to solve in any society. It is also hard to fathom for some that many people are just lazy and don't want to help themselves. Others do, but do not have the opportunity. Those who do not get the opportunity are the ones we should give it to, and if they do not accept it, then we do not have to accept them.
 
2006-11-13 03:22:45 AM
">media.kmeg14.com

They could always go of to a place they'd be welcomed with flowers but probably not as liberators
 
2006-11-13 03:23:19 AM
I expect if pot is legalized that quality "independant" growers will be taxed/legislated out of legal existance once again. Watch them say you need a $5,000 license, a razor wire fence, full-time security and certified accountant to be able to grow an ounce. And it's taxed at $50/quarter oz.

Monsanto prompty patents all the strains, and either sues the growers or pushes to make other strains illegal.

All pot will then be sold through Wal-Mart and some sort of StarPots franchise, who then conspire to keep independants from ever being able to operate any more legally than they do now.

You can't fight the future, and you can't win.
 
2006-11-13 03:25:04 AM
Vangor, I agree we should offer rehibilation to those that are low to non violent.
 
2006-11-13 03:28:12 AM
GenesisExodus you, as many people who believe that there is such a thing as a soft on crime mentality, fail to realize that rehabilitation does not mean we treat them politely and with a silver platter until they come around. Education has always been the greatest advantage anyone can recieve as well as the largest deterence for anything negative within society. Harmful drug use, poverty, crime, disease, health, etc., can be lowered through proper attempts to educate, rather than all of the useless tax money we have being spent in this day and age on programs which do not help towards education at all.

All of them have done wrong, the point is to not waste money on them through officers, or sitting in jail, trials, etc., and to have them back and functioning within society to have taxable sources of income.

If we "exile" them then they will become a problem in other neighborhoods, and no nation will stand by allowing others to send criminals across their borders. If we simply decide to kill them, do you honestly trust the government, even before the destruction of habeas corpus, even without police planting evidence, racial prejudice and profiling, poor witness testimony, and prosecutorial misconduct, do you believe that the jury has never been wrong in cases where there is simply evidence that you could have? Now with all of those things, I sure as hell do not want them to be able to execute anyone, I do not care what they have done, it is not worth the risk of allowing us to execute absolutely any criminals by opening the doors, as we have now, to killing anyone innocent of those charges. Let them rot in jail for the remainder of their life and attempt to prove their evidence. I do not doubt that we will make errors and some will be innocent and die in prison sadly, but we need to at least take an obvious step to fix the situation.
 
2006-11-13 03:31:12 AM
WaffenSS:I would love to see evidence showing how an addict died from going coldturkey.

"Methadone and Buprenorphine, both semi-synthetic narcotic opiates, were developed as a way to minimize the drug's severe withdrawal symptoms. In the worst cases, this withdrawal can even cause death."

http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/drugs/heroin.asp

Took me less than a minute to find with Google.

My problem is not with being addicted to something, but their actions they take for their addiction.

Then simply arrest, try and jail them for those actions.

Some people went through college, became educated, got a good paying job and could pay for their addiction. Other people do not do that, so they have to pay for things criminally.

All the more reason to legalize it, thus lowering prices to where it's affordable by all.

Those who do not get the opportunity are the ones we should give it to, and if they do not accept it, then we do not have to accept them.

Offer voluntary treatment, arrest the ones who commit real crimes with real victims, and leave the rest the hell alone.

Why do they need to be punished for not wanting help?
 
2006-11-13 03:35:40 AM
Shadow Blasko: Addiction always has and always will happen. Doesn't mean the person is a throwaway.

No, but it's not an excuse for people to completely start disregarding their personal responsibility and expect the rest of society to pay up for their personal failure.

You just don't wanna pay for it.

Damn right I don't want to pay for it. And by looking at remarks above by other people, no one really wants to pay for it. Instead, they're expecting society to pick up the tab instead.

Ah well, I support the legalization of drugs anyways. Mere users aren't criminals and if the junk gets cheap enough through local growth/refining/whatever, people don't have to commit crimes to get their fix and their won't be much of a taboo surrounding users of said drugs. It will also clear up jails so we can actually stuff in people who actually did do something nasty. Win-win solution.
 
2006-11-13 03:38:28 AM
WaffenSS
I say give them the farking needles, and then OD the bastards, cheaper then paying for them over the years.

Agreed.

So who gets to inject Rush Limbaugh?

Oh wait, you mean poor non Republican drug addicts?
 
2006-11-13 03:40:50 AM
MWeather, there is a correlation between violence and addiction. Police often use the addiction to arrest to prevent and increase time for the violence.

Life isn't black and white, it's a shiatload of grey.
 
2006-11-13 03:41:36 AM
rga184, I'd inject Rush Limbaugh, so what's your point?
 
2006-11-13 03:46:02 AM
WaffenSS: MWeather, there is a correlation between violence and addiction.

Correlation /= causation. Take away the criminal element inherent in the drug market, and you'll see a lot less addicts comiting crime. You don't see alcoholics stealing car stereos. They don't have the black market connections to fence the stuff en mass, and their drug of choice is cheap enough they could buy it collecting spare change.

Alcoholics do have a higher rate of violence, but it pales in comparison to the amount of violence and criminality such a huge black market creates.

Police often use the addiction to arrest to prevent and increase time for the violence.

Yes, and we've already discussed why that is a bad thing.
 
2006-11-13 03:47:21 AM
Screw Rush, who injects Bush's alcoholic ass? Or all the smokers?
 
2006-11-13 03:49:15 AM
Vangor, I was merely making an over-zealous point on the softness of society towards hardened criminals. I do agree that we can't go killing everyone we deem "violent/dangerous to society". Who is to determine who dies and who doesn't? However, I do not believe that capital punishment should be abandoned altogether. If it can be proven, beyond any sort of doubt, that this person should not be on our Earth, then remove that person. But, do not forget that ours (Canada and the US)'s problem of overcrowded jails. I don't have an answer for that issue, but I do know that all things being taken into account, some people definately deserve to rot there forever. Stronger laws on repeat violent offenders perhaps? I'm not sure of the United States laws on the subject.

But I will say that additction is something terrible. I myself have been through the phases of it, and have been clean for sometime. I also know that there are MANY people who are only in rehab because they have to be. Some of these people, not all of them of course, don't give a shiat about rehab. They just love the escape and the high that an illicit drug can offer.

WaffenSS, here's the needle. Proceed with Limbaugh's injection as soon as you can.
 
Displayed 50 of 149 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report