Wednesday, June 21, 2017

"Ohio ... will see 10,000 overdoses [resulting in death] by the end of 2017"


That's the forecast from a coroner in that state.  (A tip o' the hat to Tamara for linking to the article.)

Overdoses are the leading cause of death for Americans under 50 — they now claim more lives than car crashes, gun deaths and the AIDS virus did at their peaks.

In Ohio, it has sent the death toll surging. According to data from the Montgomery County coroner, 365 people died of drug overdoses from January through and May of this year; 371 people died of such causes in all of last year.

On any given day, Montgomery County sheriff's deputies respond to multiple overdose calls and are equipped with Narcan, or naloxone, a nasal spray that counteracts the effects of a drug overdose.

Each deputy carries two doses, but that isn't always enough to save lives. One deputy said that more than 20 doses were needed to revive a recent victim and that victims often don't survive.

The death toll has overwhelmed the coroner, who tests for more than two dozen varieties of fentanyl during autopsies, and the county morgue's body cooler is consistently filled with overdose victims.

Coroner Kent Harshbarger estimates that ... the state will see 10,000 overdoses by the end of 2017 — more than were recorded in the entire United States in 1990.

There's more at the link.

That's an absolutely ghastly statistic . . . but in all honesty, what effective means are there to change it?  Prohibition has manifestly not worked.  Since the so-called 'War on Drugs' kicked off in 1971, illegal and prescription narcotics have become much more prevalent, and much easier to get, than ever before.  The 'War on Drugs' has ended in defeat, whether officials like to admit it or not - so why continue it?  Einstein famously defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".  By that standard, the 'War on Drugs' is insane.  Period.

Of course, there's another side to the 'War on Drugs' - it makes it much harder for those of us who need prescription narcotics (including yours truly) to get them.  Restrictions on the legitimate prescribing of such drugs have made it more and more onerous and expensive for us to obtain them.  I wrote some years ago about the problems involved in getting them in Tennessee.  Texas is a bit easier, but I still have to see the doctor every three months to get my prescription renewed - and hand over a co-payment every time.  I'm fortunate, because I can afford that;  but I know others who need their prescriptions just as badly as I do, but can't afford such repeated doctor visits.  We have the 'War on Drugs' to thank for that.

I've seen the effect of prolonged drug use on the convicts with whom I worked as a prison chaplain.  Those of you who've read my memoir of those years will recall the self-proclaimed 'Sam the Sex God', who'd fried his brain on PCP when he was a teenager, and now had little or no control over his emotions or feelings.  He was far from alone.  I shudder to think how many there are like him in our prisons - and how many who are not in prison, but walking the streets, with a potentially very dangerous lack of self-control.

From a humane, moral and ethical standpoint, I simply can't recommend letting addicts die of their overdoses, rather than bring them back with Narcan . . . but from a practical standpoint, a number of law enforcement officers with whom I've spoken about the problem have no qualms about recommending such an approach.  One told me that he'd 'jump-started' (his term) one particular addict no less than seven times in the past month.  "Why should I do it an eighth time?" he demanded.  "All he'll do is go out and steal something else, to pay for the ninth high - and then we'll be off to the races again."  I find it hard to argue against that.

Ten thousand deaths this year, in just one state.  How many more in other states?  How many in the USA as a whole?  How long can this insanity continue?  Is it even remotely possible to stop it - and if so, how?

Your guess is as good as mine . . .

Peter

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, for starters, make drugs which effectively fight opiate addiction more available. Naltrexone and Suboxone are nearly impossible to abuse, but still damned hard to get. My son's Suboxone required a $300 doctor visit and a $524 prescription every month!

Judy said...

Is this some of the results of raising a bunch of snowflakes? Or having the means to rescue overdose cases in the first place? Before drugs like Narcan they simply died from the first overdose and it was over-n-done. The reason for Narcan type drugs is the hope you can intervene and stop the destructive behavior. Plus the mental health of the person doing the rescuing. The truth is the vast majority of people with addictions won't stop whatever it is they are addicted to until they destroy themselves or others, be it alcohol, drugs, food or religion.

Vicki said...

My brother was one of those who folks think are not worth saving. His addictions were horrifying. But he beat them - mostly on his own. He now has a lovely wife, several children and grandchildren. He works every day to take care of his family. He has become one of the best people I know.

I have no answers to the problem of drug abuse. I just know that I never, ever gave up on him, even after several times where he could have died from an overdose. Each life of an addict is worth at least trying to save. I now have a brother who is also my best friend. There is always hope.

Anonymous said...

Lets see, the State thinks these people should be saved at the same time the State is doing all it can to destroy them. Reminds me of the sampan scene in apocalypse now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf8RY88NGkE

Anonymous said...

We need to stop worrying about what people WILLFULLY choose to do to themselves.
This is more of that "white guilt" BS that is destroying America. You can bet
the farm that black people don't cry over junkies killing themselves unless
it's one of their relatives. White America needs to stop wasting time, money and effort saving those hell bent on self destruction. This includes alcoholics, junkies and all other will full and chosen activities that everyone knows is harmful yet they still engage in.

It is NOT OUR PROBLEM. People who kiss rattlesnakes need to be allowed to die....not cost society tens of thousands in ER costs. People who make choices need to pay for those choices.....not expect rational people to pick up the tab. The movie Idiocracy
was not fiction...it was prophecy. (If you haven't seen it YouTube has the opening scenes available, watch it and see what I mean). We need to allow reality to dictate
outcomes and stop spending untold resources tilting at windmills.

Cedar said...

That is the county I live in. I have a lot of thoughts on the War on Drugs, have had conversations in classes about it with police, former police, a prosecutor's assistant, and a judge. No one that I've ever met in Law Enforcement likes it. The paper I wrote on Plea Bargaining was drawn from multiple sources and studies showing that the cost not just in physical health but in lives destroyed, state costs in prison, prosecution, and public service is horrifically high. It's not a tenable situation for much longer, I believe.

Old NFO said...

The more pointed question is, how many innocent people will die as these druggies get more and more desperate? Or when they drive stoned? Or burn the house down?

Eric Wilner said...

The impression I got when I followed Tam's link yesterday was that a large part of the problem is the wildly inconsistent composition and dosage of street drugs - so that a nominal dose of "heroin" could contain anything from no heroin at all, to the expected dose plus customary filler, to pure heroin, to a mixture of heroin and fentanyl.
So it's really easy to end up with a lethal dose of mixed narcotics instead of a recreational dose.
This, at least, wouldn't be a problem if pharmacies were peddling genuine Bayer brand Heroin at a competitive price. What other problems that might bring (or solve) is another question entirely.
And, looking at some of the anecdotes involving fentanyl and carfentanil? I immediately think "chemical warfare agent" - and it seems the Russians, at least, have tried using carfentanil as a nominally-less-lethal weapon, with mixed results, especially in the "less-lethal" department. That stuff might have some seriously scary potential in the hands of evildoers.

Glen Filthie said...

Ayup. NFO raises the point - let's do a body count. No bleeding hearts, no hand wringing, no sanctimonious lectures and virtue signalling.

With all due respect to Vicki above, it should be a simple matter to see how many innocents are hurt by addicts and factoring them into an objective study.

Duterte in the Phillipines is killing addicts out of hand and a lot of people like what he's doing. If addicts are only going to kill themselves and innocents it might actually be a good idea to ramp the war on drugs up. The thought of our seniors going without critical care and resources for their health care because while we break the bank on derelicts and zombies... Where are the ethics in that?

Barry Needham said...

There is something very odd going on here. It makes no sense for the dealers and supply chain to kill their customers with very high doses of stuff like fentanyl. You might think the dealers have no sense, but the supply chain, the cartels do; they are stone cold capitalists

I'm wondering if there isn't a spook/DEA operation poisoning the supply chain. That has happened before in a big way. The US and European governments killed thousands, maybe 10's of thousands by denaturing alcohol. Hundreds of thousands more suffered irreversible injuries including blindness and paralysis.

Chris Nelson said...

Life is about choices. And these are not uniformed abusers. Like the criminals that play the crime lottery, drug users choose the substance lottery knowing it was a dangerous path.

Of all the hard core users in my family, friends, circle of acquaintances and their larger circles known to me, only two people out of dozens have kicked the habit(s) and made something of themselves. Massive damages have been done,jobs lost, homes destroyed and innocents injured or killed. Tens of millions of dollars wasted on care, repair, prison, lawyers and funerals. Addicts have pimped their children for a "fix". This happened in my extended family
...

Give the addict on chance for redemption maybe two,. After that it's evolution in action.

Anonymous said...

Peter, Tennessee has thrown another stumbling block in--a minor one, but still an embuggerance.
I dropped off a prescription the other day via the drive-through window, and the pleasant lady asked me for my ID. Thinking her mistaken, I said "I'm dropping off, not picking up", whereupon she said that due to a newly-enacted law, one must display ID when dropping off a prescription (mine was for pain medication; I don't know all the conditions requiring ID).
So, if one of my disabled family members wants me to drop off his or her prescriptions so that they can pick it up later, I have to show ID? Is it for age, or must it be the person for whom the scrip is written? I don't yet know. I was a bit annoyed, although I remained courteous: it wasn't the lady's fault. As with "gun control", TN decided to do something about opiate abuse, instead of something that might make sense.
I was born here, have spent most of my civilian life here, & intended to die here, in God's own good time, but they are making it difficult to stay. If only I could stand flat land, I'd be not far from a beach, but I'm a hillbilly. I get nervous after about 3 days without trees on the horizon with roots higher up than I am.
That will eventually fix itself, of course.
--Tennessee Budd

Will said...

Eric and Barry raise a good point about inconsistent quality of the product.

You can be damn sure the cartels would not be so stupid as to deliberately drive away/kill their customers with bad product. No one directly working for them would do it. They know what the penalties would entail.
The cost and access of these substitute drugs can be followed. The .gov won't bother, until a DC gathering of political players gets tagged and bagged.
How widespread is the problem? Only here in the US?

It is most likely getting mixed after transport into the country. You have wholesale, transport, distribution, and retail. I'm sure that inspection of drug quality at various levels of drug seizures would pinpoint at what stage they are being badly adulterated.
Simply passing this info on to the cartels would address the current problem.

The real question is whether this is being orchestrated by some arm of the .gov, as a misguided attempt to change social behaviour here. Could also be some other government wanting to do some harm.

TheOtherSean said...

I find myself thinking about the drug epidemic more and more as I observe what passes for driving in Ohio these days. After discounting cell phone distractions, being high seems like the simplest explanation for the vast increase in bad driving I've been seeing.

Antibubba said...

I grew up in Montgomery County. This was home. it's heartbreaking.

The problem with cheering Darwinism is that it rarely hits just one person. It's a wide-area impact, as this story should illustrate:

http://wdtn.com/2017/01/19/daytons-murder-rate-per-capita-higher-than-chicagos/

It's impossible to not see a link. Letting people indiscriminately OD isn't moral, nor is imprisoning them or making it all completely legal. No smug answers tonight.

LCB said...

Crime in my little town situated between Cincy and Dayton has zoomed with the advent of Section 8 housing. Most of it is petty theft as users steal for stuff to sell to feed their habit.

But heroin doesn't "stay" in Section 8 neighborhoods. Increasingly it's affecting the whole town as kids try it to be "cool" with their friends.

Today's heroin is not your father's heroin. It's much stronger/purer! Addiction is almost 100% for those inclined to addictions. Unfortunately, most of us don't know if we're "inclined" that way.

Oh, and don't give drug cartels too much credit for being smart. Ruthless, yes, but not always so smart. We've all been watching too many procedural cop shows...

takirks said...

The America electorate has already held a plebiscite in reference to drugs. They want them. Fighting that desire makes about as much sense as trying to hold back the tide.

We went down this road with alcohol, and we got the disaster of the Prohibition. Why the hell it's taken us this long to relearn the lesson is beyond me--An addict is the only person that can make the decision to quit, just like they are the only person who makes the choice to start.

You want to fight the drug war? Good for you, but you're recapitulating the whole King Canute story. The only real solution here, in my opinion, is legalization, making the stuff available through carefully managed production and distribution centers, and calling it all good. A lot of these idiots would be semi-functional members of society, if the damn drugs were consistent and reliably available.

The only way to fix this problem is to let it work itself out. The addiction-prone are going to become addicts, and the rate of addiction is pretty much flat across all the eras. Those that won't allow themselves to become addicts will continue to avoid the problem, and those who are susceptible to the siren's call will continue to hear it. It's that simple--You have to make a choice to put that crap into your body, and then allow it to control you. If you refrain, then you won't become an addict. If you do make the choice, you'll be one--Simple as that.

Tucson Scott said...

Yup - thanks primarily to the misguided War on Drugs (tm), getting high in this country is a total crapshoot, and not something that the supply chain can be held accountable for. Yeah, killing off your customers is a bad business model, but do you really think the junky street-level "retailers" who are just trying to move enough product to fund their next fix are students of capitolist theory?

At least its a self-solving problem. Addicts tend not to last long, they either smarten up and quit, as many of my friends have (child of the 60s here), or don't and die, as too many of my other friends have over the years.

Dan said...

Logically suppliers don't want to kill off paying customers.....but that doesn't mean they won't supply fentanyl/carfentfanyl if that's what the market demands. And Breaking
Bad aside (an interesting but totally unrealistic look at drug society) most dealers are clever perhaps but not that smart and certainly not well versed in science,math and accurate measuerments. Transpose a decimal point a place or two and dose is increased a thousand or even ten thousand percent. Such medication errors have happened in hospitals by trained professionals, a nervous pusher could easily make such a mistake....and kill people. However the vast majority of people who kill themselves don't harm others by their death aside from grieving family. We need to allow Darwin actions to succeed. Stop wasting our finite resources on lost causes. Junkies seldom clean up and the few that do do it by choice, not because some judge or twelve step program caused it. Stop wasting money on lost causes. You can't save everyone, especially those who don't want saving. Let's spend our money where it will make a difference.

Anonymous said...

Oh that we could go back to the days when one could walk into a pharmacy and buy morphine, amphetamines, opium tinctures, cannabis extracts, blood pressure meds or whatever you pleased and walk out the door with it. You could order through the mail for that matter. I can see more of a compelling argument for requiring a prescription for antibiotics than I do for morphine.

We have approximately the same percentages of addicts in society pre prohibition as we do now. What we have now though is a multilayered multibillion, probably trillion dollar+ a year industry built on prohibition and the trade and use of illegal drugs. From the manufacturers to the distributors to the dealers to the users. Probably the most pernicious and costly aspects of prohibition, both in terms of dollars and Liberty lost, is the governments vital interest in continuing the illegal drug trade. From the regulators and bureaucrats, the dea, state and local law enforcement, multijurisdictional task forces, the court industry, the legal industry, the corrections industry. How many of those people owe their jobs and wealth to the trade and use of illegal drugs? I've seen personally how drug money and taxpayer money used for fighting the "drug war" have corrupted the legal system and turned peace officers into corrupt heavily armed shakedown thugs. I've seen stuff I thought was just made up for sensational tv and movies but it was happening in my own county and state and involved people who I looked up to and who I naively believed were beyond reproach. The corruption was just breathtaking. Listen to the Lester Eugene Siler tapes. That level of stuff and worse. I've learned things that if I was asked under oath about I would deny seeing or knowing anything about for the simple reason that I'd be afraid of the repercussions to myself and especially my family. Not from drug dealers mind you but from the supposed good guys. Even the most basic parts of the "justice" system get corrupted by it. Actual example: Oh you've been victimized by Joe Blow the meth head? Aww that's too bad. We won't prosecute him in your case though because he's such a good snitch for the task force. Your case doesn't bring in asset forfeiture and grant money but all these petty drug arrests sure do. Sorry you're out over 100,000 dollars and have had your life and the lives of your family threatened on multiple occasions but we have other priorities.

It's an unmitigated disaster on multiple levels and unfortunately I don't see it ever getting any better. Don't get me started on how this has affected the poor souls with chronic pain. That's a post just in itself.

Evan Price said...

Narcan should be $1000 a dose, cash up front.

Sounds cold.
Guess it is.
These people went into heroin knowing its addictive and deadly. They made that choice. They are trying to find that perfect high again and again and it needs more and more to get there.

I have a heroin addict in my family. This person has lied and stolen and pimped themselves and hurt so many people.

I've become deaf to the cries of sympathy for the druggies.
Unless they themselves make the choice to stop and get help and really actually mean it and stick to it, there's nothing you or I or anyone else can do.

If they don't want help- Let them burn.

Anonymous said...

Lots of worthy comments. Attempts to control or stamp out dangerous recreational drug usage to date have failed and greatly distorted society. That said, I just cannot see where allowing these drugs would be a solution. I know of no society in history that has survived let alone thrived and advanced when the government sanctioned or permitted drug usage on a wide scale. If anyone knows of one, please let me know in the comments. If you think the US will be different from all of human history, please let me know that, as well. Addiction and death do not limit themselves to the sad side of town and "surplus people".

Bibliotheca Servare said...

Oh, I don't know, the Roman Empire? America? The British Empire? Until recently the US had no, or little, restrictions on drug sales and purchases. Hell, if you'd bothered to read the comments before yours, you would have seen a comment by a fellow who *remembers* a time when you could get morphine without any need for a prescription, or "permission" from the State. Sherlock Holmes famously used cocain because when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle created the character, it was perfectly legal to buy and use. But we all know what a failure the British Empire was, don't we? And the USA...well, obviously it was a dumpster fire before those particular freedoms were stripped from the citizenry, wasn't it?

TL;DR: you are an arrogant, ignorant fool, and you ought to make at least a minor effort to educate yourself before opening your (figurative) mouth. And the Government has no business telling *any* citizen what they can or cannot do to themselves. I loathe "recreational" drugs, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to put a gun to people's heads to stop them from using those drugs. And I'm certainly not willing to slaughter innocents in exchange for ineffectually "doing something" about the drug use "epidemic". Your evident "reluctant" position is in favor of *both* those evils. The drug war *has* caused the slaughter of innocents, including innocent children, with no positive result other than making people like yourself feel Righteous and Noble. And any time the State makes a thing illegal, it is -unquestionably- putting a gun to the heads of the citizenry to keep them from doing that thing.

TL;DR, again: no, the US *won't* be "different from all of human history" my pompous, vacuous friend.  Just like the British Empire, and America in the past, we will be just fine after returning to the freedom that American citizens used to have. *You* might be unhappy, but I think I'm okay with that. ...yep, definitely okay with it. Have a nice day! :-)

pardon the tone please, Mr. Grant, but this "anonymous"...individual is spouting purest nonsense and deceit, coupled with a great deal of self-confident ignorance. That pairing...vexes me. Thoroughly.

Eric Wilner said...

Regarding incentives not to kill customers: I invoke Hanlon's Razor, and suggest that incompetence and heavy drug use in the last couple of levels of the distribution chain (especially rogue/freelance dealers) plus detailed misinformation on drugs and their effects (more easily spread now than ever) could account for the dangerously inconsistent products.
Also, while the wholesale supplies of genuine heroin and cocaine may be tightly controlled by established cartels, the synthetic nasties (which don't require the ability to control cropland) may be produced anywhere, by little pop-up businesses out to make the quickest buck possible and with no long-term production nor distribution structures to maintain - so neither the incentive nor the ability for retail-level quality control.

And now, a couple of drug(-policy)-related anecdotes:
A few years back, I worked with a guy who was a regular pot smoker. Since a family tragedy some years earlier, he'd been prone to terrible nightmares, so the only way he could be even marginally functional was to smoke some pot every night. This seemed to be working; he was holding a real job with a moderate level of responsibility. After a while, though, I heard that he'd sworn off the weed; this may have been in response to a workplace drug testing program (the company was a government contractor). Not long after that, I heard he'd been fired, but of course I didn't get the story behind it.
Somewhat more recently, an old friend I hadn't seen in a while reported that he'd succumbed to the siren call of the crack pipe, but managed to drag himself back away from it. Seems that use of such powerful stimulants is common across all social classes around here (Silicon Valley): he'd witnessed it among working-class friends, and, having Been There, was suddenly recognizing the symptoms among managers and executives.
So when you read of some inexplicable behavior by the High and Mighty, "What are they smoking???" may in fact be exactly the right question.

Unknown said...

I don't think drugs would be nearly as big a problem if we still had the social capital of stable families, stable communities, service groups actively trying to better their communities, active church participation, and a common morality.

There were alcoholics and opium addicts back then, too. But it wasn't nearly as big a problem.

How to fix it?
I don't think we can.

Hllbillygirl G said...

I'm working ER in this county. The overdoses at my small hospital are nonstop; we're even getting dump-n-runs now, something we never had before.
And every junkie I get, I ask. To a person, the women all vociferously deny using (spiderbites), their families get up in our faces at the very suggestion. Most of the guys, however, are pretty upfront about it, and when I ask how it started, Every. Single. One. has said it started with pain pills, usually from our ER. Dr Candyman hands out narcotics like confetti; they ask for him by name when they sign in.
The problem: our policy is to give the drug seekers whatever they ask for, because Press-Gainey Surveys. All hospital reimbursement is based on these stupid surveys now, and we can't afford to piss off a drug seeker...
As for the source? We're nobodies, living in flyover country. We have no idea where it is all coming from, and in such huge quantities. The explanation, "oh, you have two major interstates," doesn't fly; interstates are everywhere else too. The ubiquity of the heroin really makes me think back about some program the CIA had to dump crack in the inner cities to fund the Contras back in the 1980s. There's really no good explanation for the sudden appearance of an exotic drug that doesn't even grow here, showing up in such volume. You'd have thought that if somebody simply wanted to make money, they'd have picked a bigger city, not a bunch of people in corn country.

Don said...



This isn't about the War on Drugs. Alcohol and pot have been around forever, and will always be around.

This isn't about inconsistent quality of street drugs from cartels.

This is a manufactured problem: manufactured by the Big Pharma industry. This is synthetic pain pills manufactured, distributed, prescribed, and sold in quantities far, far in excess of any reasonable need. Millions of doses per year in small states.

This is greedy Big Pharma, protected by their lobbyists in DC and by the advertising revenue they provide to the media.

Tim B said...

Wow. Lots of great comments and perspectives. Mt guess. The fentynal is made in India as lots of meth is. Then shipped to Mexico and then across our boarder. Obama/Clinton DHS loyalists keep the money machine going. As for overcomming addiction? I have band-aid encouragements. Get a job. Call your Mom and/or family every day. Carry no cash. Pray. God bless you.

tweell said...

My bet is that this is more fentanyl (and the numerous variations thereof) than heroin. The wild variations in strength would fit with not mixing the small amount of fentanyl through the 'batch' evenly, or with a synthesis run without controls and testing. When micrograms can make the difference between nothing and overdosing, pushers are especially not your friend.

My only worry about legalizing drugs are minors. Pedos routinely give alcohol and tobacco to their marks, but are usually afraid to purchase harder drugs. If these become legal and easy to obtain, this would no longer apply. A child addicted to opiates would be much easier to control, and be much less likely to beat that addiction.

Make the law against giving such to (especially prepubescent) children much harsher, please. Often the adults caught giving drugs to minors are given lesser sentences or probation. Addictions acquired in childhood, like child abuse, will cause lifelong problems.

Borepatch said...

I was going to comment here but it turned into a post:

https://borepatch.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-stupid-war-on-drugs.html

Bottom line, 40 years and $1 T has left us with more deaths each year than we suffered in the entirety of World War II. Each year. Every year.

This is a stupid game and we should stop playing it.

Bibliotheca Servare said...

And raise the standard of proof required for a conviction accordingly. Also, explicitly define "giving". Does that mean only deliberately providing such drugs to minors? Or should a person who has a crippling disease be given 20 years in prison because one of their child's friends raided their medicine cabinet, thereby being "given" those drugs by the person who needed them so they could be a functional member of society? Please be specific about exactly what circumstances, in your opinion, merit threatening a person with death at the hands of the State. If the answer requires courts with mind reading technology, count me out.

PS: I am, however, entirely in favor of Jury Nullification of the prosecution of someone who "dealt with" the kind of monster who would provide drugs to kids, but whose actions left insufficient evidence for the State to punish them. Ie, I would be absolutely fine with people (who knew the monster) killing/maiming him or her, then having their prosecutions Nullified by a jury of their peers. But that's because I trust citizens to handle problems in their area more than I trust faceless government bureaucrats to do so. I trust the average bureaucrat with as much power as they can handle whilst hanging on a single rope, above a running woodchipper, while they're aware that if they abuse their power, that rope will snap. So, absent magic rope that can detect tyrannical tendencies, I don't trust bureaucrats. Even when it would be more comfortable to turn a blind eye to the inevitable abuses that will occur when I/we give them incomprehensibly vast powers, "for the children". If we can't protect our kids (or my [hopefully, if God sees fit to bless me in that fashion] future children) without the help of the Almighty State telling us what we can and can't do...well, why not cut out the middleman and let the State itself raise them? It wouldn't be too different from public school, really. What could possibly go wrong? /s

Sorry about the snark/sarcasm, tweell.
I'm kinda grumpy thus morning, it seems. But it's not just snark, it's a serious question/thought. "There ought to be a law!" is a dangerous way to live, and an excellent way to ensure that freedom ceases to exist.

tweell said...

Ah, BS, but this was about drug legalization, not about jury nullification. I'll admit that I thought the word 'give' was sufficient. According to any dictionary I have, 'give' does not encompass 'stolen from'.

If you believe that harshly punishing pedophiles that give drugs to children in order to abuse them is equivalent to letting the State take away and rear your children, then there is nothing I can or would want to say to you.

Jay Dee said...

Christopher Anvil published his short story, "Trial by Silk" in the March 1970 issue of Amazing magazine. The idea was a society had all their children undergo an ordeal where they were offered a hedonistic life style. Those that succumbed died of overindulgence. Those that passed the ordeal went on to live orderly lives.

Bibliotheca Servare said...

I wrote a long response, but the internet apparently ate it. So I'll keep it (relatively) short: I said *surrendering the duty of protecting our children from monsters* to the State was little different from allowing the State to raise them. It's called reductio ad  absurdum. Also hyperbole. I'd rather be responsible for crucifying the motherf*#*ers *myself* instead of a random bureaucrat who may or may not get it right. *I* want to be responsible for my child's welfare. Not the State. I'm okay with the State having the power to punish such monsters, but I believe the standard of evidence should be extremely high. You would prefer to crucify 10 innocents, lest one monster escape (yeah, that's how "having someone put words in your mouth" feels. Not pleasant, is it? So don't do it. For instance, normally I would have inserted "evidently" before "prefer" and ended it as a question, instead of a statement. K?). I disagree with that position. I'd prefer the State only be permitted to crucify *guilty* people. (The "crucify" isn't a metaphor. I believe pedophiles ought to be crucified. Or impaled, I'm not picky) That's what the high standard of evidence is for. (Google "standard of evidence" if this isn't clear) However, I also loathe the idea of guilty people (especially monsters like the kind we're discussing) escaping justice, because the State can't prove their guilt. So, personally, I feel that's where the citizenry have a duty to fill in the gaps. I believe that monsters ought to be killed, even if the State can't do lawfully do it.

Savvy? I believe that things like this: http://infogalactic.com/info/Ken_McElroy are preferable to a State with a blank check to kill or imprison anyone it wishes, for any reason it can invent. We currently live in a world where the State has that power. It's not working too well, is it? Now, if that's not clear enough for you, then you are correct, we have nothing more to say to one another. In either case, God bless, and I hope you receive this message in good health.