I used to believe in the death penalty for pushers...

I saw so many lives destroyed by drugs that I wished a quick death for local dealers.

Later I realized that these pushers were only a part of a culture sustained by the inherent apathy and anonymity of big business.

Vioxx anyone?

There is a logical gap somewhere between point A and point B. Develop your statement a little more because I just don't understand what you're saying.

:hi:

I'm describing the cultural nexus between sleazy street dealers, and "legitimate" pushers of legal but equally deadly drugs.

Bottom line ...Make $40 for a hit of deadly Meth and you're a sleaze-ball (rightly so) -- Make $400,000,000 for your shareholders by pushing deadly Vioxx and you're rightly what?

I would support a complete ban on advertising medications. No drug should be advertised. Medicine is a science, and the pressure patients put on doctors for certain treatments regardless of whether or not the patient has accurately diagnosed his own illness is a serious problem.

Oh and thanks

Is it the guy who slings a few sacks a week so he can make a little extra money for the family or the guy who scores some for a friend who doesn't know anybody? It's often hard to tell who's a pusher and who's a user. In fact, they frequently do a little of both.

Who are the biggest pushers in the world?

are roughly equivalent to the cartels and the doctors are the pushers.

And they "legally" advertise on American TV. Ever stop to think how many Lunesta commercials are broadcast every day & how much each spot must cost?

versus marketing. They spend God knows how much on those commercials, which are more common than beer commercials these days, they have all those reps running around to different doctors every day with free samples, and they throw lavish parties all over the world for doctors, pharmacists, FDA, et al. When they say we can't regulate the price of drugs because it would eliminate the incentive to develop new medicines, what they really mean is that they'll have to cut back on their marketing costs and then the doctors will lose the incentive to push their pills.

....the only way to deal with them.

Is offering drugs to another person enough to qualify one as a pusher who is eligible for the death penalty? How much pushing is required?

....say no but children are vulnerable. Of course we're assuming here that there has been a jury trial and conviction.

One kid gives another kid a joint, who dies?

Sorry, but aside from the fact that I find the DP abhorent under any circumstances, killing somebody for selling/giving drugs to a child is simply ridiculous. DP for peddling pot, please, don't be ridiculous.

What about my uncle who, with my mom's permission, let me have a sip of his beer when I was four. Alcohol IS a drug:shrug: And again, back to the issue of kids selling kids drugs. Are you willing to kill a child? You'll have to kill a lot of them, for the most prevalent dealer to kids are other kids.

It'd be nice if there were a clean line to be drawn, but I'm not at all sure there is. Pretending there is probably creates more problems than it solves.

What about those who resell small quantities for a bunch of friends to use along with himself? Where do you draw the line?

And I add some more: what if the only drug involved is marijuana? What about alcohol and tobacco? What about prescription medicine? Some parents give their children medicine to keep them calm (not to mention medicating them for other reasons without a prescription) -- incredibly irresponsible behavior, but worthy of death?

.....need to be prescribed and overseen by a doctor. Yes, yes, I know some doctors are pill pushers too.:puke: Well, guess what, no society is perfect and never will be. As for alchohol and cigarettes, those unfortunately are still legal at a certain age. If its legal and yet harmful to children (under legal age) then TRULY HEFTY fines and LOOOOOONG prison sentences should apply. Something along the lines of $1 million fine and 40 years in prison or some other such sentence that will really wake people up.

Secret here: I smoke myself but would NEVER even consider allowing a child to have a cigarette or to smoke around me.

In other words I have no sympathy for anyone who gives children substances that harm them. Now is that a bit more detailed??

This typing stuff is tiring!! :rofl:

You'd go back to Prohibition? With tobacco thrown in too?

What a piece of work you are.

.....children only. Adults can say yes or no and do as they please. The amount of fines was just an example of something that might get people's attention and nothing more. No I wouldn't go back to Prohibition under any circumstances because a glass of wine occasionally never hurt anyone. So don't put words in my mouth.:grr: But hurting children is a whole different issue. Now stick to the issue of children.:wtf:

It's no use. You slipped. Your hold positions which are anathema to liberalism.

I'll just let this exchange stay here for all to see. Nothing else needs to be said.

Be happy with your punishment fetish.

And you don't see how ridiculous that is? I agree that children are vulnerable, and perhaps the punishment should be more severe when someone sells drugs to children, especially drugs that are more harmful than weed, but DEATH? Seriously... you don't see how ridiculous that is?

them."

While the sentiment here is good, I think it comes full circle back to precisely what the OP was about. The biggest harms to most of our kids are caused by air and water pollution, unnecessary medicating, and schools that don't educate them well enough about other things that could hurt them (like drugs, alcohol, casual/unprotected sex).

Also, I am no fan of drug dealers, but I think you have completely ignored the intricacies of the industry--there are legal pharma companies, who have drug reps who peddle their often-dangerous wares at hospitals and clinics, there are doctors who find it easier to prescribe a drug than offer any other alternatives, then there are foreign drug cartels that exploit human beings in their own countries, traffick their products here, and distribute them to sellers, who then distribute to smaller sellers, who then distribute to individuals, some of whom may end up passing along a little bit of what they have. A lot of the smaller sellers and individuals are under the age of 18. Then you've got people inside the country in "labs" making illegal drugs like ecstasy and methamphetamine--most of these people are poor and often addicts themselves.

Also, I am surprised that you didn't mention the inevitable racial and socio-economic factors that would come into play here--rich, white coke-heads would be able to hire top-notch defense attorneys (or just pay off the authorities) in order to get out of "death for drugs" while the poor, minority peddlers would end up in the chair. It works this way with all other crimes--why would this be different?

Big Pharma would be completely insulated by its power. The little guy (who may or may not be a decent person, this is beside the point) gets screwed, as usual.

I don't know if this is an issue that hits close to home or something for you--if it does, I am sorry--but I am more worried about my daughter getting mercury poisoning, lead poisoning, asthma, and a whole host of illnesses stemming from environmental toxins and corporate negligence.

Your position on the death penalty I find as repulsive as drug pushers and war profiteers and everybody else who profits off of the human misery of others.

because no doctor could risk prescribing the medicines i need?

you would condemn my friend's father to screaming in pain, as he did for months, because no doctor wanted to file w. DEA and get on the list for prescribing the amount of morphine needed for his terminal cancer pain, FINALLY the family found one doctor with some gonads

but there would be zero doctors and pharmacists willing to risk DEA wrath if the penalty be death

it must be wonderful to be young and not even to know anyone who is old or sick or in pain

Much of that high-grade heroin ended up with US soldiers in Viet Nam. Many were hooked and stayed hooked when they returned "to the world." But it wasn't much of a world for them. That situation showed how complex the system can get. The street pusher was just a bit player in a criminal enterprise that included one of the most powerful (and secretive) government agencies in the world, and de facto, some very high level officials in that government (USA/CIA).

Come full circle to Afghanistan. The Cheney Energy Task Force coveted Afghanistan for the cross-country pipeline access to the energy fields of the north. But some in the US government have their eyes on the heroin trade. They have been there, done that, and made fortunes. The BFEE comes to mind.

one i would like available for me and mine when it's needed

walk a mile in the shoes of a chronic pain victim and then come back and tell me why we can't have anything except opiates until that magic pie in the sky day comes when a drug with no side effects gets invented

it isn't just vioxx, they are attacking this whole class of drugs, bextra also

Sure, Meth is more deadly than Vioxx; but Merck's own studies proved an increase in heart attacks among Vioxx users.

Don't get me wrong. I actually agree with you that the class of drugs which includes Vioxx should be available to chronic pain victims (as long as they're aware of the risks).

My point is that the big drug companies behave like legalized pushers, with access to TV advertising.

Plenty of dealers but no pushers. No one has ever given me free drugs to try and get me hooked, ever. Anyone I've ever known who went to a drug dealer went because they wanted to. The whole street pusher thing is a myth in my experience.

Legalized drug producers do far more pushing, on a far more vast scale.

edit for missing your point.

The legendary PUSHER.

Maybe for steroids, but other drugs? They all push themselves. Demand is the engine, not some elusive bad dude who seduces like a succubus.

I don't believe in the death penalty for any reason, but if I did, PUSHERS would not be on the list or anywhere near it. Unless we're going to call the alcohol industry pushers, then let's talk.