Texas only has enough drugs for one more lethal injection available

[Türkisblau]

Gotta love the bloodthirstiness of those "small government" conservatives.

[Cassius]

Good. We can't stop these barbarians, but if we can be even justa a mild and temporary hindrance to their twisted thirst for blood, then so be it.

Given that you, implicitly, support the excesses of the French Revolution because they helped create 'a wonderful regeneration of French politics and society', I think the you are the last person to be labelling people as barbarians or bemoaning their 'twisted thirst for blood'.

Ok, how about another one then. Why do you favour waging war on ISIS (I do as well), given that that would lead to considerably more deaths, and, of course, the deaths of more innocents? You're hardly adopting any kind of consistent ethic here, getting all squeamish over the exections of women stranglers and cop killers whilst at the same time proudly declaring that ISIS must be stopped 'at all costs' (which of course, implies a willingness to see a large number of people killed in order to scotch ISIS). Why is this form of killing inherently unnacceptable and barbaric whilst the other one is totally morally justified. I mean, to be clear, you do agree, don't you, that the people being executed in this instance are not good people, on a moral par with those murderers and terrorists that you excorciate in ISIS?

I mean, this is the thing I've never understood. People wail and gnash their teeth and flap their hands and get in a tizzy about the state taking the lives of its own citizens, but then they're perfectly fine with it when done its done in battle, despite the fact, I'd wager (moving away from the ISIS example) that those being killed are of a far higher moral calibre than the vast majority of the human waste that is sentenced to death under American law. I repeat, why is one form of killing inherently unnacceptable whilst the other is not.

[AggregateDemand]

Gotta love the bloodthirstiness of those "small government" conservatives.

Executing people at the scene of the crime via civilian vigilantism is actually much cheaper and less intrusive than the judiciary system. I think you should be praising their willingness to let the justice circus put on its show.

I don't support the death penalty, but I don't support people who try to undermine the democratic process through subversive commerce. Eliminating the drugs doesn't eliminate the will to execute, and it's unfair to condemn some inmates to gruesome botched executions in order to change public opinion.

You have to eliminate the desire to execute people who submit themselves to trial by peers. Taking away certain pharmaceuticals won't make it happen.

[pbrower2a]

It will be the gas chamber -- but the lethal gas will be nitrogen, which expands about 600 times in volume as the liquid evaporates. Breathing stops promptly. Nobody needs convulse due to electric current or cyanide poisoning. Nobody gets stuck with a needle. No blood flows from a wound. No head drops into a basket. Nobody ever strangles if the rope is misplaced or the drop is too small.

Ideally America does the right thing -- and abandons capital punishment.     

[© tweed]

again, let me bring this up.  fentanyl is an opioid that is "80 to 100 times" stronger than morphine.  there are also black market fentanyl derivatives that are a few hundred times stronger than morphine. 

these highly potent opioids make for an easy overdose in an opiate-naive subject.  a full gram of fentanyl would produce an instant overdose.  this isn't difficult stuff. are they afraid that it might feel good?

why not use something like fentanyl?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's pretty clear that no state would be willing to use black market drugs for executions.

[courts]

Good. We can't stop these barbarians, but if we can be even justa a mild and temporary hindrance to their twisted thirst for blood, then so be it.

go away

[Ebowed]

Good. We can't stop these barbarians, but if we can be even justa a mild and temporary hindrance to their twisted thirst for blood, then so be it.

go away

What for?  He's right.

[AggregateDemand]

What for?  He's right.

If rationing healthcare away from elderly patients is good policy, executing a murderer shouldn't inflame moral sentiments.

[Joe Republic]

What for?  He's right.

If rationing healthcare away from elderly patients is good policy, executing a murderer shouldn't inflame moral sentiments.

Sorry bud, Sarah Palin's talking points from 2010 don't really hold much water around these parts.

[© tweed]

It's pretty clear that no state would be willing to use black market drugs for executions.

fentanyl isn't black market.  it's a Schedule II painkiller ("high risk of abuse, recognized medical purpose").

and besides, the research chemical markets are more 'grey market' than they are black market.  the Federal Analog Act rests on shaky legal ground, and is rarely used to prosecute anybody.

instead, the DEA goes after specific designer drugs by placing them in Sched I on an "emergency" basis, which is essentially permanent.  the process is reactive: a highly popular designer drug will be out on the clearnet for 2-3 years before the DEA bans it.  see mephedrone for a good example.  the synthetic cannabinoids (K2, spice, AB-FUBINACA) have met a similar fate.

the State of Texas could probably buy grey market fentanyl derivatives/imitations without breaking any law, or at least without being prosecuted.

[ag]

I don't support the death penalty, but I don't support people who try to undermine the democratic process through subversive commerce. Eliminating the drugs doesn't eliminate the will to execute, and it's unfair to condemn some inmates to gruesome botched executions in order to change public opinion.

Which subversive commerce?

As I said before, if the State of Texas is so desirious of continuing to execute by lethal injection, it could easily do that. Setting up a lab at the University of Texas at Craphole Creek that produces the required drugs to FDA satisfaction would not cost any more than a small fraction of the overall costs of the death penalty process. There are many ways of poisoning people to death quickly, and these have been known to humanity for ages: we are not talking of patent violations here.  No reason to force anyone to participate in murder they do not want to participate in.

All this whining about "not being able to get the drugs" is merely an expression of people being nervous about the death penalty. They got somehow used to the existing procedure (with its established drug cocktail), but any "tinkering with the machinery of death" that requires minimal thinking and minimal departure from the protocol approved by their forefathers is making them savagely uncomfortable. Well, that is exactly the point of death penalty opponents: they have nothing against executioners being uncomfortable. There is no "democratic" requirement that people uncomfortable about their own actions should feel a general societal support for what they are doing.  

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It is odd tho that companies who feel human life is so sacred they will not allow their drugs to not be used for executions don't go to the same level of effort to prevent them from being used for euthanasia.

[Franzl]

It is odd tho that companies who feel human right is so sacred they will not allow their drugs to not be used for executions don't go to the same level of effort to prevent them from being used for euthanasia.

No that's not really odd, if by "euthanasia" you mean assisted suicide on a consensual basis.

[Storebought]

The state could make their own death penalty drugs in their compounding pharmacies (the most common drugs are easily synthesized first-generation barbiturates), but the state would still run into the problem of finding chemical suppliers even willing to give the pharmacy the reagents needed to make the drugs. The other difficulty is in finding a competent physician to create a new execution protocol.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It is odd tho that companies who feel human right is so sacred they will not allow their drugs to not be used for executions don't go to the same level of effort to prevent them from being used for euthanasia.

I have rarely seen a post so bafflingly alien to any sort of logic.

[SWE]

It is odd tho that companies who feel human right is so sacred they will not allow their drugs to not be used for executions don't go to the same level of effort to prevent them from being used for euthanasia.

Maybe because opposing euthanasia is sociopathic and cruel?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It is odd tho that companies who feel human life is so sacred they will not allow their drugs to not be used for executions don't go to the same level of effort to prevent them from being used for euthanasia.

I have rarely seen a post so bafflingly alien to any sort of logic.

Maybe the typo I corrected will resolve your bafflement, but I doubt it.  Conversely, I fail to see how anyone who is so opposed to the death penalty that they would consider it akin to murder would support euthanasia,  Life is life.  Both capital punishment and euthanasia are based upon the proposition that life is not so precious that it should never be ended.

[© tweed]

It is odd tho that companies who feel human life is so sacred they will not allow their drugs to not be used for executions don't go to the same level of effort to prevent them from being used for euthanasia.

I have rarely seen a post so bafflingly alien to any sort of logic.

Maybe the typo I corrected will resolve your bafflement, but I doubt it.  Conversely, I fail to see how anyone who is so opposed to the death penalty that they would consider it akin to murder would support euthanasia,  Life is life.  Both capital punishment and euthanasia are based upon the proposition that life is not so precious that it should never be ended.

many people place a lot of value on the variable of consent.  this isn't so complicated that it should escape your mind.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It is odd tho that companies who feel human life is so sacred they will not allow their drugs to not be used for executions don't go to the same level of effort to prevent them from being used for euthanasia.

I have rarely seen a post so bafflingly alien to any sort of logic.

Maybe the typo I corrected will resolve your bafflement, but I doubt it.  Conversely, I fail to see how anyone who is so opposed to the death penalty that they would consider it akin to murder would support euthanasia,  Life is life.  Both capital punishment and euthanasia are based upon the proposition that life is not so precious that it should never be ended.

many people place a lot of value on the variable of consent.  this isn't so complicated that it should escape your mind.

It doesn't, but one could argue that the condemned gave their consent when they did their crime.  Alternatively, since only murder is a capital crime in the US these days, one can point out that their victims certainly didn't consent to the loss of their life, so why should the consent of those who took the life of another be of greater importance than that of their victims?  Thirdly, the entire penal system involves the deprivation of personal rights of the convicted. Extreme crimes warrant extreme deprivation.  I can readily see one not accepting the results of the logic above, yet there is a logic.

Too many people operate under the mistaken presumption that anything that is logical must be good and vice versa.  There does tend to be a correlation between those who operate under that presumption and those who think there is a correlation between constitutional and good.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It is odd tho that companies who feel human life is so sacred they will not allow their drugs to not be used for executions don't go to the same level of effort to prevent them from being used for euthanasia.

I have rarely seen a post so bafflingly alien to any sort of logic.

Maybe the typo I corrected will resolve your bafflement, but I doubt it.

Well, it does substantially improve things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because my opposition to the death penalty has little to do with the "sanctity of life". I have said recently on this forum that I assign no value to life in and of itself.

[© tweed]

There does tend to be a correlation between those who operate under that presumption and those who think there is a correlation between constitutional and good.

which do you like better: "constitutional" or "good"?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There does tend to be a correlation between those who operate under that presumption and those who think there is a correlation between constitutional and good.

which do you like better: "constitutional" or "good"?

I prefer good in the abstract, but good is often subjective while constitutional is ideally objective.  So I want legislatures to deal with "good" and courts to deal with "constitutional" while giving a high degree of deference to the legislatures.

[AggregateDemand]

Sorry bud, Sarah Palin's talking points from 2010 don't really hold much water around these parts.

Don't hide behind Sarah Palin when the heat lamps are shined on you. If you can't justify your position, repent.

[AggregateDemand]

All this whining about "not being able to get the drugs" is merely an expression of people being nervous about the death penalty. They got somehow used to the existing procedure (with its established drug cocktail), but any "tinkering with the machinery of death" that requires minimal thinking and minimal departure from the protocol approved by their forefathers is making them savagely uncomfortable. Well, that is exactly the point of death penalty opponents: they have nothing against executioners being uncomfortable. There is no "democratic" requirement that people uncomfortable about their own actions should feel a general societal support for what they are doing.

What is your point? You're comfortable with the possible unintended consequences visited upon America's prison population, as long as it furthers your absolutist moral agenda. You think people with a conscience are making a mockery of your desired outcome.

Anyone who reads your economic posts knows your modus operandi by now.