Pfizer blocking their meds use in executions

Discussion in 'Off-topic Political' started by bdee, May 14, 2016.

  1. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

  2. AzB

    AzB Well-Known Member

    2,361
    61
    48
    Big pharma needs some good PR, especially towards liberals.

    Not to sound cynical, but I worked in pharma for 7 years. It's all about the bottom line.

    Az
     

  3. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    No doubt. Even my wife is saying that if these drugs represented even a sliver of their bottom line, this would not be coming up at all.

    Edit: But that doesn't change the fact that they developed medicines for legitimate medical purposes and state agencies are using them to kill people.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2016
  4. Craftsman

    Craftsman Well-Known Member

    2,973
    242
    63
    If they don't like selling their products, fine. Remove patent protections and see them change their tune.
     
  5. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    That potential exists for most medicines.

    Basically it is just the most reliable and least painful method to overdose the state can come up with.
     
  6. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    You want to give the government the power to coerce private companies into allowing them to misuse their products?

    :shakehead:
     
  7. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    Guillotines are far more reliable and far less painful. You don't need to get a doctor to break his Hippocratic oath either.

    Or how about we stop giving the government permission to kill citizens in the name of "justice"?
     
  8. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    So we should go back to firing squads.
     
  9. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    Still far less reliable and more painful than a guillotine.
     
  10. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Less reliable? Please share the percentage of people who survive execution by firing squad. As for painful, I do not care if there is some pain involved with the death, and I do not believe a firing squad raises any constitutional issues among anybody who has actual respect for the constitution.
     
  11. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    On March 18, 1915 Wenseslao Moguel was captured while fighting in the Mexican revolution. Without trial he was sentenced to be executed by firing squad. Moguel was shot 9 times including a final bullet through his head at close range by an officer to insure death. Moguel somehow survived and managed to escape. Wenseslao went on to live a full life after his “execution”. The above photo shows Moguel in 1937 on the Ripley’s Believe It Or Not radio show pointing to his scar from the bullet that was shot at close range.Interesting Fact: A popular song was written about Wenseslao Moguel. You can listen to it here.

    http://listverse.com/2008/12/18/top-10-amazing-execution-survival-stories/

    It happens!
     
  12. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    How many times have firing squads had to take a second round of shots? How many times have lethal injections taken several minutes to die AFTER a lethal dose should have killed him?

    Compare that to a guillotine, far quicker, and far more reliable than both.

    Second, you speak of the constitution, why even have an 8th Amendment if we are simply going to ignore it? Let's just repeal it so the government can fulfill the people's need for blood lust. Should we draw and quarter people so that people feel justice was served?

    How about pain compliance from police agencies? We allow government agents to regularly violate the constitution, and it is a sad day when someone claiming to be a libertarian advocates such willful disregard of the constitution by government agents.
     
  13. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    It sounds like people can survive firing squads, but I'd be interested to see how many people have survived a guillotine. Other than one special chicken, none of us cannot survive without a head.
     
  14. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    The head survives a little while.
    http://www.guillotine.dk/pages/30sek.html
     
  15. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    Not exactly the same as living out a full life like Moguel. But yes I have heard of these anecdotal cases. But I have to ask rhetorically if this guy was in pain for those last 30 seconds, or does the severing of the spinal cord eliminate that. I honestly don't know.

    The next question I'd have for guillotine is how many times they had to raise the blade for a second go. Or were there other protocols if the blade didn't actually sever the head from the body. That would be pretty horrific as well.
     
  16. mark5019

    mark5019 what me worry?

    6,504
    13
    38
    I'd gladly donate a box of ammo
     
  17. 95thBonehead

    95thBonehead New Member

    512
    0
    0
    If we all lived in a land of unicorns and rainbows there would be no need for ending the life of certain people. However we live in the real world. One where murderers continue hurting and killing others while in jail. For those I have no issue killing them. And no I don't care if it hurts. For most convictions which can lead to death I feel the standard of proof needs to be raised. Too many people who were not guilty have been terminated.
     
  18. Craftsman

    Craftsman Well-Known Member

    2,973
    242
    63
    You mean like requiring a baker to create a cake for a homosexual wedding?
     
  19. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Um, strawman. I have never advocated doing away with the Eighth Amendment or allowing government agencies to regularly violate the constitution, and what is this nonsense about me advocating "willful disregard of the constitution by government agents?"

    Strawman, strawman, strawman.

    Ridiculous.

    Why do you keep knocking down arguments I have never made (and that nobody else in this thread has made, either)? Because they are easier to knock down than arguments that have been made, just as a "straw man" is easier to knock down than a real man.
     
  20. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    There has been much debate over the categories of punishments covered by the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. Possible categories at issue are (1) punishments not prescribed by the legislature, (2) torturous punishments, and (3) disproportionate and excessive punishments. Although the issue is disputed, the weight of scholarly opinion indicates that the ban on cruel and unusual punishment in the 1689 English Bill of Rights applied only to punishments not authorized by Parliament. The American colonial understanding, on the other hand, was that the ban applied to torturous punishments such as pillorying, disemboweling, decapitation, and drawing and quartering. Inasmuch as such punishments were virtually absent in colonial America, Justice Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States believed that "[t]he provision would seem wholly unnecessary in a free government, since it is scarcely possible, that any department of such government should authorize, or justify such atrocious conduct."

    http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/8/essays/161/cruel-and-unusual-punishment