Monday, January 30, 2006

Howdy, PETDA

Say "Howdy" to People for the Ethical Treatment of Drug Addicts. Not many posts, yet, but a promising theme, to be sure. Welcome to the blogosphere, folks!


Anonymous said...

There is plenty of ethical treatment of drug addicts as long as they are seeking help. It's when they are out raping, robbing, and pillaging that people favor stringing them up.

I hope that PETDA doesn't turn out to be as ridiculous as PETA.


Anonymous said...

The truth is that most thousands of addicts are sentenced to prison for simply possessing, selling, or manufacturing drugs. PETDA doesn't feel much compassion towards violent or abusive people. For instance, in Arkansas a woman was sentenced to 50 years for manufacturing meth and for making her child drink sulphuric acid while she was cooking meth "because he was crying and acting like a brat". PETDA believes this woman whose 5-year old son testified against her(with the help of a machine because his throat tissue was burned so badly that he can't speak anymore)needs to be in prison. But we do not believe that meth MADE her do this. It is obvious to us that something was wrong with this woman before she ever used a drug. The only thing that did bother us is the fact that she was given more time for the meth charge she got than the child endangerment/battery charge. Truthfully, I think an attempted murder charge would have been more fitting. But these are not the people we are fighting for. It's the people like the guy in Wichita Falls who received 3 concurrent 99-year sentences for manufacturing meth. This constitutes as cruel and unusual punishment in our eyes. And if it were your son or daughter facing a sentence like that you would likely feel the same.

Anonymous said...

Our Justice system needs to realize that it would be much cheaper to treat non violent drug users than to put them in prison. As a former teacher I have seen many young people fall under the influence of drugs, but given time and treatment, they became good citizns. If they had been sent to prison, they could not have had the chances to turn their lives around.

Anonymous said...

Other than possessing, selling, and manufacturing dope, for what else is there to be imprisoned? Killing someone while under the influence, perhaps? So I guess leah's statement is true, though gibberish.

leah probably should have picked a different drug than meth to use as an example of poor mistreated drug pushers. There are few drugs as destructive as meth. Furthermore, I think it would be very difficult to find a meth manufacturer who would make a presentable poster child for leniency towards drug pushers.


Gritsforbreakfast said...

D- Labeling an argument "gibberish" doesn't make it so, and you've made no arguments at all in your comments here, just a lot of unwarranted assumptions you haven't bothered to justify. Leah obliterated the red herring from your original comment, and in response you bring literally nothing, just a label, as a counterattack. What else could they be imprisoned for? Originally you said rape, robbing, etc., except in most drug cases that's obviously BS - to me it looks like you're pretending you won the argument even as you back off of your key points.

As for there being no sympathetic meth addicts, try this one.

Anonymous said...

Already being a PETA supporter, it only makes sense to welcome PETDA to the stage. I've got no problems with the ETHICAL TREATMENT
of all life, animal and human, addict or not.

While meth is a very dangerous drug, it's dangerousness does not make heroin, cocaine, speed or any of the other chemical concoctions out there less dangerous. If meth weren't (as D says) the most dangerous drug out there, something else would be, and those who have fallen into habitual use of the current "most dangerous" drug are no less qualified to recieve ethical and medical treatment as those who've fallen into the habitual use of "safe" drugs like alcohol or nicotine.

Yeah for PEDTA- set the monkeys free!!

Anonymous said...

-D, What do you think about government agencies "raping, robbing, and pillaging" over what some citizens choose to consume?

We are all treated like stupid children by a parent like government that controls every aspect of our lives and forces us to turn a huge amount of our entire earnings over to that parental, controlling government. Most adults do not appreciate being treated like children...unruly or not.

What about "raping, robbing, and pillaging" our Constitution?

In the course of my long life I have met some drug users and some that were probably addicts of some kind. The vast majority never got in trouble for it at all...but the few that looked more like they were the ones being "raped, robbed, and pillaged" the overblown and cancerous system of laws and law enforcement that people like yourself have believed so fervently in and nourished lavishly, because of your fear...which the government gave you in the first place or because you are, in fact, a part of that system.

I love my country, I despise seeing what people like you and your drug laws have done to it.'s an "unreasonable search" to examine your urine and blood and saliva.

What about the outright "robbing and pillaging" done by the government agencies and law enforcement now?

Was it a good idea to tell our law enforcement, "The more people you arrest and "confiscate" stuff and money from...the more money you get."?

The drug war brought us forfeiture powers over citizens of everything they own...regardless of where it came from as part of the "punishment" for consuming or handling consumables deemed "contraband".

"Cruel and unusual punishment" is long as it's one of those "damned druggies" being punished. Drug use and addiction is "punished" more than rape, murder, and theft! But that's apparently ok with "wise and learned" people like yourself. Ever hear of a government that has gotten too "punitive". Well we have one.

The drug war brought us swat teams to every small town. The drug war brought us "dynamic entry". The drug war brought "wrong house" fiascos and deaths. The drug war has militarized our police.

The drug war brought us the ability to virtually see inside people's homes. What about being "secure in our homes and papers"? The government wants access to all those "papers"...all the time...for our own good. And believe me, you aren't "secure" because you haven't broken one of the drug laws. The next wrong house could be any of us. No one is safe.

Certain of the people involved in drug law enforcement love the "pillaging" aspect of their work. They purposely destroy things that mean something to someone. I know of one case where an officer actually saw fit to urinate on some suspected "druggie's" sofa. Another where a young man's new motorcycle was purposed scratched and cut…just for meanness. That's fine behavior for our "servants", isn't it? Really admirable?

As long as it's a "drug" suspect...anything goes. Isn't that neat? It's so much fun to persecute those that you can persecute, for some people, apparently.

It's a wicked system, whether you are able to see that or not and you are a part of it. You encourage it. You enable it. Aren't you proud?

The only people who "love" the war are those who are fearful of virtually nonexistent entities and circumstances, OR and this is a big OR...they pay their bills with the "profits" of prohibition.

I suspect by the "suaveness" ,"sheer arrogance", and "confidence" exhibited in your posts that you are one of the latter.

Eventually, History is going to despise you worse than you despise the consumer of what you like to deem "contraband".

Scott will probably lecture me now in "being nice". I'm tired of being nice to people like -D. They need to be told what kind of monster they really are.

I'm really outraged at what you, -D, and those you empower have done to this country and it's peoples.

Esequial Hernandez was the last straw for me. I will fight you, verbally and with my vote, to my dying day, if I have end this horrible era of drug prohibition and all that it's brought us and the world.

Even if I can't muster the power to defeat you during my least, I'll die knowing that I didn't hesitate to do the right thing, once I had realized what was really happening in the so called "War on Drugs". (Yes, at the very first of it...I didn't see the harm coming from it.)I have no doubt that the "right thing", now, is to resist you and what you are doing to this nation and so, all of it's people.

The United States of America was founded on the notion of liberty from over controlling and interfering, money and property grabbing government of any kind. It's beauty was it's sleekness. Drug Fearers and Warriors, and fear mongers have made the government of this still not quite formed and polished jewel of a country, into something heinous, fat and nasty. Thanks -D. Thanks a lot.

I'm sorry, Scott that I get so long winded when I get angry. I can be concise...but sometimes I have to express my outrage. Thank you for giving us a place to express what we are thinking.

Anonymous said...

Mustn't forget something else the War on Drugs gave us. The highest percentage of our citizens in prison than anywhere else in the world.

The drug war as made so many felons and ex-cons out of everyday people that really had no interest in harming anyone or anything. Our prisons are the source of virtual slave labor for some industries. I remember when we citizens were
encouraged not to buy goods from some countries because they used "prisoners" to make those goods.

The drug war has created an entire punitive based economy that feeds off the lives of anyone who wanders or stumbles into the realm of the new "most hated and reviled" among us.

Anonymous said...

hope, since you choose to read into my comments only what you want to see, you just wasted a lot of time on your long-winded diatribe against this country you claim to love so much. But that is okay, you obviously need someone to vent you great hatred towards.


"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." -Herbert Spencer

You incorrectly make the asumption that I am a proponent of the current drug laws. I am not. I suggest you go downtown and visit the men's center. Or the Star of Hope womens center. Or any detox ward. You are a very naive person.

At any rate, regardless of my position on the drug laws, for whatever reason people choose to commit heinous crimes, whether they are simply evil people or because they need drugs, they must be held accountble for their actions. For example, should those who killed that elderly couple in New Caney last week be forgiven because they needed money for meth, or crack, or whatever it was they were craving?

Forgiving or making excuses for people who rape, rob, kill, and pillage because you disagree with the current drug laws of our nation is ridiculous, in my opinion, and demonstrates blind adherance to a dogmatic agenda regardless of the costs of that agenda. The democratic process we have may not be perfect but it is what has worked for the most part for 200+ years.

In spite of grit's somewhat dubious claim that my stance, which was an opinion not an argument (sorry for not making that more clear. I tend to argue on my site and state my opinions in the brief comments I make elsewhere) was obliterated by leah, I stand by the assertion that there is plenty of ethical treatment for those addicts who seek help. To wit, the united way, drug addicts anonymous, as well as many others. If you doubt this or are in need of help with an addiction, check your yellow pages.

It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that many of the commenters on this subject posit that the addicts should not have to seek help; that these people should be able to destroy their mind and bodies if they so choose. Such a position is not very ethical in my opinion.

But what the hey, as long as you get your way.

Legalizing drugs wont help the addicts. They will still be addicts and I would argue (but not here) that providing them with easy access to unlimited supply of their drug of choice would not only be unethical, but inhumane. Anyone who has suffered from the ravages of drug addiction, as I have, or witnessed the destruction of an otherwise bright young mind with a promising future as my family and friends did, will readily agree with this opinion, in my opinion.

I am one of the few, percentage-wise, who was able to recover as a result of the ethical and compassionate help that was offered to me by the many organization--both governmental and non-governmental--who truly care about the plight of those who succumb to addictions of all types. Too much ethical treatment from the likes of the commenters here, and I would not be here today for you all to hate and despise.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

D- Since you say you yourself struggled with addiction, did you ever rape, rob or murder anyone?

If not, why do you constantly conflate drug use with those heinous crimes?

Also, is it "unethical" to supply drinkers with "easy access" to alcohol? The logical extension of your argument would make you a supporter of alcohol Prohibition, too. How 'bout it?

Anonymous said...

Hatred? I hate no one. I do not hate you. Angry? Yes. Hatred? No.

You were an addict? Why do you think drug addiction is the cause for all crime? Did you personally "rape, rob, or pillage"? A person should be stopped from rapeing, robbing, and pillaging and should be accountable for their treatment of others.

"For example, should those who killed that elderly couple in New Caney last week be forgiven because they needed money for meth, or crack, or whatever it was they were craving?" It doesn't matter "why" they did it when they kill innocents. They should be held accountable for that real crime.

When people have trouble with intoxicants of any sort they should be able to get help. Addiction to anything less then murder, assault, theft, and mayhem
is a personal, medical problem. I'm sorry you needed the government and prohibition laws to keep you alive and on the right track. If that's true, a lot of truly innocent people have suffered and died to save you from that personal indulgence. You should be very grateful to them and those who had to lose them, for your sake.

If statistics about drugs that we hear are true...a lot of people use or are addicted to certain drugs. Are they all rapers, murderers, and pillagers? Were you?

"Help" for addictions or dependence is a good thing...if it's really help.

If the killers you speak of killed only because of their addiction/need and not because they were just horrible people...isn't it a shame they couldn't have gotten what they wanted for a small fee at the pharmacy?'s sometimes so dangerous and if used carelessly it might kill them. Same goes for race car drivers and bronc riders. Lots of stuff in the world that can kill or hurt you. Addiction to fat and sugar can kill you...but should we prohibit it with force of arms and loss of freedom and cause the death of pure innocents, involved in no way at all, to protect you from your own choice of consumables? I tend to think not.

If I can't stop an alcohol addict from drinking himself to death, should alcohol use be a crime for everyone else? Should others have to give up alcohol because the alcoholic can't use the stuff without hurting himself? Fatty foods and sugar are next.

I am not all that na├»ve. I can see that a purely prohibitive method of dealing with substance consumption leads to many, many "unintended" consequences. When something exhibits that many "unintended consequences" and "mistakes"…"collateral damage" and the death of people who hadn't even entertained the thought of using the prohibited substance, yet get killed because of it's prohibition…it might be a lemon.

Do I think Esequiel Hernandez's life was a fair trade to save you or anyone else from excess or suicide? I don't know. I can't consult with Esequiel. It just doesn't seem right though.

Maybe Charity or Veronica Bowers family could tell us how grateful they were to give up Charity and Veronica in the effort to keep someone from sticking something up their nose that we don't want them to.

Anonymous said...

-D, "...contempt before investigation."

Talk about assumptions. I've been truly "investigating" the War on Drugs and it's "casualties" for many, many years now. I don't like what I see. Your blustering and attitude won't make me delude myself into thinking I don't see what I see.

Anonymous said...

Whatev. One more time, I do not support the current drug policy. Quit using me as your straw man.

I know what I know. You beleive what you believe.

Your compassion overwhelms me. Enjoy your drug use.


Anonymous said...


Since argueing from the particular to the general in no way helps to prove a thesis, why would you ask such a question?

For those who are not near as smart as they think they are (ya'll know who you are) what I am saying is that, no matter how good it sounds, the argument, X was an addict and X didn't rape, rob, and pillage ergo addicts don't rape, rob, and pillage is, er, gibberish at best and character assination at worst.

The reason why its an invalid argument, even though it sounds so good, is that all the opponent need do is find one addict who does rape, rob, or pillage to shoot down the assertion.

I'm not surprised that your left-wing shills would stoop so low, Grits, but I thought you were different. I'm so disappointed.

But it does give me nice warm feeling when another one of my implicit stereotypes are affirmed with yet another piece of empirical evidence.

But since you asked about my criminal history, I will say it was a very long time ago and that I never killed anyone. At least not that I know of anyway.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

D- Since your argument made sweeping, utterly unjustified assertions about drug users that are on their face patently false for the vast majority of people arrested for drugs, I just thought I'd point out that you probably wouldn't like such assumptions made about you, so maybe you shouldn't make them about others.

Since you choose to bring forth "opinions" void of "argument," many of which are insulting and falsely accusatory of huge classes of people who don't deserve the bile you're spewing toward them (read again your first comment, please), I just thought what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Sorry if you're disappointed.

Anonymous said...

Which "unjustified assertions" would those be? The only two things I said (see first comment, please) was that there is plenty of ethical treatment available for drug addicts seeking help and that PETA is ridiculous. Everthing else is stuff I said in response to stuff ya'll said.

Even now you are trying to redirect my comments towards "people arrested for drugs" instead of where they were actually directed, which was towards drug addicts. Obviously, such a distraction is needed to justify all the crap ya'll said in response.

Perhaps this new group should be called PETPAD, or People for the Ethical Treatment of People Arrested for Drugs. But is not, it is called PETDA, thus my comments.

Because you claim my opinions are void of argument does not make it so. And unlike you and Hope, I did not attempt to assassinate anyone's character.

Nor did I spew bile, unless an opposing opinion over here is considered bile. Opining that something is goofy or that a statement (I only referred to one statement, it was you, grits, who assigned my comment to leah's entire argument) is gibberish is not spewing bile.

Yes, grits, I am disappointed, and largely unimpressed. Every comment you made was an attempt to discredit me. You said nothing of substance. Which is par for liberals in general.

This is my second attempt to respond to your comment. I'll assume that I screwed up the previous attempt and that you didn't delete it. Although after watching you work, that is giving you much benefit of the doubt.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

D- I guess you missed re-reading the third assertion in your comment: "It's when they are out raping, robbing, and pillaging that people favor stringing them up." Your response just ignores your most inflammatory assertion.

Obviously, most addicts don't do those things, and that's not why most drug users are put in jail.

That's what's disingenuous. I'm not trying to hound you, D, I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt to debate you on this. If you weren't a regular and I didn't read your blog, I'd honestly think you were just trolling here. I'm a little disappointed, too. I guess we'll both just have to get over it.

Anonymous said...

Ok, my bad. I though the statement "It's when they are out raping, robbing, and pillaging that people favor stringing them up" was a universal truth and inarguable. Perhaps I should have said "most" people.

To take issue with the statement one must beleive either that people don't favor stringing up addicts who rape rob and pillage, or that drug addicts don't rape, rob, and pillage. Again, all you have to do is watch the news to know that drug addicts do indeed rape rob and pillage.

I know it to be a fact, based on real life experieinces and observations by the thousands, that an addict who does not get help will leave a path of destruction in their wake and will ultimately wind up either dead or in jail. There are few, if any, exceptions to this. If you or any of your enlightened readers know of any exceptions, I'd sure like to hear about them.

However, true addicts are a small subset of all drug users. A distinction which I never blurred, though you did.

Not once did anybody bother to ask what I thought about those drug addicts who don't rape, rob, and pillage. It was much easier to attack me for uttering the words rape rob and pillage.

Even so, I offered not once but twice that I am opposed to current drug policy, which would of course include the war on drugs, DARE, just say no, mandatory sentences, forfeiture, criminal enhancements, government approved drug pushers, and all the rest of the crap.

Over the years there have been several people who resorted to calling me a troll because I refuse to hang my head and slink away after the resident shills try to slap me around.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Sorry D, if i misinterpreted you. Here's my bottom line: only a small percentage of drug users are addicts. Only a small percentage of addicts rape, rob, or pillage. But the same draconian laws are applied to everyone regardless of whether they engage in those types of behaviors that, you're right, are inarguably bad. My beef is that too many people lay those egregious crimes out there as though they justify current drug policies. So when you adopted that meme without any caveat, I assumed, you're right, that you were adopting a zealous drug warrior stance, and I apologize for jumping to that conclusion.

I don't think you're a troll and don't want you to slink away. Hope will tell you I've chastised her a little, too, when I thought her comments went beyond the pale. These are hot button issues that I'm trying to address in a less inflamed than normal fashion, so I try to make sure everybody feels free to speak without being subjected to harsh, unfair blasts from their opposition. That goes for you as well as my "resident shills." ;-) Best,

Anonymous said...

"Hope will tell you I've chastised her a little, too, when I thought her comments went beyond the pale."

Yes, he did.

Anonymous said...

"Hot Button issues": Politics, Religion, and the Drug War.

My mother warned me about the other two, but she didn't see the Drug War coming.

Anonymous said...

"Yes, he did." And it was embarrassing. But I didn't cut and run.

I tend to think of myself as a quiet, gentle woman. It surprises me that I can be perceived as "mean", or that I can go "beyond the pale", because of my words.

I can also accept, humbly, I think, that others perception of my behavior and words might be more correct in some ways than my own.

Let's don't ever stop learning and growing and working together to try to improve the state of all the peoples of the earth.