Should We Use Experimental Drugs on Prisoners?

BradB08 said:
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Click to expand...

Well, would you rather spend millions of dollars -- our tax money -- to feed, clothe and house these killers or spend, say $1.17 on a bullet or that much on electricity to zap him/her? Besides, the killer would never do it again and would be immediately released after it's done. It's a good deal!
 
pek1 said:
Well, would you rather spend millions of dollars -- our tax money -- to feed, clothe and house these killers or spend, say $1.17 on a bullet or that much on electricity to zap him/her? Besides, the killer would never do it again and would be immediately released after it's done. It's a good deal!
Click to expand...

With that proposal, you are no better than the man behind the bars.:roll: You certainly have not taken the moral high ground in your attitudes.
 
pek1 said:
Well, would you rather spend millions of dollars -- our tax money -- to feed, clothe and house these killers or spend, say $1.17 on a bullet or that much on electricity to zap him/her? Besides, the killer would never do it again and would be immediately released after it's done. It's a good deal!
Click to expand...

Eh? I thought everyone knew by now that lifetime incarceration is less expensive than execution. But the costs aside, we simply cannot afford to lower our moral standards. Such crass emotionalism as the post I quote does no good whatsoever.
 
Beowulf said:
Eh? I thought everyone knew by now that lifetime incarceration is less expensive than execution. But the costs aside, we simply cannot afford to lower our moral standards. Such crass emotionalism as the post I quote does no good whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Ur right about that!
 
pek1 said:
Animal testing is not necessary. For starters. Poke your finger in your eye. It hurts doesn't it? What do you need an animal for that to tell you that? Duh.
Click to expand...

Thanks to animal testing, we have all kinds of medications available to treat various medical conditions. None of that would be possible without animal testing. If we tested humans, many of them would die because there is no means of determining how a given medication will affect someone. When we test on animals, scientists can develop a theory which in turn guides their ability to find new medications and cures for a variety of health conditions. Aside from that, testing on humans is considered unethical, so even if animal testing were banned, we wouldn't have any other means necessary for conducting medical research.
 
pek1 said:
There is nothing wrong with testing the medication on either human cadavers or human prisoners.
Click to expand...

How can you determine the efficacy of a certain med on a cadaver? Simple: You can't. There is no way to develop a side effect profile nor can you examine the long-term effects of a given med. You also cannot gauge how well a med truly works based on the placebo effect.
 
Apparently not.

If you're so against spending taxpayer money on things, pek1, why don't we just drop social security so you won't be able to get it when you turn 67? Or are you folks selective about what you will and won't pay for?
 
BradB08 said:
Apparently not.

If you're so against spending taxpayer money on things, pek1, why don't we just drop social security so you won't be able to get it when you turn 67? Or are you folks selective about what you will and won't pay for?
Click to expand...

Good point Brad.
 
Back
Top