or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Capital Punishment
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Capital Punishment

post #1 of 66
Thread Starter 
Do you sincerely believe in Capital Punishment?
post #2 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Do you sincerely believe in Capital Punishment?

No.

There are countless cases of wrongful conviction. Even if one of those fails the appeal process and is wrongfully executed, then that's murder. Meanwhile, those wrongfully convicted who are sentenced to life imprisonment have a chance at someday being freed, and even if they are never freed, they can live out their sentence with the satisfaction that they are innocent. Spiritually that can mean a lot.

For those who deserve punishment, life imprisonment is a harsher punishment. They don't deserve to get off so easy by having their life (and suffering) ended early. Let them rot in jail. Unlike the innocent mentioned above, they have no spiritual satisfaction.

Lastly, in the US it costs more to execute someone than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their life. And instead of corrections officers benefiting from the incarceration through continued employment, in the case of an execution, the only ones who benefit are the lawyers.

It makes no sense to spend all that money to kill someone who might be innocent, or to kill someone who is guilty and put them out of their misery. Let them stew in their misery. And give the jobs to the corrections staff, not the lawyers.
post #3 of 66
I don't support the death penalty as a run of the mill punishment (e.g. "the penalty for murder is death"), because human knowledge is imperfect and it's too easy to kill an innocent man.

But I think there are exceptional cases where it can be used. Where the guilt is not in question, and the crime is so horrendous, such as serial killer of children, and he laughs and is proud of it.

This kind of person is so rare, I would expect the death penalty to be used like once or twice a decade.

My country (Australia) is just below Asia, a dynamic and growing continent. But they take drug trafficking very seriously, and will give the death penalty for it. The firing squad. I just mention this for people who want to paint the US as extreme for killing murderers, it's all relative, and the US is middle of the road.
post #4 of 66
I'm in a country in Asia where they hang you for drug trafficking, and the amounts to "qualify" for the death penalty are extremely low compared to non-death serious punishment in the rest of the world.

I think, it's 2011, killing anyone as a legal, legitimate punishment is, well, certainly archaic. It may be warranted for serial killers and what not but Tonton's points above are sound.

Humanity would take a great stride forward when we don't kill those that don't want to die and we assist those that do want to move on. Imagine the kind of society and spiritual outlook needed for that to happen.
post #5 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No.

There are countless cases of wrongful conviction. Even if one of those fails the appeal process and is wrongfully executed, then that's murder. Meanwhile, those wrongfully convicted who are sentenced to life imprisonment have a chance at someday being freed, and even if they are never freed, they can live out their sentence with the satisfaction that they are innocent. Spiritually that can mean a lot.

For those who deserve punishment, life imprisonment is a harsher punishment. They don't deserve to get off so easy by having their life (and suffering) ended early. Let them rot in jail. Unlike the innocent mentioned above, they have no spiritual satisfaction.

Lastly, in the US it costs more to execute someone than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their life. And instead of corrections officers benefiting from the incarceration through continued employment, in the case of an execution, the only ones who benefit are the lawyers.

It makes no sense to spend all that money to kill someone who might be innocent, or to kill someone who is guilty and put them out of their misery. Let them stew in their misery. And give the jobs to the corrections staff, not the lawyers.

Well said. I agree.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #6 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No.

There are countless cases of wrongful conviction. Even if one of those fails the appeal process and is wrongfully executed, then that's murder. Meanwhile, those wrongfully convicted who are sentenced to life imprisonment have a chance at someday being freed, and even if they are never freed, they can live out their sentence with the satisfaction that they are innocent. Spiritually that can mean a lot.

If applied correctly, the today's technology should be be able to prevent wrongful convictions. There should be safeguards, meaning that we should have a different evidentiary standard for the death penalty...if we're going to have it.

Quote:

For those who deserve punishment, life imprisonment is a harsher punishment. They don't deserve to get off so easy by having their life (and suffering) ended early. Let them rot in jail. Unlike the innocent mentioned above, they have no spiritual satisfaction.

Modern prisons are far too good for some.

Quote:

Lastly, in the US it costs more to execute someone than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their life. And instead of corrections officers benefiting from the incarceration through continued employment, in the case of an execution, the only ones who benefit are the lawyers.

That's not clear cut (cost). It's hard to determine. We do know that it costs between 1 and 3 million to give someone life without parole.

Quote:

It makes no sense to spend all that money to kill someone who might be innocent, or to kill someone who is guilty and put them out of their misery. Let them stew in their misery. And give the jobs to the corrections staff, not the lawyers.

The chance the person is innocent is very slim. It takes years to go through the process, with every case being reviewed multiple times.

All that said..I'm unsure if how I feel about the death penalty. I don't think it's a crime deterrent, and it's rarely carried out. Many inmates are on death row for 20 years! In essence we don't have a death penalty. My other problem is that our Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishment. Isn't putting someone to death cruel and/or unusual? There's at least an argument it is.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #7 of 66
What's cruel and unusual is the overcrowding of our prisons with those who committed victimless crimes--and the idea that prison rape is something normal and to be expected.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #8 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I don't support the death penalty as a run of the mill punishment (e.g. "the penalty for murder is death"), because human knowledge is imperfect and it's too easy to kill an innocent man.

But I think there are exceptional cases where it can be used. Where the guilt is not in question, and the crime is so horrendous, such as serial killer of children, and he laughs and is proud of it.

This kind of person is so rare, I would expect the death penalty to be used like once or twice a decade.

My country (Australia) is just below Asia, a dynamic and growing continent. But they take drug trafficking very seriously, and will give the death penalty for it. The firing squad. I just mention this for people who want to paint the US as extreme for killing murderers, it's all relative, and the US is middle of the road.

I agree with your country regarding drug trafficking this is a cancer that is spreading throughout the world and must be stopped at all costs including the death sentence.The U.S. stinks on the judicial system we have now.
post #9 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

I agree with your country regarding drug trafficking this is a cancer that is spreading throughout the world and must be stopped at all costs including the death sentence.The U.S. stinks on the judicial system we have now.

As long as non-dangerous recreational drugs are decriminalized.

LSD, Marajuana and MDMA should all be legal and regulated.

All forms of cocaine and heroin and PCP and methamphetamines and Ketamine should remain highly illegal.
post #10 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

If applied correctly, the today's technology should be be able to prevent wrongful convictions. There should be safeguards, meaning that we should have a different evidentiary standard for the death penalty...if we're going to have it.

No matter how perfect and flawless the technology, its not going to work within a "justice" system which is imperfect and severely flawed. The worst parts of human nature allow for it.

Quote:
Modern prisons are far too good for some.

I can name of a few people in public life for whom "modern prisons are too good". But I won't.

Quote:
That's not clear cut (cost). It's hard to determine. We do know that it costs between 1 and 3 million to give someone life without parole.

But think of the profits for CCA and the other prison industrial companies!

Quote:
The chance the person is innocent is very slim. It takes years to go through the process, with every case being reviewed multiple times.

Ethically, (imho) that's not sufficient. The chance would have to be exactly *zero* of innocence before that aspect of capital punishment can be "ethically cleared", if such a term is even appropriate? Then what are the ethics of declaring oneself "God" and taking another's life? But then, do ethics count for anything in today's uber-materialistic society?

Quote:
All that said..I'm unsure if how I feel about the death penalty. I don't think it's a crime deterrent, and it's rarely carried out. Many inmates are on death row for 20 years! In essence we don't have a death penalty.

Really? And then, how about the extrajudicial killings that have been justified by the war on terrorism? How about the dozens of independent journalists murdered in Iraq?

Quote:
My other problem is that our Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishment. Isn't putting someone to death cruel and/or unusual? There's at least an argument it is.

Agreed about the non-deterrent aspect of the death penalty. When the Constitution was written the death penalty was a very common punishment, and the cruelty of its usual method, by "hanging from the neck until dead" is debatable (death was swift if the hangman did his job properly). Of course, the dead cannot speak re. the cruelty of the method of their demise. Today, capital punishment is either outlawed or under as moratorium in 136 nations. So perhaps capital punishment is now a "less than usual" (unusual?) form of punishment worldwide. The nations that have retained the death penalty almost all in SE Asia, Africa and the Caribbean islands... and the US... the sole Western industrial nation to retain it.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #11 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

What's cruel and unusual is the overcrowding of our prisons with those who committed victimless crimes--and the idea that prison rape is something normal and to be expected.

We agree there. There are far too many people in jail for non-violent drug offenses and/or white collar crimes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

I agree with your country



Quote:
.... regarding drug trafficking this is a cancer that is spreading throughout the world and must be stopped at all costs including the death sentence.The U.S. stinks on the judicial system we have now.






Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

As long as non-dangerous recreational drugs are decriminalized.

LSD, Marajuana and MDMA should all be legal and regulated.

All forms of cocaine and heroin and PCP and methamphetamines and Ketamine should remain highly illegal.

Why should cocaine et al be illegal to consume? I think that it shouldn't be illegal for any adult to put any substance in his body. That said, drug use is very harmful to our society. My preference would be to put our "war on drugs" money into treatment and anti-drug education programs. Many say that stopping our war on supply would result in drugs flooding the streets. To that, I reply that drugs already flood our streets. We need to try something different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

No matter how perfect and flawless the technology, its not going to work within a "justice" system which is imperfect and severely flawed. The worst parts of human nature allow for it.

All justice systems are imperfect and severely flawed.

Quote:



I can name of a few people in public life for whom "modern prisons are too good". But I won't.

Of course you can. Just as you can ignore and dismiss actual murderers.

Quote:



But think of the profits for CCA and the other prison industrial companies!



Ethically, (imho) that's not sufficient. The chance would have to be exactly *zero* of innocence before that aspect of capital punishment can be "ethically cleared", if such a term is even appropriate? Then what are the ethics of declaring oneself "God" and taking another's life? But then, do ethics count for anything in today's uber-materialistic society?

Getting to zero is impossible. And I love it when liberals try to invoke God in their arguments...

Quote:


Really? And then, how about the extrajudicial killings that have been justified by the war on terrorism? How about the dozens of independent journalists murdered in Iraq?

Yes, really. Read your own fucking link. I'm not taking the bait on the WOT thing.

Quote:



Agreed about the non-deterrent aspect of the death penalty. When the Constitution was written the death penalty was a very common punishment, and the cruelty of its usual method, by "hanging from the neck until dead" is debatable (death was swift if the hangman did his job properly). Of course, the dead cannot speak re. the cruelty of the method of their demise. Today, capital punishment is either outlawed or under as moratorium in 136 nations. So perhaps capital punishment is now a "less than usual" (unusual?) form of punishment worldwide. The nations that have retained the death penalty almost all in SE Asia, Africa and the Caribbean islands... and the US... the sole Western industrial nation to retain it.

I frankly don't care what other nations do in this case. I really don't.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #12 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We agree there. There are far too many people in jail for non-violent drug offenses and/or white collar crimes.

We'll agree on the drugs. We'll disagree on the white collar crimes. Fraud, especially the kind that led to the economic collapse, should be severely punished. The perpetrators of that collapse should be locked up for quite a while.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #13 of 66
Sounds like a politician-

"White-collar crime, therefore, overlaps with corporate crime because the opportunity for fraud, bribery, insider trading, embezzlement, computer crime, copyright infringement, money laundering, identity theft, and forgery are more available to white-collar employees."

Cowards in other words!
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #14 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

We'll agree on the drugs. We'll disagree on the white collar crimes. Fraud, especially the kind that led to the economic collapse, should be severely punished. The perpetrators of that collapse should be locked up for quite a while.

Like Madoff who is in jail for 150 years costing the taxpayer lots of money over the years.
post #15 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

As long as non-dangerous recreational drugs are decriminalized.

LSD, Marajuana and MDMA should all be legal and regulated.

All forms of cocaine and heroin and PCP and methamphetamines and Ketamine should remain highly illegal.

Why would you want to control LSD.This is a really psychotic drug.My friend died from this drug years ago in college.No drugs are good for you even pot.
post #16 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Why would you want to control LSD.This is a really psychotic drug.My friend died from this drug years ago in college.No drugs are good for you even pot.

First of all, despite what the FDA says about marijuana there are many instances where it can be extremely good for you, such as in controlling the pain and loss of appetite from chemotherapy or AIDS treatment. Get your facts straight.

Second, it's not about what's good for you. Chocolate isn't good for you.

And third, I don't believe you. Toxicity deaths from LSD are extremely rare/almost unheard of. Even if you believe the questionable stories or possible misdiagnoses, LSD overdose resulting in death is Probably about 1/10000th as common per dose as toxicity deaths from alcohol. LSD use resulting in self-harm or harm of others is also negligible compared to the effects of alcohol. And any bad experience can make you nuts. Perhaps we should outlaw love if that's a criterion.
post #17 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

For those who deserve punishment, life imprisonment is a harsher punishment. They don't deserve to get off so easy by having their life (and suffering) ended early. Let them rot in jail. Unlike the innocent mentioned above, they have no spiritual satisfaction.

I'm not interested in a "harsher" punishment... I just want them put down so they quit bothering the rest of society.



Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Lastly, in the US it costs more to execute someone than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their life. And instead of corrections officers benefiting from the incarceration through continued employment, in the case of an execution, the only ones who benefit are the lawyers.

It makes no sense to spend all that money to kill someone who might be innocent, or to kill someone who is guilty and put them out of their misery. Let them stew in their misery. And give the jobs to the corrections staff, not the lawyers.


Source?
I don't have a source to prove otherwise, but I find your statement a bit hard to swallow. If, say, the average life sentence lasts 30-40 years, I find it hard to believe that's cheaper than killing them. They still rack up the same appeals costs, etc as the person being put to death.
The judicial system and associated punishments are NOT about providing jobs.



Air conditioning/Heating. Television. Workout facilities. 3 meals a day. Roof over your head. Unlimited no-cost health care.

How is that "punishment"? It's a better life than many of them lived in "freedom". The threat of rape or a gang beating is the only "deterrent" left to make prison seem like a place you DON'T want to be.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #18 of 66
The Taliban reduced the production of opium by 95% and since the US invaded it has skyrocketed. The US plays an important role in the growth of opium and it's distribution. 10,000 deaths in the EU each year doesn't deter them when there's so much money at stake. The yearly street value is somewhere around $500 billion from Afghanistan.

Can the US stop it?

It could buy the yearly crop of opium for the same amount it spends each month fighting the war-

"Rather than fighting the cultivation through military efforts, Kinzer said, the US government should purchase the annual poppy crop from Afghan farmers for an estimated $3-4 billion a year – the same amount spent on the war in Afghanistan every month."
~ http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2011...t-as-ever.html
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #19 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

First of all, despite what the FDA says about marijuana there are many instances where it can be extremely good for you, such as in controlling the pain and loss of appetite from chemotherapy or AIDS treatment. Get your facts straight.

Second, it's not about what's good for you. Chocolate isn't good for you.

And third, I don't believe you. Toxicity deaths from LSD are extremely rare/almost unheard of. Even if you believe the questionable stories or possible misdiagnoses, LSD overdose resulting in death is Probably about 1/10000th as common per dose as toxicity deaths from alcohol. LSD use resulting in self-harm or harm of others is also negligible compared to the effects of alcohol. And any bad experience can make you nuts. Perhaps we should outlaw love if that's a criterion.

Your opinion aside. Here are some actual facts on LSD.

http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs4/4260/index.htm

Quote:
The effects associated with LSD use are unpredictable and depend upon the amount taken, the surroundings in which the drug is used, and the user's personality, mood, and expectations. Some LSD users experience a feeling of despair, while others report terrifying fears--of losing control, going insane, or dying. Some users have suffered fatal accidents while under the influence of LSD.

LSD users often have flashbacks, during which certain aspects of their LSD experience recur even though they have stopped taking the drug. In addition, LSD users may develop long-lasting psychoses, such as schizophrenia or severe depression.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/hallucinogens.html

Quote:
LSD. Sensations and feelings change much more dramatically than the physical signs in people under the influence of LSD. The user may feel several different emotions at once or swing rapidly from one emotion to another. If taken in large enough doses, the drug produces delusions and visual hallucinations. The users sense of time and self is altered. Experiences may seem to cross over different senses, giving the user the feeling of hearing colors and seeing sounds. These changes can be frightening and can cause panic. Some LSD users experience severe, terrifying thoughts and feelings of despair, fear of losing control, or fear of insanity and death while using LSD.

LSD users can also experience flashbacks, or recurrences of certain aspects of the drug experience. Flashbacks occur suddenly, often without warning, and may do so within a few days or more than a year after LSD use. In some individuals, the flashbacks can persist and cause significant distress or impairment in social or occupational functioning, a condition known as hallucinogen-induced persisting perceptual disorder (HPPD).

http://www.neurosoup.com/schedule1/deathstats.htm

854.1\tPsychodysleptics\tLSD, Mescaline, Psilocybin\t54\t1.14

Not a very poisonous substance. Those deaths are over the course of many years and are the combined numbers of the three drugs listed. However, the death rate due to a "bad trip" cannot be ignored, no matter how you want to pretend it is no worse than any emotional response.

I am done digging on this. I am sure there are many more links to data that can be brought up. Your dismissal of his friends death was rude. He did not say it was due to poisoning, it may have been due to many other side effects. It may be safe related to some of the harsher drugs like crack, however safety is is the eyes of the beholder.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #20 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The Taliban reduced the production of opium by 95% and since the US invaded it has skyrocketed. The US plays an important role in the growth of opium and it's distribution...

Do you have a source for this?... or are you just making up numbers?

The article you quoted says the production drops were due to agricultural disease... not because of either the U.S. OR the Taliban. (Unless, perhaps, the disease was introduced by one or the other party???)

How is it that the U.S. plays an "important" role in opium's growth and distribution? (Neither idea is covered in the article you DID quote.)
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #21 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Your opinion aside. Here are some actual facts on LSD.

http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs4/4260/index.htm



http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/hallucinogens.html


http://www.neurosoup.com/schedule1/deathstats.htm

854.1\tPsychodysleptics\tLSD, Mescaline, Psilocybin\t54\t1.14

Not a very poisonous substance. Those deaths are over the course of many years and are the combined numbers of the three drugs listed. However, the death rate due to a "bad trip" cannot be ignored, no matter how you want to pretend it is no worse than any emotional response.

I am done digging on this. I am sure there are many more links to data that can be brought up. Your dismissal of his friends death was rude. He did not say it was due to poisoning, it may have been due to many other side effects. It may be safe related to some of the harsher drugs like crack, however safety is is the eyes of the beholder.

The point is, it's a hell of a lot safer (somewhere along the order of a hundred times safer at least) than alcohol, both for toxicity and for secondary death (e.g. drunk driving death). So choosing one of the two, which should be illegal... or neither?
post #22 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Do you have a source for this?... or are you just making up numbers?

The article you quoted says the production drops were due to agricultural disease... not because of either the U.S. OR the Taliban. (Unless, perhaps, the disease was introduced by one or the other party???)

How is it that the U.S. plays an "important" role in opium's growth and distribution? (Neither idea is covered in the article you DID quote.)

Obviously I don't always have readily available links but the 95% reduction under the Taliban comes from the BBC-

"Despite its own figures showing the Taleban had cut Afghanistan's heroin production by about 95%, the report claimed that heroin had "financed the former Taleban regime".

The UN International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) report, released on 26 February, said that Afghanistan produced 3,400 tonnes last year, up from 185 tonnes in 2001."
~ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/2814861.stm

This is interesting too-

"Do you think that Russia, with its hard-won experience, could lead the global fight against Afghanistan's drug-traffic?

Today Afghanistan produces nearly the world's entire volume of opiates. This is a phenomenon. We invited participants to a Moscow forum to say that the world needs to take responsibility for the fate of Afghanistan; the decision was made to apply military force, so Afghanistan would become a free, democratic, developing state; but since that decision was made, the amount of heroine produced in Afghanistan has grown by 40 times."
~ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored...rugs-tsar.html


And I don't make stuff up, thats for e# and SDW to do in the GW thread.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #23 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The Taliban reduced the production of opium by 95% and since the US invaded it has skyrocketed. The US plays an important role in the growth of opium and it's distribution. 10,000 deaths in the EU each year doesn't deter them when there's so much money at stake. The yearly street value is somewhere around $500 billion from Afghanistan.

Can the US stop it?

It could buy the yearly crop of opium for the same amount it spends each month fighting the war-

"Rather than fighting the cultivation through military efforts, Kinzer said, the US government should purchase the annual poppy crop from Afghan farmers for an estimated $3-4 billion a year – the same amount spent on the war in Afghanistan every month."
~ http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2011...t-as-ever.html

The size and scope of annual trade in narcotics ranks alongside oil and arms.

extracted:

Quote:
Profits: Due to its illicit nature, statistics about profits from the drug trade are largely unknown. In its 1997 World Drugs Report the UNODC estimated the value of the market at USD$400 billion, ranking drugs alongside arms and oil amongst the world's largest traded goods.[10] An online report published by the UK Home Office in 2007 estimated the illicit drug market in the UK at £4–6.6 billion a year.

In December 2009, the United Nations' Drugs and Crime Tsar Antonio Maria Costa claimed that illegal drug money saved the banking industry from collapse. He claimed he had seen evidence that the proceeds of organised crime were "the only liquid investment capital" available to some banks on the brink of collapse during 2008. He said that a majority of the $352bn (£216bn) of drugs profits was absorbed into the economic system as a result. "In many instances, the money from drugs was the only liquid investment capital. In the second half of 2008, liquidity was the banking system's main problem and hence liquid capital became an important factor...Inter-bank loans were funded by money that originated from the drugs trade and other illegal activities... There were signs that some banks were rescued that way". Costa declined to identify countries or banks that may have received any drug money, saying that would be inappropriate because his office is supposed to address the problem, not apportion blame.

We have been led to believe that drug dealers keep their profits "under their mattresses". There is no $interest on a mattress investment, only depreciation due to inflation, and a security nightmare to boot. Of course the major dealers and suppliers use the banking system, or other "respectable" (!) institutions... they are all members of the same corrupt system.

Why do you think the US was planning on invading Afghanistan as early as 1999, and specific plans for Afghanistan and Iraq were on the George W. Bush Oval Office desk as early as January 2001? Then there was the issue of the Taliban playing hardball re. the Unocal pipeline.... the war against Afghanistan was a virtual certainty, that is, if Congress and the US public could have been persuaded to support such.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #24 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

The size and scope of annual trade in narcotics ranks alongside oil and arms.

extracted:



We have been led to believe that drug dealers keep their profits "under their mattresses". There is no $interest on a mattress investment, only depreciation due to inflation, and a security nightmare to boot. Of course the major dealers and suppliers use the banking system, or other "respectable" (!) institutions... they are all members of the same corrupt system.

Why do you think the US was planning on invading Afghanistan as early as 1999, and specific plans for Afghanistan and Iraq were on the George W. Bush Oval Office desk as early as January 2001? Then there was the issue of the Taliban playing hardball re. the Unocal pipeline.... the war against Afghanistan was a virtual certainty, that is, if Congress and the US public could have been persuaded to support such.


Yeah it's pretty crazy. That's REAL money! Who else has it? lol.

Wachovia and no doubt others are in on the trade-

"Sloman said a systematic failure by Wachovia, now a unit of Wells Fargo & Co , to maintain effective anti-money laundering (AML) controls had led to more than $400 billion in unmonitored funds being channeled to accounts at the bank between 2004 and 2007 by currency exchange houses in Mexico, mostly through wire transfers."
~ http://www.signalnonoise.com/?p=842

And that $400 billion is just Mexico alone in just three years from one bank (I think there were actually two charged, but the article doesn't say that).

Wachovia was providing a great service if you're a drug dealer especially and I suspect of that unmonitored $400 billion most was drug money or funded by drug money (and illegal arms) and made Wachovia far more than the $160 million the government made them pay.

"Investigators said that although Wachovia had been aware since 1996 and through 2004 of the high risk that drugs money was being laundered through the Mexican currency exchange houses, it expanded its business with them, and failed to implement monitoring procedures as required under law.

We count on banks to be our first line of defense, against money-laundering, fraud and financing for terrorism, said Daniel Auer, Special Agent in Charge in Miami for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)."
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #25 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The point is, it's a hell of a lot safer (somewhere along the order of a hundred times safer at least) than alcohol, both for toxicity and for secondary death (e.g. drunk driving death). So choosing one of the two, which should be illegal... or neither?

The point you made was that Marv was lying to you and that his friends death was not what he said it was. That is what i was addressing with actual facts rather than simple dismissal of your position.

To your pooint, Alcohol can be safer, or less safe than any other drug depending on dosage. Same goes for most, not all, other drugs. Even with LSD your results will vary depending on simple surroundings during the use of the drug, the music playing, or your state of mind when you began. The dosage itself is another factor that must be kept in mind, and the side effects speak for themselves. The drug may not be physically damaging overall, but the results can be very unpredictable otherwise which makes the drug disturbing to people and has led to a lot of mythos around it.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #26 of 66
So as someone who hates nanny states so much, you should be in favor of legalizing all drugs and letting individuals take personal responsibility. It's sad...drug legalization and prostitution SHOULD be huge conservative causes that many on the left would agree with...and yet, we don't have very many real conservatives in the Republican party.

As Jimmy Carter recently stated, and I paraphrase here, the punishment for doing drugs should not be worse than the effects of the drugs themselves. Full decriminalization is needed at the very least. Full legalization is the dream.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #27 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

As Jimmy Carter recently stated, and I paraphrase here, the punishment for doing drugs should not be worse than the effects of the drugs themselves.

Keeping the thread on topic...

"Drugs" can cause death... it's pretty much the definitive symptom of overdose.
So the punishment for doing drugs could be the death penalty!
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #28 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

First of all, despite what the FDA says about marijuana there are many instances where it can be extremely good for you, such as in controlling the pain and loss of appetite from chemotherapy or AIDS treatment. Get your facts straight.

Second, it's not about what's good for you. Chocolate isn't good for you.

And third, I don't believe you. Toxicity deaths from LSD are extremely rare/almost unheard of. Even if you believe the questionable stories or possible misdiagnoses, LSD overdose resulting in death is Probably about 1/10000th as common per dose as toxicity deaths from alcohol. LSD use resulting in self-harm or harm of others is also negligible compared to the effects of alcohol. And any bad experience can make you nuts. Perhaps we should outlaw love if that's a criterion.

Hey know it all I do not lie! My friend walked right off the roof of the college we were attending after taking LSD at 23 years old.Stop acting like a know it all and listen to some people who tell the truth.Good luck in your life if you indulge in drugs see how long you will live.
post #29 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Hey know it all I do not lie! My friend walked right off the roof of the college we were attending after taking LSD at 23 years old.Stop acting like a know it all and listen to some people who tell the truth.Good luck in your life if you indulge in drugs see how long you will live.

I'm sorry to hear about your friend, and I apologize for assuming you meant it was a death due to toxicity. But.. As far as falling from a height is concerned... I know someone who died the same way as a result of alcohol. I'm not kidding. So the question remains... Is LSD more dangerous than alcohol?
post #30 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Keeping the thread on topic...

"Drugs" can cause death... it's pretty much the definitive symptom of overdose.
So the punishment for doing drugs could be the death penalty!

Getting In your car and driving down the road to the supermarket has a higher death rate than taking LSD. Perhaps we should have the death penalty for speeding?
post #31 of 66
Guess I should have added the "winking smiley" to ensure the sarcasm was understood.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #32 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

So as someone who hates nanny states so much, you should be in favor of legalizing all drugs and letting individuals take personal responsibility. It's sad...drug legalization and prostitution SHOULD be huge conservative causes that many on the left would agree with...and yet, we don't have very many real conservatives in the Republican party.

As Jimmy Carter recently stated, and I paraphrase here, the punishment for doing drugs should not be worse than the effects of the drugs themselves. Full decriminalization is needed at the very least. Full legalization is the dream.

Was that directed at me?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #33 of 66
There's another aspect of drug pushing that seldom gets mentioned. Turn on your TV and you will see all manner of dangerous substances, requiring a doctor's prescription, being advertised to the general *public*, the huge majority of whom no nothing little about the (side) effects of these chemicals, and implicitly trust in the medical profession to "make them better when they get sick". The same hard sell advertising campaigns are directed at doctors and other health professionals, with generous paybacks and other perks in order "shift the most units", regardless of the necessity of the prescription.

As a result of America's craze for arbitrarily popping pills on (often misplaced) trust, approximately 100,000 people die and 2 million are injured by poisoning/bad reactions to prescription drugs each year. Nobody goes to jail as a result. Punishment (re drugs) is dependent on status... Vioxx for example... the maker (Merck) fabricated efficacy studies, earned $2.5 billion from pushing this stuff... . (from wikipedia: FDA analysts estimated that Vioxx caused between 88,000 and 139,000 heart attacks, 30 to 40 percent of which were probably fatal, in the five years the drug was on the market. If this analysis of U.S. data is accurate, the worldwide death toll due to Vioxx would be in the hundreds of thousands).

In contrast, grow a few marijuana plants......
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #34 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

We'll agree on the drugs. We'll disagree on the white collar crimes. Fraud, especially the kind that led to the economic collapse, should be severely punished. The perpetrators of that collapse should be locked up for quite a while.

I don't know...I think that we can do better than to just throw these people behind bars. I'd rather see them forced to help undue the damage they've caused, participate in public service, etc than sacrifice their freedom in most cases. And who are the "perpetrators" of the economic collapse, exactly?

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Why would you want to control LSD.This is a really psychotic drug.My friend died from this drug years ago in college.No drugs are good for you even pot.

I'm sorry about your friend. I also see why tonton assumed you meant it was from poisoning. Drugs are not "bad" for you in many cases. It depends on dosage, frequency of use, and of course--the type of drug. Marijuana (as others note) can actually be beneficial, as can many others. Regardless, I still don't think the government should be telling us what we can put in our bodies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

First of all, despite what the FDA says about marijuana there are many instances where it can be extremely good for you, such as in controlling the pain and loss of appetite from chemotherapy or AIDS treatment. Get your facts straight.

Agreed.

Quote:

Second, it's not about what's good for you. Chocolate isn't good for you.

It can be quite good for you, actually.


And third, I don't believe you. Toxicity deaths from LSD are extremely rare/almost unheard of. Even if you believe the questionable stories or possible misdiagnoses, LSD overdose resulting in death is Probably about 1/10000th as common per dose as toxicity deaths from alcohol. LSD use resulting in self-harm or harm of others is also negligible compared to the effects of alcohol. And any bad experience can make you nuts. Perhaps we should outlaw love if that's a criterion.[/QUOTE]

We now know he didn't mean that, but your point remains.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The Taliban reduced the production of opium by 95% and since the US invaded it has skyrocketed. The US plays an important role in the growth of opium and it's distribution. 10,000 deaths in the EU each year doesn't deter them when there's so much money at stake. The yearly street value is somewhere around $500 billion from Afghanistan.

Can the US stop it?

It could buy the yearly crop of opium for the same amount it spends each month fighting the war-

"Rather than fighting the cultivation through military efforts, Kinzer said, the US government should purchase the annual poppy crop from Afghan farmers for an estimated $3-4 billion a year the same amount spent on the war in Afghanistan every month."
~ http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2011...t-as-ever.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Obviously I don't always have readily available links but the 95% reduction under the Taliban comes from the BBC-

"Despite its own figures showing the Taleban had cut Afghanistan's heroin production by about 95%, the report claimed that heroin had "financed the former Taleban regime".

The UN International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) report, released on 26 February, said that Afghanistan produced 3,400 tonnes last year, up from 185 tonnes in 2001."
~ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/2814861.stm

This is interesting too-

"Do you think that Russia, with its hard-won experience, could lead the global fight against Afghanistan's drug-traffic?

Today Afghanistan produces nearly the world's entire volume of opiates. This is a phenomenon. We invited participants to a Moscow forum to say that the world needs to take responsibility for the fate of Afghanistan; the decision was made to apply military force, so Afghanistan would become a free, democratic, developing state; but since that decision was made, the amount of heroine produced in Afghanistan has grown by 40 times."
~ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored...rugs-tsar.html


And I don't make stuff up, thats for e# and SDW to do in the GW thread.


Thanks for hit and run. As for Afghanistan, I understand...but what is your point? Did we deliberately allow more production, or just ignore it, or did it happen for some other reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

The size and scope of annual trade in narcotics ranks alongside oil and arms.

extracted:



We have been led to believe that drug dealers keep their profits "under their mattresses". There is no $interest on a mattress investment, only depreciation due to inflation, and a security nightmare to boot. Of course the major dealers and suppliers use the banking system, or other "respectable" (!) institutions... they are all members of the same corrupt system.

Why do you think the US was planning on invading Afghanistan as early as 1999, and specific plans for Afghanistan and Iraq were on the George W. Bush Oval Office desk as early as January 2001? Then there was the issue of the Taliban playing hardball re. the Unocal pipeline.... the war against Afghanistan was a virtual certainty, that is, if Congress and the US public could have been persuaded to support such.

....and we're back. Next up on Conspiracy Hour Today with Sammi Jo Conspiracy: The Secret US Plan to Invade Afghanistan...did it involve deliberately increasing drug supply? Film at 11!



Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I'm sorry to hear about your friend, and I apologize for assuming you meant it was a death due to toxicity. But.. As far as falling from a height is concerned... I know someone who died the same way as a result of alcohol. I'm not kidding. So the question remains... Is LSD more dangerous than alcohol?

I think it arguably might be. Consider for a moment that people consumed it like they do alcohol. How would it impact their daily activities? What if the two martini lunch became the two hit lunch? I think that would be much more dangerous. That's not an argument for making it illegal, but that's what I think.



Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

There's another aspect of drug pushing that seldom gets mentioned. Turn on your TV and you will see all manner of dangerous substances, requiring a doctor's prescription, being advertised to the general *public*, the huge majority of whom no nothing little about the (side) effects of these chemicals, and implicitly trust in the medical profession to "make them better when they get sick". The same hard sell advertising campaigns are directed at doctors and other health professionals, with generous paybacks and other perks in order "shift the most units", regardless of the necessity of the prescription.

We agree there. I have my problems with the FDA allowing TV advertising for drugs since it started in what...1997?

Quote:

As a result of America's craze for arbitrarily popping pills on (often misplaced) trust, approximately 100,000 people die and 2 million are injured by poisoning/bad reactions to prescription drugs each year. Nobody goes to jail as a result. Punishment (re drugs) is dependent on status... Vioxx for example... the maker (Merck) fabricated efficacy studies, earned $2.5 billion from pushing this stuff... . (from wikipedia: FDA analysts estimated that Vioxx caused between 88,000 and 139,000 heart attacks, 30 to 40 percent of which were probably fatal, in the five years the drug was on the market. If this analysis of U.S. data is accurate, the worldwide death toll due to Vioxx would be in the hundreds of thousands).

In contrast, grow a few marijuana plants......

Now you're just making it shit up. As for Vioxx, it's not that simple. First, they didn't "make" $2.5 billion. That was their total sales. And there is no evidence that Vioxx "caused" even close to that number of heart attacks. From wiki:

Quote:
The VIGOR (Vioxx GI Outcomes Research) study, conducted by Bombardier, et al., which compared the efficacy and adverse effect profiles of rofecoxib and naproxen, had indicated a significant 4-fold increased risk of acute myocardial infarction (heart attack) in rofecoxib patients when compared with naproxen patients (0.4% vs 0.1%, RR 0.25) over the 12 month span of the study. The elevated risk began during the second month on rofecoxib. There was no significant difference in the mortality from cardiovascular events between the two groups, nor was there any significant difference in the rate of myocardial infarction between the rofecoxib and naproxen treatment groups in patients without high cardiovascular risk. The difference in overall risk was by the patients at higher risk of heart attack, i.e. those meeting the criteria for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis of secondary cardiovascular events (previous myocardial infarction, angina, cerebrovascular accident, transient ischemic attack, or coronary artery bypass).

Translation: Among people with previous cardiac problems, those on Vioxx experienced a greater risk of heart attacks than those taking naproxen. This rate was a .4% in naproxen patients and .1% in Vioxx patients. Where Merck got in trouble was when they claimed the difference was due to the protective effects of naproxen.

Quote:
Merck's scientists interpreted the finding as a protective effect of naproxen, telling the FDA that the difference in heart attacks "is primarily due to" this protective effect...

Merck should have acknowledged and dealt with the data. That kind of an increase is significant, but it was still a very low number and among people with previous heart problems. Vioxx itself was supposed to be an amazingly effective pain reliever, as was another COX inhibitor, Bextra (which I took). Bextra was taken off the market as well. In the words of my pain management doctor (low back problems for years), it was clearly a safe medication. The point is that Vioxx was not the devil. It was not causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. It simply should have been counter-indicated for people with cardiac history. And Merck should have stepped up to the plate.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #35 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The point is, it's a hell of a lot safer (somewhere along the order of a hundred times safer at least) than alcohol, both for toxicity and for secondary death (e.g. drunk driving death). So choosing one of the two, which should be illegal... or neither?

You really talk like a man who is just crapping spew out of his mouth! LSD is harmful!Maybe you take it now the way you sound.
post #36 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

You really talk like a man who is just crapping spew out of his mouth! LSD is harmful!Maybe you take it now the way you sound.

And alcohol is harmful. Maybe you're drunk now the way you sound.

Outlawing alcohol is harmful.

And... (fill in the blank).
post #37 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

....and we're back. Next up on Conspiracy Hour Today with Sammi Jo Conspiracy: The Secret US Plan to Invade Afghanistan...did it involve deliberately increasing drug supply? Film at 11!

Its Infantile Hour with SDW2001, yet again, episode 256e.

The plan to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11 was not "secret". Even the fucking BBC, a media company funded by the UK Government, reported this intent.

MSNBC, the well known crypto-communist conspiracy theorist media conglomerate, also reported that Afghanistan was in the sights of the Bush Administration well before 9/11.

So having established that 9/11 was NOT the reason to invade Afghanistan.. but was hard-sold as the justification for it... what else are we left with?

Oil and Drugs. The two biggest global money spinners... outside of warmongering.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #38 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Its Infantile Hour with SDW2001, yet again, episode 256e.

The plan to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11 was not "secret". Even the fucking BBC, a media company funded by the UK Government, reported this intent.

MSNBC, the well known crypto-communist conspiracy theorist media conglomerate, also reported that Afghanistan was in the sights of the Bush Administration well before 9/11.

So having established that 9/11 was NOT the reason to invade Afghanistan.. but was hard-sold as the justification for it... what else are we left with?

Oil and Drugs. The two biggest global money spinners... outside of warmongering.

I'm busy,

But briefly the bbc isn't givernment funded. Only the world service is government funded and that may be put under the umbrella of the liscence fee too soon-
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #39 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I'm busy,

But briefly the bbc isn't givernment funded. Only the world service is government funded and that may be put under the umbrella of the liscence fee too soon-
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC

Thats open to debate. The cost of a TV license fee, which covers most of the BBC's operating cost, is set by a UK Government Department. It is also against UK law (a criminal offense) to operate, even possess, a television without said license. In other words, the BBC is paid for by the UK public, and the UK Government, being (in theory) a democratic institution, represents said public. The BBC is not a privately run news service, as are the US networks.

Carry on.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #40 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Thats open to debate. The cost of a TV license fee, which covers most of the BBC's operating cost, is set by a UK Government Department. It is also against UK law (a criminal offense) to operate, even possess, a television without said license. In other words, the BBC is paid for by the UK public, and the UK Government, being (in theory) a democratic institution, represents said public. The BBC is not a privately run news service, as are the US networks.

Carry on.

You don't have to have a liscence just to own a tv. You are free to watch any of the myriad of tv without a liscence. You just can't watchive BBC programming. Indeed here we can watch the bbc iPlayer without a liscence too, so long as it's not live.

The Bbc is privately owned but it's under a charter so it's not as indepemdent as whoy commercial tv, however how free are they from the advertisers? I reckon the bbc is ironically more free as a result that all those drug ads make the like abc etc.

*walking with iPhone!!


Oops!

It seems you need a tv liscence to watch any live tv whether it's the bbc or not! Learn something new everd day!


For kingsofsomewherehot- http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.u...rogs/tvlicence
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Capital Punishment