Question for Lawyers About Prison

[IBleedCrimson]

i saw this article today and it got me thinkin

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/17/supreme.court.teen.lifers/index.html


Life 'cruel and unusual' punishment for teens, court rules
By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
May 17, 2010 8:51 p.m. EDT

Terrance Graham was sentenced to life without parole for robberies committed when he was 16 and 17.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Justices rule 6-3 that life sentence for teen robber is unconstitutional
Court finds that life sentences for teens who don't kill are "cruel and unusual"
Case involved Florida teen Terrance Graham, who participated in home invasions
Court ruled in 2005 that defendants under 18 cannot be executed
Washington (CNN) -- Sentencing juvenile criminals to life in prison without parole is "cruel and unusual" punishment, especially when their crime is not murder, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday.

prison is a scary as hell place for most everyone, but certain individuals are particularly prone to the violence and sexual abuse that oftentimes happens. my buddy is lookin at a dime in new york for some drug trafficking (heroin), and if convicted he will do his time in Sing Sing, which i hear is notoriously rough. he is 5'5" and about 145 lbs, and basically has no ability to defend himself against anyone, especially hardened criminals.

my question is this: has anyone successfully argued to a judge that prison is cruel and unusual punishment for someone like my friend because its almost guaranteed that he will be sexually and physically assaulted, and will probably be in constant fear for his life?

one would think a good lawyer would be able to make this argument to a liberal judge and maybe have success.

has anyone tried to do this? what are the legal ramifications and roadblocks?

[StoopTroup]

Is this for the Lawyers who've been to Prison or the ones who've avoided Prison so far?

[IBleedCrimson]

lol either. just want the legal perspective on the argument. i respect the legal minds on the forum and its an issue im curious about

[Turd_Ferguson]

So, he was trafficking heroin, and your concerned about him taking a **** up his ***?

[IBleedCrimson]

So, he was trafficking heroin, and your concerned about him taking a **** up his ***?

no, i think he should do the time. he committed a crime, got caught, and now must pay the price. i am simply curious....

[StoopTroup]

I think he should tie it up in Court and do more heroin.

I also think the Jury should be able to smoke weed during the proceedings as it doesn't really hurt their judgement. I just hope the Court pays for all of them to take a cab Home after it's over.

[CatfishSooner]

how much heroin?

feel bad for your friend...he won't have fun

[yermom]

prison needs bitches too ;)

i have a buddy in prison for a much more retarded reason, but i don't have all the details.

i can't imagine that 5'5" and 145lbs is near small enough to be considered cruel for imprisonment

[TUSooner]

In Koon v US, the Supreme Court held that it was OK under the then-mandatory federal sentencing guidelines to "depart" downward from the guidelines sentencing range based on the prisoner's extraordinary susceptibility to abuse from other prisoners. But Koon was one of the Rodney King beater-uppers, and cops are not popular in prison, I hear, especially if their crime is notorious. Now that the federal guidelines are merely advisory, this kind of reduction could happen more easily and be subject to great deference on appeal in federal court. But Koon didn't make an 8th Amendment "cruel & unusual punishment" argument, as far as I know. That particular novel constitutional argument would seem extremely unlikely to succeed in keeping a defendant out of jail altogether as a matter of law. And by "extremely unlikely" I mean "No F***ing Way."

I don't know what NY sentencing law is like, but I wouldn't think you'd need to make a far-fetched constitutional argument in an effort to get the sentence reduced, unless it's a statutory minimum; then your guy is SOL unless some exception applies. So...if the judge has discretion under NY law, he could reduce the sentence based on whatever argument he likes. He may also have discretion either to order or to recommend (as federal judges do) that the department of corrections put your bud in a lower security prison. A lot also probably depends on he amount of dope and on your buddy's criminal history.

So really, where your buddy goes, and for how long, depends on NY law and your guy's criminal history, which are unknown factors in this thread. If the cops and DA are saying "10 years in Sing Sing" it may just be the old negotiating ploy known as scaring the crap out of the defendant.

He needs a good lawyer, of course.

PS- There may be some law that says it's C&U to put people with certain physical or mental problems in prison, but I can't think of any. Being small wouldn't be one of them anyway. Some small people are really mean and nasty, btw.

[Leroy Lizard]

no, i think he should do the time. he committed a crime, got caught, and now must pay the price.

He's going to pay the price all right. Every night.

[StoopTroup]

He's going to pay the price all right. Every night.

Your jealous huh?

[TUSooner]

Regarding C&U punishment: Once the guy is in prison, he can sue the prison guards under 42 USC sec. 1983 if they show "deliberate indifference" to his need to be protected from other prisoners. But that a whole 'nother story.

[Leroy Lizard]

Somewhat related story:

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/575/New_York_Assembly_passes_Rockefeller_drug_law_refo rm

[Leroy Lizard]

Your jealous huh?

:rolleyes:

[StoopTroup]

:D

eMk9xLTjF88

[Stitch Face]

Ouch. I'll bet the dude wishes he had made some other choices in life. Especially, considering, you know- the whole being tiny and going to prison thing.

[Leroy Lizard]

Tool, anyone?

[lexsooner]

i saw this article today and it got me thinkin

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/17/supreme.court.teen.lifers/index.html



prison is a scary as hell place for most everyone, but certain individuals are particularly prone to the violence and sexual abuse that oftentimes happens. my buddy is lookin at a dime in new york for some drug trafficking (heroin), and if convicted he will do his time in Sing Sing, which i hear is notoriously rough. he is 5'5" and about 145 lbs, and basically has no ability to defend himself against anyone, especially hardened criminals.

my question is this: has anyone successfully argued to a judge that prison is cruel and unusual punishment for someone like my friend because its almost guaranteed that he will be sexually and physically assaulted, and will probably be in constant fear for his life?

one would think a good lawyer would be able to make this argument to a liberal judge and maybe have success.

has anyone tried to do this? what are the legal ramifications and roadblocks?

An Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment argument will not work to shorten his sentence. Like TU said, he can only argue it in a post-conviction civil case against prison officials for violations of the Eighth Amendment, i.e. physical abuse or deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition. The judge will be bound by sentencing guidelines for drug offenses, and your friend's age and size will not be a factor in determining a sentence.

However, his age and size will probably be a factor, as well as prior crimes, sentence length, seriousness of his offense, when prison officials assess your friend for placement in a prison and the security level of your friend and the prison. If he is lucky, he will be scored out as a lower security inmate and go to a low or minimum security prison where he will have fewer safety issues. If he is pressured in prison, he can always request protective custody and go into lockup away from other prisoners.

[Breadburner]

Tell him not to grow a goatee....

[StoopTroup]

Tell him not to grow a goatee....

or get any of those Prison Lizard Tats.

http://www.kaweah.com/images/lizard_man.jpg

[Leroy Lizard]

Tell him to adopt a username like "IBleed"... oh, that one's been taken.

[StoopTroup]

28SE_lWKnlE&feature=fvsr

[StoopTroup]

D48BYHnIREM&NR=1

[IBleedCrimson]

great info. thx tusooner and lex

few more questions....since the abuse is not certain to happen, and there are measures that can be taken to prevent it (low level security prison, protective custody etc) it is not considered c&u? so the only way this argument might work is if it was GUARANTEED to occur, like in the cop example by tusooner... is that correctish?

assuming he goes somewhere like sing sing, what are the chances a vulnerable person like him will go directly to protective custody or something similar?

i feel bad for this guy in the i-knew-him-in-highschool-before-he-got-strung-out-and-did-superstupidsh*t-to-support-his-habit kinda way. but he still committed a crime and payback is a motha fudga

[Okla-homey]

prison is a scary as hell place for most everyone, but certain individuals are particularly prone to the violence and sexual abuse that oftentimes happens. my buddy is lookin at a dime in new york for some drug trafficking (heroin), and if convicted he will do his time in Sing Sing, which i hear is notoriously rough. he is 5'5" and about 145 lbs, and basically has no ability to defend himself against anyone, especially hardened criminals.

my question is this: has anyone successfully argued to a judge that prison is cruel and unusual punishment for someone like my friend because its almost guaranteed that he will be sexually and physically assaulted, and will probably be in constant fear for his life?

one would think a good lawyer would be able to make this argument to a liberal judge and maybe have success.

has anyone tried to do this? what are the legal ramifications and roadblocks?

My opinion? Tell your friend to watch his corn-hole. That C/U defense is a loser for an able-bodied defendant who is also of sound mind.

And to keep him going while he's being sodomized every day, and sometimes twice a day on weekends, he can look forward to being a tatted-up ex-con someday, looking for work, and not finding it.

[yermom]

that's a whole other problem

what choice does one have but start a life of crime again after that?

[StoopTroup]

He could start a Protestant Church.

[Okla-homey]

that's a whole other problem

what choice does one have but start a life of crime again after that?

Precisely. That's why we shouldn't be spending beaucoup bucks locking up drug users and small-time dealers who have committed no other felonies.

Instead, we oughtta give 'em suspended sentences and require them to undergo drug rehab with teeth. Meaning we could certainly vacate the suspended sentence and send them to pound-you-in-the-a$$ prison if they did not comply with all the rehab terms and conditions and stay clean. Even if we paid for all the rehab, it's still a dang sight cheaper than locking someone up for years.

It also at least gives a human being a realistic chance to salvage his or her life, who otherwise gets tossed into a system that rarely rehabilitates.

[Leroy Lizard]

that's a whole other problem

what choice does one have but start a life of crime again after that?

Not start a life of crime.

[yermom]

Not start a life of crime.

real pragmatic there

[StoopTroup]

He could play guitar.

[yermom]

the question isn't just about how will some ex-con survive, it's more about keeping them from being criminals again once they get out

i'm not sure what should be done, but i don't think the current way of doing things works that well

[Leroy Lizard]

Precisely. That's why we shouldn't be spending beaucoup bucks locking up drug users and small-time dealers who have committed no other felonies.

Instead, we oughtta give 'em suspended sentences and require them to undergo drug rehab with teeth.

The man in question is in trouble for narcotics TRAFFICKING, not simply drug use. He may not even be taking heroin for all we know.

He got himself into this mess; let him get himself out. He knew the consequences, so he already had his chance.

[Leroy Lizard]

real pragmatic there

It's better than excusing them for committing crimes after they leave prison. And "excusing" is exactly what you were doing.

[yermom]

i challenge you to post where i excused anything

[Leroy Lizard]

"what choice does one have but start a life of crime again after that?"

If one truly has NO CHOICE, then one is excused.

[yermom]

you've lost me.

where did i excuse anything?

i just said that after getting out, they don't have many choices. i'm not excusing the original crime, or recidivism, but it's pretty obvious why it happens

[Okla-homey]

Prison is well known to be the place where small-time crooks go, not deliberately of course, to get healthy, strong, and to network and obtain graduate-level education in advanced crookery.

It's just a fact.

Therefore, we need to do our best to avoid sending small-time crooks to prison.

[Leroy Lizard]

you've lost me.

where did i excuse anything?

i just said that after getting out, they don't have many choices.

Don't have MANY choices? No, you said they have NO CHOICE.

No choice = excuse.

And we're not talking about the original crime. We're talking about crimes committed once they leave prison. You said they have no choice but to commit those crimes, which is the same as excusing them.

You said it. If you didn't mean it, then say so.

[lexsooner]

great info. thx tusooner and lex

few more questions....since the abuse is not certain to happen, and there are measures that can be taken to prevent it (low level security prison, protective custody etc) it is not considered c&u? so the only way this argument might work is if it was GUARANTEED to occur, like in the cop example by tusooner... is that correctish?

assuming he goes somewhere like sing sing, what are the chances a vulnerable person like him will go directly to protective custody or something similar?

i feel bad for this guy in the i-knew-him-in-highschool-before-he-got-strung-out-and-did-superstupidsh*t-to-support-his-habit kinda way. but he still committed a crime and payback is a motha fudga

"Cruel and unusual" punishment under the 8th Amendment is defined by an actual act or omission on the part of prison officials, like the examples I used before where a prison guard physically abuses a prisoner, or where a prisoner's serious medical condition is ignored by prison officials. An allegation that prison rape is highly likely or a sure thing will not state a cause of action under the 8th Amendment and is not going to work.

Even though you have given few details about your friend, it seems unlikely he will end up in a higher security prison. His sentence length is probably not that long, his prior criminal record not extensive, and I would hope he will be well-behaved upon entering prison. If NY is like most states such as OK, they will send him initially to an assessment prison, where he will be observed and then classified for security level and placement at a prison consistent with his classification. They will factor in his sentence length, criminal history, behavior at the assessment center and other jails or prisons, age and physical size, mental condition, escape risk, etc.

Your friend can always make the request for protective custody in prison. I don't think prison staff will place him there unless they know of a real threat in the prison population. Just being small and young will not mandate PC.

[Leroy Lizard]

Prison is well known to be the place where small-time crooks go, not deliberately of course, to get healthy, strong, and to network and obtain graduate-level education in advanced crookery.

It's just a fact.

Therefore, we need to do our best to avoid sending small-time crooks to prison.

Why stop with small-time crooks? Big-time crooks can achieve professional development in the Big House too. So why send anyone to prison?

I refuse to bow to extortion. "If you punish me, I will behave even worse."

And since when is a heroin trafficker a small-time crook?

[MojoRisen]

He will be in a realization when the brother doing the laundry asks him if he prefers to toss his salad with Jelly or surup. At least he will have a choice

[Okla-homey]

Don't have MANY choices? No, you said they have NO CHOICE.

No choice = excuse.

And we're not talking about the original crime. We're talking about crimes committed once they leave prison. You said they have no choice but to commit those crimes, which is the same as excusing them.

You said it. If you didn't mean it, then say so.

But that's not the way our criminal system is set-up. "I had no choice" is not a defense. Sure, you might get murder reduced to manslaughter, based on "I had no choice," but that's not even a sure thing if you're too poor to afford a good lawyer.

As to other felonies, "I had no choice" is no defense. Otherwise, lots of convicts who were drunk or high when they committed their felonious deed would not have been convicted.

[Okla-homey]

And since when is a heroin trafficker a small-time crook?

Tell that to all the GI's currently defending poppy fields in Afghanistan at great risk to life and limb.

[pilobolus]

Tell that to all the GI's currently defending poppy fields in Afghanistan at great risk to life and limb.

Defending poppy fields?

[yermom]

Don't have MANY choices? No, you said they have NO CHOICE.

No choice = excuse.

And we're not talking about the original crime. We're talking about crimes committed once they leave prison. You said they have no choice but to commit those crimes, which is the same as excusing them.

You said it. If you didn't mean it, then say so.

"no choice" was your choice of words, not mine. i asked what their options were

once they have committed the crime, you can't undo that. but making conditions better so that they don't in the future is what i'm talking about

[StoopTroup]

"no choice" was your choice of words, not mine.

Sometimes he has trouble with recalling things like that. You might want to spend some extra time copying and pasting the link to where he said it...but it might not really matter....he might just go back and edit it out.

[olevetonahill]

Why stop with small-time crooks? Big-time crooks can achieve professional development in the Big House too. So why send anyone to prison?

I refuse to bow to extortion. "If you punish me, I will behave even worse."

And since when is a heroin trafficker a small-time crook?

ll yer about as dumb as a box of rocks :rolleyes:

[StoopTroup]

ll yer about as dumb as a box of rocks :rolleyes:

Don't go telling him where to eat rocks...he doesn't like that.

[olevetonahill]

Don't go telling him where to eat rocks...he doesn't like that.

Now I got to apologize to the rocks, Dayum it
1st it were Bitter old Women , Now rocks. I need to quit insulting these things :D

[Leroy Lizard]

"no choice" was your choice of words, not mine. i asked what their options were

Are you trying to pretend that you were not asking rhetorically?

C'mon, yermom. Be honest.

[Okla-homey]

Defending poppy fields?

Yepper. Because the Tailbanners seek to burn them, as they did when they ran the place. And that's not tin-foil hat stuff. I saw them.

[Leroy Lizard]

What does that have to do with heroin trafficking in the U.S. being a small- or big-time crime?

[yermom]

Are you trying to pretend that you were not asking rhetorically?

C'mon, yermom. Be honest.

i'd say it's a subtle difference. you may look at individuals and say they should somehow find a conscience and decide to now not commit crimes even though their options are now even more limited than they were before they were convicted in the first place, not to mention now having been exposed to smarter, more experienced criminals

your solution to what they are going to do after prison was to not commit a crime. that's a little late, don't you think?

[Leroy Lizard]

i'd say it's a subtle difference. you may look at individuals and say they should somehow find a conscience and decide to now not commit crimes even though their options are now even more limited than they were before they were convicted in the first place, not to mention now having been exposed to smarter, more experienced criminals

Gee, I would think that the smart criminals are the ones that are NOT in the Big House. :)

BTW, you are assuming that they committed the crimes because they had few options. Other people with just as few options don't commit crimes, so having few options is not an excuse. It's not even a good reason.

Ultimately, people commit crimes to satisfy their own selfish needs with no regard for how it affects others. It's about character. The fact that they were incarcerated alone should be enough for them to realize that they shouldn't have done what they did.

Once we make it excuses for them, all bets are off. How can you learn that lesson when society tells you that your crimes were understandable and a result of a condition outside your control?

If they fail to learn the lesson, we'll bust them again and ramp up the penalties. At some point, they will either get it or they will be incarcerated for the rest of their lives. (Which won't hurt my feelings any.)

BTW, I am not in favor of cruel treatment of prisoners. We have set guidelines for how "cruel" punishment should be and we should do our best to make sure that prisons are run within those guidelines.


your solution to what they are going to do after prison was to not commit a crime. that's a little late, don't you think?

No. If I am released, I haven't committed any post-incarceration crimes yet. So it isn't too late to start not committing them.

[StoopTroup]

^lol You should definitely avoid prison. You wouldn't last 10 minutes in a local jail is my guess.

[yermom]

you argue like 3 year old, Leroy

[StoopTroup]

you argue like 3 year old, Leroy

You can give a 3 year old a pacifier.

Leroid requires something more phallic I bet.

[Leroy Lizard]

^lol You should definitely avoid prison. You wouldn't last 10 minutes in a local jail is my guess.

Yeah, I do by not engaging in criminal behavior.

Like, duh.

[Leroy Lizard]

you argue like 3 year old, Leroy

Oh, great argument there, Mrs. Grown Up.

[yermom]

nuh uh!

[olevetonahill]

you argue like 3 year old, Leroy

There ya go falling into the same trap I did
Quit Insultin 3 year olds :D

[olevetonahill]

Oh, great argument there, Mrs. Grown Up.

Limp leotard
that response is almost , Not quite, but almost as Mature as the old stand by of
"I know Ya are but what am I ?" :rolleyes:

[olevetonahill]

nuh uh!

Thats a Smarter response than Limptard can post :D

[Leroy Lizard]

Limp leotard
that response is almost , Not quite, but almost as Mature as the old stand by of
"I know Ya are but what am I ?" :rolleyes:

Gee, olevet is posting. I wonder if he will insult me?

[Leroy Lizard]

Thats a Smarter response than Limptard can post :D

Gee, olevet is posting. I wonder if he will insult me?

[Leroy Lizard]

There ya go falling into the same trap I did
Quit Insultin 3 year olds :D

Gee, olevet is posting. I wonder if he will insult me?

[StoopTroup]

Gee I wonder if Olevet will insult you 3 times? :D

[Stitch Face]

Gee, olevet is posting. I wonder if he will insult Leroy?

[olevetonahill]

Gee, olevet is posting. I wonder if he will insult Leroy?

Bet 3 times the Money :D

Limptard to really Insult YOU id have to really put down Snake bellies and whale shat :pop:

[olevetonahill]

Gee, olevet is posting. I wonder if he will insult me?

Just gettin a lil back at ya Sister from the other night when I quit respondin to ya ignerant azz :P :pop:

[olevetonahill]

Gee, olevet is posting. I wonder if he will neg the shat out of me?

FIFY :D

[Okla-homey]

What does that have to do with heroin trafficking in the U.S. being a small- or big-time crime?

Because it is a contradiction of the first order to facilitate Afghan opium production while putting people in prison here in the US who buy or retail the end product. And because if we stopped this pointless and heretofore abject failure that is the "war on drugs", it would go a long way towards knocking the starch out of the international and domestic crime cabals which make a tremendous nefarious and untaxed profit on the trafficking and sale of narcotics. To say nothing of cutting the number of non-violent people we lock into cages every day in this country by at least half.

[GKeeper316]

Because it is a contradiction of the first order to facilitate Afghan opium production while putting people in prison here in the US who buy or retail the end product. And because if we stopped this pointless and heretofore abject failure that is the "war on drugs", it would go a long way towards knocking the starch out of the international and domestic crime cabals which make a tremendous nefarious and untaxed profit on the trafficking and sale of narcotics. To say nothing of cutting the number of non-violent people we lock into cages every day in this country by at least half.

win. pure win.

[Stitch Face]

Because it is a contradiction of the first order to facilitate Afghan opium production while putting people in prison here in the US who buy or retail the end product. And because if we stopped this pointless and heretofore abject failure that is the "war on drugs", it would go a long way towards knocking the starch out of the international and domestic crime cabals which make a tremendous nefarious and untaxed profit on the trafficking and sale of narcotics. To say nothing of cutting the number of non-violent people we lock into cages every day in this country by at least half.

As a doc I'm ambivalent about making opioids legal and freely available; my drug-seeker business would drop off but I would make it up in chronic constipation.

[GKeeper316]

As a doc I'm ambivalent about making opioids legal and freely available; my drug-seeker business would drop off but I would make it up in chronic constipation.

dont forget the damage they do to vascular systems!

[Leroy Lizard]

Because it is a contradiction of the first order to facilitate Afghan opium production while putting people in prison here in the US who buy or retail the end product.

The fact is that heroin is illegal. In no way is the trafficking of heroin a small-time crime. You may want it to be a small-time crime, but it isn't.

[Okla-homey]

I'm no economist, but I'd say that generally, when you make a thing legal that is in high demand and for which people will pay big money while its illegal, it becomes cheaper. E.g. alcohol after repeal of the utter failure that was the nation's experiment with Prohibition.

That also means people who desperately seek dope wouldn't need to rob me or my Aunt Margaret to pay for their high-priced illegal fixes.

[Okla-homey]

The fact is that heroin is illegal. In no way is the trafficking of heroin a small-time crime. You may want it to be a small-time crime, but it isn't.

It's only a crime because the current law says it is. Heroin addiction is far less damaging to health than alcoholism or morbid obesity. The reason junkies end up in the gutter is because of the shady things they have to do to get their illicit fixes.

[lexsooner]

I'm no economist, but I'd say that generally, when you make a thing legal that is in high demand and for which people will pay big money while its illegal, it becomes cheaper. E.g. alcohol after repeal of the utter failure that was the nation's experiment with Prohibition.

That also means people who desperately seek dope wouldn't need to rob me or my Aunt Margaret to pay for their high-priced illegal fixes.

But it also means that legitimate corporate businessmen who are lot smarter, experienced, harder working, will enter the drug market and end up running the criminals out of the drug business. This will result in the former criminal drug dealers being out of work, so they will get into a new line of illegal work, such as heading up mugging and robbing rings.

[Leroy Lizard]

I'm no economist, but I'd say that generally, when you make a thing legal that is in high demand and for which people will pay big money while its illegal, it becomes cheaper. E.g. alcohol after repeal of the utter failure that was the nation's experiment with Prohibition.

That also means people who desperately seek dope wouldn't need to rob me or my Aunt Margaret to pay for their high-priced illegal fixes.

What does that have to do with the current situation?

Again, you may want narcotics legalized. Until then, trafficking is a serious crime.


It's only a crime because the current law says it is.

Captain Obvious, to the rescue.

[Stitch Face]

Heroin addiction is far less damaging to health than alcoholism or morbid obesity. The reason junkies end up in the gutter is because of the shady things they have to do to get their illicit fixes.

I think there's a bit of a misconception that, were they legal, drugs wouldn't be a big deal or a danger to people who then didn't have to do those "shady things" to get them. And to an extent that's true; people aren't going to harm themselves or others from pot consumption (at least no more than and likely less than they do with nicotine and alcohol use) as long as they don't drive the school bus while doing it.

But heroin is a different kind of animal. Given easy access to it, people who are inclined to it will f up their lives in ways most people can't imagine. And they will still do shady things to get it when their money runs out along with their high.

[Condescending Sooner]

It's only a crime because the current law says it is. Heroin addiction is far less damaging to health than alcoholism or morbid obesity. The reason junkies end up in the gutter is because of the shady things they have to do to get their illicit fixes.


Are you serious?? I think you might want to do a little more research.

[yermom]

a lot of the problem with heroin is the impurities and dirty needles

i think the problems with alcohol are a bit understated, but i think heroin, meth and crack are on another level from weed and alcohol

[Stitch Face]

a lot of the problem with heroin is the impurities and dirty needles

The risk of infection is an issue, but the real problem is the extreme level of psysiologic and pyschological dependence it engenders and the subsequent global behavioral change that ensues. You can't really be a recreational heroin user, like the 'functioning alcoholic' or weekend dope smoker. You don't use heroin to any real degree and continue on as a productive citizen, good parent, etc. for very long. Come to think of it, I doubt many productive citizens or good parents become heroin users, for that matter.

[yermom]

well, i mean the physiological problems

but yeah, that's what i meant by "another level"

[Okla-homey]

The risk of infection is an issue, but the real problem is the extreme level of psysiologic and pyschological dependence it engenders and the subsequent global behavioral change that ensues. You can't really be a recreational heroin user, like the 'functioning alcoholic' or weekend dope smoker. You don't use heroin to any real degree and continue on as a productive citizen, good parent, etc. for very long. Come to think of it, I doubt many productive citizens or good parents become heroin users, for that matter.

I didn't say it was healthy to be a heroin addict. I said it was "far less damaging than alcoholism or morbid obesity."

That said, if clean needles and unadulterated heroin are available, a person can live with a heroin addiction indefinitely. Not so alcoholism and morbid obesity.

[Stitch Face]

That said, if clean needles and unadulterated heroin are available, a person can live with a heroin addiction indefinitely. Not so alcoholism and morbid obesity.

Yes, heroin mimics the natural action of morphine or endogenous endorphins, which (in reasonable, physiologic doses) has no detrimental effects. But there is no such thing as a stable heroin user; the psychosocial ramifications of their dependence basically demolish their lives and the escalating tolerance leads to higher and higher doses with the expected resultant side effects. Basically, you can say "I'm going to take only this much heroin each day and then sleep it off before going to work" but the truth is someone who makes heroin a habit for more than a few weeks ends up with progressive dependence, tolerance, and dose escalation which, without some form of intervention, ultimately leads to respiratory arrest while the baby starves to death in the corner. Yes, alcohol and obesity will harm the body over many years. But heroin and similar opioid addictions can and do ruin an entire life in a manner of months. I've seen it too may times. When it comes to f'ing up the human condition, heroin is not burning the candle at both ends, it's throwing the candle in a bonfire.

[SoonerKnight]

Precisely. That's why we shouldn't be spending beaucoup bucks locking up drug users and small-time dealers who have committed no other felonies.

Instead, we oughtta give 'em suspended sentences and require them to undergo drug rehab with teeth. Meaning we could certainly vacate the suspended sentence and send them to pound-you-in-the-a$$ prison if they did not comply with all the rehab terms and conditions and stay clean. Even if we paid for all the rehab, it's still a dang sight cheaper than locking someone up for years.

It also at least gives a human being a realistic chance to salvage his or her life, who otherwise gets tossed into a system that rarely rehabilitates.

drug addicts commit crimes to support their habit rarely are they in prison just because of the drugs. The county I work in has a seperate court for drug adicts that are just that functional addicts as I call it they work but they are users get pulled over get arrested and then they go to drug court where they can be given the chance to rehabilitate.