Sick Fucks

[\/\/illy]

Full story here.

Colombian drug smugglers used puppies: DEA

Last Updated Thu, 02 Feb 2006 08:48:36 EST

CBC News

Colombian drug smugglers have been surgically implanting packets of heroin in puppies' bellies to get millions of dollars' worth of drugs on flights to New York City, U.S. authorities say.

"I think it's outrageous and heinous that they'd use small, innocent puppies in this way," John P. Gilbride, head of the DEA's New York office, told the Associated Press.

Police don't know how many dogs have had packets of drugs sewn into their bellies, but Gilbride said 10 puppies were rescued during a raid last year on a farm in Colombia.

A total of three kilograms of heroin was found in six of the pups. Three later died from infections after the drugs were removed. The rest are doing well, Gilbride said.

Colombian police have adopted three of the dogs, training one to sniff for drugs.

Drug smugglers have also had humans swallow packages of drugs, and have tried to hide illegal substances in body creams, aerosol cans, and the linings of purses and luggage, authorities said.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Not even dogs, but puppies - what, they figure nobody's going to check out any animal with big baby eyes?

Humans are twisted. Sometimes I'd rather be living with the horses in Gulliver's Travels.

[The Chameleon]

Fuck that. People who try to legislate personal chocie and what people decide to put in thier own bodies are twisted!

It's time to stop legislating morality. Legalize it all and focus on education/harm reduction. Prohibition doesn't work and creates these situations.

[Birdy]

Fuck that. People who try to legislate personal chocie and what people decide to put in thier own bodies are twisted!

It's time to stop legislating morality. Legalize it all and focus on education/harm reduction. Prohibition doesn't work and creates these situations.

dude, where have you been?

[Birdy]

surgically implanting heroin into puppies stomachs though is SICK and those guys deserve the worst.

[The Chameleon]

You're not getting the big picture and my point.

Yes, I agree with you those sick bastards that are sugically impanting drugs into puppies, need to be dealt with.

However, what I am trying to say, is that if the western world would stop it's insane prohibition on drugs then these people would never be motivated to stoop to these horrible means. The fact that these things are illegal makes them lucrative, and money and desperation are the chirf motivators for this type of depravitry.

[Birdy]

no i'm getting that. i feel the same way. that's why i asked you 'where have you been?'.. i've been preaching the individual freedom chord around here for a while and thought there weren't so many that agreed.

[\/\/illy]

i've been preaching the individual freedom chord around here for a while and thought there weren't so many that agreed.

You thought that there were not many people around here that agreed with individual freedom?! Where have you been?

[Birdy]

well noone really spoke up willy.. seriously.. sometimes in some of those political forums that were everywhere around election time it was me and a few others vs the masses.

from what i get, most around here are interested in a government that protects the 'common' good, leaving people up to their own devise is a bad thing.. i've been trying to say the opposite and have come under fire for it. not that i'm not welcoming of these opinions, just glad they're here.. that's all.

[CyberHippie]

Brutal... I knew a guy who worked at the fort erie border. He said they once pulled a couple over, and discovered the baby in the back seat was infact dead and full of drugs... Sick fucks indeed!

[\/\/illy]

sometimes in some of those political forums that were everywhere around election time it was me and a few others vs the masses.

I believe that was because of your right-wing conservative standpoint which would seem to contradict what you're saying now. I believe that the Harper government, which I seem to recall you supporting, have indicated their desire to implement tougher laws related to drug-crimes, which would seem to contradict 'freedom of the individual.'

[Birdy]

i never claimed to be conservative, i VOTED conservative because i believe in smaller government. i'm not the kind of person to waste a ballot or to not vote, so i voted for the only party who believes in lesser government. i've claimed to be libertarian from the get go. not much has changed. we even had a topic about heroin use and the problems that it spins off and i was in favour of full legalisation of the drug. just because i'm right wing, doesn't mean i'm conservative. there's more out there.

[Tooly]

totally sick bastards! puppies?? dead babies??? somehow i dont think legalizing heroin will stop this racket from happening.

look at amsterdam, they have "legal" pot there, yet every corner has drug dealers on it.

[StoneMtn]

You're not getting the big picture and my point.

Yes, I agree with you those sick bastards that are sugically impanting drugs into puppies, need to be dealt with.

However, what I am trying to say, is that if the western world would stop it's insane prohibition on drugs then these people would never be motivated to stoop to these horrible means. The fact that these things are illegal makes them lucrative, and money and desperation are the chirf motivators for this type of depravitry.

You're talking about a completely separate issue. Sure, prohibition creates a market for the product. It does not cause people to make the sociopathic choice to abuse animals to make money.

For instance, cosmetics are legal, but vivisection to test those products has gone on for as long as I can remember.

Don't conflate these issues. Animal cruelty is animal cruelty.

[The Chameleon]

totally sick bastards! puppies?? dead babies??? somehow i dont think legalizing heroin will stop this racket from happening.

look at amsterdam, they have "legal" pot there, yet every corner has drug dealers on it.

Correction pot is not legal in amsterdam or anywhere else in the world. It is only decriminalized. Big difference.

[The Chameleon]

You're not getting the big picture and my point.

Yes' date=' I agree with you those sick bastards that are sugically impanting drugs into puppies, need to be dealt with.

However, what I am trying to say, is that if the western world would stop it's insane prohibition on drugs then these people would never be motivated to stoop to these horrible means. The fact that these things are illegal makes them lucrative, and money and desperation are the chirf motivators for this type of depravitry.[/quote']

You're talking about a completely separate issue. Sure, prohibition creates a market for the product. It does not cause people to make the sociopathic choice to abuse animals to make money.

For instance, cosmetics are legal, but vivisection to test those products has gone on for as long as I can remember.

Don't conflate these issues. Animal cruelty is animal cruelty.

i don't see it as a sepreate issue. If drugs were legal and people could import/export, tade and sell them openly withou fear of prosecution or harm, then you wouldn't have trhese instances of sick people doing anything to sneak them into the country. If heroin was legal, why would you sew it into puppies bellies, when you could just declare it and through it in your suitcase.

The fear of persecution and market demand create these deplorable instances.

Furthermore your example of cosmetics does not really apply. Your talking about animal cruelty and testing. I'm saying this perticular instance of animal cruelty is created by the drive to import a banned substance. I am not saying that legalizing heroin will stop animal cruelty. I am saying that it may have stopped this particular instance of though.

Edited February 2, 2006 by Guest

[StoneMtn]

Why do cosmetic companies abuse animals? Why do certain Asian cultures torture dogs to death in order for the "energy" to transfer to the dog meat so that they can eat it in order to give them greater sexual prowess? Why are calves held in pens such that their legs are dangling in the air, or actually broken, so that the animals don't move around and strengthen, thus their meat becomes more tender and more valuable as veal?

There are innumerable instances of animal cruelty in our world. People who choose to make money by torturing animals are disgusting. It happens in legal markets as well as illicit markets.

These are separate issues, and by conflating them you are tacitly apologizing for the abusers who are merely reacting to the "market demand" you refer to. The fact is, the same can be said about the examples I noted above.

[The Chameleon]

Let's be clear. Animal cruelty for wahtever reason is wrong and should be punished as such. On this i think we all agree. There is no argument there from any of us.

That is all.

Enjoyed the discourse.

[StoneMtn]

I'm really not trying to be difficult Chameleon, and I know you oppose animal cruelty. (Hell, you named your band after an animal that could hardly be considered cute and fluffy.)

I just don't like a door to be even slightly open that excuses anyone from sociopathic behaviour on any basis.

"Chameleon Project rocks!"

[Birdy]

conflate away, i say.

if you can't look at the reasons that drive a man to commit a crime you'll never reach a solution aside from 'policing'.

i don't think there is anything that the chameleon has said that is 'excusing' behaviour.. i think he's taken a solid look at a particular industry that drives people to do horrible, despicable things and has made a viable connection between the means and the end.

[StoneMtn]

...which is irrelevant, when you consider the other examples I noted above. They do not arise out of any government regulation.

People smuggle drugs to make money. They choose to smuggle drugs in a manner that does harm, because they choose to do so; not because the government has prohibited the trade of certain products.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

What jumble of issues! I'm glad I actually got some work done during all that .

Is there in fact agreement on these points?

a) being mean to animals is wrong (setting aside the whole question of "need", as in "we need to kill some to eat them", which, if you pushed it the other way would have us all walking around like Jains with masks over our mouths so we don't accidentally swallow any bugs);

criminalisation of drugs is the wrong way to deal with their abuse; and

c) less government is better government.

a) and can be problematised to no end, though they admit of some rational discourse, but c) I have difficulties with particularly because it not only comes on a different level of abstraction, but entails, practically speaking, that those who have gobs of power can exercise it more easily without limits, and as history and current events alike prove, if you're not part of the steamroller, you're part of the pavement (or as Cockburn says, with all requisite irony, "If you don't want to be the horse's hoofprints, you've got to be the hooves".)

I mean, what does smaller government mean? A smaller civil service? Cheaper staplers? Fewer laws? Fewer cops? I'd have been all for that until I saw the stupidity at Deer Creek in '95. Cops can be wonderful to have, once you jettison the authoritarian relations that people adopt towards them. Either that, or we get to a culture where people act decently and responsibly to one another and to themselves.

Utah Phillips has a great axiom - "A cop is anyone who tells you what to do." If you do know what to do yourself, that's great - you're on your way to anarchism-in-the-best-sense-of-the-word, where people can form, as he calls them, uncoercive, voluntary associations to get done what they actually need to do, rather than being told what to do for reasons that may or may not be open to inspection and revision. Is that possible in our given society and culture? Is everyone educated to be autonomous, self-critical, and generous, or are we educated to be dependent, self-interested, and greedy? And educated not only within our schools, families, and religious and other cultural communities, but by everything the media throw at us?

I'm still looking for that boat to the land of the Houyhnhm.

[Birdy]

haha.. i made the mistake of 'refreshing' to see if anything else had been said.

stone - i'm just stripping this down on an extremely individual level, not to excuse any sort of criminal behaviour, but there does exist some barriers to trade, especially of illegal substances. if the substance was legalised, you could pack it in a suitcase and store it in an overhead container, no sewn puppy stomachs, no questions asked. maybe that would move that particular moneymonger on to a new crime, probably yes, but again, it's only an alternative solution on an individual and very case specific level.

DEM- the last part of post stuck to me.

Utah Phillips has a great axiom - "A cop is anyone who tells you what to do." If you do know what to do yourself, that's great - you're on your way to anarchism-in-the-best-sense-of-the-word, where people can form, as he calls them, uncoercive, voluntary associations to get done what they actually need to do, rather than being told what to do for reasons that may or may not be open to inspection and revision. Is that possible in our given society and culture? Is everyone educated to be autonomous, self-critical, and generous, or are we educated to be dependent, self-interested, and greedy? And educated not only within our schools, families, and religious and other cultural communities, but by everything the media throw at us?

what is the ideal here? to me it is to be autonomous, self-critical and generous, but is it possible in a society that does it's VERY best to make most important decisions in your life FOR YOU? you talk of the evils of lesser government but without it, how can any of us have the chance to be autonomous, self-critical and generous? how? that's the killer for me.. it's like we're in this viscious circle where everyone wants to see the decency in humanity but are just so damn scared of what "we" will do, what "evil" we will create to actually let it happen. the further we continue down the road of governments who know best, the further we will lose the ability as humankind, to act on our own accord, to make rational and sound decisions, and to be good, in the most general of senses. sorry to bring up darwin here, but it's straight up dependency, when you lose all ability to stop being able to think for yourself. that's what we should be scared about.

[Diggzz]

how can you be talking about decriminalizing or legalizing Heroin? what possible positive purpose does the drug serve? Pot yeah, but heroin, crack, what positives can come from the decriminalization

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I'd still say the best answer to social Darwinism is Kropotkin's Mutual Aid . In a nutshell, the argument is that without people (or other animals) taking care of one another, we're all fucked.

Social Darwinism was initially championed, again, by Herbert Spencer, who was utterly loved by the robber barons and industrialists for his rationalisation that they could crap all over poor people (ultimately to leave them to die) and feel it was all part of nature's plan. Kropotkin gives another angle on evolutionary processes.