Posted on 11/22/2001 10:26:32 AM PST by runningbear
EUROPE-WIDE ALARM FOR HEROIN CUT WITH ANTHRAX
According to a report broadcast by "Cadena Ser," a private Spanish radio station, laboratory analysts of Europol issued a warning to all drug squads in Europe, alerting the police to the arrival of heroin cut with anthrax, originating from Afghanistan. Traces of anthrax were found in the body of a Norwegian drug addict, who died of an overdose.
do we want a government that will find and weed out the tainted drugs, or should the government let the drug users use whatever they buy and assume all risks themselves?
in today's age, this is a legitimate question about how we protect ourselves from an outside evil.
comments?
Let the buyer beware!
There are terrorist organizations in South and Central America who rely upon the cocaine trade for their funding. It wouldn't be good for business, but I wonder if any of them have ties to Osama...
All the more reason to grow your own pot in your bedroom or basement!!!
And if you get busted for growing it in your own home. . .
"But you honor, I was merely doing my job as a loyal US Citizen. . . fearlessly fighting the criminals who are spreading anthrax in this beloved country!!!
Good point, Mr.Dejure. . . Case Dismissed on technical grounds!!! . Bailiff ? . . . Next case please. . .
Murder is morally wrong.
After more than three years on this forum, I am sadly unsurprised to find the usual self righteous clique redefining murder as morally acceptable if those being murdered aren't as virtuous and superior as they see themselves.
Honey, go spend some time in a hospital treating the children of drug addicts who wind up malnourished, poisoned, beaten, neglected, raped, sold into prostitution, wise beyond their years, with permanent psychological scars and/or shot before you get up on your soapbox about *freaking* drug addicts. Try treating a heroin overdose who comes in full respiratory arrest, and when you literally bring them back from the dead, they spit in your face for "ruining their rush." Try treating a druggie who comes into ICU shot full of holes because a drug deal went bad, stays at tax payers expense for six months, nearly dies several times, gets well, leaves, and comes back in two months shot full of holes because ...a drug deal went bad. Try starting an IV on a druggie with veins so bad only he knows which one is usable *this week.*
Do that for a decade or two and then come back and tell me about it. Until then, I *ain't* listening.
Afghanistan produces most of Europes heroin. And they want to kill their customers...and totally destroy their market? This doesn't make sense to me...
The part of this equation you are failing to acknowledge is that the end user of heroin is choosing to murder himself, ANTHRAX OR NOT.
Of course distribution of lethal bacteria is morally wrong. Abusing your body with drugs is also morally wrong, as is exposing other people like your children and family,to all the dangerous, ugly,slimy situations that drug addiction brings in its wake.
People still choose to inject heroin even though they run the risk of contracting HIV. People still snort cocaine although they run the risk of cardiac arrest. Addicts are addicts and the only thing that matters is the next fix. Addicts suffer monstrously, it is true. They also are the cause of monstrous suffering for the people who love them, and their innocent children in particular.
Two wrongs don't make a right. And, there are two sides to this story. Cutting heroin with anthrax is morally wrong. Injecting yourself with heroin, anthrax or not, is also morally wrong. Unfortunately or not, if people inject themselves with heroin, laced with anthrax or not, some of them are going to die. That's a bald fact.
I disagree. First of all, some heroin addicts can be rehabilitated. No one who has been murdered by anthrax contamination can be rehabilitated. They are too dead to get with the program. Second, the arguments you make regarding heroin use could also be used to describe alcoholics. Would murdering them be equally morally acceptable? Finally, not all users are addicts. There is always that first time use - generally at a fairly young age. Here's a real fact - kids do stupid things. Maybe that first time is a youthful (though very dumb) lark, or peer pressure at a party, etc. After that first time, some will eventually become addicts. Others will choose never to try it again. Death precludes that choice. What parent are you willing to look in the face, and tell that their child deserved to die from a horrible disease because in one moment of curiosity and really bad judgment they chose to murder themselves anyway?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
My point exactly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.