I disagree with that statement completely, for reasons which will be explained
.. but agree with that, for the same reason I disagree with the first part,
It is in my view a misunderstanding of the proper role of prisons to see jail
sentences as punishment for crime; it is also a misunderstanding, but of much
lesser degree, to view prison as primarily a place in which offenders can be
rehabilitated. The proper role of prison is this only: to protect society, by
removing from our midst for a time those whose actions harm others. Once an
offender no longer poses a danger to society, no additional purpose is served
by retaining him in prison.
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
I don't follow that at all. What are you proposing as alternatives?
I see it in the reverse order. It's stupid to put people into a
criminal training ground if you're trying to rehabilitate them.
If a crack addict goes to prison for mugging someone or stealing
something, serves three to five, they're still a threat to society.
Are they supposed to stay in prison until their chemical imbalance for
crack goes away? I don't understand...
Maybe you should have read the whole paragraph before commenting.
I didn't say we were trying to rehabiliate them. That's not the proper role of
How so? After five years, he's certainly going to be de-toxed.
It's not the crack addiction that's the problem there, it's the mugging.
Putting people in jail for using drugs -- and doing nothing more than using
drugs -- is stupid: those people aren't endangering society. Muggers are a
danger to society, whether they're doing it to pay for a crack addiction or
for their kids' college tuition.
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
You can say that again. You don't understand how much it costs to
administer "training," "treatment" or "community service" programs either.
Neither do judges, though if they'd look at the names and faces before them
they'd realize that the first two or three attempts had already failed..
Chemical imbalance my ass. What used to really puzzle me, after releasing
an inmate from six months in a smokeless jail, was watching said former and
future inmate shake one up from the six-month dry pack and light it up as
s/he walked away. Or rather staggered from the habit of inhaling.
You're replying on a tangent to what I was saying. You're telling me
that it's expensive to keep/treat/imprison a person for years, and that
there are repeat offenders - no kidding. That was my point. That was
why I brought up prison work programs.
Your ass has a chemical imbalance? Sounds messy. =:O
There's nothing surprising about being deprived off something you
want/crave, and dreaming of it constantly for years. I have no answers
on that one.
This thread started with Walmart's prices and practices. This thread
should be allowed to age gracefully and die on its own.
No, this thread started on the quality of furniture sold at Wal Mart
compared to what a wrecker can make and it turned into a "Wal Mart is
the ruination of america! and is responsible for all the world's
I don't know why you say "chemical imbalance my ass". It's pretty well
established that people who become addicted to drugs, including alcohol,
have physical differences at the biochemical level from those who don't.
There's a stereotype of the "drunken Indian"--there's also truth to
it--Native Americans (and Japanese as well) don't process alcohol the same
way as most Caucasians and so are more likely to become addicted
to it--they've even found some of the genes that cause this and have
identified some of the abnormalities--it's not something that somebody
made up to excuse "bad behavior" and it's not "racism". I read many years
ago that Heroin was originally created as a nonaddictive substitute for
Morphine (the "Hero" in Heroin is for the wounded soldiers it was intended
to help)--in clinical trials it was shown to be nonaddictive--none of the
patients treated with it became addicted. So they put it in service and lo
and behold the trials were wrong--just so happens that by chance
everybodey in the trials group had a genetic makeup that made it difficult
for them to become addicted to Heroin. I'm told that this is or at one
time was used as a case study in medical schools of the dangers of small
trial groups. Personally I can chain-smoke a pack of Sobranies and then
have no desire at all for a cigarette for years but I recognize that
others have serious trouble with tobacco.
Stop and think.
If I put a lawn ornament out front, what is it that keeps people from
stealing it when I'm not here? Same thing that keeps the smart person from
taking drugs known to be addictive. Now if there were a legitimate chemical
imbalance, as with failure of the pancreas to produce insulin - 'nother
Understand that we're a bit different physiologically, being one of those
lacking the enzyme to break down alcohol. So I don't drink. Don't steal,
either, even when others aren't watching.
Before anyone spouts the current cant about chemical imbalances and
depression, it's a perfect example. Same people show more of the
appropriate chemicals when happy, less when sad. Cause or effect? Recent
overdose/suicide run showed antidepressants from three separate physicians
provided the means. Yep, chemical imbalance. Take two Prozac and call me
Oh yes, heroin was created by a German, Heinrich Dreser of Bayer, and the
word is Held in German.
hehehehe.. 'cept it would be two Helden.... IF my German vacations
taught me right...but with the degenerating effects of Hofbrau..I may
My doctor presribed me two seconol [sp?] tablets once, to help me sleep
on my flight from Honolulu to Sydney. I had to be absolutely rested
upon my arrival. I asked him if those pills would do the trick, he just
smiled and said that if I was still awake after 45 minutes, to take the
second one. Funny, doc.
In a previous life, I was a roady for Niccolo Paganini. Tour of 1828.
The groupies used to try to steal his bedpan...but I digress.
Will you look at the time......
One person gets a few shots of Demerol in the hospital after surgery and
comes out of it with no problem. Another takes the same shots and ends up
addicted to Demerol.
See the problem? If _everybody_ got addicted then it would be one thing,
but everybody who experiments with drugs doesn't become addicted and the
number one and number two addictive drugs sold in the US are legal for
You're lucky that you aren't an alcoholic. You don't seem to understand
that being addicted isn't a choice--once you're hooked it's hard to get
unhooked--you don't just decide one day "I'm not going to be addicted
Depression isn't "being sad". In fact "sadness" is neither a necessary
nor a sufficient diagnostic criterion.
And one should care about this because?
But this has nothing to do with woodworking, other than the wood in your
head, so I'm done with it. You may harangue on.
Why should we care about Heroes being Helden? Because it is so much
shooting from below the waist, and behind the bellybutton, just as your
You are a perfect example of why we should care, and what this thread is all
about. Personal restraint, or lack of it, consideration of fact or
repetition of bald-faced baloney, refusal to recognize oneself as less than
the center of the universe, and denial of the consequences of self-serving
pleasure are your nature.
Low price is a recurring, almost dominant theme in this newsgroup. There
are all kinds of gloats about getting item N for less to remind us that
Wal-Mart has chosen its targets well. We want, we want now, and damn the
consequences. How many who have condemned shoddy workmanship in this thread
have written "I got it cheaper here" posts, or even worse, "YOU could have
gotten it cheaper here?"
Assertions that Wal-Mart is "Guilty" of exploiting its workers to serve the
bottom line and the bottom feeders are absurd. If everyone wants to buy
low, no one can sell high, regardless the quality, except to the "wealthy,"
whose ill-gotten gains deserve to be redistributed. Which is what happens in
places like Cuba and the old Evil Empire, where prices were so firm they
were printed on the goods at the factories, and wages so out of touch with
productivity that everybody had money - just nothing to spend it on.
If it's morally wrong to contribute to the elevation of the workers in poor
countries by providing jobs, or to the underachievers of the US for whom
Wal-Mart is the employer of last resort, drive past it on the way to
Nieman-Marcus, shaking you head in self congratulation as if it were a pink
plastic flamingo at the edge of a Polack's flower bed. Or are you mentally
imbalanced, instead of "chemically," and unable to control your acquisitive
I am especially fond of those in this type of thread who say that all the
employees are morons, and then that we could get better out of them by
paying them more. Or cure the ignorant, the criminal and addict if we only
cared and spent more on them. Not on this planet, not with this creature.
For some pithy, though not crusty observations on workmanship, work, and a
lot more of the observations made in this thread, might I suggest
Enjoy. Perhaps it will rehabilitate some Wal-Mart shopping criminal.
Yes, they do. But those chemical imbalances come from ABUSING DRUGS
AND ALCOHOL! If you never use drugs or abuse alcohol, those
imbalances will never take place, will they?
It's like those stupid Chris Farley commercials on the radio. "Oh, it
wasn't all his fault, drugs cause a biochemical change in the brain."
Well sure, but who took the drugs in the first place? Chris did. So
who do we blame for the biochemical changes? Chris Farley.
Direct correlation. His own stupidity caused his death. Nuff said.
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:46:21 -0500, Bill in Detroit wrote:
Further, "experimenting with drugs" and becoming addicted are different
things. I think I tried quite a lot of stuff in the '60s, but the last
time I touched anything illegal was to blow a joint with my GF sometime
around '83 because she wanted to try the stuff.
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 20:39:08 +0000, Brian Henderson wrote:
What part of "hereditary" are you having trouble with? Some people are
alcoholics, some aren't. Some alcoholics take a drink or three or ten and
get hooked, others never touch the stuff and so never have a problem with
it, but it is the genetic propensity that causes them to become
addicted. If it was just the alcohol then _everybody_ who got drunk once
in his life would be addicted.
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 07:09:22 +0000, Brian Henderson wrote:
If everybody became addicted then that would be a viable solution. Most
people do not become addicted and there's no way for any given individual
to tell whether he is one of the ones who will unless he tries it and
finds out the hard way.
Of course you could just ban alcohol. Woops, tried that.
Ok, we can use that excuse for alcohol, since it is a socially acceptable
drug. But what about the others? Crack, cocaine, heroin?
If you do any of those at any point in your life, then you are an idiot, and
it's nobodies fault but your own if you become addicted. Simple as that.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.