This is an interesting topic. The main reason why e-cigs will not be allowed in prisons is because of the things inmates can make from them. Who knows what they will be able to do with a battery or atomizer, but I am sure they could figure something out.
E-ciggs in Jail
- Thread starter jedwards
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I like how everyone who's experience with jail has been on TV seems to think that it's a 24 hour a day shank-fest.
I've never been to prison, but had a friend who served time for armed robbery(stupidity as a young man). His impressions on prison was that it was scary to first go there, but then it was mostly soul-crushingly boring. He saw a few fights over the years, but that only punctuated the fact that it was soul-crushingly boring. Did I mention how boring it was? Because he did. Repeatedly.
I've never been to prison, but had a friend who served time for armed robbery(stupidity as a young man). His impressions on prison was that it was scary to first go there, but then it was mostly soul-crushingly boring. He saw a few fights over the years, but that only punctuated the fact that it was soul-crushingly boring. Did I mention how boring it was? Because he did. Repeatedly.
Is your facility a jail or a prison? There's a vast difference. I can't speak for the laws in your state, but thanks to mandatory sentencing laws that removed discretion from judges, and elected prosecutors whose scorekeeping is used as vote fodder, there are plenty of 1st time offenders in both prison and jail. I think they do things a bit different here than in Iowa.
Crimes that would have drawn 3 years probation now draw a 1 year prison sentence. Crimes that were misdemeanors one day become felonies when the legislature meets in an election year.
I agree completely. Like I said, people go to prison AS punishment, not TO BE punished.
Just don't get the idea that they are typical. Those shows are sensationalized depictions, not serious documentaries.
Another example of short-sighted thinking that serves many other purposes. It both gets votes from, and satiates the blood lust of ignorant voters, while providing the illusion of thrift. In the long run, it's vastly more expensive (and cruel) to incarcerate people who should be hospitalized. But by the time the bill comes due, the legislators have already passed through the revolving door and left the next crop holding the bag with nowhere to go but further down the same bad road lest they be accused of being "soft on crime".
But I can't help thinking the taxpayers deserve the financial drubbing they get. Every time they respond positively to some yahoo who runs on a platform of being "tough on crime" or ridicules the concept of mental illness as a mitigating factor in the commission of a crime, they deserve to have more money plucked from their pockets. They're being played for rubes and suckers. And as evidenced so generously on this board, they simply look up and screech "fleece me more!!". It's just too bad the mentally ill are the ones who pay the greater price.
I respect your views on jail conditions, but now you've wandered out of school and that is patent nonsense.
First off, we are (or at least we were) just as affluent as Norway.
We spend vastly more money doing things wrong than they spend doing things correctly.
These are the same disingenuous arguments that the "keep on screwin' me" crowd employed to argue that we are so unique we can't have single payer health insurance like every other developed nation on earth.
"Oh,..... (insert country) is sooooo different/smaller/richer/homogenous than we are!! That won't possibly work here".
Bull!
Nobody advocates adopting a carbon copy of anyone else's system.
It's not just Norway that has a more successful system than we do.
Virtually every European country, (with a combined population and culture mix greater than our own, BTW) has better outcomes from their penal systems, in the form of a lower recidivism rate.
Human nature doesn't differ that much based on geography and, in essence, that's what we are really dealing with.
The success of a penal system is measured by it's recidivism rate.
The general crime rate of the society in which it operates is not a significant factor when judging the success of a penal system.
The "culture" argument doesn't hold water. It is taken into account when designing the system in the first place. If our culture is so bad and so violent that we can't possibly have low recidivism rates, then maybe criminals are not really totally responsible for their crimes; maybe "the culture" makes crime irresistible. I don't buy that for a minute.
If we can't pick and choose what works in our culture, and what doesn't, among all those other systems in order to fashion a hybrid system for ourselves, then we are a nation of imbeciles.
But we are not a nation of imbeciles. We are a nation of short-sighted people led by authoritarians, greedheads and corporatists.
One problem with the design of those European systems is that they don't generate sufficient PROFIT.
They're not designed to PROFIT politicians and corporations who run them and those who benefit by access to cheap labor. (for example, google "PRIDE" and Jack Eckerd). They also would compete with FOR-PROFIT rehab facilities. That's something unacceptable in the U.S..
It is in the best interests of politicians, law-enforcement and the prison industrial complex to ensure that the crime and recidivism rates remain high.
There's vast profit to be made on the backs of taxpayers, courtesy of crime and a sensationalistic media that keeps citizens in a perpetual state of fear.
There is big money in the "tough on crime" charade sold to scared, angry voters on election day.
There's no profit in successful rehabilitation or crime prevention.
If there was, we'd be the most peaceful country on earth.
BTW, I noticed you employed the canard "socialized" health care. Not once, not ever, NEVER, did anyone ever advocate "socialized" health care. Single payer and socialized health care are entirely different things. The fact that you don't know the difference speaks volumes about where you are coming from and either your ignorance of the issue or your willingness to employ straw men in your arguments.
Last edited:
funny story that scar was from when someone shanked me with a 510 joye great vape production though
Thank you for interjecting some levity into what has otherwise been a very depressing conversation that has diminished my faith in the American public.
What a waste to take apart a 510 though...
That's not the main reason. They already have batteries, and bedsheets, and socks, and aluminum cans, and toothbrushes, and coins, and pencils, and pens, and sometimes even razors and about a million other things that can be turned into weapons just as easy as an e-cig. And if I wanted to hurt someone, I'd use one of those things rather than ruining my PV.
The main reason is the public hysteria that would be ginned up by the media and politicians in order to exploit the uninformed fears of people like you.
Since we are already pretty OT, I thought I'd add this. It's a little O.T., but extremely relevant.
For a long time, I was confused how some people could hold views like some of those I've seen on this, and some other threads addressing socio-political topics while still considering themselves as compassionate and reasonable human beings.
A few years ago I read a free e-book which, I'm happy to notice has been updated, that really helped put a lot of it together and explain the incongruous mindsets I keep seeing in day to day conversation both in real life, and virtual life.
I recommend it highly. It is a fascinating work by a solid academic author who has done his own original research. It is a pretty easy read, given the subject matter. The author is from the Univ. of Manitoba, but you won't need a PhD or even a BS to understand it, and it's quite fascinating whether you agree with its conclusions or not.
Again, it's free and, if nothing else, read the short intro on the home page before you decide if you want to download the whole PDF or not.
Here's the link:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
For a long time, I was confused how some people could hold views like some of those I've seen on this, and some other threads addressing socio-political topics while still considering themselves as compassionate and reasonable human beings.
A few years ago I read a free e-book which, I'm happy to notice has been updated, that really helped put a lot of it together and explain the incongruous mindsets I keep seeing in day to day conversation both in real life, and virtual life.
I recommend it highly. It is a fascinating work by a solid academic author who has done his own original research. It is a pretty easy read, given the subject matter. The author is from the Univ. of Manitoba, but you won't need a PhD or even a BS to understand it, and it's quite fascinating whether you agree with its conclusions or not.
Again, it's free and, if nothing else, read the short intro on the home page before you decide if you want to download the whole PDF or not.
Here's the link:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
I wouldn't send my worst enemy to jail. My best friend from high school went down the wrong path before he died and did 2 years for a number of things I won't get into. My point is he was a completely different person when he got out. And he only met others in there that pulled him down farther. I haven't read this thread, but as far as ecigs in jail goes, if someone has earned the privilege, like being able to have a tv in their cell, then that would be fine with me. More incentive to stay out of trouble imo.
I'd be more worried about an improvised explosive, or even someone being poisoned w/ lithium. It is after all a deadly poison. Funny statement none the less.
Those guys have so much time on their hands, I doubt that an ecig would give them any new ideas lol.
I've spent 32 years of life without a negative run-in with police or a night in jail. I have no sympathy for people who can't behave themselves. Stupidity isn't painful but it can be punished. Don't want to go to jail for a drug offense? Don't deal drugs, it's a pretty easy solution. I'd actually prefer that we deal with violent crime the way China does.
To be quite blunt, then you effin shoot them like a rabid dog.
As a society we need to recognize that keeping the weak in our midst weakens us as a people. Mental defectives such as psychopaths need to be removed from our society and gene pool so they don't spread their weakness to others. They must be removed just like any other cancer. Keeping pedophiles, murderers and other defectives alive serves no purpose other than draining our resources and national integrity.
How very eugenics of you.
Again, this coming from a group of people the majority of whom would break the law is e-cigs were banned.
You do realize being emotionally unaffected by really considering the idea of killing people is sociopathic, right? One step below psychopathic. One in 10 people are sociopathic to one degree or another - most are not severe enough for society to ever notice.
But they tend to say stuff like "shoot them like rabit dogs."
If you've got some sort of personal bone that is fueling your fire, then let me tell you, truly and completely - I do understand. I have had encounters with real psychopaths, and I do understand.
But you know what?
I'm a better person than that. And by "better person" I certainly don't mean pat them on the head and tell them to go play nice.
But I'm a better person than to let my mind be wrecked by hating them and wishing torment and agony on them. I'm a better person than turning to eugenics and hatred and coldness.
Are you?
Exactly. If you treat inmates like animals, they have little incentive to act otherwise. I think most guards would agree. The place I was at had a few privileges you could earn and I think it was a large reason why I never saw any fights and it was one of the more coveted facilities to work in among the guards. I actually, inadvertently, left some change on my bunk one day before work. I was amazed to see it was still there when I got back. Evidently, no one thought it was worth losing their privileges for, even though there were 80 guys in that dorm, it represented several hours of pay and any one of them could have pocketed it. It's not something I'd have made a habit of, though. LOL.
Thank you. Eugenics and Hitler were the first things that came to mind. He is most definitely a mentally defective sociopath, and in a less enlightened society, the kind he'd like to see, he'd be high on the list to be euthanized.
You saved me a lot of typing.
Maybe you should findyourself a nice country where people ARE shot first, then questions asked later. Most Americans don't like that kind of Facsism. That is a really disgusting thought. And, BTW, due to mandatory minimums most people in jail for drug offenses are in for possesion, not sales. And what if your locale decides to ban e-cigs? Will you passively obey the law? Or become a statistic?
He's already a mental defective. Ironically, the same type he'd eliminate. In addition to being a sociopath, he is presumably a drug addict (nicotine). A truly pure gene pool would require elimination of drug addicts as well as sociopaths. There is more and more evidence that the propensity to addiction is a genetic trait. The particular substance makes little difference, be it alcohol, croakaine, heroine, or nicotine.
No, he's just a garden variety sociopath. He's the kind of guy who cheered for the people trying to mutilate Saddam's corpse. Back in the bad-old-days, when they put people in stocks, a certain type of person would poke and prod and otherwise torment the person on display. Those people were him. He needs psychological help.
As an aside, the society he seeks is not necessarily fascist. It's existed under all sorts of regimes including monarchies, totalitarian states, fascist dictatorships, theocracies and probably even a few democracies. Wherever society is less than enlightened, you will find sociopaths in charge and implementing the kind of sick and sadistic practices he advocates.
Last edited:
It's really funny that you need to resort to personal attacks to convey your opinion, it shows your character quite well. I hope if someone in your family is murdered that you make sure none of his rights are violated and that he has a nice comfy bed, decent TV, and 3 highly nutritious meals a day. Please don't mind if he spits in your face during the trials, he has rights and who are you to challenge them?
In my opinion, an eye for an eye works quite well, if you revoke another person's rights, then yours should be revoked as well.
very true , when someone in any debate resorts to personal attacks it's obvous they have nothing valuable left to say.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
