Should we be threatening cocaine addicts with execution?

When Mao Tse-tung threatened to execute them, 20 million opium addicts gave up

28 November 2013

Mao Tse-tung was by far the greatest therapist of drug addiction in world history. He threatened to execute opium addicts if they didn’t give up. Threats to murder were about the only utterances of Mao’s that could be believed, and 20 million addicts duly gave up.

I hope you don’t think that I am advocating Mao’s methods, but it does seem to me that his success tells us something very important about addiction. Mao didn’t say, nor would it have made sense for him to say, I will execute anyone who suffers from hypothyroidism, say, or rheumatoid arthritis; and therefore there must be a category difference between illness and addiction.

In Vietnam, tens of thousands of American soldiers addicted themselves to heroin, torn as they were between terror and boredom; but two years after their return to the States, their rate of addiction to heroin was no greater than that of the draftees who were due to go but never got to Vietnam because the war had ended.

Bear in mind here that we are not talking of one or two cases, that is to say exceptions, but of millions and scores of thousands of cases. Furthermore, the evidence is quite conclusive that even in more normal circumstances huge numbers of addicts give up without any assistance whatever: in fact, my mother was one of them, she gave up smoking aged 48 after more than 20 years of smoking. Unfortunately, she couldn’t give up the harm it had done her, but that is another matter entirely: that was a matter of real illness, caused by her habit.


Most people think that addicts are ‘hooked’ by their drug, but this is nonsense. Heroin addicts, for example (and heroin addiction is the paradigm that most of us use in thinking about addiction) spend on average 18 months taking the drug on and off before they are addicted to it. Among other things, they must overcome a natural revulsion to a substance that makes them nauseated and sick. It is not true that they are ‘hooked’ by heroin, then, as if they were fish in a sea swallowing a baited hook without any awareness of what they are doing; it would be more true to say that they hook heroin than that heroin hooked them. Incidentally, the fact that it takes considerable effort and determination to become addicted has been known ever since De Quincey’s Confessions of an English Opium Eater, in which he described how he took laudanum once a week for ten years before he became addicted to it.

I have asked hundreds and possibly thousands of heroin addicts how they started taking heroin. Almost invariably they said, ‘I fell in with the wrong crowd.’ I would reply, ‘It’s strange that I meet so many people who fall in with the wrong crowd, but I never meet any member of the wrong crowd itself.’ And they laughed: they knew perfectly well that this notion of passively falling into the wrong crowd, by some kind of social gravitational force, was absurd.

William S. Burroughs, the famous American who was an even worse man than he was a writer, which is saying something, and who addicted himself to heroin, wrote in his first book Junk, later retitled Junkie, how addicts called the doctors who prescribed their drugs ‘writing fools’, who willingly believed that their patients were unable to stop. And in fact in this book there is evidence of what, at least in the case of heroin addiction, is obviously the case, namely that withdrawal symptoms from heroin are much more (though not entirely) psychological rather than physical. Burroughs describes how he is relieved instantaneously by drugs that can have had little physiological effect upon his symptoms.

The notion of addiction as illness cannot possibly explain why, in the 1950s, there were at most a couple of hundred heroin addicts in this country, and why now there are perhaps 250,000 of them, 150,000 of them injecting. The National Institute on Drug Abuse in the United States propagated the idea that addiction was a disease — a chronic, relapsing brain disease, which is in fact chronic and relapsing in precisely the way that the Holy Roman Empire was holy, Roman and an empire. The Institute’s director at the time, Bob Schuster, did not believe that it was, in fact knew that it wasn’t. However, he was, in his own words, ‘happy for it to be conceptualised that way… for selling it to Congress’, that is to say to obtain more funds for research. This was because Congress would provide funds for research into a bona fide illness but not for a problem that was obviously more psychological, economic, social and in a broad sense spiritual in nature.

Addiction is not something that happens to you, it is something that you do, that confers meaning on your life or disguises the absence of such meaning. The need for meaning is a permanent human one, but it is not easily satisfied. If you examine the lives of impoverished heroin addicts, for example, you find that their existences are not helpless oscillations between desperately searching for a vein in which to inject themselves to avoid the pains of withdrawal on the one hand and the bliss of the oceanic feeling that comes with injecting heroin on the other. Heroin addicts are very busy people, what with obtaining their drugs from dealers and finding the means to pay for them. (Incidentally, criminality is much more a cause of heroin addiction than vice versa.)

Not long ago, for example, I was involved in a case — that ended tragically — in which addicts got up early every morning to go out to work. They called it work, but in fact it was burgling, which they did from nine till five.

Whatever else you call this pattern of behaviour, it is not illness.

This is based on a speech Thodore Dalrymple gave at the Spectator’s addiction debate on Thursday 21 November

More Spectator for less. Subscribe and receive 12 issues delivered for just £12, with full web and app access. Join us now.

  • http://www.recoveringfromrecovery.com/ Lovinglife52

    I agree that you do choose to start an addiction. I do feel it develops into an illness and that the effects are so powerful that some people will do anything against others in society to feed their illness.
    I think some of the social values that lead to addiction need to be looked at and that those who are selling vast amounts of drugs for huge profits need to be stopped. The problem seems to be getting worse in the UK with more and more people from all walks of life having problems. Everyone knows the dangers, but they are ignored so some drastic action is needed.

    • malcolmkyle

      Here follows an extract from “Notes on Democracy” by Henry Louis Mencken, written in 1926, during alcohol prohibition, 1919-1933:

      The Prohibitionists, when they foisted their brummagem cure-all upon the country under cover of the war hysteria, gave out that their advocacy of it was based upon a Christian yearning to abate drunkenness, and so abolish crime, poverty and disease. They preached a [crime, poverty and disease free] millennium, and no doubt convinced hundreds of thousands of naive and sentimental persons, not themselves Puritans, nor even democrats.

      That millennium, as everyone knows, has failed to come in. Not only are crime, poverty and disease undiminished, but drunkenness itself, if the police statistics are to be believed, has greatly increased. The land rocks with the scandal. Prohibition has made the use of alcohol devilish and even fashionable, and so vastly augmented the number of users. The young of both sexes, mainly innocent of the cup under license, now take to it almost unanimously.

      In brief, Prohibition has not only failed to work the benefits that its proponents promised in 1917; it has brought in so many new evils that even the mob has turned against it. But do the Prohibitionists admit the fact frankly, and repudiate their original nonsense? They do not. On the contrary, they keep on demanding more and worse enforcement statutes — that is to say, more and worse devices for harassing and persecuting their opponents.

      The more obvious the failure becomes, the more shamelessly they exhibit their genuine motives. In plain words, what moves them is the psychological aberration called sadism. They lust to inflict inconvenience, discomfort, and whenever possible, disgrace upon the persons they hate, which is to say: upon everyone who is free from their barbarous theological superstitions, and is having a better time in the world than they are.

      They cannot stop the use of alcohol, nor even appreciably diminish it, but they can badger and annoy everyone who seeks to use it decently, and they can fill the jails with men taken for purely artificial offences, and they can get satisfaction thereby for the Puritan yearning to browbeat and injure, to torture and terrorize, to punish and humiliate all who show any sign of being happy. And all this they can do with a safe line of policemen and judges in front of them; always they can do it without personal risk.

      • http://www.recoveringfromrecovery.com/ Lovinglife52

        I don’t think that prohibition is an answer at all, but I feel the way that drunken behaviour has become past of our culture along with a fairly wide acceptance of cocaine is causing problems.
        Attitudes can be changed – many have given up smoking in the last few years after it is seen to be antisocial.

  • Dolmance

    Most addictions are caused by people self medicating a problem, that is often of a sort psychiatry is unable to, or not very good at treating.

    The writer of the above article is a horrible human being. And I think it would be far more beneficial to humanity by threatening to execute people who spew this sort of cold blooded claptrap, than to execute addicts.

    • mountolive

      He did say: “I hope you don’t think that I am advocating Mao’s methods, but it does seem to me that his success tells us something very important about
      addiction. Mao didn’t say, nor would it have made sense for him to say, I
      will execute anyone who suffers from hypothyroidism, say, or rheumatoid
      arthritis; and therefore there must be a category difference between
      illness and addiction.”

      You call him ‘a horrible human being’. Why? For raising some uncomfortable truths about the nature of addiction?

      I suspect that he has considerably more experience in addiction than you do, so why not consider the value of the rest of Anthony’s work as ‘Theodore Dalrymple’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Dalrymple) before writing it off as claptrap. You might discover that you agree with ninety percent of it. But perhaps you are simply too lazy to bother.

      • Dolmance

        It’s his coercion mentality, and people who reference this sort of thing, do so because that’s what they’re about.

        I’m sure if you threatened cancer patients with execution, unless they forgo chemotherapy, they’ll refrain from treatment too.

        You seem to have the same authoritative mindset, and an arrogance born of ignorance (common enough), to pontificate on the nature of addiction. You know nothing.

        • mountolive

          Firstly, he has no ‘coercion mentality’ and your attempt to generalise on this statement is pathetic.

          Secondly, you may leave the strawman argument about cancer patients in the bin, where it belongs.

          Thirdly, I am delighted to be recognised for having such a mindset. What took you so long? Sadly though, when it comes to ‘arrogance and ignorance’, you should glance inwards – while reaching for the dictionary – and consider who is authoritative and who is authoritarian.

          Incidentally, I was an addict for more than twenty years, were you?

          • Dolmance

            That was hardly a strawman. And the rest of your little missive was just a pompous demonstration of your dislike of what I had to say, but nothing more, and certainly nothing of substance.

            You people go on with your fantasies of fixing the world through coercion and threats and executions. I know what you are, and if you weren’t so intellectually lazy and incapable of self examination, you would know too.

            By the way, people like yourselves are never remembered for anything, except the bad they sometimes do. Bad readers, bad characters and unpleasant people. Ugh.

          • mountolive

            It’s tin foil hat time.

      • Petra van Goor

        He has more experience with addiction than me? I don’t think so. Mine is first hand experience. His is not.

    • Marie Louise Noonan

      And he is a psychiatrist so the very idea that people have to medicate themselves because of illnesses ‘of the sort psychiatry is unable to, or not very good at treating’ probably makes him feel a tad inadequate.

      I do wish op-ed writers would declare conflicts of interests.

      • Dolmance

        I didn’t know. I’m writing from Mexico, and hadn’t heard of the Spectator. It’s pretty right wing, which I should have guessed at from the article, which is fascist in the extreme.

        There is nothing, but nothing I can think of more disreputable than a European fascist, and British is the worst of the worst. Much worse than the other varieties, I’m afraid.

        • Marie Louise Noonan

          Okay, I feel I need to say this. I am not the good doctor’s number one fan but I really don’t think he is a ‘fascist’.

          Another more tangential point: I don’t think the headline:

          ‘Should we be threatening cocaine addicts with execution?’

          was Dalrymple’s idea. I think his editors were trying to make it more ‘topical’. They probably had the case of a certain ‘celebrity chef’ in mind.

          Disappointing really, because it’s the kind of tactic one would expect from a cheap tabloid rather than a publication like The Spectator.

          • Dolmance

            Referencing Mao’s “social experiment” with drug addicts, is like referencing Josif Mengele’s research into twins. It’s a dead giveaway for a fascist cast of mind, from the point of mentioning execution, to the writer pushing that “they’re responsible,” they’ve got a low character, and like homosexuals who “choose” that degenerate lifestyle, these people choose to be drug addicts and prey upon society while pursuing laziness.

            I know fascists. It’s not a choice. It’s an identity. It’s not what they believe or how they think — it’s who they are, right down to their bones.

        • Richard_LTFC

          That would be why Great Britain waged war on European and Argentine fascists, would it?
          Please list how many of your family joined in, or were they all jackboot-licking cowards?

          • Dolmance

            You can’t possibly be British and spew such drivel. Britain had plenty of Nazis and Fascists running around. They got put in jail after the war started, but to pretend that sort of thing doesn’t exist over there betrays either ignorance or dishonesty. And my family? What could you possibly know about my family?

          • Richard_LTFC

            i asked you a simple question.

            Answer it.

          • Dolmance

            I wouldn’t give you the satisfaction of being civil, after that nonsense about “jackboot-licking cowards.”

            There’s quite an argument to be made that WWII wouldn’t have been possible without “jackboot-licking cowards,” who gave the Germans breathing space to rearm and reoccupy the Ruhr, which would make you all a bunch of “jackboot-licking cowards,” before you got your backs to the wall.

            I don’t cooperate with rude people such as yourself, or answer their questions, which were not simple at all, but insulting, from just another authoritarian type at this site.

          • Richard_LTFC

            i asked because tens of thousands from my country volunteered to fight the Nazis, even though they came from a neutral nation, but seeing as you’re just another keyboard warrior posting emotional and ignorant nonsense, I can see it was a waste of time asking you to justify your claims.

            If you called me ‘British’ to my face, sonny, I’d give you something to blubber about.

            Carry on with your PC Tourette’s, there’s a good lad.

          • Dolmance

            You were “asking,” as a venue to call me names, because you didn’t like what I wrote about the writer of the above article. And if you’re taking credit for the “volunteers” from your neutral nation, then you’re halfway to being a chickenhawk.

            My country wasn’t “neutral.” “Draft dodgers” were shot instantly, and consequently, I haven’t heard of any.

            While the allies never had to deal with more than ten divisions on land against the Germans, my country was never fighting less than 100. My grandfather was in Berlin, where he only learned a little German “Come here, Fraulein,” but he did his part. However, I don’t take credit for grandfather and his comrades saving the world — they did that.

          • Richard_LTFC

            I loved what you wrote, because you merely broadcast that your little feelings were hurt by the article but you were entirely incapable of finding a single factual inaccuracy. Thus, the best your impotent petulance could scrape together as a reply was to accuse a distinguished doctor of sharing the ideology which some of his family fled to England to avoid.

            Anthony Danels wrote about your mindset in his book, Spoilt Rotten, and it is a valuable insight into the diseased minds of many in today’s western establishment and the damage they have wreaked on the poor.

            Thank you for adding to his arsenal of real-life examples.

            Keep going

          • Dolmance

            But I wasn’t pointing out “factual inaccuracy” in the article. I was expressing my disgust at using the threat of execution against addicts, as proof of their low character in becoming addicted in the first place. So your entire premise is not just dumb, it’s projection — you’re being petulant. And your second paragraph is simply your giving away the store — you have the personality characteristics of an authoritative mindset, and you’re inclined toward being a dirty little fascist, like the author of the above article, which is why I assume you’re lurking in this comment section, doing your best to make it a typical sort of comments section cesspool. In short, you sir, are a human snot otter.

          • Richard_LTFC

            In that case, you should have blubbered at the Spectator editor or sub-editor, as Mr Daniels is unlikely to have written the headline.

            And I know you’re totally ignorant of our part of the world, but you might like to research the character, Rick, from the Young Ones.

          • Dolmance

            I spent nine years in your country. I know Britain.

          • Richard_LTFC

            And you might try learning to read as well

  • malcolmkyle

    Apart from the fact that legal drugs cause more crime and kill far more people than all the illegal drugs combined, debating whether a particular drug is addictive/harmless or not is missing the whole point. Are drugs like Cocaine, Heroin, Meth or Alcohol addictive/dangerous? It simply doesn’t matter, because if we prohibit them then we sure as hell know that it makes a bad situation far worse. If someone wants to attempt to enhance or destroy their lives with particular medicines or poisons, that should be their business, not anybody else’s. Their lives aren’t ours to direct. And anyway, who wants to give criminals, terrorists and corrupt law enforcement agents a huge un-taxed, endless revenue stream?

    A great many of us are wising up to the fact that the best avenue towards realistically dealing with drug use and addiction is through proper regulation, which is what we already do with alcohol & tobacco. These are clearly two of our most dangerous mood altering substances, but we have learnt to regulate them properly, and not hand the whole market over to organized criminals and corrupt politicians.

    • Marie Louise Noonan

      And Theodore has no problem with neuroleptics, in fact he is something of a cheer leader for them.

      The Soviet Union did not use “illegal drugs” to control political dissidents. They invented an illness called ‘sluggish Schizophrenia’ forced them to take neuroleptics.

      Psychiatrists are the biggest drug pushers on the planet. Their main interest is in retaining their monopoly.

  • http://www.peter-reynolds.co.uk Peter Reynolds

    A little truth and a lot of nastiness.

  • malcolmkyle

    “The results of testing a number of hypotheses indicated that since the introduction of the death penalty for drug offences, the numbers of drug arrests and the incidence of violence related to drug offences have increased. In addition, the smuggling of drugs by sea has increased. Moreover, heroin trafficking has increased since the introduction of the death penalty.

    Finally, the findings of this study indicate that the introduction of the death penalty in Oman does not deter drug offenders from involvement in drug related offences in general and drug trafficking offences in particular.”

    Norris, Clive (Supervisor)
    February 2004
    Department of Comparative and Applied Social Sciences, The University of Hull
    Qualification level: Doctoral PhD

  • Michael Wieland

    I don’t think that the threat of execution made the addicts stop because Chiang Kai Shek had opium addicts executed as well and consumption continued. North Korea executes its methamphetamine users as well without having an effect on consumption. What made people stop using opium under Mao was rather the reorganization of China’s economy from a free market to a planned economy and the transition to a totalitarian Society than just the death threats. This resulted in everybody being part of a collective, surveilled and not able to travel freely, which in turn destroyed the supply networks and infrastructures. I am, however, quite positive that these people simply switched to tobacco and alcohol. Being abstinent doesn’t equal not being an addict. The biological factors persist.

  • James M

    Certainly not. Capital punishment should be inflicted on:

    narcotics pushers
    those guilty of major fraud
    – among others. The prospect of being executed for perjury would give those tempted to commit such a crime very good reason not to – especially members of the police.


    As someone who still suffers with addiction I can attest to the fact that its not as simple as making a choice. Furthermore, the difference in attitude between alcohol consumption by the masses and the same peoples views on “drug addiction” is utterly nonsensical.

    I would be willing to bet anything that over 50% of the population drink to excess whether they manage to still maintain a successful career or not is irrelevant. The fact is, if you asked pretty much any drinker to go sober for 6 months as a challenge, they could not do it. This is addiction, not the same level of addiction as someone who has lost everything but its a matter of degrees. Yet these type of people who “dont have a problem” sit in judgement of others, its a joke.

    I have met all types of people at meetings from city bankers to office cleaners, my own father drinks around 6 pints a night and is successful in terms of money, material possessions etc and he still thinks he has the right to pass on advice to me, yet of course, he “just enjoys an drink to relax”.

    I wonder, how many of these people passing on pearls of wisdom to addicts live a truly clean and responsible life?

    • Mike Barnes

      “The fact is, if you asked pretty much any drinker to go sober for 6 months as a challenge, they could not do it. This is addiction, not the same level of addiction as someone who has lost everything but its a matter of degrees. Yet these type of people who “dont have a problem” sit in judgement of others, its a joke.”

      You are probably right, most people would fail that challenge. But it’s not because of addiction, it’s because drinking is fun and they enjoy it.

      Theodore’s point was you can easily modify how addicted somebody is by offering a punishment or incentive. The addiction is not set in stone.

      Are you saying people couldn’t give up drinking for 6 months if they knew they would be sentenced to death if they failed? I think most people would find a way to pass the challenge and stay alive. Same as if you offered somebody a £1,000,000 to go without a drink for 6 months, you’d have no shortage of addicts passing the challenge.

      You say it’s not a simple choice to stop drinking/drugs/whatever.

      How are you going to recover then? Do you think you’re life is an inevitable sequence of relapses and you are just a passenger in it?

      • bwims

        Spot on!

      • Petra van Goor

        Bull shit. I am a former heroin addict, still taking methadone. I would take execution over forced detox. Because nothing in the world could possibly be worse.

  • jcrampin

    Interesting article. I only quit smoking because the fear of lung cancer was starting to eat me. And it was easy, under these circumstances. Genuinely. It really does have to be carrot or stick; money or anxiety, i suppose. The ‘addiction is a disease’ approach is part of a swathe of deterministic explanations which look to avert these alternatives. what tends to happen is that therapy fails until the user DOES have a painful psychological (‘stick’) experience. i’d agree that we’d be better confronting this head on.

  • Addiction Genetics

    The author of this piece is factually and demonstrably wrong on a number of levels. I would suggest that he engages with the scientific community on this and educates himself about the real facts of addiction. This would be far more useful than the pointless conjecture and ill informed nonsense that is represented in this article. It is embarrassing, quite honestly.

    • Pip

      The author of this piece is factually and demonstrably wrong on a number of levels.
      What do you expect from the Spectator!

    • Richard_LTFC

      Then how come your reply comprises 0% facts to counter Mr Daniels’s claims, and 100% emotional blubbering?

  • Eddie

    Why not just have a cull of rich kids at Britain’s public schools? Say, 30% should be selected by lottery to be executed. That would solve the problem before it started!

    • Icebow

      I don’t personally believe in capital punishment, but I might be prepared to make an exception in your case. Nothing personal, sirrah. Please don’t appear in my inbox; I don’t know where you’ve been.

  • Bonkim

    Capital punishment would be a little harsh but short of that addicts must be made to suffer the consequences and also treatment. Dump them in a walled compound.

    Society finds excuses for lax treatment of drug dealers – now that is one lot I would not mind being sent to the gas chamber.

    • bwims


  • Terence Hale

    Should we be threatening cocaine addicts with execution? No most certainly not but the detection of such and the evaluation of suitability for public office by a hair analyses should be introduced which can detect passed consume.

  • Marie Louise Noonan

    If you have read Theodore Dalrymple’s ‘If Symptoms Persist’ he writes about a young woman in the manic phase of her disorder who had (and these are the good doctor’s words, not mine.) ‘taken to hearing voices’ and gloating over the fact that he orders his ‘underlings’ (aka: nurses) to forcibly medicate her ‘in the buttocks’.

    ‘Addiction is not something that happens to you, it is something that you do, that confers meaning on your life or disguises the absence of such meaning.’

    It is if you are given the drug in a hospital over a prolonged period by *doctors*.

  • Pip

    No but we should be threatening MPs and Lords who lie, cheat, steal or commit Treason, with execution.

  • Nick

    Yes we should threaten them with execution and the following should also be included…
    1.All politicians except members of UKIP as I am willing to give them one chance.
    2.Everybody in the press and media.
    3.Rupert Murdoch.
    4.Tony Idiot Blair.
    5.Those women in that stupid lunch time TV programme (is it loose women?).
    6.Peter Tatchell.
    7.The Aston Villa soccer team because I lost a tenner on them to win yesterday.
    8.But most of all……….CHUGGERS!

  • The_greyhound

    Why stop at threatening?

  • Lygeia

    This is insane. Especially since we have all learned that many legally-obtainable pharmaceutical drugs are far more damaging than cocaine. Anyone remember the Fen-Phen scandal of the 1990s? Fen-Phen was a legal diet suppressant that was much more dangerous than cocaine. Many of the illegal drugs are actually not as bad as they have been portrayed. This is just silly fear mongering.

  • George Smiley

    Mao Tse-tung did not “rehabilitate” the opium addicts of China, never mind threatening them. That is a 50-year-old Communist lie peddled by useful idiots in the West, and even got carried over by the guidebooks of Lonely Planet. No, he simply had them all liquidated (executed) as “capitalist running dogs” or Nationalist spies or agents, in the 1940s and 1950s.

    A prohibition on Cocaine would never work, any more than a prohibition on Coca-Cola or Pepsi would.

  • bwims

    I’d certainly like to. Definitely the sellers.

  • Petra van Goor

    Well I would have chosen execution, then. Whenever Mr. Dalrymple says that quitting heroine is ‘easy’, it always makes me wonder how he knows. How often did he detox from heroine himself, and if he didn’t how can he know what it’s like?

    • Black Gordy

      By observation of people in jail.

      • Petra van Goor

        And just by observing people you can know how and what they feel? I am autistic, that means my brain processes stimuli differently to other people’s. That also means you can’t possibly know how stimuly effect me simply by observing me.

        • Black Gordy

          He observed tha the external symptoms of heroin withdrawal were less severe than that of tobacco withdrawal. He observed that external symptoms were similar to a mild case of flu.

          • Petra van Goor

            Well, then he observed wrong. He would have seen me crawling on all fours, begging to please kill me. Like I say in my other comment further down: I would choose execution over going through another forced detox.

          • Black Gordy

            In my experience he is a rather astute observer. He makes the point that addicts play up to the standard idea of what they are supposed to be suffering. Personally, I have also observed withdrawal symptoms. Yes, unpleasant….much the same as giving up tobacco.

          • Petra van Goor

            And my point is that some things can not be observed. Btw. I haven’t used in over 13 years, but only because I have the help of methadone to prevent withdrawal. Is giving up tobacco physically painful? Are you saying it’s all ‘in my head’? Really? Are you saying I’m choosing execution over some imaginary pain?

          • Black Gordy

            In short, yes.

          • Petra van Goor

            That just proves how clueless you and mr. Dalrymple really are. I went through forced detox in prison twice. Both times I could not guarantee the safety of my own child if that would make the pain stop. You can only observe what I feel up to a certain point. What if I feel differently from you? When you have a mild flue, you can lie still. When you go through heroin detox you can not lie still. Sleeping is therefore not an option, because you cannot lie still long enough to fall asleep. I had pictures in my mind of a really sharp ax cutting the cramped up tendons in my groin, because that seemed like an improvement. I quit smoking when I was 17, just by focusing on something else. (I knitted a sweater) Unfortunately I started up again after a year. The comparison is ridiculous.

  • Black Gordy

    Dalrymple is one of the few people honest enough to expose this nonsense about addiction being a “disease”.

  • MGuns

    Why does everyone care if someone is addicted to anything? It’s that persons life if they enjoy taking heroine then they should be able to do it. I don’t think people even care about addiction of people that use heroine, they just think that if someone takes heroine that they might sneak into their house during the day and steal something to pay for their addiction. Well the solution to that is to give away free herione then no one would need to steal anything to take heroine. I am pretty sure it would cost about 100 dollars or so to make a lifetime supply of heroine for anyone. The only reason anyone needs to steal to take heroine is because it is illegal and they may have a criminal record because of it and be unable to be hired for a proper job because of background checks. Anyone that advocates executing people that use or sell drugs is nothing more that a Hitler wannabe piece of scum. Literally no one should care if anyone takes drugs or is addicted to drugs, whoever came up with that idea and promulgated it is no different than hitler thinking that jews were the cause of societies problems and that they needed to be got rid of. Its completely insane. People can take tons of drugs and still work a normal job as long as they don’t get scarlet letter criminal record because of the piece of shit legislatures that are complete scumbags, do the shit themselves anyway. All anti drug statutes should become a relic of history just as laws against blasphemy are.

  • Edmond Lau

    These addicts give a bad image to global society. Execution should be the penalty; making up excuses like “mingling with the wrong crowd” compromise the national honor. These addicts should be removed from the public as quickly as possible for our money to be used efficiently on people that deserve it.

    We should not have compassion with these people, for they made their own choices and chose to rot rather than be a first-class individual. Execution will put them out of their misery and the world will be rid of a problem.

    In order for our society to improve, we must show no tolerance for undesirable behavior. We should advocate for the moral refinement of society, and take down anything that stands in its path. This must be our unshakable conviction.

Can't find your Web ID? Click here