• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dope-Smoking, Menstruating Monkey Study Got $3.6 Million in Tax Dollars

Yeah! I mean, let's not actually look into why they would research this and what sort of information might be gathered from it! Let's just go ahead and assume it's a waste of money! That's the fiscally responsible thing to do.

Had you read the whole article you would have come across this: “The main objective of this research is to develop nonhuman primate models (rhesus monkeys) of critical aspects of addiction that will yield useful information for the prevention and treatment of drug abuse,” says the description.

We know that Pot is not addictive and the others are.

People with half a brain know this and people who are weak minded or they were told that Pot would make you crazy found out it was a lie and figured the information on the other drugs was also a lie so they moved on and get hooked.

Honest education could go a long way to helping with drug problems.

Truth is Pot was banned bot because of any danger, but because hemp threatened that paper mills of William Randolph Hearst, because of racism against Mexicans. Look it up if you don't believe me.
 
This study accounts for next to nothing in the budget. 3.6 million over 10 years is laughable, and it's to study behavioural changes due to drug use. P.S. That means this study would have been initiated during Bush's term in office, and conceivably before the onset of the recession.

I don't support the study though because humans aren't monkeys, so I don't see how the results can be conclusive for human beings. I guess we're learning a lot though about what happens when monkeys do drugs :)
 
No ****, Sherlock.


Yes. The fact that the physiological responses are similar between primates and humans certainly proves that the psychological responses will also be similar :rolleyes:

What a ****ing waste of tax payer money.

I wonder if they had any gay monkey's participate. Especially on the Meth portion of the study? Wouldn't wanna leave out any demographics now would we? :)


Tim-
 
This study accounts for next to nothing in the budget. 3.6 million over 10 years is laughable, and it's to study behavioural changes due to drug use. P.S. That means this study would have been initiated during Bush's term in office, and conceivably before the onset of the recession.

I don't support the study though because humans aren't monkeys, so I don't see how the results can be conclusive for human beings. I guess we're learning a lot though about what happens when monkeys do drugs :)

Believe it or not many various sorts of animals have similar responses to drugs and treatment, both psychologically and physiologically, as humans do. Hell, why do you think there is an animal testing stage for many pharmaceuticals?

In fact, there was a very interesting study a few years back regarding the effects of overpopulation on a large scale which was performed on rats. Interestingly enough, they began to exhibit various interesting behaviors, such as forming gangs, a huge rise in homosexuality and actual instances of prostitution for food. You'd be surprised what we can learn about humans from animals.
 
You are a Libertarian?

That is right... it is not government's job to do this.

If so, you don't give much of a care who uses drugs and what drugs they use. You also realize it's the private sector's job to profit from their misery when they become addicts. It is not government's job to be studying the habits of drug addicts. It is their job of making sure they don't harm anyone else, protecting civilized society from those that become criminals due to their addiction... policing.

As for reading only from conservative sources... most of my posts quote the rags of journ-O-lists... for the exact reason you portrayed. You cite a source that is right leaning the ape **** starts flying.

You are a Libertarian? I think not, for your mind seems a wee bit too narrow. Why not try the book linked in my signature line and get back to me later.

.

Yeah attack me. That is exactly what I would expect the OP of a retarded thread like this one to do.

Taking a drug addict, treating them, and making them into a working, productive, tax paying citizen instead of a prisoner that tax payers have to shell out tens of thousands each year to pay for, is in the government interest. Your ****ing sense of moral superiority apparently got in the way of your common ****ing sense. I gravely dislike people like you who read only sources that report things the way you want to hear them instead of the way they are.

Now why don't you go gallop off and have one of your shepherds tell you what to think and say?
 
Last edited:
This study accounts for next to nothing in the budget. 3.6 million over 10 years is laughable, and it's to study behavioural changes due to drug use. P.S. That means this study would have been initiated during Bush's term in office, and conceivably before the onset of the recession.

I don't support the study though because humans aren't monkeys, so I don't see how the results can be conclusive for human beings. I guess we're learning a lot though about what happens when monkeys do drugs :)

In saying : "This study accounts for next to nothing in the budget. 3.6 million over 10 years is laughable," is like saying that even if we start drilling for oil now it will be years before it has an impact.

Well how long will it take if you don't start at all?

The analogy goes to waste. How much can you save if you don't start, regardless of the amount.

We have to stop the BS and begin to use at least a little logic. or we do nothing but bitch.
 
You are a Libertarian?

That is right... it is not government's job to do this.

If so, you don't give much of a care who uses drugs and what drugs they use. You also realize it's the private sector's job to profit from their misery when they become addicts. It is not government's job to be studying the habits of drug addicts. It is their job of making sure they don't harm anyone else, protecting civilized society from those that become criminals due to their addiction... policing.

As for reading only from conservative sources... most of my posts quote the rags of journ-O-lists... for the exact reason you portrayed. You cite a source that is right leaning the ape **** starts flying.

You are a Libertarian? I think not, for your mind seems a wee bit too narrow. Why not try the book linked in my signature line and get back to me later.

.

I don't think Bloom's book helps in any of this, Zimmer. I have been re-reading it, and it is about the decline in liberal education in Higher Education and the improper lessons Americans took from German philosophers. Perhaps you are latching onto the title a little too liberally.
 
Last edited:
You know what is really ****ed up is if you freed 15 prisoners who were on 10 year sentences for drug offenses, then it would save approximately the same amount that this entire study cost.
 
In saying : "This study accounts for next to nothing in the budget. 3.6 million over 10 years is laughable," is like saying that even if we start drilling for oil now it will be years before it has an impact.

Well how long will it take if you don't start at all?

The analogy goes to waste. How much can you save if you don't start, regardless of the amount.

We have to stop the BS and begin to use at least a little logic. or we do nothing but bitch.

How about this? If this study helped just 15 people get off drugs and avoid being incarcerated for 10 years, then it literally would have paid for itself. How is that for logic?
 
crack-monkey1231931250.jpg
 
Yeah attack me. That is exactly what I would expect the OP of a retarded thread like this one to do.
Retarded thread? How so? You support the government taking money and handing it out where they see fit? I don't. I think it's better private enterprise does this type of "work"... or let our socialist pals in the EU get apes stoned.

Taking a drug addict, treating them, and making them into a working, productive, tax paying citizen instead of a prisoner that tax payers have to shell out tens of thousands each year to pay for, is in the government interest.
Perhaps letting people know that falling into this hole will require your family and friends to haul you out, instead of government would be better for more people and society on the whole, instead of glorifying the idiocy and having government spend our money on the problem? It's a problem created by private individuals and they can get assistance from private companies, family, friends, or charities.

Private companies with an interest are the ones to fund the research in the OP, not government.

Your ****ing sense of moral superiority apparently got in the way of your common ****ing sense. I gravely dislike people like you who read only sources that report things the way you want to hear them instead of the way they are.
You failed epically on that one. I read a from a huge variety of sources. Further... If I am so narrow, I sure as the hell wouldn't waste my time here... would I?

Now why don't you go gallop off and have one of your shepherds tell you what to think and say?
ROTFLMFAO... I guess dinner won't taste too good tonight.

You're a different Libertarian from von Mises, Hayek and Friedman... or did you hit the wrong button... meaning to hit Liberal? Me thinks you hit the wrong button.

.
 
Last edited:
Retarded thread? How so? You support the government taking money and handing it out where they see fit? I don't. I think it's better private enterprise does this type of "work"... or let our socialist pals in the EU get apes stoned.

Who do you think pays the private agency to do this kind of work? Whether the government does it or a private agency does it, it is still paid for by the tax payers and ultimately regulated by the state. Ideologues like you really amaze me. If you can't label something and pigeonhole it in a box then it offends you. :roll:

The equivalent cost to this entire experiment is imprisoning 15 people for 10 years. If just 15 people benefited from this research and avoided going to prison for 10 years on drug charges, then these studies would have paid for themselves. Your notion that the government shouldn't do any research is ridiculous. People who believe in the free market also understand the concept of "public goods". You should look into it.

Of course, I won't take any political advice from someone who shows so little basic economic education as yourself.
 
Last edited:
Who do you think pays the private agency to do this kind of work? Whether the government does it or a private agency does it, it is still paid for by the tax payers and ultimately regulated by the state. Ideologues like you really amaze me. If you can't label something and pigeonhole it in a box then it offends you. :roll:

The equivalent cost to this entire experiment is imprisoning 15 people for 10 years. If just 15 people benefited from this research and avoided going to prison for 10 years on drug charges, then these studies would have paid for themselves. Your notion that the government shouldn't do any research is ridiculous. People who believe in the free market also understand the concept of "public goods". You should look into it.

Of course, I won't take any political advice from someone who shows so little basic economic education as yourself.

You wouldn't take political advise from an economist? Would you take economic advise from a politician? :)


Tim-
 
You wouldn't take political advise from an economist? Would you take economic advise from a politician? :)


Tim-

An economist? Are you serious? That is sad.

I would not suspect these kinds of threads to come from an educated individual. Of course I have had my occasional heat of the moment thread, so maybe I'm wrong to judge.
 
Last edited:
Who do you think pays the private agency to do this kind of work? Whether the government does it or a private agency does it, it is still paid for by the tax payers and ultimately regulated by the state.
The vast majority of funding is through private enterprise.

I don't see where in the Constitution the Feds are given this power. If states want to do it, fine.

Ideologues like you really amaze me. If you can't label something and pigeonhole it in a box then it offends you. :roll:
My ideology is a simple one. Where is it in the Constitution? Where? It's ideologies like yours, people who ignore the contract between the government and its citizens that has gotten us into this mess. Private business is fully capable of funding dope smoking, menstruating monkey research if they so choose. We shouldn't have to pay for it.

The equivalent cost to this entire experiment is imprisoning 15 people for 10 years. If just 15 people benefited from this research and avoided going to prison for 10 years on drug charges, then these studies would have paid for themselves. Your notion that the government shouldn't do any research is ridiculous. People who believe in the free market also understand the concept of "public goods". You should look into it.
Oh... I understand "public good". Everyone can expand on it as they like. That is how we have 14 TRILLION in debt and $500,000+ in unfunded liabilities PER PERSON. Perhaps YOU should look into it.

You see, we had a country that once believed in limited government. Now we're a country where too many think the taxpayer's money is a big honey pot where we can piss it away on Chinese Whores, paying postal workers not to work, and dope smoking menstruating monkeys.

Of course, I won't take any political advice from someone who shows so little basic economic education as yourself.
Of course you won't. You're too thick to look at the Constitution, our history and figure out what the hell went wrong. You really should change your political lean... to Liberal.

... and the biggest laugh is your handle... "Critical-Thought"... ROTFLOL... not.

.
 
Last edited:
It costs us hundreds of millions of dollars every year to incarcerate drug addicts and they are pissed about $360,000 a year spent on studies trying to find better treatments that likely would bring down that cost. I can't even voice how utterly idiotic this thread is.

Drug addiction is a public health issue, not a domestic or legal issue by any stretch of the imagination.

A better approach to this problem is to not incarcerate drug addicts at all, because obviously incarcerating drug addicts is helping with this issue.

You sir, are the idiot.
 
Drug addiction is a public health issue, not a domestic or legal issue by any stretch of the imagination.

A better approach to this problem is to not incarcerate drug addicts at all, because obviously incarcerating drug addicts is helping with this issue.

You sir, are the idiot.
This is one issue I struggle with as a Conservative (though in political lean tests I come out as a Friedman styled Libertarian), and keep batting around in my brain. I believe we need laws to have a civil society, but I also believe we as free people have the right to do whatever good or damage to ourselves as we see fit. For it is a truly slippery slope as we've noticed. More and more of our rights are being usurped in the name of protecting ourselves from ourselves. Then comes the government spending money trying to assist us. Ain't their job, ain't their purview. I want these busy bodies to leave us the **** alone... get out of the way, get out of our lives. We can and have proven we can take care of one another without government intrusion and the high costs it brings financially and for our liberty.

von Mises said it well:
Whoever is convinced that indulgence or excessive indulgence in these poisons is pernicious is not hindered from living abstemiously or temperately. This question cannot be treated exclusively in reference to alcoholism, morphinism, cocainism, etc., which all reasonable men acknowledge to be evils. For if the majority of citizens is, in principle, conceded the right to impose its way of life upon a minority, it is impossible to stop at prohibitions against indulgence in alcohol, morphine, cocaine, and similar poisons. Why should not what is valid for these poisons be valid also for nicotine, caffein, and the like? Why should not the state generally prescribe which foods may be indulged in and which must be avoided because they are injurious?
Ludwig von Mises on the Drug War, David Henderson | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty


As soon as we surrender the principle that the state should not interfere in any questions touching on the individuals mode of life, we end by regulating and restricting the latter down to the smallest details.
http://mises.org/books/liberalism.pdf
And that, in bold, is where we are today.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom