4 ms·

Then that decision should be made in public by the elected representatives or by referendum in accordance with the state's laws, not by a tiny group of activist

Then that decision should be made in public by the elected representatives or by referendum in accordance with the state's laws, not by a tiny group of activists making it practically impossible via backdoor methods.

analog31 11y ago
It's my understanding that the drug companies themselves, operating outside the US, are the ones making these drugs unavailable for death penalty use. They are engaging in a straightforward boycott.
- ChuckMcM 11y ago
  Consider this: http://www.csg.org/pubs/capitolideas/enews/issue65_4.aspx http://www.csg.org/pubs/capitolideas/enews/issue65_4.aspx It really is creative activists trying things against the will of the people in those states that support capital punishment. I've got a complicated relationship with the death penalty, but that aside I recognize that the only way to change it is through the institutions we have which are empowered to make those changes.
  - anigbrowl 11y ago
    It really is, but why shouldn't they? The people who express a preference in favor of the death penalty are entitled to their attitudes, but not to freedom from political opposition.
  - pavlov 11y ago
    If the "will of the people" is to have sodium thiopental injected into people, why don't the states in question build a plant of their own to manufacture the substance?
    - tsotha 11y ago
      It's more a question of having a method codified into law than being stuck with that method. Instead of producing the drugs the states in question will probably just switch to another method of execution.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  Drug companies are boycotting the death penalty process because of their deep-seated moral convictions? I don't think so. Corporations are amoral. The activists found a weak point in the death penalty system -- namely, the companies which make the drugs (which is a small market to start with) and are terrified of even the remotest smidgen of public criticism.

analog31 11y ago

It's my understanding that the drug companies themselves, operating outside the US, are the ones making these drugs unavailable for death penalty use. They are engaging in a straightforward boycott.

ChuckMcM 11y ago
Consider this: http://www.csg.org/pubs/capitolideas/enews/issue65_4.aspx http://www.csg.org/pubs/capitolideas/enews/issue65_4.aspx It really is creative activists trying things against the will of the people in those states that support capital punishment. I've got a complicated relationship with the death penalty, but that aside I recognize that the only way to change it is through the institutions we have which are empowered to make those changes.
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  It really is, but why shouldn't they? The people who express a preference in favor of the death penalty are entitled to their attitudes, but not to freedom from political opposition.
- pavlov 11y ago
  If the "will of the people" is to have sodium thiopental injected into people, why don't the states in question build a plant of their own to manufacture the substance?
  - tsotha 11y ago
    It's more a question of having a method codified into law than being stuck with that method. Instead of producing the drugs the states in question will probably just switch to another method of execution.
13thLetter 11y ago
Drug companies are boycotting the death penalty process because of their deep-seated moral convictions? I don't think so. Corporations are amoral. The activists found a weak point in the death penalty system -- namely, the companies which make the drugs (which is a small market to start with) and are terrified of even the remotest smidgen of public criticism.