Again, you’ve failed to explain by what mechanism drug companies are forcing states to do anything.

“Wait, how does refusing to sell drugs “force” states to do anything?”

YOU SEEM TO HAVE MISSED SOMETHING

Since I was quoting my previous post, I was talking about the drug companies. The responsibility is shared, that doesn’t make it go away. 

“I’ve provided links,”

And I read them and explained that only one of them even qualifies.  

“I’m not googling any more for a troll.”

IN your first link, withholding drug was not the reason executions were put on hold, it as because they didn’t use the right ones. They were not folloing proper proceedure. And those inmates are still on death row.

“Not providing drugs has led to states halting executions.”

Name one. And let me ask you, are these people still on death row?

“There is nothing pragmatic about thinking that an uninterrupted supply of drugs will some how lead to the end of the death penalty.”

That’s also not what I said. I said it does nothing to stop…

Drug companies not selling those drug is not getting executions commuted.

“If drug companies do not supply drugs, people might not die.”

Disagree.  

“What kind of sense does that make?”

The pragmatic kind that understands that limiting access to the drugs only leads to more suffering when executions take place anyways.  

I’m not ok with the death penalty. I said as much.

“The best thing would be no death penalty. Second best thing would be death penalty with something like a morphine overdose, or whatever they give to people in the few states with physician assisted suicide. But insisting on nothing but the first option is only…

No, not a troll. And yes, their decision does lead to an increase of suffering. That’s just a fact. When they refuse to sell the drugs people die by less humane means. That is a fact. The responsibility is shared, that doesn’t make it go away.

You are ok with increased suffering to prove your point. Just own it.

Their decision results in increased suffering. That’s a fact and I don’t think it’s worth it to make a point. Work to end the death penalty without exploiting other people’s suffering.

BTW I could not find any examples of executions being halted specifically due to drugs. For example, the one posted on Jez today…

They are directly respoible for the increase in suffering, especially because they KNOW that’s what the outsome of their choice will be.

They are directly respoible for the increase in suffering, especially because they KNOW that’s what the outsome of their choice will be.

I don’t care what they are meant for, the reality is the consequences of their decision directly leads to increased suffering. They have a responsibility for that.

And BTW, Drs DO prescribe drugs that kill people, and or are not meant to be used in the way people are using them.

Off label use is a real thing, as is Dr…

They make the drugs, what they are doing is actively preventing prisons from OBTAINING the drugs so they can use them for executions.

And yes, they have some responsibility for the consequences of that decision.
Not for the people being killed, but for those people’s increased level of suffering.

It’s on both because both of their decisions directly lead to the outcome.

First off, did they buy my property? Then they get to do whatever they want with it, because it’s theirs now.

And dos it reduce the suffering that someone goes through? Then yes, I’m ok with it, because it’s the better choice.

You don’t seem to understand that your only choices are execution, with more pain, or with…

To be fair, it’s on both.

And like I said their position directly leads in increased suffering.

And no, the fact that thy made the drug doesn’t make them an agent in killing anymore than making a cake makes you a participant in a wedding ceremony.

Nipples in men do not produce milk, but they are erogenous zones, so no, I don’t think they are necessarily vestigial. The foreskin actually does something. It is not vestigial and if you think it is, where is the medical literature that says so?

“Yes which it can do sufficiently on it’s own.”

Depends on what you think is sufficient. Since it doesn’t stay moist without a foreskin, I would not call that sufficient.

“Look the only person not citing anything is you”

First off, all you have cited is Wikipedia, and it didn’t even disagree with anything I said.…