'Classifying Aging as a Disease Could Speed FDA Drug Approvals' (thehill.com) 125
An anonymous reader shares a report: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers aging to be a natural process. This makes it difficult to get FDA approval for drugs that seek to slow or reverse the biological process of aging. Instead, drugs intended to target aging must target a disease that often results from the aging process in order to demonstrate efficacy and gain approval. But there is growing consensus and effort among scientists to convince the FDA that aging itself should be classified as a disease and an appropriate target for drug development.
This could be a major milestone for not just industry, but society. If the FDA is swayed, the resulting regulatory shift could mean approval of drugs or treatments that slow or reverse the aging process generally, before a patient develops disease. Researchers who view aging as a medical condition aren't referring only to the inevitable passage of time. Instead, they view aging as a process of deterioration of our structure and function at the cellular level; the hallmark characteristics of which are genomic instability and damage to our DNA. And the World Health Organization (WHO) supports this view -- WHO describes the process of aging as "... the impact of the accumulation of a wide variety of molecular and cellular damage over time."
This could be a major milestone for not just industry, but society. If the FDA is swayed, the resulting regulatory shift could mean approval of drugs or treatments that slow or reverse the aging process generally, before a patient develops disease. Researchers who view aging as a medical condition aren't referring only to the inevitable passage of time. Instead, they view aging as a process of deterioration of our structure and function at the cellular level; the hallmark characteristics of which are genomic instability and damage to our DNA. And the World Health Organization (WHO) supports this view -- WHO describes the process of aging as "... the impact of the accumulation of a wide variety of molecular and cellular damage over time."
Regulatory Capture. (Score:4, Insightful)
These people have no ethics. They certainly have no morals. They will stop at nothing to get you hooked on the next thing and have no liability for it.
Re: (Score:2)
The effect would actually be the exact opposite of what everyone assumes.
It would mean that anti-aging treatments would have to prove safety and efficacy. They would also be able to get certified as being safe and efficacious.
Right now, there is no way of getting approval, so all the fads and quack remedies are on a level with the few probably out there that actually are safe and effective. The result is that people have no way of knowing which is which.
The anti-aging market is at the moment stuck in the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The anti aging market is very similar to homeopathy. Talking to a homeopath buyer is uh "interesting". Trying to explain that having less of something doesn't make it stronger and getting back nonsense about a purer essence of the substance is mind blowing to me.
I really wish the FDA would come down on them and the anti aging crap and the rest of the scammers stealing naive people's money.
Re: (Score:2)
A ring of truth has never reverberated more from the ground Drug Industry has atop. So bad are its machinations(read D2C advertising ploy) that doctors whose patient demand BrandX are Rx without delay. People are so convinced that their needs are in that drug that is described in the advertising.
M.D.’s have always been pill pushers so the actual practice of medicine has been abstracted by industry. This aging bill broadens its reach into a population cohort that has no long tail of ramifications. Some
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Regulatory Capture. (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
No.
This is simply an attempt to create a false dichotomy.
NONE of these organizations are correct about EVERYTHING.
And simply because I violently disagree with ONE organization on a specific set of policies does NOT preclude me from disagreeing every bit as strenuously with the other about OTHER policies.
This "all or nothing" shit is just a game you're playing because you aren't intelligent enough to realize that the truth isn't that cut and dried.
Re:Regulatory Capture. (Score:5, Informative)
Hey there, old timer, nice uid. I just wanted to let you know that, in case you hadn't already noticed, you're wasting your time here. It's not entirely your fault, this place certainly does seem like there are still some souls lingering around that are worth trying to save, but I do want to impress upon you the notion that premise deserves a careful rethinking. This is no longer the place we grew up with, it's different now. Those of us still left around with a sense of free will find ourselves regularly punished by the karma system that used to encourage us to think out of the box and challenges systems -- the tide here has turned, and not for the better.
So, sir (or ma'am, I dunno), please do save yourself, and leave, never to come back. If I can save one other soul from the endless agony Slashdot has become, my time spent in these doldrums will have been worth it. Please, go live a good life, foster a nice family, and contribute to your community, and never look back upon this Hellscape. There is no good to come from here again - ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Says the guy who trolled the last thread by describing cars as portable electronic devices.
You and people like you are the problem. Please save us, and leave.
Re: (Score:2)
describing cars as portable electronic devices.
lol that's actually a pretty good one.
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't see his post but in some highly pedantic way they technically are.
Obviously that's a crock of shit but makes for an amusing tongue in cheek point.
Re: (Score:2)
It's fun to yell at the editors for posting dupes. That's reason enough to remain.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter.
I don't base my replies on whether anyone's smart enough to actually listen or not.
Fuck the echo chamber mentality.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. Right on.
Hypothetical "disease" (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not at all correct to classify aging as a disease. If a treatment for aging doesn't result in any improved outcomes, such as delaying dementia or scoliosis or other aging-related diseases, then the risks caused by side effects cannot be justified by the hypothetical "cure." This sounds a lot like sleazy age-remedy snake oil salespeople trying to get rid of "burdensome" regulation so they can sell their products more easily.
People don't die of old age. They die of ailments caused by the aging process. Targe the ailments, and you'll target aging.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no issue with preventive care. The medical community recognizes preventive care as a valid reason to undergo treatment or take drugs. For example, pregnant women are widely prescribed vitamins and some drugs as preventive care, to ensure a healthy birth. With aging, my question would be, what does your drug or treatment prevent? If it truly prevents "aging" it should also have a demonstrable effect preventing aging-related diseases.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't need to prevent any thing specifically.
It just needs to have quantifiable improvement.
Those two quotes appear to contradict each other. Quantifiable improvement in what, exactly? Oh right, one or more specific "things" that go wrong with people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It may not show a relevant improvement in any specific age related disease
That is a statement without a logical basis. If a disease is truly age-related, and you come up with a treatment that targets aging, then it follows that age-related diseases will also be reduced or delayed in the process. You can't have it both ways. The diseases are age-related, or they are not. An extension of life without an improvement in the quality f life, is arguably not really an improvement of any kind.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a statement without a logical basis.
I'm sorry you can't follow the logic, but I don't know how to be any more clear. The fact that smarter people than me are considering these very things tells me there is at least some logic to it. That isn't to say it's ultimately going to bear fruit, just that there is more to it than I can express.
An extension of life without an improvement in the quality f life, is arguably not really an improvement of any kind.
That is an opinion, and not a fact. Further, it's not an opinion that everyone shares. Some, not all, people would rather keep on living. Just because life is hard, doesn't mean death is automatically the better
Re: (Score:2)
You think that government bureaucrats (the FDA), and salespeople trying to get those government bureaucrats to let them sell their stuff, are smarter than you? That explains a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hypothetical "disease" (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, we need to be realistic.
Our entire economy currently CANNOT cope with a even SMALL extensions to to the human lifespan.
It sounds horrible. But it's true.
We already have enough problems with massive, INSANE debt spending.
Now imagine keeping a good portion of the retired population up and running another 10 years.
Hell, just FIVE years.
Where's all this money going to come from?
Not saying we shouldn't see if we can increase quality of life. Like fighting cancer or preventing senile dementia or simply geriatric wasting.
If anything, such QOL improvements could be a boon to the economy.
Instead of being burned at the altar of "more new drug regimens", or inheritance, these people could be kept healthy enough to enjoy their final years doing literally ANYTHING THEY WANT. And putting money back into the economy in general.
Instead of rotting in a nursing facility, being leeched of every penny they have left.
Re: (Score:2)
Those people with longer lifespans...can hypothetically also work longer, thus contributing. This is similar to the argument that the earth might become overpopulated. Those extra people aren't just sitting there, they are also producing on their own behalf. If age-related care doesn't result in more productive years, then the treatment is focusing on the wrong things.
Re: (Score:2)
This is similar to the argument that the earth might become overpopulated. Those extra people aren't just sitting there, they are also producing on their own behalf.
In a world with finite natural resources, what you say is pure bullshit.
If age-related care doesn't result in more productive years, then the treatment is focusing on the wrong things.
This can only be stated by someone who thinks humans are there for society instead of society being there for humans. Xi Jinping, Putin and Musk agree with you wholeheartedly.
Re: (Score:2)
We are nowhere near running out of resources. We thought we were running out of oil in the 70's. We thought we were running out of food in the 40's. Yet somehow we keep producing more, with no end in sight.
If extending life isn't about extending the number of years a person can be productive, then what the heck is it for? I know I don't want to have a longer life with zero additional productive years! Your choices of Xi and Putin are interesting, as these men claim to be leaders of communist nations, where
Re: (Score:2)
We are nowhere near running out of resources.
You should get out of your bubble more often.
At the very least, check out a digital atlas like google earth and check how fucking much of the earth is used for food production. Never mind global warming, pandemics and biodiversity. Look at the speed at which forests disappear. Etc, etc, etc.
If extending life isn't about extending the number of years a person can be productive, then what the heck is it for?
Arbeit macht frei much?
You'd have to be human to know what else there is beyond being productive...
Re: (Score:2)
You must not be from the US or Brazil or Russia, where land is plentiful. In Texas, where I live, 75% of the population lives in just 10% of the land area, the triangle between Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston. The rest of the state, which is twice as big as Germany, is basically unpopulated. There are enormous ranches the size of some countries, that are completely untapped. Texas alone is twice as big as Germany, and it's just one of 50 states in the US, 33 of which have a population lower than Houston. W
Re: (Score:2)
4/5ths of texas is agricultural land.
2/3 of the links you sent argue against you.
Your arguments stink.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't even bother to state an argument, or explain how my links argued against me, so there's not much to say for your arguments either.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, you obviously haven't read your own sources. I'm not putting any energy in further argumentation if you post bullshit.
Anyway, give the season greetings to the worms while you hide your head in the sand.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I'll say hello to the worms, since you asked so nicely.
Re: (Score:2)
"can"
The problem is, our economic status quo discourages this.
Re: (Score:2)
You may be right, but the economic status quo is a different problem entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I view it all as part of the package.
You really CANNOT "single issue" stuff like this in a non-critical fashion.
And anyone trying to do so is, effectively, lying. Either to themselves or others (or both).
And it's best to figure this stuff out ahead of time.
Not spring it on the world, then try to deal with all the consequences in a whack-a-mole fashion.
I mean, look at the mess of the US power grid in relation to EV adoption.
Re: (Score:2)
Your EV power grid issue is a good analogy. Just because the grid isn't there yet, doesn't mean we shouldn't develop better EV technology. As EVs roll out, the grid will _separately_ be improved, as the demand rises. You watch, it will happen.
Same with economic incentives to retire too young. As people live longer, many of those older people will _want_ to keep working. That demand will lead to supply, and the economic incentives will change. We already see this happening as, over the last few decades, the
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, we're talking about technology ultimately being controlled at the top by the US government.
The only trust I have there is "they're gonna fuck something up".
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like government control, you can try living in a place like Somalia. Like Churchill so famously said, "Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried."
The reality is, any useful technology can and will be "controlled by" the government. That's what governments do, as well they should. And yes, they'll mess it up, but the alternative (not having a government) is far, far worse.
Re: (Score:1)
Depends on how some miracle drug would impact the aging process.
If people lived10 years longer in a nursing home rotting then that's a whole lot different than if everyone simply lived longer, worked longer, aged slower, got fewer horrible diseases like Alzheimer's etc.
The latter is great. I see no downsides to everyone living longer healthier lives. The other way in a nursing home.... brings up all sorts of moral quandaries no matter where you stand on it.
Re: Hypothetical "disease" (Score:1)
no, the aging process itself can kill you. the body loses the ability to even maintain itself. Death is inevitable before 130 years.
Re: (Score:1)
If your body cannot maintain itself, THAT is an age-related condition that can and should be treated. It's not the aging, per se, but the problems that come with it. Treat the problems, not some hypothetical aging process. If the treatment for that aging process is valid, it should also cause people's bodies to be able to "maintain themselves" longer. That would be a worthwhile treatment. But if the treatment doesn't lead to an actual change in the body's abilities, then it's not a valid treatment.
We don't
Re: (Score:2)
So now you are resorting to calling me names? That's typically a sign that there are no good arguments or sources to back them up.
Lifespans can vary greatly, even within a single species. For example, the lifespan of dogs ranges from 6 to 14 years, depending on breed. https://www.petmd.com/dog/well... [petmd.com] There's no reason to think human lifespan couldn't also vary significantly, even if we are all the same species.
Re: (Score:2)
Aging is common to primates and canines. Both have similar aging-related diseases and effects, such as cataracts, graying hair, arthritis, and cancer. It's reasonable to assume that the aging of dogs and people flows from similar genetic processes, but in dogs the processes occur more quickly. You have no sources, no scientific basis on which to claim a 130-year limit for humans. Nobody does.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you mean there are differences between species? Of course there are. But there are also many similarities, which is why medical researches do drug testing on mice and other animals. The biology is similar enough in specific ways, that the tests are meaningful.
What exactly was the error in my thinking, again? It's easy to make such an assertion, it takes work to back it up with specifics.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh?
Those ailments are symptomatic of the aging process. Treating the symptoms is what the alliopaths are always on about because it's profitable.
Targeting the root causes will always be more effective and more cost efficient.
But a disease can't affect more than 50% of the population by definition. Maybe that's arbitrary but there's no workable definition of disease that can cover aging.
It's it's own thing and the FDA would need to adapt except it's unsalvageably corrupt.
The FDA isn't divorced from Medica
Re: (Score:2)
But a disease can't affect more than 50% of the population by definition. Maybe that's arbitrary but there's no workable definition of disease that can cover aging.
I present to you ... the common cold! (I was going to say "I give to you ... the common cold" but I haven't had one since some time in the previous century, so obviously I can't give what I can't catch).
The average person has 2-3 per year. But colds are definitely diseases.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really disagree with you. You parsed my words in ways that were not intended. For example, you assume I was suggesting that medicine should only be concerned with making symptoms rather than dealing with root causes. That's not what I said. Masking symptoms is an important thing that medicine does (e.g., aspirin masks pain but doesn't treat the source of the pain), but it's not ideal to stop there. The best kind of treatment for dementia is one that actually reverses the disease, rather than just ma
Re: (Score:2)
It's not at all correct to classify aging as a disease. If a treatment for aging doesn't result in any improved outcomes, such as delaying dementia or scoliosis or other aging-related diseases, then the risks caused by side effects cannot be justified by the hypothetical "cure." This sounds a lot like sleazy age-remedy snake oil salespeople trying to get rid of "burdensome" regulation so they can sell their products more easily.
People don't die of old age. They die of ailments caused by the aging process. Targe the ailments, and you'll target aging.
Assume you can "reduce aging" so that a 70 year old has a rough physical age of 65.
There's a ton of individual ailments that get worse as you go from 65 to 70, but showing a statistical improvement in any one of them over the course of a drug trial just based on the 5 year difference seems unlikely.
Plus, there's the obvious quality of life implications.
I suspect you can still succeed by targeting the ailments, but if given the choice between a drug that reduced heart disease by breaking down fat deposits in
Re: (Score:2)
If your drug can't show a statistical improvement in health outcomes over a five-year period, you are selling snake oil. That is literally how the FDA measures the effectiveness of a drug, by looking for a statistically significant improvement in health outcomes, compared to a placebo.
I said nothing about HOW one must target ailments. If your drug reduces heart disease by making your metabolism "younger," you've just made an effective drug, that will show a statistically significant improvement in health ou
Re: (Score:3)
This is what happens when capitalism meets biology. Everything is a disease that can be cured with a pill. Since aging is part of ontology, just like growing up, then we must conclude that growing up is also a disease that needs to be treated with an expensive drug. This is what happens when stupid greedy people think about something that is beyond their control. .
What's likely behind this (Score:4, Interesting)
A lot of dot-com billionaires are getting into their 40s, 50s, and 60s and starting to realize they're going to eventually die. Many of them decide it's a good time to build a legacy to be remembered by... but there are some who are really hoping they can buy immortality.
Re: (Score:2)
I would also like to buy immortality. Two, please.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, aging is an ontological process, just like growing up. Each species has a genetically defined lifespan, which is why mice only live 3 years at most, and some parrots can live to 100. To extend the human lifespan you would have to mess with a lot of genes and that would have a lot of unintended consequences. As it is now, people have god-like lifespans compared with dogs, cats, squirrels and sparrows. A shame people can't be happy with their already very lengthy lifespans as compared with other mam
Re: (Score:2)
I have a very strong feeling that to get to a very long lifespan, we would have to drastically alter large swaths of the human genome, since they all have to be integrated into a functioning whole. You would need a lot more cellular protection-related genes, and have to beef up the lysosomal/proteosomal system and really improve quality checkpoints on protein translation and folding. You would have to figure out ways to prevent ER stress and other things to minimize protein misfolding and unwanted chemical
Just bureaucracy issue (Score:2)
classify a--hole as a disease (Score:2)
OMG NO... (Score:1)
We can live forever (Score:1)
That means lots more Netflix and going to jobs we hate to pay for our lifestyles about which we are ambivalent. Seriously, what would the average person do with a longer lifespan except bore themselves to death?
Where are studies that prove cell damage is aging? (Score:1)
Finally! (Score:2)
I've got a fever!
And the only prescription is:
More cowbell.
Coming soon: more high priced pills (Score:2)
And the black box warnings to accompany them! But think if the amazing revenue as life itself is viewed as a disease to treat. Here are some pills you MUST take them. Meanwhile something like Type 1 diabetes is still here - just treatable with shots, insulin pumps, testing supplies - amazing cash flow!
They already made your personality a disease. (Score:2)
keep the birth rates declining! (Score:2)
FDA Rules Saved Americans from Thalidomide Defects (Score:2)
Define aging. (Score:3, Insightful)
Should we give puberty blockers to all the children then? Puberty definitely seems like aging to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No because unfortunately puberty is a necesary stage to get from "useless" child to productive adult( ie office drone orvwhstever else) Ie a workforce and consumers with disposable income so that part of "aging' is not a problem it's the part removing you from the workforce and may necesetate costly care that us
Two words - child labour. Unfortunately there's a lot of that going around.
List of who is doing the lobbying would be good .. (Score:2)
It's hilarious that the agency created to protect us from snake oil peddlers is itself susceptible snake oil peddlers that now come in the form of wealthy pharmaceutical companies. Aren't you curious who the snake oil peddlers are?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:inmates will use this to demand the drugs for f (Score:4, Insightful)
America has the world's highest incarceration rate. We lock up more people than China, Russia, and Iran combined.
Instead of denying geriatric inmates proper care, perhaps we shouldn't imprison so many of them in the first place.
Re: (Score:1)
We lock up more people than China, Russia, and Iran combined.
Uhh don't those countries just kill and/or harvest the organs of inmates. Since they only count live prisoners their headcount is lower.
Re: (Score:2)
America has the world's highest incarceration rate.
This statistic is kind of pointless without looking at a lot of details around why they are incarcerated. It's not because of non-violent drug use in most cases.
Re:inmates will use this to demand the drugs for f (Score:5, Informative)
America has the world's highest incarceration rate.
This statistic is kind of pointless without looking at a lot of details around why they are incarcerated. It's not because of non-violent drug use in most cases.
There are a number of factors that contribute to the high incarceration rate in the United States. Some of the most significant factors include:
1. Tough on crime policies: In the 1980s and 1990s, many states in the U.S. adopted tough on crime policies, such as mandatory minimum sentences, three strikes laws, and truth-in-sentencing laws, which increased the length of prison sentences and reduced the use of parole. These policies were intended to deter crime and reduce recidivism, but they have contributed to mass incarceration by filling prisons with people serving longer sentences.
2. Racial disparities in the criminal justice system: There are significant racial disparities in the U.S. criminal justice system, with people of color being disproportionately represented in prisons and jails. Research has shown that these disparities are due in part to racial bias and discrimination at various stages of the criminal justice process, including arrests, charges, plea negotiations, and sentencing.
3. High rates of drug arrests and sentencing: The U.S. has among the highest rates of drug use in the world, but it also has among the highest rates of drug arrests and incarceration for drug offenses. The war on drugs, which began in the 1980s, has led to the arrests and incarceration of millions of people, disproportionately affecting communities of color.
4. Private prisons: In the U.S., private prisons operate under contract with the government to house a portion of the prison population. Private prisons have been criticized for prioritizing profits over the welfare of prisoners, leading to overcrowding and substandard living conditions.
5. Lack of alternatives to incarceration: In many cases, people are sent to prison in the U.S. not because it is the most effective way to address the underlying causes of their criminal behavior, but because there are few alternatives available. For example, there may be limited access to substance abuse treatment, mental health services, and other forms of support that could help people avoid reoffending.
Overall, the high incarceration rate in the U.S. is a complex issue with many contributing factors. Reducing mass incarceration will likely require a multi-faceted approach that addresses these and other issues.
Re: (Score:1)
These policies were intended to deter crime and reduce recidivism, but they have contributed to mass incarceration by filling prisons with people serving longer sentences.
Yes, that's exactly right. Giving people longer sentences is intended to deter crime. At a minimum, people in jail aren't committing crimes on the street. You are describing that the system worked as intended.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if that's what you see, I guess that's what you see.
I also see it working as intended, as there is a steady feed of "employees" into the slave industries.
Re: (Score:2)
ok, so the solution to the problem you see is to stop building private prisons or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much. Prisons should not be a profit center.
Re: (Score:2)
Only 8% of America's inmates are in private prisons.
Private prisons are a bad idea, but they are not the root cause of America's dysfunctional justice system.
California has no private prisons, but still passed draconian "three strikes" laws which were funded by the prison guards' union.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it sure isn't the only problem. And in the specific case of California, a lot of the problem lies with the prison guards union. They lobby for laws to keep their membership up. I don't know enough about the problem in general to come up with a more general statement of the problem.
OTOH, the US seems to have given up on "rehabilitation", as in they don't even give it lip service anymore. There probably isn't any single simple answer, of course, but that doesn't mean there isn't an answer. But find
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look at who/what you replied to.
Turing tests got a whole lot trickier.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting.
Incarceration rates (Score:2)
America has the world's highest incarceration rate [google.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:inmates will use this to demand the drugs for f (Score:4, Informative)
We're locking them up to protect SOCIETY *FROM* them.
America not only has the world's highest incarceration rate but one of the world's highest recidivism rates.
Rather than protecting society, America's prisons are crime factories.
Even within the US, the states that incarcerate more have higher recidivism rates.
Re: inmates will use this to demand the drugs for (Score:1)
Re: inmates will use this to demand the drugs for (Score:4, Insightful)
Prison is supposed to serve TWO purposes - protect society, and rehabilitate offenders. ... a GOP legislature threw around the BS lines about 'Criminals getting a free degree!', killed the program ... and the recidivism rate went back up.
There have, from time to time, been efforts in US jails to teach people useful life skills. One of the most successful was auto mechanic, which dropped the recidivism rate to ~25%, from the US average of ~45% (at the time). And
The US also leads the world in having close to zero post-release coverage (e.g. halfway houses). Lock an individual away for a few years, then toss them back onto the street with no means of support. Unsurprisingly, nearly all the 'recidivism' occurs during the first year after release.
The problem is NOT kicking inmates out before their sentence is completed. The problem is an entire industry dedicated to incarcerating huge numbers, exploiting their labor, and close to zero efforts on decreasing inmates' chance of re-offending.
One only needs to look at Wisconsin - which got rid of parole in 2000 - to show how wrong your statement is. The recidivism rate was 36% before the law passed, and early release/parole was granted. The recidivism rate is now 38%, with all sentences being fully served.
You *may* be mistaking length of sentences with chance of re-offending. There is a correlation there - people serving longer sentences do have a lower recidivism rate. But that is related to the seriousness of the crime, and generally corresponds to violence (e.g. manslaughter, murder), rather than drugs/theft/robbery (which are usually economically driven). Violent crimes are usually one-off offenses, while economically caused ones are more likely to be repeated.
Re: (Score:3)
Prison is supposed to serve TWO purposes - protect society, and rehabilitate offenders.
This right here is the problem. It barely does either. All is does is contain prisoners for a small amount of time and
the only thing most prisoners learn is usually more bad habits.
I have a friend who went to prison for 7 years as a sexual offender (for being 23 and dating a 17 year old coworker who already had a child).
In order to get out, he had to take a sexual offender's class. He gave some money to another inmate so his punishment was
to be banned from taking his class so he was not eligible for paro
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, there are plenty of people in prison that were "made into" criminals well before they became old enough to be incarcerated. We have a cultural problem with scofflaws, and we always have.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason we lock up more. Other countries still remember how to properly deal with capital crime, and know what the fuck a deterrent is.
Outrageous. Can you possibly be ignorant of the facts of the matter?
Re: (Score:2)
You can preach about it just as soon as you prove you live in the same country you're ignorantly criticizing.
I'm Murrikan myself, though I see no way or need to prove it.
And the only one I criticized was geekmux, for saying the reason we lock up more is that we don't execute enough.
He said, "Other countries still remember how to properly deal with capital crime."
The only countries I could find with more executions were China, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.
Right, left, or center, no American admires those regimes. And no one thinks those places get criminal justice right.
We're doing something wrong, but not k
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
End crime and there would be no reason for prison.
The easiest way is just to decriminalize everything, instant release with no bail, or simply not charge anyone.
See how well that's working in places like New York City and San Francisco.
Financial crimes from mugging to FTX are from criminals doing the odds and deciding the reward is worth the risk of the potential punishment. Violent crimes are generally from emotionally unstable / mentally ill people who derive pleasure from hurting others. Increase the r
Re: inmates will use this to demand the drugs for (Score:3)
We need to just speed up the courts and the punishments. Convicted of murder with strong evidence? Death within 14 days. Sitting on death row? Automatic DNR by court order - if you become ill no treatment other than comfort care.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't fly for me. There are way too many people on death row who later turn out to be innocent. Not just "not guilty" but truly innocent.
Harsh penalties for brutal crimes is one thing but death is a whole other thing I can't get behind. There's no, "oops! Sorry! Have some money!" when the State kills you on a bad conviction.
What was the line? "Better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent is punished"?
Re: (Score:2)
Hey! Try some snake oil!
It's good for you!
We're doing this to make your life better!
No.
Turning the country into a bottomless pharmacopia of bullshit is not the answer.
Re: (Score:2)
7 out of the top 10 killers are lifestyle diseases. Lifestyle diseases - a term that didn't even exist 50 years ago. Far more bang for the buck fixing those - people would live both healthier and longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Fixing actual "lifestyle" diseases are HHHHAAAARRRRDDD though.
And most people are unwilling to invest that sort of effort.
Re: (Score:2)
Or...maybe the govt could step out of the way of those willing to try experimental treatments?
Ooh, but you ARE free to take experimental medication. But you'll have to sign a contract with the provider that says you can't sue them if they fuck up. It's all on you.