that's funny
Wheelchair-confined Richard Paey committed almost exactly the same violations of Florida prescription drug laws that radio personality Rush Limbaugh did, with a different result: Limbaugh's sentence, in May, was addiction treatment, and Paey's, in 2004, was 25 years in prison. Both illegally possessed large quantities of painkillers for personal use, which Paey defiantly argued was (and will be) necessary to relieve nearly constant pain from unsuccessful spinal surgeries after an auto accident, but which Limbaugh admitted was simply the result of addiction. (In fact, if Limbaugh complies with his plea bargain, his conviction will be erased.) Paey's sentence now rests with a state Court of Appeal. [Tampa Tribune, 2-8-06]
-- Modified on 6/11/2006 8:52:25 PM
The way I understand it is that Rush was charged with "Dr. shopping" and not possesion. I may be wrong about that. If you don`t like the sentence don`t blame Rush. Blame the prosecuter that plea bargained the weak case against him.
... the legal and incarcaration costs are over $20B/year. The social costs are estimated to be over $100B/yr. How much longer can we keep our own version of probation going on in this country???
Harry
What exactly are these "social costs"? I see the social costs defined as the price we pay when these guys are out stealing to support a habit or maybe depriving their children of money for food and clothing that we taxpayers have to make up.
At least when they`re locked up I don`t have to worry about getting my house broken into or my mellon thumped walking down the street some night.
I might agree that in some cases the penalties are too strict but I think the price we pay as a society is much higher when they`re free to roam.
would legalizing drugs make this better or worse?
I've heard it argued how much money we would save. I happen to be skeptical that it's going to amount to as much as people think. A lot of that is paid to prison guards. To them, money would not be saved. Then we have to pay them unemployment. Much of the money isn't anything really liquid. It's more statistical, like measuring the costs per square foot of prison space. There's going to be medical costs anyway.
I don't think drugs should be legalized due to costs. I think they should be legalized because it's the right thing to do. Like prostitution, there's nothing immoral about drug use per se. The crimes committed due to drug use are still crimes and are still immoral. I question the strategy of trying to prevent crime by making more actions into crimes.
If anything, recreational drugs perform much the same function as TV and video games. I've known guys who have played video games all day while their house and family situations deteriorate. All of the bedroom furniture is empty. The family's clothes all on the floor with the "clean" pile and the dirty pile intermixed. Food from three months before is still out. Only half jokingly, friends of this guy have referred to it as "the crack house." Except there was no crack.
... if drugs are illegal, they cost a lot more to obtain: assume about a 1000% markup. Drug trafficing is a bigger business than the auto industry in the US. People that buy illegal drugs either steal or spend $$$ they could spend / save on other things. Think for a minute about what the state could be doing if they let drugs be sold thru ordenary commerce and put a normal sales tax on the transaction. Instead of spending $$$, we could make money. Other countries do this, use the proceeds to treat medical problems where they exist, and still have $$$ left over. Think about the other things that people would with the incremental income they didn't spend on drugs due to the artificailly high costs -- like feeding themselves, getting better healthcare, and taking care of their kids.
If you think the idea is wrongheaded, note that I share it with William Buckley, Bill Richardson, and the former governor of Colorado (among many others).
Harry
a minute. I think both of us, no ALL of us shudder at both how sad, yet how potentially true this is:
"""Think about the other things that people would with the incremental income they didn't spend on drugs due to the artificailly high costs -- like feeding themselves, getting better healthcare, and taking care of their kids."""
Within it though, is contained one of my biggest concerns. I will argue with anyone, anywhere that it is true that if you make drugs more available, "Legalizing", people will use them more. You will not DECREASE the number of addicts but INCREASE it. You will INCREASE therefore the number of children's live who will be trainwrecked form the every start because of their addicted parents. I'v seen WAY too much of this first hand to want to do anything that will have this effect. Even if it means "society" pays more fighting a war it can never win.
Or if a few potheads have to pay for their reefer.
... I will bow to your superior knowledge (if you have it), but I am pretty sure that most of the cost to families comes from the fact that the drugs are illegal, not that the drugs are available and used.
If these drugs somehow destroy people that take them because of their chemical effects, at least the destroyed person will not be as poor. If I remember correctly, you have a conservative bent. If so, you should understand that a wealther destroied person will "trickle down" some of the increased income to people in the rest of the family and that "rising tide will float all boats".
Harry
that's funny
... glad you liked it. I don't advocate drugs or use them. Just want to see the laws changed.
Good Luck.
Harry
... glad you liked it. I don't advocate drugs or use them. Just want to see the laws changed.
Good Luck.
Harry
for the sake of change
is the mindset of a cancer cell.
.. for the sake of change is also the mindset of business consultants. Remember "If it Ain't broke, break it".?
Harry
happy fathers day harry
lol
However, there's a real contradiction to having a "free society" that outlaws behaviors because you may commit something criminal if you indulge in them. So, drugs become illegal and criminal; it's crime by association.
I think it would be far better to make drugs an aggravating factor in crimes and misbehaviors committed because of them. The way some states add to the sentence if you use a firearm.
In fact, there's a higher correlation between firearms and violent crime then there is between drugs and violent crime, but of course, we have a second Amendment.
It's so ironic to me that as pleasures of various sorts are disdained, the one that promoted or in fact promotes itself, is television. I think TV is obviously harmful, and the pleasure is. . . rather low, but due to the fact that it's such a powerful media, we can't even seriously consider the impact that it has-- especially on the minds of toddlers. It's entire justification is to sell products, and the health of Americans has been going down as their average weight has been going up.
I find it particularly ironic that at least before the PC, the TV was the one item targetted most by burglers-- who were most often feeding their drug habits.
However, there's a real contradiction to having a "free society" that outlaws behaviors because you may commit something criminal if you indulge in them. So, drugs become illegal and criminal; it's crime by association.
.......................................
that is the internal struggle i have with myself over this issue. the same is true of abortion. while i understand the camp that considers it killing, i'm quite hesitant to allow "government" at any level, domain over a priivate, personal act.
ps, lol'ing about the TV's
Was it his first offense? One thing for sure; he probably didn't have a high-powerted lawyer like Limbaugh.
While it seems reasonable (without all the facts) to question the dispairty in sentences...I think we are entitled to equal opportunity/access, not equal results. This concept seems to elude most on the left, particularly in matters economic.
I'm just tired of paying for the "losers" in, or out, of prison.
Wow! So, let me get this straight. What you're saying is that as long as every defendent has equal access to "due process", disparity in sentencing is OK? Spoken like a true upper-class white conservative. I wonder if you'd feel the same way if you were a Black or Hispanic living in public housing?
You're tired of paying for the "losers"... so what you're saying is that if someone is wealthy enough that you don't have to foot their bill, you don't give a shit if they break the law, but if they're from a lower social-economic group, fuck 'em!
BTW, it amazes me that "dittoheads" wear that title with pride. To me a dittohead is an uninformed follower with no original thought of their own. They're same as the Jim Jones followers who drank the Kool-Aid without question. Limbaugh is without question a biased conservative who'll distort facts and outright lie to support his agendas. And this isn't an opinion, it's a proven fact. The guy was a mediocre rock jock until he realized that he could make a ton of money by playing on people's fears and biases. Edward R. Murrow is rolling over in his grave.
-- Modified on 6/12/2006 4:05:10 PM
Once again, you misinterpret. I feel the dispairity in sentencing is wrong. I favor mandatory sentences (in most cases) over judicial discretion. The real crime v. punishment disaster is the disparity in sentencing folks for crack (aka ghetto drug) as opposed to the more "white" drug crimes.
If one does the crime, one should expect to do the time. In the original (above) example...Limbaugh should have done some time and the other dirtbag did not deserve to have the book thrown at him...Given the facts as we know them...noting that we don't know all the facts in either case.
-- Modified on 6/12/2006 5:18:32 PM
-- Modified on 6/12/2006 10:56:51 PM
you don't have the transcripts, and you don't know the facts. I suspect a couple of variables - 1st, the 25 year guy could have aggravating factors that Limblob didn't. 2nd, the 25 year guy likely had a public defender who couldn't put more than a few hours into it, while Limblob likely had a lawyer with plenty of time, experience and savvy.
Notice that the 25 year guy was defiant that he was doing the right thing, while Limblob sucked the court's ass, and probably had a shrink write a 400 page report about how sick he was. Judges hate to read those things, so they go with the bottom line instead of picking them apart line by line.
What likely happened is that Limblob benefited from the strategy he whines about others doing, ie, avoiding responsibility by claiming helplessness. Whether that is right or wrong is a matter of opinion; it's much clearer that claiming others shouldn't do exactly as he does is hypocrisy, ie, lies.
Yes, Limblob has been adopted as an informal spokesman of the right, and he does reflect a lot of the rightwing POV; and yes, he is a fairly typical hypocritical right wing puke. I find it absolutely amazing that he would refer to his own fans as dittoheads, and yet revile others as sheeple; the irony does not seem to occur to rightwingers.
Not, he's not just entertaining people. He's a boil on the body politic, making his living deliberately feeding ignorance and stupidity.