Advertise here: Contact FM.

Two Little Pills
February 8, 2005 10:54 AM Subscribe

Twenty-year sentence for selling two Oxycontin pills"I want to be a good person." said Johnson. "I wish I could have the chance to better myself and repay my debt to society. I want to go to college. ... It was just two little pills. ... This one time, please give me a chance. Please." A small town in Indiana doles out tough sentences and offers classes on the community's out of control drug problem.
posted by billysumday (268 comments total)

Kosciusko County Deputy Prosecutor Dan Hampton asked the court to sentence Johnson on aggravating circumstances, citing a “lengthy list of criminal convictions.” Hampton then reminded the court of Johnson’s prior convictions for possession of marijuana and cocaine, possession of controlled substances and other charges.
posted by headspace at 11:02 AM on February 8, 2005

Rush should be ashamed for creating such a market!
posted by nofundy at 11:03 AM on February 8, 2005

Hampton then reminded the court of Johnson’s prior convictions for possession of marijuana and cocaine, possession of controlled substances and other charges.
posted by jpoulos at 11:12 AM on February 8, 2005

I wonder if this will work out as well as the Rockefeller Drug Laws...
posted by Captaintripps at 11:13 AM on February 8, 2005

I'm glad we've got one less menace to the nation's children off the streets.
posted by rocketman at 11:13 AM on February 8, 2005

Sure the guy had some priors, but 20 frigging years ? I think 2-5 would have sufficed to " Make an example out of him"
posted by lobstah at 11:17 AM on February 8, 2005

Damn hillbilly pushers and their big mouth radio talk show host buyers!

40 years for Rush Limbaugh dammit!!
posted by nofundy at 11:26 AM on February 8, 2005

Huffer then told Johnson,” You had the ability to help yourself and didn’t. ... In prison you have the opportunity to go to college.”

And in 20 years, when you are 47, you'll be able to re-join society and put that degree to good use.
posted by smcniven at 11:31 AM on February 8, 2005

this isn't justice ... period
posted by pyramid termite at 11:32 AM on February 8, 2005

feel safer now?
posted by matteo at 11:33 AM on February 8, 2005

omfg someone should mention rush limbaugh

*pause*

someone already did!

twice!

lololllorzzzzz
posted by dhoyt at 11:34 AM on February 8, 2005

Huffer then told Johnson,” You had the ability to help yourself and didn’t. ... In prison you have the opportunity to go to college.”

That's right, judge, prison is a great chance to get ahead, you rural mother fucker.

Hard time for non violent offenses makes me furious!
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 11:38 AM on February 8, 2005

this isn't justice ... period
posted by pyramid termite at 11:32 AM PST on February 8

Let see. Guy breaks law. Goes to jail. Sounds like justice to me.

feel safer now?
posted by matteo at 11:33 AM PST on February 8

A criminal is behind bars. So, yes.

"This one time, please give me a chance. Please.”

Hmm. Seems to me that if this guy didn't want to go to jail he probably shouldn't have broken the law.
posted by dios at 11:41 AM on February 8, 2005

Cmon Rush Limbaugh isn't resposible for the creation of Oxy drug market..he's responsible of helping divinding America with Ann and all the hate mongering lot...if there was no Rush there would be no Moore but, no...the oxy addicted boy Rush had to vent on radio and make money off it.
posted by elpapacito at 11:42 AM on February 8, 2005

So, how much will it cost to jail this guy for twenty years? Obviously he deserves punishment... but seriously, rapists get 2-3 years.
posted by adzm at 11:44 AM on February 8, 2005

feel safer now?

What is that supposed mean, dickhead? Sentencing isn't always about restoring public safety. So give your tired rhetoric bullshit a rest already.

this isn't justice ... period

Sure it is.

Hard time for non violent offenses makes me furious!

Awww... poor little urban bitch. I guess that means that you're comfortable with all the corporate criminals that have literally robbed hundreds of thousands of people of their savings to just get a couple years to "teach them a lesson"? After all, that's non-violent. I wish I understood where you people get all your sympathy for drug pushers.
posted by Witty at 11:45 AM on February 8, 2005

If he had been given a lighter sentence, this time it definitely would have stuck and he definitely would have cleaned up for good.

Either he is the worst drug dealer in the world and gets caught every time he moves something, or it probably wasn't "just two little pills" since his last conviction.
posted by Mayor Curley at 11:45 AM on February 8, 2005

sigh.
posted by LouReedsSon at 11:50 AM on February 8, 2005

Obviously I don't know all the facts of the case -- none of us do -- but I have to wonder...

Here's a guy with at least one prior possession convictions, but no previous convictions for selling. So how does that guy get in a position to have sold two perscription pills -- not the illegal drugs he was convicted for possessing -- to an undercover guy?

I mean, if the guy was selling on a regular basis, and had access to marijuana and cocaine, why would he be caught for this? It strongly suggests to me that he wasn't selling on a regular basis, and that the undercover officer likely pressured him into selling the pills.

Then you have to consider the quantity: 2 pills. One dosage. How much money was there in this? Almost none. Probably not even gas money. The guy had enough money to get cocaine, for heavens' sake; he wasn't selling these two pills for profit.

If I were a betting man, and the specific facts about the sale were in a sealed envelope, I would put money down that the envelope's contents would describe a situation like this: the undercover cop was aware of the previous possession convictions, was desperate for a sales conviction, and could not convince the guy to sell him any -real- drugs -- then found out (through casual conversation) that the guy was on prescription painkillers. Since most people consider the safety of sharing prescriptions long before they consider the legality, I suspect it went down something like this:

UCC: Hey, you know, I feel a really bad migraine coming on. Can I hit you up for a couple of those?

Guy: Sure, no problem. (shakes out a few).

UCC: I feel bad taking these, though, 'cuz you don't have any insurance. How much did they cost you?

Guy: Uh...like fifty bucks for the whole prescription.

UCC: Well, do you want cash for 'em?

Guy: Sure, give me a couple bucks.

Or perhaps I'm wrong and those pills go for $50 a pop on the street and give you a wicked buzz. I'm skeptical, though. Anyone out there know what these go for?
posted by davejay at 11:51 AM on February 8, 2005

Seems to me that if this guy didn't want to go to jail he probably shouldn't have broken the law.

Sure, that really sums up this matter perfectly. Step out of line for any reason (however small) and open yourself up to indiscriminate punishment (however large).

Next time my roommate's kid steals a piece of cheese, I guess I should just cut her hand off, yes? I'm sure we'd all feel much safer, now that a known thief is foiled for life.

You "tough on crime" people are perverts.
posted by rockabilly_pete at 11:53 AM on February 8, 2005

Awww... poor little urban bitch.
posted by Witty at 11:45 AM PST on February 8

You're so pleasant, Witty.

Let me make a clear case for you. Contracting HIV from being raped in prison is not a fair sentence for someone selling pills. It is unreasonable, and unjust.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 11:57 AM on February 8, 2005

but seriously, rapists get 2-3 years
And elsewhere, brutally beating a man to death gets you 6 years.

Let see. Guy breaks law. Goes to jail. Sounds like justice to me.
dios: So in your black-and-white world you would see nothing wrong with, say, a ten year sentence for exceeding the speed limit?
posted by Deepspace at 12:01 PM on February 8, 2005

“As for it not being a violent crime, drug dealing is a violent crime.”

No, it's not.

I find it absolutely frightening that some of you see this as justice.

A criminal is behind bars. So, yes.

Hmm. Seems to me that if this guy didn't want to go to jail he probably shouldn't have broken the law.

My, what a convincing argument you've built there! It's illegal, so it must be wrong! It's wrong, so it requires punishment! It requires punishment, so lock him up for 20 years!

"It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right."

-Henry David Thoreau

Is this a joke? You guys seriously think it's ok to lock someone up for 20 years for selling two pills? My mind is boggled.
posted by ludwig_van at 12:01 PM on February 8, 2005

What a well-reasoned and proportional response, rockabilly_pete. Because sending a repeat offender to jail for committing a felony, as per our laws, is totally the same as cutting the hand off your roomate's kid for having a piece of your cheese.

Seems to me, though, if your rommate's kid was stealing something of sufficient value as to warrant jail time (that is, something of a value sufficient to make it a felony), then your roommate's kid should go to jail.

You "people shouldn't go to jail" people are naive and unrealistic (and incredibly disingenuous).

On preview:
Let me make a clear case for you. Contracting HIV from being raped in prison is not a fair sentence for someone selling pills. It is unreasonable, and unjust.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 11:57 AM PST on February 8

Wow. What asinity. Following that logic, we shouldn't send anyone to jail because a jail sentence is nothing more than a sentence to take a load of the HIV up the anus.
posted by dios at 12:01 PM on February 8, 2005

I wish I understood where you people get all your sympathy for drug pushers.

I think many people have sympathy for drug USERS, because many consider it a victimless crime; a person does to their own body something that they think is okay, even if the law (and presumably the majority of the populace) do not agree with them.

I don't think the same number of people have sympathy for drug PUSHERS, though, because a pusher does more than sell, they actually act as a salesman -- a pusher is someone who encourages drug use and recruits young children into their addictions. By definition, a pusher == a seller, although a seller != a pusher, necessarily.

And that, I think, might be where the sympathy for this person comes from. His only known instance of drug sales came under circumstances that appear closer to a moment's bad judgement than a drug-pushing lifestyle choice. Under those circumstances, it's easy to visualize ourselves or our friends put in a similar position.

After all, if you have ever used someone else's Xanax for a flight, or taken one of their painkillers for a migraine, or given your unused fertility drugs to another infertile couple who can't afford them, you have technically participated in a felony (AFAIK) and if a few dollars were exchanged to cover some or all of the cost of the item, you have technically turned yourself or a generous friend into the guy in the article -- assuming you or your friend got busted once in college for having a bit of pot for personal use.

I don't know if that answers your question, but it might give you something to think about.
posted by davejay at 12:02 PM on February 8, 2005

You "people shouldn't go to jail" people are naive and unrealistic (and incredibly disingenuous).
Some of us are of the belief that drug abuse is a social or medical matter, not a criminal one. Color me naive, I guess.
posted by kableh at 12:04 PM on February 8, 2005

dios: So in your black-and-white world you would see nothing wrong with, say, a ten year sentence for exceeding the speed limit?
posted by Deepspace at 12:01 PM PST on February 8

If society deems it sufficiently dangerous to society that exceeding the speed limit should be a felony, then I wouldn't see anything wrong with it. Of course, I would know about such a law, and would, of course, comply with it to avoid going to jail. Of course, as you know, you are being patently ridiculous with your example as we both know that isn't reasonable.

Is this a joke? You guys seriously think it's ok to lock someone up for 20 years for selling two pills? My mind is boggled.
posted by ludwig_van at 12:01 PM PST on February 8
You are ignoring his priors. You have to look at the criminal as a whole. The Supreme Court has already gone over this ground several times. Check the recent Andrade case. There is nothing wrong with increasing punishments for repeat-offenders. He didn't go to jail "just for selling two pills."
posted by dios at 12:05 PM on February 8, 2005

dios, applying the same flawed logic to arguments which point out the flaws in your logic doesn't get you anywhere.

What a well-reasoned and proportional response, rockabilly_pete. Because sending a repeat offender to jail for committing a felony, as per our laws, is totally the same as cutting the hand off your roomate's kid for having a piece of your cheese.

Yes, the two situations would be analogous in their misacarriage of justice, and he quite plainly showed why. The above statement is devoid of meaning.

Seems to me, though, if your rommate's kid was stealing something of sufficient value as to warrant jail time (that is, something of a value sufficient to make it a felony), then your roommate's kid should go to jail.

Seems to me that you've departed from both the hypothetical example and the real situation.

You "people shouldn't go to jail" people are naive and unrealistic (and incredibly disingenuous).

No one said "people shouldn't go to jail." Nice straw man.

On preview: You are ignoring his priors.

No, I'm not. Neither possession of marijuana nor cocaine are offenses which deserve jail time.
posted by ludwig_van at 12:07 PM on February 8, 2005

Because sending a repeat offender to jail for committing a felony, as per our laws...

Point of clarity: this person was not a repeat offender for selling They had previous convictions possessing, but not selling or with intent to sell.

Of course, he was a repeat offender on possession, but that's not why they're sending him to jail, except inasmuch as it influenced the judge's sentencing.

On preview: yes, dios, he had priors, but not for the crime he is being punished for here. In the eyes of the law, possessing and selling are very, very different, like the difference between speeding and leaving the scene of an accident.*

*Note: I have had a few speeding tickets in my life, but the only accident I ever caused I was going less than five miles an hour...and I would NEVER leave the scene of an accident. I say that as a reminder that, similarly, buyers do not automatically become sellers any more than speeders automatically become people who leave the scene of an accident. If buyers automatically became sellers...well, there wouldn't be much of a market, would there?
posted by davejay at 12:11 PM on February 8, 2005

Well, as you would expect, he should have thought of that before getting involved in selling drugs.

We "tough on crime people" are just sick to death with the continuing deterioration of our neighborhoods and communities because of the ever-growing peoblem of crime... whether it be selling drugs, to gang activity, to property destruction, vandalism, graffiti, assaults,wreckless driving, etc.

The neighborhood I grew up in has all but gone to shit, for all the reasons I stated above. It didn't used to be like that. It used to be Disneyland. Now you can come up with a myriad of reasons WHY these things are happening... and I'm sure you can come up with some wonderful liberal ideas about how to "fix" these issues. But until these ideas start to WORK, then tough punishment is all we got... and I'm all for it. Chris Rock addressed it perfectly in one of his routines.... talking about how the (safe) space keeps getting smaller and smaller. It's the truth.

right now, it's a fucking joke and criminals treat it as such. In and out of the system they go. I won't claim that the system is perfect. But if it does one thing well, it taking the player out of the game, bottom line. If you can't play by the rules, then you're out and I don't feel the slightest bit sorry for you. The rest of us don't seem to have a problem. I don't know what my secret is, but selling drugs just hasn't been a problem for me. I guess it's just not in my genes.

Whaaa whaaa whaaa, "I want to go to college". Fuck you. Get your fucking head out of your ass and straighten yourself out and do it then.

Mean Mr. Bucket - If you don't like the unpleasantries, then don't dish them out. I know it wasn't durected at me specifically, but it still wasn't necessary. "Rural" doesn't have shit do with it.
posted by Witty at 12:12 PM on February 8, 2005

I think what is boggling is the asymmetrical degrees of punishment across regions for drug charges/convictions. Nobody with a record like this, caught selling two Oxycontin pills to an undercover cop, would be doing time (let alone 20 years) in a large city or in many places on the coasts. I'm just assuming that cops don't really care about busting people for pot or cocaine possession in large swaths of the country, but in a little town in Indiana, the same actions can get you 20 years in prison. There seems to be no regularity, to me, in how drug crimes are prosecuted throughout the country, though these are federal laws.
posted by billysumday at 12:13 PM on February 8, 2005

heh. MeFi is really a nest of liberals.
posted by matteo at 12:16 PM on February 8, 2005

The Supreme Court already this explained away the complaint of ludwig and davejay. See the recent Andrade opinion here.

Read that and "the Trilogy" of cases in which the Court established that jurisprudence. Until you can encounter that argument head on, all of your hand-wringing and personal feelings about what crimes deserve in and of themselves are rather moot.
posted by dios at 12:16 PM on February 8, 2005

Well, as you would expect, he should have thought of that before getting involved in selling drugs.

Again, statements like this aren't saying anything except "do what the government tells you to do, because they're always right." Would you comment on a thread about prisoner abuse and say "Well, he should have thought of that before he broke the law and got sent to prison!" That's a ridiculous and mindless thing to say. If you want to make a point about why his offense deserved the punishment he got, make it instead of acting like it's self-evident simply because it's the law. Laws are made by men.

We "tough on crime people" are just sick to death with the continuing deterioration of our neighborhoods and communities because of the ever-growing peoblem of crime...

Don't you find that reasoning incredibly obtuse? Your neighborhood has "gone to shit" because of "crime" and so the solution is to lock people up for selling pills and possessing weed? You're equating selling drugs (because all drugs are the same thing!) with assault? Are you typing this with a straight face?
posted by ludwig_van at 12:17 PM on February 8, 2005

If society deems it sufficiently dangerous to society that exceeding the speed limit should be a felony, then I wouldn't see anything wrong with it. Of course, I would know about such a law, and would, of course, comply with it to avoid going to jail.

Dios, young sound like a rather smug conformist. Is this Texas style reasoning?
posted by pwedza at 12:17 PM on February 8, 2005

Isn't "wreckless driving" a worthy goal for us all, billysunday?

I have a penpal who was convicted of 2 armed bank robberies in his early twenties. He got a 30-year Federal sentence. that means no parole.

I too have a real problem with such draconian sentences for non-violent crimes.

And I don't think drug use should be a crime at all.

Can any of you "toucgh on crime" types give a cogent argument why Mr. oxycontin should do 20 years while someone who bashes a gay man to DEATH should do 6?
posted by parrot_person at 12:18 PM on February 8, 2005

You people are fucking sick.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:18 PM on February 8, 2005

"you sound"
-- excuse me
posted by pwedza at 12:19 PM on February 8, 2005

Of course, as you know, you are being patently ridiculous with your example as we both know that isn't reasonable.

That's a good one. Why does that apply to his example and not the story in question?

And it's good to know that you're more than willing to bend over and comply with any "patently ridiculous" law that might be put into effect. It's great that you value your freedom so much.
posted by ludwig_van at 12:24 PM on February 8, 2005

"Two Little Pills," is a bit disingenuous. Oxycontin is some serious shit. And I understand people getting sick of seeing repeat offenders (even non-violent ones) going in and out of the system. I'd even agree that he should do some time.

But 20 years? That's way too much. 3 to 5 sounds about right for this guy.

You're equating selling drugs (because all drugs are the same thing!) with assault?

I'm not agreeing with dios' conclusions, but I think he's referring to all the aggravations that come with living in a drug-infested area: dealers fighting over territory, users commiting theft, burglary and the like to support their habits, prostitution, etc. And I can certainly understand someone's frustration with that.

Your neighborhood has "gone to shit" because of "crime" and so the solution is to lock people up for selling pills and possessing weed?

Just like it's wrong and misleading for anti-drug zealots to lump all psychoactive substances under the catch-all of "drugs," it's also a bit off to casually use the catch-all term "pills," and equate it with marijuana. Dilaudid, Oxycontin, & Vicodin are all "pills," but I'd consider all three more dangerous than weed used recreationally.

But like I said, the sentence in this case is over-the-top. I just wanted to weigh in on those related issues.

Can any of you "toucgh on crime" types give a cogent argument why Mr. oxycontin should do 20 years while someone who bashes a gay man to DEATH should do 6?

Strawman. Most sane people would object to either of those sentences and the implication that someone who might advocate for harsher drug sentences is neccessarily a gay-basher is distasteful and poor argument.
posted by jonmc at 12:29 PM on February 8, 2005

No one said "people shouldn't go to jail." Nice straw man.

People shouldn't go to jail. It's counterproductive: it produces hardened criminals who are then released back into society to, duh, commit more crimes. Prisons are cruel: they are venues for indiscriminate authoritarian thuggery on the part of both inmates and guards. Prisons are breeding grounds for criminal networks. They're ridiculously expensive and ridiculously ineffective. Prison is an eighteenth-century approach to criminal justice; long term imprisonment, as it is practiced in the United States today, has no proper place in the 21st century.

There. Now that's out there.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:29 PM on February 8, 2005

I've seen inmates attacked by two or three men at a time and forced to the floor, while two or three hold him down, the fourth man slaps vaseline on his rectum and rapes him. I knew two men who hung themselves after this.
— R.L., New York, 9/9/96

When I was sentenced I didn't hear the part of sentencing that stated, "you are hereby sentenced to six years of hard labor to the Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice. While there, you will be beaten daily, savagely raped, and tortured, mentally, to the point of contemplating suicide."
— L.O., Texas, 9/29/96

On the younger units I would say you have a rape at least weekly.
— R.B., Texas, 10/13/96

Most guys raped are guys for there first time locked up, between the ages 18-30 that looks young, not strong, looks lonely, scared. Guys watch these things.
— M.F., Ohio, 9/6/96

posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 12:32 PM on February 8, 2005

My idyllic views of the U.S. justice system were cured in 1979.
posted by spock at 12:32 PM on February 8, 2005

I wish I understood where you people get all your sympathy for drug pushers.

Well, where else are we supposed to get our drugs!?

That said, morality asside, even the financial cost of keeping this guy in prison for 20 years is way out of wack with his 'crime'. Bleh.
posted by delmoi at 12:32 PM on February 8, 2005

and I'm sure you can come up with some wonderful liberal ideas about how to "fix" these issues. But until these ideas start to WORK, then tough punishment is all we got... and I'm all for it.

Sentencing for drug related crimes has only gotten tougher. America imprisons MORE PEOPLE THAN CHINA. Seems like "tough punishment" isn't doing much either.
posted by kableh at 12:35 PM on February 8, 2005

pwedza: I'm a smug conformist because I follow the rule of law? Um, ok. Sure. I just didn't realize that following the rule of law was a Texan thing.

As to ludwig and the rest of you who think your moral evaluation of a law has any relevance at all: go talk to your legislator and get him to change the law. But if society deems as a whole that something is against the law (within the confines of the Constitution), then it will be against the law and you must follow it. All of your moral indignation doesn't mean jack. You live in a government of laws. You must follow them. If you don't like it, then leave this social contract you have with America. Try to find some place that fits your views of legality better. As for me, I'll just assume mommy and daddy never disciplined you, so you still have the infantile belief that you should be able to do whatever you want. My only hope is that your Id (or someone else's) doesn't completely devour you when you reach your "utopia" of "freedom."
posted by dios at 12:36 PM on February 8, 2005

average annual operating cost of per state prison inmate (2001): $22,650
average annual operating cost of per state prison inmate (1996):$20,100

Increase in cost over five years: 12.6%

Cost of twenty year incarceration at 2001: $453,000

Police and sheriff's patrol officers median annual earnings (2002): $42,270

Oxycontin 40mg, retail pharmacy price, per pill (2005): $52.81

Number of Oxycontin pills illegally sold: 2
Cost at retail of Oxycontin pills illegally sold: $105.62

Cost of twenty year incarceration in Oxycontin pills at retail price: 8,578 pills

Cost of twenty year incarceration in police/sheriff patrol officer man-years: 10.7

dios: "A criminal is behind bars. So, yes [I feel safer now]"

Forgetting justice or compassion or morality, it's a simple matter of distribution of resources.

Which makes you safer: locking up a probably harmless loser who sold two pills, for 20 years;
or getting another cop on the beat for 10 years?
posted by orthogonality at 12:38 PM on February 8, 2005

People shouldn't go to jail. It's counterproductive: it produces hardened criminals who are then released back into society to, duh, commit more crimes. Prisons are cruel: they are venues for indiscriminate authoritarian thuggery on the part of both inmates and guards. Prisons are breeding grounds for criminal networks. They're ridiculously expensive and ridiculously ineffective. Prison is an eighteenth-century approach to criminal justice; long term imprisonment, as it is practiced in the United States today, has no proper place in the 21st century.

OK, mr roboto, if you're so sure of that, put your money where your mouth is. Invite hardened criminals to live at your place.

Look, there's plenty of room for argument about who should and shouldn't be locked up, and how the prison system often contributes to the crime problem in this country.

That said, only someone naive to the point of brain damage would deny the fact that, for a variety of reasons, there are people who have proven themselves too dangerous to be out in society. It's not a punishment vs. rehabilitation question, it's a public safety question.

My idyllic views of the U.S. justice system were cured in 1979.

Yes, when you wan't truth and wisdom on complex issues, the place to look is that bastion of rationality and depth, Hollywood.
posted by jonmc at 12:39 PM on February 8, 2005

Would you comment on a thread about prisoner abuse and say "Well, he should have thought of that before he broke the law and got sent to prison!"

That's a poor analogy because the mistreatment of prisoners is illegal, thus it would not be reasonable to expect that ramification for breaking a law. On the other hand, incarceration and sentencing terms are a known and reasonable outcome of breaking a criminal law. This is not to say that I agree with the term of incarceration in this case, but he had to have known that he risked some length of incarceration when he made the decision to sell the drugs.
posted by Juicylicious at 12:39 PM on February 8, 2005

"Two Little Pills," is a bit disingenuous. Oxycontin is some serious shit.

Some serious shit? It's a prescription painkiller. If you're addicted to it, you have a problem. If you down a bottle of them, it's some serious shit. Two oxycontin pills is not some serious shit.

I think he's referring to all the aggravations that come with living in a drug-infested area: dealers fighting over territory, users commiting theft, burglary and the like to support their habits, prostitution, etc. And I can certainly understand someone's frustration with that.

Frustration or not, that doesn't make his conclusion logically sound. It's a classic misattribution of cause-and-effect. My college campus could probably be referred to as "drug-infested," but the student body doesn't seem to have the problems you mention.

Dilaudid, Oxycontin, & Vicodin are all "pills," but I'd consider all three more dangerous than weed used recreationally.

They might be more potentially dangerous than weed, but just about everything is more potentially dangerous than weed.

Strawman. Most sane people would object to either of those sentences and the implication that someone who might advocate for harsher drug sentences is neccessarily a gay-basher is distasteful and poor argument.

I don't think he was making that implication, though he could've easily left the word "gay" out of his first comment and his point would've been just as good.

On preview: I'll just assume mommy and daddy never disciplined you, so you still have the infantile belief that you should be able to do whatever you want.

Straw man. You're not making a very good show of your arguing skills here.

You live in a government of laws. You must follow them.

Ok, I think we can see where you stand. Or maybe you'd like to make that (non) point a few more times?
posted by ludwig_van at 12:40 PM on February 8, 2005

That's a poor analogy because the mistreatment of prisoners is illegal, thus it would not be reasonable to expect that ramification for breaking a law. On the other hand, incarceration and sentencing terms are a known and reasonable outcome of breaking a criminal law. This is not to say that I agree with the term of incarceration in this case, but he had to have known that he risked some length of incarceration when he made the decision to sell the drugs.

How have you shown that this is a poor analogy? Your only point was a semantic one about what's "illegal." Yes, he knew he risked some length of incarceration, but did he know that he was risking 20 years? Is 20 years a reasonable sentence for his crime? I don't think so.
posted by ludwig_van at 12:43 PM on February 8, 2005

Witty says : I don't know what my secret is, but selling drugs just hasn't been a problem for me. I guess it's just not in my genes. ...

This is borderline racist drivel. Perhaps one reason that Mr. Witty did not deal drugs is that he grew up in a good neighborhood, went to a good school, had parents were we involved in his life and schooling and probably helped him to get a higher education. They could have even paid for it, and, if they didn't, they mortgaged their house that they owned to help him, and if they didn't to *that* then they at least supported his decision and paid for his bus tickets to come home and visit and probably picked up the amazingly expensive biology textbooks that Witty needed.

Witty, maybe you should try on the idea that drug dealing crimes and drug using crimes are VERY disproportionally enforced, with enforcement revolving around blacks and latinos. It's why 90% of people in jail for using / dealing crack are black, but that only 50% of crack users are black. This is also the case for other drugs.

Locking up this guy is going to do what exactly to make anyone safer?
posted by zpousman at 12:44 PM on February 8, 2005

That said, only someone naive to the point of brain damage would deny the fact that, for a variety of reasons, there are people who have proven themselves too dangerous to be out in society. It's not a punishment vs. rehabilitation question, it's a public safety question.

I wouldn't disagree with this. I would argue, however, that our current system exacerbates the problem rather than alleviating it. The current U.S. prison system threatens public safety. I don't have a solution, but I think that it's necessary to realize that something is seriously broken. Possibly beyond repair, at least for a generation.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:47 PM on February 8, 2005

The crime indexes I could find didn't even include drug dealing as a crime. A twenty year sentence for this man is absurd and tragic, even given his past transgressions.

And I agree with ludwig_van, this statement is deliberately obtuse:

We "tough on crime people" are just sick to death with the continuing deterioration of our neighborhoods and communities because of the ever-growing peoblem of crime...

I don't know where you've been, but crime rates have been decreasing in America. It's the media coverage that has increased.

On preview, this is equally as egregious:

As for me, I'll just assume mommy and daddy never disciplined you, so you still have the infantile belief that you should be able to do whatever you want.

dios, you're rather missing in the point with all your pedantic generalizations.
posted by Specklet at 12:47 PM on February 8, 2005

We "tough on crime people" are just sick to death with the continuing deterioration of our neighborhoods and communities because of the ever-growing peoblem of crime... whether it be selling drugs, to gang activity, to property destruction, vandalism, graffiti, assaults,wreckless driving, etc.

in other words: "Wah wah wah poor people."

Witty, you're pathetic. Some neighborhoods deteriorate, other neighborhoods go upscale, and others are built anew. If you don't like where you live, move.

Who's right and who's wrong? I don't know. My morality philosophy is pretty similar to utilitarianism. Basicaly, if it hurts people, it's wrong. If it helps people it's good.

I belive that good and bad are independant. And an action can be both good and bad.

Murder is bad, and sending people to jail is bad, but sending murders to jail is the best way to minimize the bad in the world.

If a person takes drugs, its their choice. Anything that happens to them as a result is their choice. If a person on drugs commits crimes, then jail them for those other crimes.

So I hope you understand now why I feel the way I do. Personaly, I think you are depraved. Your attitude makes sick. Physicaly sick with anger.
posted by delmoi at 12:47 PM on February 8, 2005

Man, am I ever glad I don't live in the US of hysteria A.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:48 PM on February 8, 2005

Man - am I ever sorry that I live in the US of hysterical A.

I am /not/ sorry that I live in the USA at all - I think it is mostly a great country. However, more and more I think that we are headed in entirely the wrong direction, and this kind of case makes me more and more sure of it.
posted by Yellowbeard at 12:51 PM on February 8, 2005

Witty, you're actually working to make your neighborhood worse, rather than better, when you support bullshit miscarriages of justice like this one.

You're not going to make your neighborhood nice by going the 18th C. France approach, and locking petty offenders up for decades -- all it does is further fuel the destruction of said communities. The root of the problem is economic, and will never, NEVER be fixed by the ego-stroking, tough-on-crime bullshit like this.

America now imprisons more people than CHINA -- supposedly one of the last, baddie totalitarian regimes left. The majority of these people are nonviolent drug offenders. The only thing we have accomplished in this nonsensical endeavor is to destroy, irrevocably, many millions of human-being's lives. Ever wonder why entire generations of inner-city kids "went bad?" You might want to look at how many of their parents were locked up for all of their lives in a racist effort to make crack cocaine use worse than murder, in the eyes of the law.
posted by teece at 12:52 PM on February 8, 2005

As I stated, it is a poor analogy because the examples are not logically related. And, I didn't say that 20 years is reasonable for the crime that he committed. In fact, I said that I didn't agree with it. However, I do agree that selling drugs perpetuates violent crime and I want those people off of the street. I don't care about their socio-economic backgrounds. Off the street so that they can't shoot bullets into my nine year old nephew's bedroom window as happened last November.
posted by Juicylicious at 12:53 PM on February 8, 2005

orthogonality, you rock!
posted by shoepal at 12:57 PM on February 8, 2005

I don't know where you've been, but crime rates have been decreasing in America. It's the media coverage that has increased.

Actually, that was only during the Clinton administration. Since Bush took over, things have more-or-less leveled off again. Here's a nice chart. We're still much better off than we were during the 70's and 80's.
posted by dreish at 12:57 PM on February 8, 2005

Some serious shit? It's a prescription painkiller.

And the guy in question isn't a pharmacist, so let's take the liberty of assuming they were being used to get high.

And I've taken a prescription painkiller or two in my time, both for pain and for fun. It ain't aspirin, my friend.

But like I said before, the sentence is ridiculously out of proportion to the crime.

He didn't say criminals shouldn't be quarantined from society, he said that they shouldn't go to jail.

Where should they go then, Six Flags?

And if we're still sending dangerous people away somewhere to be quarantined from society, what's the difference? A name change?

A big part of what makes prison unpleasant is that it's full of dangerous people. So sounds like not much would change.
posted by jonmc at 1:00 PM on February 8, 2005

Dios, you seem to be saying that any law passed by the duly elected legislature must be obeyed. This is a rather servile standpoint. There are times when laws should be broken. I need not give examples: it should be quite obvious.

Whether this is an instance of a law that should be broken, I cannot say. I certainly think that most anti-drug laws are foolish and do more harm than good. What I am concerned with is your position on one's obligations to the state. In general, of course, the edicts of a legitimate government have moral force; it might be said that they acquire this force in virtue of the legitimacy of the state. Yet we can certainly think of situations in which legitimate governments approve legislation that must be resisted.

In resisting harmful or immoral legislation, we certainly do no harm to our state; rather, if our actions effect, in part, a rescinding of said legislation, we have done it a substantial good.
posted by Tullius at 1:00 PM on February 8, 2005

As I stated, it is a poor analogy because the examples are not logically related.

A. Man breaks law. Going to prison is a reasonable expectation. Being abused in prison is not a reasonable expectation.

B. Man breaks law. Going to prison is a reasonable expectation. Going to prison for 20 years is not a reasonable expectation.

I do agree that selling drugs perpetuates violent crime and I want those people off of the street.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causation

I don't care about their socio-economic backgrounds. Off the street so that they can't shoot bullets into my nine year old nephew's bedroom window as happened last November.

Please. The guy selling oxycontin didn't shoot bullets through a nine year old's window. The fact that we should lock up people who shoot bullets through windows has nothing to do with this case.

I'm honestly appalled by how many people seem to be saying "just lock them up, I don't care if the issue is complex or if the problem isn't being solved, at least that way I don't have to deal with it."
posted by ludwig_van at 1:00 PM on February 8, 2005

zpousman - Cut the racism bullshit. Ok. You knew exactly what I meant. My comment(s) had nothing to do with race.... so don't try to make them so.

ludwig_van - If you want to pretend that neighborhoods with drug problems are nothing more than a bunch if flower-people lounging around in utopian splendor, then go ahead, if it helps your arguement. But it's not the truth. You can take any safe and happy neighborhood and start introducing drugs into and you'll see all of those other crimes as a result. I don't think I need to detail the chain of events for you.

If you don't like where you live, move.

I did... long ago.
posted by Witty at 1:01 PM on February 8, 2005

If you don't like where you live, move.

Naive. I will use my brother as an example. He bought a house in the neighborhood that we grew up in. He paid $45k for it eight years ago. In that time, there have been several houses on his block boarded up and all but abandoned because they were being used for drug trafficking. There is a gang controlled crackhouse across the street. People park at the abondoned house next to my brother's and cut through the yards to get to the crack house. My brother cannot sell his house because there are no buyers in that will purchase in that neighborhood. He has a four person family (wife, 2 kids). There annual family income is under $35k. An average 3-bedroom home outside of his neighborhood is $250k. A 3-bedroom apartment goes for $1200 per mo. Tell me exactly how could he can move his family out of the neighborhood?
posted by Juicylicious at 1:01 PM on February 8, 2005

I believe that alternatives to prison are badly needed.
posted by Specklet at 1:01 PM on February 8, 2005

All of the "tough on crime" arguments I've seen in this thread fail to address the comparative severity of crimes with the comparitive severity of the punishment dished out. What I'd like to hear from one of the tough on crime people here is a reasoned argument as to why a conviction on selling two pills plus prior convictions for possessing cocaine and marijuana warrants a punishment more severe than raping someones grandmother, daughter, mother, sister, etc etc. Or killing someone in a DWI. Or robbing a bank.

Tell me, if someone raped your mother and was convicted and was then out in 6 to 9 years, are you satisfied that Mr. Oxycontin is still behind bars for the next 10 to 12 while Mr. Rapist can now return to society?

All of this is a matter of degrees and I fail to see how anyone can justify 20 years for any combination of selling and possessing by one individual, unless the perp's name is Tony Montana. And I say this as someone who is a big supporter of the death penalty.
posted by spicynuts at 1:02 PM on February 8, 2005

This is borderline racist drivel. Perhaps one reason that Mr. Witty did not deal drugs is that he grew up in a good neighborhood, went to a good school, had parents were we involved in his life and schooling and probably helped him to get a higher education.

Big assumption.

I've known wealthy criminals and I've known plenty more non-criminals who come from terrible backgrounds.

A lot of the arguments here are revealing more about the arguers than anything else.
posted by jonmc at 1:04 PM on February 8, 2005

If you don't like it, then leave this social contract you have with America.
America the state is leaving behind America the people, not vice-versa.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:06 PM on February 8, 2005

In case the text of what I said was lost in this high-volume discussion, here's the relevant image:

Crime rate goes down during Clinton years, not so much before or after.
posted by dreish at 1:06 PM on February 8, 2005

Man, am I ever glad I don't live in the US of hysteria A.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:48 PM PST on February 8

That is funny - exactly what I was thinking. What is going on down there?
posted by Quartermass at 1:08 PM on February 8, 2005

And if we're still sending dangerous people away somewhere to be quarantined from society, what's the difference? A name change?

Well jon, I didn't know I'd be having to explicate his post line by line for you. It seemed quite clear that he was saying there are alternatives for criminal rehabilitation besides "jail" as it is currently implemented in our society. I don't think he was saying that criminals should be put out on the street, as you chose to read it. If he'd said "people shouldn't go to jail" and left it at that, I can see that as a valid reading, but he went on to explain why prisons are ineffective, implying that they'd be more effective with a different approach. Belaboring minor points by taking them at face value gets pretty tiresome.

ludwig_van - If you want to pretend that neighborhoods with drug problems are nothing more than a bunch if flower-people lounging around in utopian splendor, then go ahead

I didn't say anything like that.

You can take any safe and happy neighborhood and start introducing drugs into and you'll see all of those other crimes as a result.

No, you can't, unless you'd like to link to a study which somehow proves that statement. Until you understand cause and effect, I don't see this going much further.
posted by ludwig_van at 1:09 PM on February 8, 2005

I love how the Right thinks that all regulation should be subject to cost-benefit analysis except for the War on Drugs.

For fuck's sake, Dios and Witty, I'm usually happy to have people like the two of you in my big tent, but you've just outed yourselves as dogmatic authoritarians.

Man, am I ever glad I don't live in the US of hysteria A.

We are so going to bomb Canada next week
posted by trharlan at 1:09 PM on February 8, 2005

"Two Little Pills," is a bit disingenuous. Oxycontin is some serious shit.

When I had my wisdom teeth removed, I was proscribed generic Oxycontin (oxy-codine). My teeth still hurt when those ran out, and whent to another dentist, I got hydrocodine. Later, when I had back problems, I asked the doctor for codine, since I knew it worked so well. He gave me a perscription for pure codine. (note: all of these were mixed with acetomenophin, aka tylenol)

Anyway, I couldn't tell the diffrence, except that pure codine made me a little itchy after a while.

Two pills of Oxycontin wouldn't hurt anyone. Oxycontin isn't like Heroin, which could be mixed with harmfull things as filler, a lifetime adiction to Oxycontin might make you deaf, but that's about it. Not counting the illigality of getting it, that is.
posted by delmoi at 1:09 PM on February 8, 2005

Fucking sigh.

Please note date and judge.
posted by LouReedsSon at 1:09 PM on February 8, 2005

I'm honestly appalled by how many people seem to be saying "just lock them up, I don't care if the issue is complex or if the problem isn't being solved, at least that way I don't have to deal with it."

I know it's a complex problem. But I'm not willing to just set aside tough punishment because it's "not very nice" just because we're wating on a complex solution.

spicynuts - Don't compare crimes and their resulting punishments. There's no point. No, I don't want a pill-seller to be in jail longer than a rapist. I (we) never suggested that I'd be happy with that. I want the rapist castrated, caned and put in jail ofr 40 years, if you want the truth.

Quite frankly, I am surpised at the sentence this man received (20 years) for the crime he committed. But so what. Don't sell drugs... it's that simple. If you do, you risk getting caught and you risk being sentenced to something awful. That's what happened and... oh well.
posted by Witty at 1:09 PM on February 8, 2005

And before it "goes there," this tells who the so called officer or "agent" was. Anthony was Bens "friend" for maybe 10 years.

Yeah, my son.
posted by LouReedsSon at 1:11 PM on February 8, 2005

Just a quick thought:

Would we have any of the crime/problems/jail time that everyone is talking about if drugs were just legalized?

Every single issue in this thread, from the origianl absurdity of someone being locked up for twenty years for selling two pills to bullets being shot through childrens' windows would be solved if we legalized all drugs (according to a plan - not just by waving a magic wand and saying, "they're all legal now - do what you will.") tomorrow.

The Yellow Party has outlined the beginnings of a pretty clear plan for drug legalization. It would cost you and me a lot less money. It would solve the problems we have with violence. I am willing to bet that it would be at least a beginning to our inner city problems (which are more economic than anything else, as mentioned by several above).

Every problem mentioned would be fixed if the United States would just take the bold (and fiscally responsible by far, I might add) step of legalizing and regulating drugs. It wouldn't be all that hard to do. It would make a lot more sense, and it would cost us all a lot less. Why are we not pushing for this right now?
posted by Yellowbeard at 1:14 PM on February 8, 2005

I know it's a complex problem. But I'm not willing to just set aside tough punishment because it's "not very nice" just because we're wating on a complex solution.

Translation: I know that the punishment didn't fit the crime, and I know it doesn't help solve the societal problems that I keep complaining about, but this doesn't hurt me in any immediate way, and the fact that he did this at all means he was probably a bad person, and it's ok to punish bad people, and I'm clearly a good person, entirely unlike him in every way, so I'm happy and moral and consistent. Hooray!

On preview: Would we have any of the crime/problems/jail time that everyone is talking about if drugs were just legalized?

Of course we would! It's self-evident that drugs are bad and only bad people use them, and if we lock up the bad people they can't ruin things for us, so things will get better. Which part don't you understand?
posted by ludwig_van at 1:16 PM on February 8, 2005

Juicylicious wants "[drug sellers o]ff the street so that they can't shoot bullets into [his] nine year old nephew's bedroom window"

It's terrible that nine year olds are caught in the cross-fire of drug related violence.

I'll guess, Juicylicious, that your primary priority is to get the shooting to stop, and it's that that motivates your desire to get drug sellers off the street.

It may be worth noting then, that until New York City raised its total cigarette tax to $3, there were very few cases of gun-fights over cigarettes, despite tobacco being a very addicting drug. But if a black marketeer can make $30 a carton on 1000 cartons of cigarettes in a stolen truck, well for some a quick $30,000 is worth shooting for.

And that while there was terrific violence surrounding the illegal distribution of alcohol, that violence pretty much ended when Prohibition ended.

And I can't recall ever seeing a gun-fight outside the CVS Pharmacy over aspirin, or outside a Quiznos over a ham sandwich.

So the question is: what will make your nephew safer?

Tougher drug laws that act to drive up drug prices, making drugs more lucrative and in turn make criminals willing to employ more violence to get that lucre?

Or decriminalization or legalization that will make drugs cheaper and will this attract fewer criminals to attempt to profit off them?

You've already told us that the current "War on Drugs", a "war" that's lasted at least 35 years now, has not made your nephew safe.

Don't we owe it to your nephew to try something that might actually work?
posted by orthogonality at 1:17 PM on February 8, 2005

Juicylicous writes However, I do agree that selling drugs perpetuates violent crime and I want those people off of the street. I don't care about their socio-economic backgrounds. Off the street so that they can't shoot bullets into my nine year old nephew's bedroom window as happened last November.

Two problems with your sentiment:

a)It's not 'drug selling' that's at issue. I haven't heard of alcohol dealers shooting bullets into anyone's window. These drugs are in-demand commodities for which criminal enterprise will provide the supply when a legal channel is not available.

b)Since people dealing in these commodities are, by law, operating outside the law, they have neither the ability nor the incentive to take recourse in law enforcement or civil court system to settle disputes. A crack dealer is a criminal and will shoot bullets to collect debt and not file a suit.

c)Because of prohibition and the resulting price spike and hence profits, there will always be people to replace this dealer. Uneducated, unemployed people don't have many promising economic avenues open to them, except for, you guessed it, drug dealing.
posted by daksya at 1:17 PM on February 8, 2005

D'oh. Three problems. There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who can count and those who can't.
posted by daksya at 1:18 PM on February 8, 2005

Every single issue in this thread, from the origianl absurdity of someone being locked up for twenty years for selling two pills to bullets being shot through childrens' windows would be solved if we legalized all drugs (according to a plan - not just by waving a magic wand and saying, "they're all legal now - do what you will.") tomorrow.

Because all the dope-dealers would magically become upright citizens? More likely they'd just move on to the next profitbale activity. It's not like Frank Nitti and Meyer Lansky became respectable businessmen after Prohibition ended.

There's a lot of good arguments for legalizing drugs, but the "magic wand" of disappearing crime isn't one of 'em.
posted by jonmc at 1:19 PM on February 8, 2005

There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who can count and those who can't.
...and those that count in binary :)
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:20 PM on February 8, 2005

Don't compare crimes and their resulting punishments. There's no point.

Thinking makes my head hurt! Whaaa whaaa!
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:21 PM on February 8, 2005

Because all the dope-dealers would magically become upright citizens? More likely they'd just move on to the next profitbale activity.

Please to name that "next profitable activity" that would net them as much profit for as little work with no education and possibly while they had a criminal record.
posted by Yellowbeard at 1:21 PM on February 8, 2005

There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who can count and those who can't.
posted by daksya at 1:18 PM PST on February 8

Is that a binary joke?
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 1:22 PM on February 8, 2005

But I'm not willing to just set aside tough punishment because it's "not very nice" just because we're wating on a complex solution.

How about you put aside tough punishment because it's

1) ineffective
2) costly
3) biased in favour of the wealthy and white.
posted by mek at 1:24 PM on February 8, 2005

Because all the dope-dealers would magically become upright citizens? More likely they'd just move on to the next profitbale activity.

Duh. That is the point. The only reason anyone deals drugs is because of the effective subsidation of the industry by the federal government through the War on Drugs.

Same with other organized crime, like gambling and prostitution. Without law enforcement creating an artifical scarcity, there is much less incentive to enter these areas.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:24 PM on February 8, 2005

Because all the dope-dealers would magically become upright citizens? More likely they'd just move on to the next profitbale activity.

And maybe that profitable activity would be getting a real job serving you your fries. You're again implicitly assuming that everyone who sells drugs is a bad person and can't ever be a good person, a ridiculous conclusion.

Just because legalization wouldn't solve every problem doesn't mean it wouldn't solve a lot of problems.
posted by ludwig_van at 1:24 PM on February 8, 2005

In the town I grew up in, in my lifetime, there has been almost no violent crime. One murder (an out of towner killed by other out of towners), and twice crazy people have claimed to have been asulted, but the claims turned out to be false. (Strangely enough, each of those cases had a racial element to them).

Yet, there is tons of drug use. Lots of stoners, aperantly coke is out there too. Yet, no violent crime.
posted by delmoi at 1:26 PM on February 8, 2005

jonmc says Because all the dope-dealers would magically become upright citizens? More likely they'd just move on to the next profitbale activity.

Agreed. So which equally or greater profitable activity they would move to that would maintain or increase the concomitant crime currently associated with drugs. You'd need a set of in-demand commodities that a)people don't have legal access to, b)if they do, the marginal cost of getting it legally is greater than getting it illegally c)criminals can procure, move and sell on the same scale as drugs.
posted by daksya at 1:26 PM on February 8, 2005

oh, the drug that the out of towner got killed over: Alchohol
posted by delmoi at 1:26 PM on February 8, 2005

spicynuts - Don't compare crimes and their resulting punishments. There's no point.

Are you kidding?? What does that even mean? Why don't we just have a 20 year sentence for all crimes then? From petty larceny to murder. I mean, why have murder result in a longer punishment than anything else...I wouldn't want to have to compare the severity and consequences of various acts, that's just splitting hairs. Clearly most of the history of justice ignores your statement...hence Murder 1, 2, 3 etc, etc.

And, clearly the judge in this case compared crimes as he used past sentences to influence his decision.
posted by spicynuts at 1:27 PM on February 8, 2005

Please to name that "next profitable activity" that would net them as much profit for as little work with no education and possibly while they had a criminal record.

Pimping & prostitution. Loan-Sharking. Gambling. Extortion. Plain old theivery. Smuggling (of just about anything).

Maybe not as easy or as profitable as dopeslinging, but they all beat working at Sears. Criminality isn't neccessarily about desperation, no matter how much people want poor suffering folk to pity and rescue. Sometimes it's just about rapacious greed, lust for power and avoiding effort as much as possible.

And maybe that profitable activity would be getting a real job serving you your fries. You're again implicitly assuming that everyone who sells drugs is a bad person and can't ever be a good person, a ridiculous conclusion.

Or I'm making the reasonable inference that someone willing to go into a dangerous, illegal profession (risking imprisonment & reprisals from business rivals and customers with no legal recourse), NTM often times profiting from the misery of addicts and their families is not going to be the type of person who's gonna be too jazzed by the work ethic and honest labor, thus the McDonald's scenario is a bit of a stretch.

Lots of stoners, aperantly coke is out there too. Yet, no violent crime.

Go to the neighborhood when they buy their coke. Follow it all the way back to the guy sitting in a mansion in Colombia making billions off it. Check and see how well the families doing when Dad's all coked up.

Sounds like a case of "out of sight, out of mind," to me.
posted by jonmc at 1:32 PM on February 8, 2005

Translation: I know that the punishment didn't fit the crime, and I know it doesn't help solve the societal problems that I keep complaining about, but this doesn't hurt me in any immediate way, and the fact that he did this at all means he was probably a bad person, and it's ok to punish bad people, and I'm clearly a good person, entirely unlike him in every way, so I'm happy and moral and consistent. Hooray!

Close.

I know that the punishment didn't fit the crime...

I know that the punishment is pretty severe, yes. I'm surprised that the judge went there, but I trust his judgement.

...and I know it doesn't help solve the societal problems that I keep complaining about...

Never said anything like that. but just because the problem is complex doesn't mean we can afford or should wait around for a complex solution. People need to be jailed in the meantime.

...but this doesn't hurt me in any immediate way...

Correct.

...and the fact that he did this at all means he was probably a bad person...

A fuckin' knucklehead certainly. Dumb? Yea. Bad person? I have no idea.

...and it's ok to punish bad people...

If they commit a crime, sure.

...and I'm clearly a good person...

I give it my best shot.

...entirely unlike him in every way,..

Again, I don't know him, so I have no idea.

...so I'm happy and moral and consistent...

Happy... for the most part. Moral? Hmmm? Gosh, most of the time I think so. Consistent, I would say yes, generally.
posted by Witty at 1:32 PM on February 8, 2005

This issue, like many others whose solutions are just painfully obvious consistently just gives me a headache.

Making something illegal means putting it beyond the governement's control to regulate it. While there are clearly some things (like any crime which denies someone else's personal rights) which can't be regulated for the safety of all, many of the currently illegal activities in this country are illegal for no other reason than "Mrs,. Grundy does not approve."

Regulation of drugs, prostitution, abortion, firearms, and etc. is a good thing. Putting one's fingers in one's ears and pretending that if you make it illegal it will just go away is completely absurd. All of these substances, which are variously dangerous to their users and to others, are perfectly capable of being used responsibly by "adults" for pleasure, recreation, and/or enlightenment. All of these things, when regulated by the government, become safer for the users and non-users alike. All of these things, when regulated by the government as legal pursuits/substances, become far less costly for the governement to deal with.

There seem to be 100% positives in making them legal and regulating them and 0% negatives. Why in the FUCK would you continue to leave them illegal and unregulated? I never can believe the stupidity of this. I never will. Everything would be safer and better for everyone if we just legalized and regulated, but, for some reason, we just can't manage to do that. I will never understand that.
posted by Yellowbeard at 1:32 PM on February 8, 2005

Duh. That is the point. The only reason anyone deals drugs is because of the effective subsidation of the industry by the federal government through the War on Drugs.
You mean greed.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:33 PM on February 8, 2005

But when you fear everytime your kid wants to go outside or has to walk to the corner to catch the schoolbus then you don't give a rat's ass about liberal/libertarian theories. You just want it dealt with - immediately.

Metafilter: shoot 'em all and let God sort it out.
posted by mek at 1:34 PM on February 8, 2005

But I'm not willing to just set aside tough punishment because it's "not very nice" just because we're wating on a complex solution.

How about you put aside tough punishment because it's

1) ineffective
2) costly
3) biased in favour of the wealthy and white.

Cruelty is a perfectly acceptible reason to set aside "tough punishment". Particularly in the United States, where a prohibition against cruel punishment is enshrined in our foundational law.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:34 PM on February 8, 2005

the "tough on crime" proponents here certainly seem to be reinforcing the idea that conservatives don't much like nuance.

there are echoes of the "maybe it's not the best way to do it, but at least bush is doing something" argument sometimes heard during the early days of the invasion of iraq in some of these "it's a complex problem, no one has a complex solution, we just need to do something about it NOW" lines of reasoning seen here. it's always easy to say things like that when other people's lives are being fucked up.

and i say this as someone who grew up in a hood that was so bad, people in other projects and ghettoes called it "vietnam." i know that while there are indeed a few people who will never reform and show no remorse for their animal actions, there were also quite a few young men with whom i attended middle school that i saw "go bad" who probably could have been saved (i.e., taken only one trip to prison instead of several) in a more enlightened society. but in the system the way it works today -- the way it's celebrated by witty et al -- they were ground to dust by the teeth of the system the same way as the truly bad ones.

in any event, you "tough on crime" people are going to be really super-duper extra happy when all the social safety nets get cut thanks to bush's desire to keep the tax cuts at all costs, and even more people are behind bars. and you know what? you still won't feel completely safe. you never will, and there are companies with government ties who profit off of your fear. i don't know why you don't see it.
posted by lord_wolf at 1:34 PM on February 8, 2005

Ya know, I think that no matter how severe the punishment would be, and no matter how minor the amount of drugs sold would be, there would be those who pipe up and say. "Don't break the law, it's that simple."

So now, I'd like to ask those same rigid, authoritarian noodniks to go ahead and affirm that the lines in the 8th amendment to the US constitution condemning "cruel and unusual punishment" are indeed meaningless.
posted by telstar at 1:35 PM on February 8, 2005

Are you kidding?? What does that even mean?

Because the way you worded the original thought was to suggest that somehow, I am comfortable with rapist only getting 5 years or whatever. I'm not.
posted by Witty at 1:36 PM on February 8, 2005

Criminality isn't neccessarily about desperation, no matter how much people want poor suffering folk to pity and rescue. Sometimes it's just about rapacious greed, lust for power and avoiding effort as much as possible.

Wow. That entire phrase just screams Enron.
posted by Yellowbeard at 1:36 PM on February 8, 2005

This might just be the first Huffer-ed Johnson story I've ever seen without a happy ending.
posted by pmbuko at 1:37 PM on February 8, 2005

So, how much will it cost to jail this guy for twenty years? Obviously he deserves punishment... but seriously, rapists get 2-3 years.
Ok he received 20 years, yet how much of that time will he actually being serving? In my state, 3rd dwi is a felony which will land you 2-3+ years in jail, no matter who you are.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:39 PM on February 8, 2005

Yet, there is tons of drug use. Lots of stoners, aperantly coke is out there too. Yet, no violent crime.

Yea, because they go somehwere else to buy it.

on preview: What jonmc said.
posted by Witty at 1:40 PM on February 8, 2005

lord_wolff: some of us think that there's value in both approaches.

Safety nets should be kept in place. Inner-city schools need to be better funded and managed (my better half teaches in one of NYC's toughest public schools). Industries and jobs need to preserved.

But an intelligent, realistic, pragmatic approach to the drug problems (and the organized violent crime connected to it, and the misery it causes in families and communities) is needed, too. Is it a nuanced situation? Hell, yeah.

I'm not suggesting draconian sentences, merely rolling my eyes at naivete of some of the statements in the thread. If anything I think both the neo-conservatives and the neo-liberals are being too simplistic about the whole situation.

quite a few young men with whom i attended middle school that i saw "go bad" who probably could have been saved (i.e., taken only one trip to prison instead of several) in a more enlightened society

I've seen the same thing and I'm a product of middle-class America, but I've known my share of casualties, too.

It's not neccessarily clear cut right & wrong, black & white out there. But we should be careful not to drown in gray, either.
posted by jonmc at 1:45 PM on February 8, 2005

But when you fear everytime your kid wants to go outside or has to walk to the corner to catch the schoolbus then you don't give a rat's ass about liberal/libertarian theories. You just want it dealt with - immediately.

Maybe your irrational fear should be dealt with.
posted by ozomatli at 1:45 PM on February 8, 2005

Yellowbeard asks "Please to name that "next profitable activity" that would net them as much profit for as little work with no education and possibly while they had a criminal record.

Dot-coms?

Oh, wait, so '90s.

But I hear comunity blogging sites are teh coming thing.
posted by orthogonality at 1:46 PM on February 8, 2005

Yellowbeard: Of course, some are pushing for across-the-board legalization right now. Then again, drug use of anything other than the current legal, prescription and lighter drugs like marijuana are stigmatized to such a degree that people will think you are crazy, naive or just plain dumb for suggesting total legalization. Years of conditioning have led most people to the conclusion that drugs cause most of our internal problems and that all drugs are bad except the ones we are told are okay.

I was kind of wondering out of pure curiosity, with all this talk of prison, severity of punishment and drugs - how many of you have been to prison, been on trial with possible a prison sentence or known or associated with someone who has gone to prison.
posted by melt away at 1:47 PM on February 8, 2005

Johnson’s girlfriend addressed the court and told Judge Duane Huffer, “Since we’ve been together, both our lives have changed. We have grown and matured together. The last four months we have been trying so hard. ... Give him a chance.”
Johnson’s court-appointed attorney Brad Voelz addressed the court as well. “Although the jury said (Johnson) is guilty, he maintains his innocence.”

Voelz added, “This is not a violent offense. ... and it was not a large volume of drugs. ... It was two small pills.”

Voelz also attributed Johnson’s prior crimes to addiction to drugs.
“I have never been to counseling ever,” said Johnson. “I was on probation one time and I did really good. I have never been given a chance.”

Usually probation includes court ordered counseling which you pay out of your own pocket. So he has had a chance from my experience.
To me, everything in bold is cry for help. Maybe why the book was thrown at him. I do know that some jail sentences are give out with a high number of years in order that a minimum number of years will be actually be served. Which may be the case here.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:48 PM on February 8, 2005

how many of you have been to prison, been on trial with possible a prison sentence or known or associated with someone who has gone to prison.

*raises hand (numerous times) for the third option.*
posted by jonmc at 1:49 PM on February 8, 2005

with all this talk of prison, severity of punishment and drugs - how many of you have been to prison, been on trial with possible a prison sentence or known or associated with someone who has gone to prison.
I surrender [both hand's raised over head].
posted by thomcatspike at 1:50 PM on February 8, 2005

I'm a conservative? I've never been called that before. I'm giddy with excitement. Will my liberal membership card be revoked?

Of course we should continue trying to come up with good solutions to crime, especially violent crime. I am not an authoritarian. I am simply trying to interject that there are innocent people, lots of innocent people who live in crime ridden neighborhoods - you know the ones that you drive quickly in and out of to get your drugs - who live in fear 24/7. To these people, the problem is more immediate and they don't have the luxery of debating the topic on MeFi. They simply don't to die.
posted by Juicylicious at 1:50 PM on February 8, 2005

Don't sell drugs... it's that simple. If you do, you risk getting caught and you risk being sentenced to something awful. That's what happened and... oh well.

You know what? Fuck that argument. Where does the government get off placing that kind of penalty on a consensual exchange? It's an, illogical, stupid law which gets broken with such absolute frequency that one must also think from a practical standpoint that it is also a bad law.

Why should a 'victimless' crime such as this be a crime at all? For goodness sakes, speeding in your car is worse in that it puts others in harms way.

Freakin' insanity. Glad I don't live there.
posted by Thoth at 1:50 PM on February 8, 2005

The best side effect of the War on drugs is stories like these. (reg req'd)
posted by trharlan at 1:52 PM on February 8, 2005

I'm a conservative? I've never been called that before. I'm giddy with excitement. Will my liberal membership card be revoked?

Your handgun and copy of National Review are in the mail. There's a Chuck Heston film festival friday. Welcome to the society...;>
posted by jonmc at 1:53 PM on February 8, 2005

There's a lot of good arguments for legalizing drugs, but the "magic wand" of disappearing crime isn't one of 'em.
posted by jonmc at 4:19 PM EST on February 8

I think what some are trying to say here is that just because a person opts to alter themselves, and may choose to help others do the same so that they can continue altering themselves, they shouldn't be classed alongside violent offenders and consquently be forced to coexist with them for excessive lengths of time.

Placing many of these people in long-term custody rarely rehabilitates, but worsens them through enforced control that really isn't control at all, but a free-for-all in which the inmates run the jails to the extent that those who really aren't of an true criminal makeup suffer dearly.

More drug offenders need hospitals, not jail cells. But the so-called help they receive in prison usually results in rage, anger, and hate for a system that held them, a society that called for such, and ultimately, themselves. When that happens it's usually too late to turn things around before getting just a little worse first. In a sense, we're manufacturing criminals, as if there wouldn't be enough to fill the more (or at least better funded)-prisons-than-schools built since this drug war began.

And finally, if you believe that the corrections system won't have adverse effects on a person, check this out.
posted by LouReedsSon at 1:54 PM on February 8, 2005

At least I'm in good company :-)
posted by Juicylicious at 1:57 PM on February 8, 2005

I do know that some jail sentences are give out with a high number of years in order that a minimum number of years will be actually be served. Which may be the case here.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:48 PM EST on February 8

2/3 time is usually the norm, but some can receive "merit time" (in NY) that could reduce that to possibly 1/2.

So hey, I guess it ain't that bad for this guy afterall, eh?

sigh.
posted by LouReedsSon at 1:57 PM on February 8, 2005

More drug offenders need hospitals, not jail cells.
A lot of petty criminals are sitting out their time and court costs in Jail. Rather than live a clean life and maintain a stable life which inlcudes a job and staying sober. Which is one reason the cells are filling up.

One of the saddest things I saw while on the inside.
As they had a chance to be free but chose to do the time because being supervised on the outside was too big of a hassle and prison was the easy way out, FYI.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:59 PM on February 8, 2005

More drug offenders need hospitals, not jail cells.

Agreed. It's not the users (unless they start burglarizing and sticking people up for their habit), who need to be in those cells. It's the gigantic criminal industry behind them.

Just about all of us are complicit in that to some degree, but some are more complicit than others.

I think what some are trying to say here is that just because a person opts to alter themselves, and may choose to help others do the same so that they can continue altering themselves,

Have you ever consider becoming a professional euphemizer?

Look when it comes to stuff like pot and acid, I'm more or less with you. But let's not pretend that heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and the bathtub pharmacueticals are about "altering themselves," or some other New Age fantasy. It's about feeding a jones.
posted by jonmc at 2:01 PM on February 8, 2005

Goddamn it! What hypocrites. If Rush Limbaugh was not assailed by you same angry tough-on-crime Republicans how can you possibly defend this guy's 20 year sentence?

If some of you were consistent in aplying your principles it would be one thing-- but you aren’t.

You can be safe. Or Free. Not both.

PS. Excellent post orthogonality
posted by tkchrist at 2:03 PM on February 8, 2005

It's about feeding a jones.

Precisely. Addiction is a bitch. And NEVER treated in jail. Oh sure, it's limited there, but little changes in the lives of those "jonesing," leading to more creative methods of "feeding" upon release.

Jail. Doesn't. Fucking. Work.
posted by LouReedsSon at 2:07 PM on February 8, 2005

If Rush Limbaugh was not assailed by you same angry tough-on-crime Republicans how can you possibly defend this guy's 20 year sentence?
The Whole Jury voted for Bush? Not sure how a Jury is chosen in Iowa; yet when I did Jury duty: the "Republican" type was not picked.
posted by thomcatspike at 2:07 PM on February 8, 2005

Juicylicious says the problem is more immediate and they don't have the luxery of debating the topic on MeFi. They simply don't to die.

Of course. But irrespective of the academic tone of the drug law debates, there are practical, immediate reasons for engaging in it. Ok, so some of the drug dealers that had a shooting match in your neighbourhood got arrested or otherwise removed off the street. Now what? Is your nephew safe? For maybe a few days. Worldwide drug trade is a $400 billion industry, according to the UN. That makes it as big as the petroleum indsutry. Think about that. This 'shoot them as they pop up' approach keeps you living on a day-to-day basis.
posted by daksya at 2:08 PM on February 8, 2005

Yet, there is tons of drug use. Lots of stoners, aperantly coke is out there too. Yet, no violent crime.

See also Canada, which is increasingly headed in the direction of harm reduction in dealing with urban drug problems, and which also makes a pretty good argument that one of the best ways to reduce the social cost of violent crime is to make it very, very hard to obtain firearms. There's still a fair bit of violent crime in Canada - compared to, say, Japan - but the consequences are generally far less severe.

Case in point: the kindly old Chinese convenience-store proprietor just up the block here in my neighbourhood (in Calgary) was savagely attacked during an armed robbery a couple months back. Weapon was, I believe, a large knife. Perpertrator was no doubt hopped up on meth or crack. (Addicts are a semi-regular feature of the neighbourhood; violent crime extremely rare.) I bought a Coke from the poor old guy the other day. In many US cities, I bet he'd be dead of gunshot wounds.

So, Juicylicious, there's just one of many ways to address your nephew's unfortunate situation. No one could shoot at his window if they didn't have guns.
posted by gompa at 2:08 PM on February 8, 2005

Precisely. Addiction is a bitch. And NEVER treated in jail. Oh sure, it's limited there
Have you been in the system? Because it is. Now more than ever, if you can't get clean, they do it for you. I know.
posted by thomcatspike at 2:09 PM on February 8, 2005

In many US cities, I bet he'd be dead of gunshot wounds.

So, Juicylicious, there's just one of many ways to address your nephew's unfortunate situation. No one could shoot at his window if they didn't have guns.
In many US cities it is legal to protect your life with a gun. So your argument looks odd, saying; a knife wielding attacker is safer than one with a gun.
Maybe the store clerk should have been in a protective cage which would have prevented him from being hurt and sounds about the same.
posted by thomcatspike at 2:14 PM on February 8, 2005

Have you been in the system? Because it is. Now more than ever, if you can't get clean, they do it for you. I know.

Maybe NEVER was wrong, but let me ask you Thom; were you in a state prison or county jail? And did you actually want help because your problems had gotten bigger than you and opened your eyes? And, if you answered yes to #2, was it really only the jail time that did open your eyes, or had you been fucking up a long time with a lot things falling apart long before arrrest/sentencing?

If anyone bothered to check the links I put up ealier, you'll find that this a very personal subject, and one I'm dealing with presently. Not everyone can be lumped together in this huge issue, and so it should be impossible to make accross-the-board penalties without really understanding the individual. But the courts are too full of petty bullshit to take the time to dig in, if you will, much like many here couldn't be bothered to check my links. We're just too busy generalizing and/or being indoctrinated by a gov't that has made certain decisions for us.

Let freedom ring.
posted by LouReedsSon at 2:22 PM on February 8, 2005

"You see, I think drugs have done some good things for us. I really do. And If you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a favour. Go home tonight take all your albums, all your tapes and all your CDs and burn them. 'Cause You know what the musicians that made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years? RrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrEAL fucking high on drugs... The Beatles were so fucking high they let Ringo sing a few songs."

"Here is my final point. About drugs, about alcohol, about pornography and smoking and everything else. What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?"

- Bill Hicks.
posted by SweetJesus at 2:25 PM on February 8, 2005

Or perhaps I'm wrong and those pills go for $50 a pop on the street and give you a wicked buzz. I'm skeptical, though. Anyone out there know what these go for?
The big use of these pills is to snort them which will give you a heroin high. Why they are so addictive and the big STORY about them. When they first came out, several years back, they were $5 a pill on the street. Also this is the prescriptions that is delivered by armor car to the pharmacies that will carry them. Snorted and mixed with alcohol is deadly mixture. Ozzie's son was treated for this years ago.
posted by thomcatspike at 2:25 PM on February 8, 2005

Oh. My. God. Don't any of you get it? No one is arguing that alternatives should not be researched and employed. I'm not stupid. I know that if there weren't guns no one would get shot. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to follow that logic. But the stark reality is that people do have guns. Guns aren't going away. Not today, probably not ever. And yes, I do know that there is little rehabilitation in prison. Yes, I do know that many convicts come out worse than before they went in. Yes, I do know that drug trafficking is an alluring alternative to someone who is poor and uneducated. Yes, I know all of that. I appreciate that there are those who want to see positive change in how violent crime is addressed. But please remember that until your collective brains come up with and implement the solution, the rest of who actually deal with it up front and personal on a daily basis will cheer each time one of them is taken off the street, whether it's by a rival's bullet or by incarceration.

Ok, so some of the drug dealers that had a shooting match in your neighbourhood got arrested or otherwise removed off the street. Now what? Is your nephew safe?

There were no arrests, so no neither my nephew, nor my niece, nor my brother or sis-in-law are safe.
posted by Juicylicious at 2:26 PM on February 8, 2005

Because all the dope-dealers would magically become upright citizens?

A lot of dope dealers are already upright citizens. I guess that's a major leap of faith for some people.

Guns aren't going away. Not today, probably not ever.

What's that?
posted by mrgrimm at 2:37 PM on February 8, 2005

LouReedsSon, let me just say. From my experience and what I've seen in other people's cases. Being sentenced, forced the rehabilitation. Chances were usually given several times before with out much supervision which was have basic discipline, but were not heeded. Here in Texas they are cracking down harder and now include special programs to those that are busted for alcohol and or drugs because they realize they are not Hard Criminals and just need more help.

But I would like to say again, many young men are willing to do full time sentences than probation or a lesser sentence because that would mean they had to stay clean and maintain a “healthy” life. I attribute this to laziness & lack of discipline more than addiction, you are no even going to be able to smoke a cigarette on the inside.

And yes, I do know that there is little rehabilitation in prison
How do you all know this? I have a neighbor who was given a chance to clean up on his own and instead by not being responsible and knowingly choosing to risk it, was sentenced to 6months. This jail facility is for drug rehabilitation only. Why he was sent there, not Huntsville instead.
posted by thomcatspike at 2:42 PM on February 8, 2005

supervision which was having basic discipline
posted by thomcatspike at 2:43 PM on February 8, 2005

the rest of who actually deal with it up front and personal on a daily basis will cheer each time one of them is taken off the street, whether it's by a rival's bullet or by incarceration.

Since I'm personally on the other side of this, maybe I can console you some by telling you that at least the streets in my nieghborhood are safe now with my sons incarceration.

Lemme tell ya's 'bout my son... He is a troubled soul with issues he'd rather address at this point through addiction. Stupid? Maybe, most definately. But would he ever, EVER consider hurting someone because of it? Fuck no, and I can say that loud and proud, and without reservation. Or at least I know for sure before he was sent away that was accurate. I wonder and worry now excatly what education he'll receive inside. Where once he'd never consider even holding a gun, will he be taught new things by bad people he should never have met in the first place?

Sorry, but these are my fears now. But you all go on feeling real safe because a kid with issues, or a poor man trying to get by gets taken off the streets and wisked out of respectable society; the same society that wages wars against people with turbins, btw.
posted by LouReedsSon at 2:44 PM on February 8, 2005

...the same society that wages wars against people with turbins, btw.

Good one.
posted by Witty at 2:46 PM on February 8, 2005

OxyContin is a lot like heroin. I'd like to see Rush do some jail time for buying thousands of these pills. He's the same as all you hard-ass Republicans who want the rules to apply to everyone but yourselves.

This is the stupidest sentence I have ever heard of and if you think it is remotely fair you should have your head examined.
posted by xammerboy at 2:46 PM on February 8, 2005

But please remember that until your collective brains come up with and implement the solution, the rest of who actually deal with it up front and personal on a daily basis will cheer each time one of them is taken off the street, whether it's by a rival's bullet or by incarceration.

Two problems:

"One of them" means gun-shooting, violent dealers. I don't think the 'two pill' guy will make a difference. Besides, the part that strikes out as grossly unjust is the 20-yr sentence, not the fact he's being incarcerated.

Implementation of alternatives depends more on collective brains of the masses rather than the reformers. The reformers can speculate and fine-tune all the changes they want. Until the public clamors for change, the reformers can't force those changes. This means the public has to get tired of the 'shoot them as they pop up' approach. Only then will the political capital be present for effective change.
posted by daksya at 2:47 PM on February 8, 2005

What is that supposed mean, dickhead?

Awww... poor little urban bitch.

You're a completely worthless person, Witty. You lack compassion, human decency, and the reasoning power to suggest that you will ever come to any sort of meaningful realization about your crypto-fascism. People like you are the problem, even moreso than some kid flipping prescription pain medication.
posted by The God Complex at 2:47 PM on February 8, 2005

In many US cities it is legal to protect your life with a gun. So your argument looks odd, saying; a knife wielding attacker is safer than one with a gun.

You misunderstand. Yes, I am saying that a knife-wielding attacker is safer. I don't have stats at hand, but I'm reasonably certain that the mortality rates for stab wounds are a good deal lower than the ones for gunshot wounds. Plus it's infinitely simpler (for a panicked, jonesing addict, for example) to pop off a few rounds from a semi-automatic pistol than it is to hack someone to death.

Also, more broadly, I'm saying that a society in which it is legal for individuals to protect themselves with guns has produced a more lethally violent culture.

And Juicylicious, I didn't mean to imply that you were stupid in any way. I just wanted to point out that I live in a downtown neighbourhood in a major North American urban centre in which an enormous amount of drug dealing and use goes down, but it is nowhere near as dangerous as the one you're describing. And that this has been accomplished not through stricter drug laws or zero-tolerance policing or high rates of incarceration but through strict gun control and a harm-reduction approach to drug problems.
posted by gompa at 2:49 PM on February 8, 2005

But I would like to say again, many young men are willing to do full time sentences than probation or a lesser sentence because that would mean they had to stay clean and maintain a “healthy” life. I attribute this to laziness & lack of discipline more than addiction

Perhaps there's that control thing too... What has worked/works for you isn't necessarily the best for all.

Why he was sent there, not Huntsville instead.

Again, that was for you. That, and the fact that everyone isn't guarenteed the same offers. It all very much depends on the particular judge/prosecutor. There are no standards. But perhaps that's another problem.
posted by LouReedsSon at 2:50 PM on February 8, 2005

thomcatspike, certainly, the system has helped some. If you happened to be one of those who benefitted, that is awesome. However, I have to disagree with any claim to the effect that the system generally helps folks kick.

Most treatment programs (that is, alternatives to prison) have at best a 30% success rate. The program that I was involved with did considerably poorer. Now, I have no hard data on the success rate of prisons in helping people kick their habits, but I'm inclined to believe that it must be less than the 30% experienced by the better (qua treatment programs) treatment programs. This from the fact that treatment programs have a higher counselor/patient ratio than prisons and are specifically designed for drug treatment.
posted by Tullius at 2:51 PM on February 8, 2005

Big thread. Missed a lot.

I think he's referring to all the aggravations that come with living in a drug-infested area: dealers fighting over territory, users commiting theft, burglary and the like to support their habits
posted by jonmc at 1:29 PM MST on February 8

Yes, but that makes the illegality the cause, not the activity itself.

That said, morality asside, even the financial cost of keeping this guy in prison for 20 years is way out of wack with his 'crime'. Bleh.
posted by delmoi at 1:32 PM MST on February 8

For sure. I've been hoping for years that the drug war would just cost so much that we all had to have a priority check. Doesn't appear to be happening.

go talk to your legislator and get him to change the law.

You know, I emailed him and I got a form email back saying my opinion is important to him. But not much happened after that. Maybe I should take time out of my 50hr work week to have a picnic with him. That will get the laws changed right away I bet.

You live in a government of laws. You must follow them. If you don't like it, then leave this social contract you have with America.

Fascist. Heh.

Face it, the sentence doesn't fit the crime. All the sanctimonious bullshit doesn't make it any more reasonable.
posted by effwerd at 2:53 PM on February 8, 2005

[BREAK} We interrupt to ask Mefites a scientific question:

Question: what KIND of dependence does Oxycontin cause ?

Example: I quitted smoking cople month ago and I was a relatively heavy smoker (up to one pack day) ..I quitted both out of determination to and, imho, also thanks to nicotine patches. As far as I know nicotine is supposed to alter the levels of dopamine by acting on nicotinic acetylcholine receptors..therefore the body "get used" to a constant dopamine "High" produced by the assumption of nicotine.

I was wondering if the mechanism is the same for Oxy and if nicotine/cocaine/otherdrugs could be fought by the same mechanism of nicotine "patch" (reducing dosage over time).

That because I guess 20 year prison will not stop drug from being distributed, neither will scare stop demand...therefore one solution could be to destroy the effectivenes of the addictive property of the drug while restricting the distribution and MASS production of drug for analgesic uses.
posted by elpapacito at 2:58 PM on February 8, 2005

Witty, I'm glad you called me on that turbin comment. Please, everyone, accept my appologies. I'm just hurting right now and this thread came along and fuct with me.

Peace one and all, I'm out.
posted by LouReedsSon at 3:02 PM on February 8, 2005

You lack compassion, human decency, and the reasoning power to suggest that you will ever come to any sort of meaningful realization about your crypto-fascism.

If you say so. Not true, however. You've pulled my comments out of context and failed to link them to what they were in response to. But thanks for your opinion. I don't think much of you either, not that you care.
posted by Witty at 3:13 PM on February 8, 2005

Elapacito, you can infact reduce a dependency on oxycontin over time. I believe it called methadone, or some other derivative, but its a synthetic "medicinal" drug that basically prevents the user from getting high off of oxy.

I had a friend that was heavily addicted, used to inject along with other sorts of substances, and when he got clean the hospital put him on the maximum allowance per day which was like 800 milligrams i believe. After 26 months of being clean, he's down to 300 i think.
posted by lazaruslong at 3:27 PM on February 8, 2005

But thanks for your opinion. I don't think much of you either, not that you care.

What are you, twelve? Grow up, for chrissake.

If you'd illustrate your opinions and beliefs with specifics instead of broad generalizations, you wouldn't get the kind of reaction you've been eliciting.
posted by Specklet at 3:35 PM on February 8, 2005

If you say so. Not true, however. You've pulled my comments out of context and failed to link them to what they were in response to. But thanks for your opinion. I don't think much of you either, not that you care.

The first part of my comment was out of line. I should have waited half an hour, but I honestly can't get my head around the distinct lack of human compassion on display in this thread, not to mention your name-calling shenanigans.

My comment about crypto-fascism stands.
posted by The God Complex at 3:51 PM on February 8, 2005

Cruelty is a perfectly acceptible reason to set aside "tough punishment". Particularly in the United States, where a prohibition against cruel punishment is enshrined in our foundational law.

Yes.

You lack compassion, human decency, and the reasoning power to suggest that you will ever come to any sort of meaningful realization about your crypto-fascism.

If you say so. Not true, however.

Witty, I wouldn't go so far as to make those kind of conclusions about anyone's character from their posts on a web site. However, I think it's important that you realize that the traits TGC described are absolutely the ones connoted by both your position and your tone in this thread.

You fail to show any empathy for another human being; you don't care because it happened to him and not you, and for some reason you seem to view him as a different class of person. He crossed the imaginary line, and that made him one of them, and so even if the punishment is harsh, oh well, he should've known better.

In this respect, it's exactly the same as the way some people react to reports of prisoner abuse; sure, they may not outright condone it, but they think that if he's middle eastern, and he was in there to begin with, he must be one of them. In that case, we can be as cruel as we want to him and some people will never feel a twinge of compassion.

Regulation of drugs, prostitution, abortion, firearms, and etc. is a good thing. Putting one's fingers in one's ears and pretending that if you make it illegal it will just go away is completely absurd.

This comment got me thinking. What do you folks who think that this was in any way a fitting punishment think about gun control? How is it that some conservatives can argue that it's their inalienable right to own guns, and the government can't infringe upon their freedom to own a lethal weapon, and yet the government can lock you up for using a non-lethal recreational drug?

I could probably say more about these things, but I'm getting pretty tired of this discussion, so I'll stop there for now.
posted by ludwig_van at 3:52 PM on February 8, 2005

I don't know how firm the 20 years is; whether it can be reversed on appeal, or in some other way, but on the face of it, this is a travesty of justice. It is unfair to the defendant, and makes a mockery of other crimes, including violent crimes for which the sentence is lighter. Really disgusting.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:59 PM on February 8, 2005

out of context? tell me how out-of-context can
"What is that supposed mean, dickhead? / Awww... poor little urban bitch" be, witty?
nobody called you names. you lost your head. I mean, Jesus Christ, even ParisParamus understands that 20 years for 2 pills is savage
posted by matteo at 4:02 PM on February 8, 2005

LouReedsSon wanted to tell you with your situation. I being pro-active to my problems will always be the best thing for me. E-mail me to talk more. Not sure what I can do other than share and support you. As far as addiction goes, being complacent to my personal life’s discipline, I've done it and can don’t need to work at it, -- was my biggest addiction. I say this as one that being sober is Not being better than thou, but clears the haze out of having a healthy fun life. I’ve missed out on many one of a kind life opportunities which looking back at all my accomplishments is no big deal to some.

Perhaps there's that control thing too... What has worked/works for you isn't necessarily the best for all.
Actually it comes down to not being on the books as there is more to loose if you do screw up. Yet, they are not willing to do what the French respect, “Just try.” As their current financial life style is less than prison life so it is more comfortable there. Then add they have many friends there that they grew up to hang out with. Also odd the sheriffs knew and grew up with their families. I agree it is A really deep subject and you have to realize outside of the Dallas area life is real slow, so YMMV.

have no hard data on the success rate of prisons in helping people kick their habits,
I'm just repeating what it is NOW seen in the court system's of North Texas. What sucks for me, I've done treatment on my own with out the courts asking, yet may have to do court ordered treatment because of current laws, that I don't fully need or afford.

I've honestly shared more than I really like. I did it because I want the word shared that our freedoms are being lost by what was looked at by long ago generations as deeds deserving a punishment of a slap on the wrist. Remember, today is today where we live, not the past and forgotten as one is moving forward on in life’s end.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:03 PM on February 8, 2005

How is it that some conservatives can argue that it's their inalienable right to own guns, and the government can't infringe upon their freedom to own a lethal weapon, and yet the government can lock you up for using a non-lethal recreational drug?

What do we do with this? In all the talk about legalizing drugs, we forgot to bring up the illegal gun trade. Though guns are legal and regulated, there is still a large, violent black market for them in this country, isn't there? So would the gun trade be the model for a legal drug trade? Or is there a better model?
posted by underer at 4:06 PM on February 8, 2005

However, I have to disagree with any claim to the effect that the system generally helps folks kick.
Correct as a perfect system includes the addict that realizes and wants the problem solved and is willing to Go All the Way to Accomplish It.

Little side story -- the difference doing jail time in the 90's and now; is no one is lighting a cigarette in jail which hid the ability to do drugs while locked up.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:08 PM on February 8, 2005

How is it that some conservatives can argue that it's their inalienable right to own guns, and the government can't infringe upon their freedom to own a lethal weapon, and yet the government can lock you up for using a non-lethal recreational drug?

Last comment, unless asked. Most conservatives labeled like that are actually liberal about guns; what I have in my home is none of your business, including sex & drugs. That is called Privacy.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:10 PM on February 8, 2005

Yea, because they go somehwere else to buy it.

This entire state is virtualy violent crime free. I know for a fact drugs are delt in this town, and I'm pretty sure all of the users don't drive 8 hours for every buy.
posted by delmoi at 4:31 PM on February 8, 2005

Melt away I was kind of wondering out of pure curiosity, with all this talk of prison, severity of punishment and drugs - how many of you have been to prison, been on trial with possible a prison sentence or known or associated with someone who has gone to prison.

I was a gram or so shy of being charged with felony possession class I controlled substance. I was still charged, but not on a felony. If I hadn't smoked that extra bowl with some friends, I would probably just now be getting back into the world.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 4:32 PM on February 8, 2005

A lot of dope dealers are already upright citizens. I guess that's a major leap of faith for some people.

Please, who do you think you're talking to here. I'm willing to bet I was interacting with drug dealers when you were learning to pee. You can't tell me shit. Make your case with facts, not half-baked assumptions on what we're thinking.
posted by jonmc at 4:48 PM on February 8, 2005

In all the talk about legalizing drugs, we forgot to bring up the illegal gun trade. Though guns are legal and regulated, there is still a large, violent black market for them in this country, isn't there? So would the gun trade be the model for a legal drug trade? Or is there a better model?

I feel like the analogy doesn't hold up here. Regardless, surely going from an entirely illegal drug market to a legal one with possible illegal activity would be a step in the right direction.

Most conservatives labeled like that are actually liberal about guns; what I have in my home is none of your business, including sex & drugs. That is called Privacy.

That was my point - they want to apply freedom only where it benefits them. I think people ought to have the right to own guns, although I don't think they should own them, and I think there are a lot of things we can do to ameliorate our gun problem, but I digress. The point is, my neighbor owning a deadly weapon is a very real threat to my life. My neighbor owning a pound of weed is not.
posted by ludwig_van at 4:57 PM on February 8, 2005

I think the gun regulation model has several promising parallels to the drug regulation model. Definitely not perfect, but consider:

A) The (current gun or future drug) system allows otherwise law-abiding users to obtain what they want, as long as they have a record of not endangering others in the process.

B) The illegal trade is arguably much smaller than it would be with a complete ban, and exposes many fewer people to it's ill effects. As law-abiding citizens aren't forced to engage in the illegal trade, the violence is limited more to the major players in the trade.

Definitely could be better models for both, to be sure.
posted by BleachBypass at 4:57 PM on February 8, 2005

First comment on the blue, honoured MeFites, so be gentle! ;o)

Since they are being educated by experience and observation of the labyrinthine difficulties of street-crime and its punishment today, I wonder what the judges of the future will hand down in cases like this. For my part, and perhaps naively, I'm *slightly* encouraged by what I've seen of the process of restorative justice.

An upper-class Northern Irish judge with a rightwing upbringing, a fruity accent and a big house far away from poor people sits on the case of a father-and-son team who systematically, and over time, robbed more or less every single business on a very long street in a financially and socially-deprived area of West Belfast. At the time of the offences, the son was 7 and the father was in his late 30s.

The father would tell his son where to go, what to steal, and when. Sometimes the son would suggest extra crimes to the father. The father would wait outside, car idling, while the son (who, although only 7, was a hard and vicious little bastard) went inside and did the work.

Both are brought before the courts. The middle-class, senior police, who are acting at the request of local businesses and community leaders, explain to the judge that putting the dad in prison would be A Bad Idea. Forcing the son to undertake 2 years of work for and repairs to the businesses in question would be a good idea. He's a juvenile, so there is no sentence that can be imposed, but a bit of hard talking can be done. The father should have to attend meetings with the business owners and community leaders. Lost money should be repaid by him as required by each owner and agreed with the police representatives.

No fairytale endings. The boy's back in his poor school, learns nothing, occasionally bullies other kids, but at least benefits from a half-assed human understanding of what he did to the people in the shops, and hasn't offended since. The father, briefly inspired, goes to the community/policing partnership meetings for a couple of months before leaving for a sporadic, badly-paid job as a taxi driver. His mates keep him in beer money.

Yeah, imperfect. But. Without any sweeteners or incentives, these punishments can work positively for offenders and communities alike. They're not a cure but they're a start. No miscarriages of justice, and even crusty old judges, and police who wouldn't give offenders the time of day on the street when offduty, are considering them.

The bigger picture? The majority of the justice system produces gross miscarriages on a massive scale. We get all angry. Pilot schemes stay pilot schemes for decades. Eventually they become established *as* the system. They become corrupted. Human nature remains human nature. Cats don't stop fighting. And judges don't become worldly wise.

Jeez, that was long. Sorry. *runs away*
posted by paperpete at 5:16 PM on February 8, 2005

Can any of you "toucgh on crime" types give a cogent argument why Mr. oxycontin should do 20 years while someone who bashes a gay man to DEATH should do 6?

Sure. He did it multiple times.

I expect someone who bashes a gay man to death, is imprisoned, is released, bashes another gay man to death, is imprisoned, is released, bashes another gay man to death, is imprisoned, is released, bashes another gay man to death, is imprisoned would get a life sentence. Perahps even a death sentence in some states.

How long has Charles Manson been in prison for? Yeah, you get my point.

Anybody, who, after multiple chances, flips off the law in a consistent and extreme fashion like that, deserves the absolute maximum punishment afforded by the law. Except the death sentence. That I don't believe in.

Disagreeing with the same law and breaking it once, maybe even twice, is one thing. Doing it over and over again at all your possible opportunities? Lock the dipshit up for life.

The same goes for speeding. If you are constantly getting speeding tickets on the same road, over and over, and over again, yeah, maybe it is time you spent a night or two behind bars. Clearly fines and losing your license aren't cutting it.

I once got a warning for doing 120 km/h in an 80 zone. Guess what? I don't do that there anymore. This guy should have learned after his multiple possession convictions. He was offered the help in prison over and over. He didn't take advantage of it, ever, it seems. Instead he became a worse criminal. Fuck him.
posted by shepd at 5:17 PM on February 8, 2005

The same goes for speeding. If you are constantly getting speeding tickets on the same road, over and over, and over again, yeah, maybe it is time you spent a night or two behind bars. Clearly fines and losing your license aren't cutting it.

You sure you shouldn't be locked up for life?
posted by Dr_Johnson at 5:29 PM on February 8, 2005

Sure. He did it multiple times.

I'm afraid that isn't quite sufficient.

I expect someone who bashes a gay man to death, is imprisoned, is released, bashes another ... would get a life sentence.

I'd expect him to get it the first time, but this is entirely beside the point.

Disagreeing with the same law and breaking it once, maybe even twice, is one thing. Doing it over and over again at all your possible opportunities? Lock the dipshit up for life.

I'm sorry, what? Ok, so if I smoke a bowl every day, does that mean I'm breaking the law at every opportunity, and therefore should be locked up for life? That's a ridiculous position.

Instead he became a worse criminal. Fuck him.

Yes, selling oxycontin is "becoming a worse criminal." Fuck him, indeed.
posted by ludwig_van at 5:32 PM on February 8, 2005

I fear the justice system. That's what I get out of this. I'm all for law and order, but I don't like this hostile paternalism.
posted by effwerd at 5:32 PM on February 8, 2005

surely going from an entirely illegal drug market to a legal one with possible illegal activity would be a step in the right direction.
I agree. I'd guess a lot of the problems with the gun trade are associated with the drug trade, so it's not a perfect analogy. Now this guy from Indiana, he's going to jail for the illegal sale of a legal drug. Would drug legalization still consider this a crime?
On Preview: Now we're comparing him to Charlie Manson?
posted by underer at 5:39 PM on February 8, 2005

Specklet - What specifics are you looking for? I'm not making braod generalizations about anything. I'm discussing this case, perhaps in "general" (since I'm not aware of every fact there is), just like everyone else. I just happen to disagree with some of you.

You fail to show any empathy for another human being; you don't care because it happened to him and not you, and for some reason you seem to view him as a different class of person. He crossed the imaginary line, and that made him one of them, and so even if the punishment is harsh, oh well, he should've known better.

Why do I need to show empathy for this guy? Where is that requirement coming from? Hasn't everyone else already done so... isn't that enough? Just because I don't does not mean I don't have compassion for people. I help out people, the best I can, whenever I can. I do care, as much as someone completely removed from the situation could care. He is a different class of person that I am. So? He uses drugs, I don't. Different class. He's be arrested and convicted of multiple felonies. I haven't (zero in fact). Different class. He has sold drugs. I haven't. Different class. Now, whatever names you want to give those classes, that's up to you. But yea, I am in a different class than this guy... and will do everything in my power to make sure it stays that way (as in, not joining his class). He DID cross that imaginary line and became one of them... a criminal, of which I am not. He should have known better. It's not a big secret. Nothing "happened" to him, as you suggest, other than getting sentenced rather harshly. He brought it on himself. This wasn't an accident. He committed the crime.

I men, if the guy were sentenced to a year in jail, I wouldn't be on here saying he should have receive more time... this is crazy. But he got what he got (which I doubt he will fully serve)... and that's the risk he took.

and matteo - I don't care if you called me a name first or not. You're still a dickhead and I've thought so for a long time. Your first comment in this thread was a sarcastic stab and you know it. I don't dig that, so I let you know. Whine if you must. My second name-call was in response to the commentor calling the judge a "rural mother fucker"... whatever that means. So perhps, he's an "urban bitch"... whatever that means. It's typical of you folks to forget to read the chain of events before complaining that someone is being offended.
posted by Witty at 5:39 PM on February 8, 2005

sorry about the screwed up tags
posted by Witty at 5:41 PM on February 8, 2005

Freakin' insanity. Glad I don't live there.

Yeah me too. Oh wait... I live in Singapore. This guy would be dead already for drug dealing. If you think 20 years for this kind of offense is suitable, your ideal society awaits you here in the tropics.
posted by missbossy at 5:42 PM on February 8, 2005

Wow, this thread as really made me depressed and sick. Witty and Juicylicious are just horrible, depraved individuals
posted by delmoi at 5:46 PM on February 8, 2005

Why do I need to show empathy for this guy? Where is that requirement coming from?

Because he's a person, Witty. That's the fundamental aspect you're missing. He's a person just like you - he could be you or one of your friends. He's being punished unjustly, and those of us with working empathy and reason functions feel sorry for him and appalled by the situation.

He is a different class of person that I am. So? He uses drugs, I don't. Different class. He's be arrested and convicted of multiple felonies. I haven't (zero in fact). Different class. He has sold drugs. I haven't. Different class.

Thanks for illustrating my point. He's a different person who's done different things, surely, but he's not a different class of person, because that implies that different rules apply to him, or that he doesn't feel the same pain, or deserve the same justice as you or other people.

You're a good guy, so if someone put you in jail for 10 years for speeding, it would be wrong. But since he's a bad guy, it's ok to go overboard with the punishment, and we shouldn't feel sorry - hell, why not kill him, he's a bad guy, and the less bad guys we have, the better off we are, right? Wrong. He's still a person, and nothing he does will change that. That's why we have a provision against cruel and unusual punishment - just because someone committed a crime, that doesn't give us the right to treat them as an object and exact any kind of punishment we please on them. That's how people thought in the middle ages, and I would've thought we've gotten past that.
posted by ludwig_van at 5:49 PM on February 8, 2005

Wow, this thread as really made me depressed and sick. Witty and Juicylicious are just horrible, depraved individuals

That's your idea of depraved? You need to get out more. And avoid the internet, it's not a good place for delicate souls.
posted by jonmc at 5:51 PM on February 8, 2005

Juicylicious's comments fall far more on the side of irrational than depraved, but that seems a perfectly good descriptor for Witty's attitude, whether he wants to admit to it or not.
posted by ludwig_van at 5:54 PM on February 8, 2005

You fail to show any empathy for another human being; you don't care because it happened to him and not you,

Of course it didn't happen to me. *I* don't sell drugs illegally. When I get caught for speeding, I pay the fine. I don't argue about it and I don't ask anyone to feel sorry for me.

This guy broke the law. He got a sentence in court. If it was severe, that's his problem and he can appeal if he wants. But how long will he be out of commission? Six or seven years, then parole? I mean, okay the guy's life may be ruined, but who ruined it? HE did.

I don't have any sympathy for habitual criminals.
posted by Doohickie at 6:01 PM on February 8, 2005

ludwig_van - Is it possible for me to have, or convince you that I have, empathy for this guy as a human being without having to gush all over this thread with it? Yet, at the same time not feel terribly sorry for the guy for breaking the law multiple times and "not getting a clue"?

Thanks for illustrating my point. He's a different person who's done different things, surely, but he's not a different class of person, because that implies that different rules apply to him, or that he doesn't feel the same pain, or deserve the same justice as you or other people.

Well, that might be how you define "different class", I don't. Do I get to consider myself in a different class than people who, say, have sex with little boys and dump their mangled corpses in rivers?

This guy says he wants to go to college. If he even believes for a second that he's at all capable of pulling that off, then he must be FAIRLY intelligent. So if that's the case, then he should have been smart enough to know when enough is enough, smart enough to know that he's already been given several second chances... and that he needs to stop at get his shit in a pile.

He's not just a different person who has done different things. He's a repeat offender, a criminal... a felon. I like to cook, go hiking, hunt, and see live music shows. "A different person who does different things" might like to knit, play tournament scrabble, rock climb and meditate. Committing crimes over and over isn't "doing different things". Perhaps to you it is.

I have empathy for law-abiding citizens who have to put up with and pay for this bullshit.
posted by Witty at 6:08 PM on February 8, 2005

jonmc: yes, that is my idea of depraved.

Earlier I liked to the wikipedia definition of utilitarianism. It's an ethical framework, basicaly you try to maximize the good in the world, and minimize the bad. In my version, Liberty is also important (think of it like another axis in cartesian cordinate space).

Witty seems to think that only his own happyness matters, and that it's perfictly resonable for people to suffer unlimitedly if they are in a diffrent class of people. He said so explicitly. That's what I consider depravity. Other people call it Evil.

Juicylicious's comments fall far more on the side of irrational than depraved, but that seems a perfectly good descriptor for Witty's attitude, whether he wants to admit to it or not.

An irrational desire to see people harmed is, I think, depraved. JuciyLicious is happy when drug dealers are shot by eachother in the street. That's depraved. I suppose that the word "depraved" has some connotations that might not apply (it implies insanity, which JL probably isn't).
posted by delmoi at 6:11 PM on February 8, 2005

I don't have any sympathy for habitual criminals.

And I have no sympathy for you. And in a similar vein:

I have empathy for law-abiding citizens who have to put up with and pay for this bullshit.

I have no empathy for you.

Actualy In fact, several of you have earned my antipathy.
posted by delmoi at 6:18 PM on February 8, 2005

Actualy In fact, several of you have earned my antipathy.

There goes my nights sleep.
posted by jonmc at 6:25 PM on February 8, 2005

He DID cross that imaginary line and became one of them... a criminal, of which I am not.

As far as criminals go, this guy merits no greater adjective than 'petty.' Petty does not merit 20 years. Plain and simple. You mention your complete detachment to this guy's circumstance as justification for not caring what they do to him, but at the same time you seem to think is does justify this insistence as to why you should not care.

I don't see how this sentence solves any of the problems presented by the case. It's excessive. And the fact that you use your sense of entitlement about some other sense of social order to so actively defend your highly abstracted position on this matter is baffling.

I mean, okay the guy's life may be ruined, but who ruined it? HE did.

That's a stretch. The laws may have something to do with it. I think it is up to the legal system to maintain a semblance of legitimacy. When the law goes overboard like this, it's time to start questioning that authority. It shouldn't come to this.
posted by effwerd at 6:28 PM on February 8, 2005

As far as criminals go, this guy merits no greater adjective than 'petty.' Petty does not merit 20 years.

and several of us "depraved," people more or less agreed on that point. We just took issue with those who decided to use the thread as a soapbox for their life-would-be-great-if-all-drugs-were-legal, let's-abolish-prisons, we're-all-gonna-be-naaaked-maaan, pipedreams.
posted by jonmc at 6:33 PM on February 8, 2005

It's really nice to be able to sit back and look at the big picture, analyze the social structure that creates a violent society, put it into historical perspective, look at the role of family or lack thereof, debate how changing the system will create a utopian society. But when you fear everytime your kid wants to go outside or has to walk to the corner to catch the schoolbus then you don't give a rat's ass about liberal/libertarian theories. You just want it dealt with - immediately.

And how's that working out for ya?

Seriously.

I've lived in worse neighborhoods than you can probably imagine, in some of the poorest parts of the country. I'm not here to trade war stories, but I have been working to change the way the criminal justice system treats drugs for nearly two decades, and I've lived in the middle of it. The most prevalent drug by far was alcohol, which makes some people violent. Oh, sure, you'd see other stuff, but it comes and goes, and booze is the great equalizer. Because the law in my home state at the time prohibited package sales on Sunday, the neighbourhood bootleggers made a killing on that day. Cases of cheap beer would go for $20-30 - at the store, it would be about $7-8, but they weren't open on Sunday. I saw quite a bit of shit go down with guns and other weapons where those guys set up shop, usually from the trunk of a car in an apartment parking lot. This was because the bootlegger always had a huge roll of cash before too long, so he's a target. I saw people die, and learned how to avoid that happening to me, which was necessary being a white kid from a middle class background. I got ripped off repeatedly, however, and mugged a couple times, but you learn real quick from that, too. Anyway, when the state changed the law and allowed package sales on Sunday, it didn't solve all the state's problems, but it got rid of the bootleggers, their income and the violence surrounding them. The bad neighborhoods didn't totally clean up, but they got better, especially on Sundays.

Go figure.
posted by krinklyfig at 6:43 PM on February 8, 2005

We just took issue with those who decided to use the thread as a soapbox for their life-would-be-great-if-all-drugs-were-legal, let's-abolish-prisons, we're-all-gonna-be-naaaked-maaan, pipedreams.

I think you exaggerate. The effort to decriminalize drugs is also a matter of pragmatism to some and not some cultural legacy of the sixties as you imply. The excesses in the implementation of our drug policy have had a serious impact on society as clearly evidenced by our prison population. There is ample reason to question this as justifiable.

The same with prisons. There is enough reason to question our prison philosophy but to do so doesn't imply some desire to abolish prisons overnight (and then get naked for whatever reason).
posted by effwerd at 6:45 PM on February 8, 2005

I think you exaggerate.

Of course I exaggerate. I'm making a point. Everybody's exaggerated in this thread.

effwerd: I'd be the last person to deny that both our drug policy and our prison system are fucked up. I could trade drug-related stories with the best of 'em, you're not talking to some neo-con naif here. But I'm not going to swallow the idea that drugs are a mixed blessing at best, and that prisons are still neccessary. I could get into finer detail about what I mean, but that's for better minds than mine.

I have zero agianst questioning, in fact I encourage it. But I reserve my right (and other's right) to retort, and that dosen't make me or them "depraved." That's a cheap shot and a convenient way to avoid actual argument.
posted by jonmc at 6:54 PM on February 8, 2005

Witty seems to think that only his own happyness matters, and that it's perfictly resonable for people to suffer unlimitedly if they are in a diffrent class of people. He said so explicitly.

Nah... that's just the way you chose to interpret it. I would expect to be treated and punished no differently than our subject had I behaved similarly... had I chosen to join his class, so to speak. And let's get something straight. I'm not suggesting that people are born into different classes or that some people are better than others due to some natural class system. All I'm saying is, when it comes to comparing myself with this guy, we just aren't in the same class, period, and can't be compared beyond a handful of obvious biological likenesses. We are all defined by our actions... and hi sactions have classified himself as a thikc-headed felon, a classification I do not share (although the thick-headed aspect could certainly be argued).

Other people call it Evil.

Are you saying I'm evil? Or Evil, even? 'Cuz that's pretty cool. :)
posted by Witty at 7:00 PM on February 8, 2005

One sentence came out garbled. What I meant to say is that I believe the idea that drugs are a mixed blessing at best, and that prisons are still neccessary.

Just to avoid confusion.
posted by jonmc at 7:01 PM on February 8, 2005

That sense, jonmc, that I might have thought you naif was actually directed at Witty.
posted by effwerd at 7:07 PM on February 8, 2005

One sentence came out garbled. What I meant to say is that I believe the idea that drugs are a mixed blessing at best, and that prisons are still neccessary.
posted by jonmc at 7:01 PM PST on February 8

Concentric to a discussion on what may necessitate prison, everyone should move Das Experiment to the top of their Netflix queue.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 7:19 PM on February 8, 2005

It was bound to happen, jonmc, witty and me all lumped together as depraved, irrational, conservatives. I can't speak for witty, as I'm not familiar with his views. However, I am familiar with jonmc and depraved, irrational and conservative he is not, nor am I.

You simply don't like the fact that we aren't drinking your koolaid and we're not afraid to say so. As I've stated above, a 20 year sentence for selling two pills is pretty harsh. But the reality of the drug trade is that it begets violence. And when you have seven bullets fly into your home, two into your son's bedroom, one into the kitchen and four into the living room, a reasonable person doesn't think "now if drugs were legal and guns were banned this wouldn't happen." No, a reasonable person thinks "get these motherfuckers who narrowly missed murdering my family off the streets NOW." And anyone who says different is either disengenious or extremely naive.

The people who sell drugs make a concious decision to do so. People who carry guns and fire them without a thought of who may get hurt are depraved.
posted by Juicylicious at 7:26 PM on February 8, 2005

jonmc: I don't think you're depraved, if it's any consolation. Just witty and a couple others who don't seem to care at all about the overzealousness of the WOD.

Are you saying I'm evil? Or Evil, even? 'Cuz that's pretty cool. :)

I suppose.
posted by delmoi at 7:31 PM on February 8, 2005

jonmc: I don't think you're depraved, if it's any consolation. Just witty and a couple others who don't seem to care at all about the overzealousness of the WOD.

I can respect that, but zealous blanket statements against the WOD, ain't doing the trick. People have reasons (many of them valid on certain levels) for being disgusted and fed up with the drug trade in this country. Try and get into their heads (and I don't mean in that facile, "their bourgeois mids are afraid of altered conciousness" BS, I mean actual engagement) and address their very real concerns, like the ones Juicylicious has presented.

And witty may be blunter than most, but underneath the bluster, he's got some points if you look hard enough.
posted by jonmc at 7:37 PM on February 8, 2005

But the reality of the drug trade is that it begets violence. And when you have seven bullets fly into your home, two into your son's bedroom, one into the kitchen and four into the living room, a reasonable person doesn't think "now if drugs were legal and guns were banned this wouldn't happen." No, a reasonable person thinks "get these motherfuckers who narrowly missed murdering my family off the streets NOW." And anyone who says different is either disengenious or extremely naive.

The people who sell drugs make a concious decision to do so. People who carry guns and fire them without a thought of who may get hurt are depraved.

Now this really is bullshit. I've been around my fair share of drugs and drug dealers in my time, and never NEVER have I seen anyone start pulling out guns and shooting at eachother. This drugs = violence premise of yours is flawed. If you want to paint a more accurate picture, Black market trade is what equals violence, because its participants lack access to legal means of dispute resolution.
When was the last time you saw a shootout over booze? Well, the prohibition era, probably!

No really though, these ideas are disengenious and extremely naive. Keep the cops on the street, keep the product expensive, keep the crims packing heat, keep ignoring the basics of supply and demand, and keep screaming "won't somebody please think of the childeren!"

Real effective solution...
posted by Thoth at 7:39 PM on February 8, 2005

But the reality of the drug trade is that it begets violence.

I think the reality is drug violence is perpetuated by the drug laws. But that doesn't mean that I would have any sympathy for the perps in the drive-by scenario you describe. I would still think that if drug laws didn't allow these crooks to have this business to support them, the entire Open Market would suffer from the loss of revenue. My fear and indignity at the direct offense against me would have no bearing on my opinions of our drug policy.
posted by effwerd at 7:39 PM on February 8, 2005

And when you have seven bullets fly into your home, two into your son's bedroom, one into the kitchen and four into the living room. . .
posted by Juicylicious at 7:26 PM PST on February 8

C'mon, this is not happenning in Kosciusko County, Indiana.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 7:40 PM on February 8, 2005

Sorry to break this to you, but your kid is not more important then anyone else.

Of course they're not. What a totally useless thing to say.

delmoi stated "If you don't like where you live, move."

I replied ". . . my brother as an example. He bought a house in the neighborhood that we grew up in. He paid $45k for it eight years ago. In that time, there have been several houses on his block boarded up and all but abandoned because they were being used for drug trafficking. There is a gang controlled crackhouse across the street. People park at the abondoned house next to my brother's and cut through the yards to get to the crack house. My brother cannot sell his house because there are no buyers in that will purchase in that neighborhood. He has a four person family (wife, 2 kids). There annual family income is under $35k. An average 3-bedroom home outside of his neighborhood is $250k. A 3-bedroom apartment goes for $1200 per mo. Tell me exactly how could he can move his family out of the neighborhood?"

delmoi, you still have answered. Are you too busy looking up two syllable words to tag us with?
posted by Juicylicious at 7:43 PM on February 8, 2005

Now this really is bullshit. I've been around my fair share of drugs and drug dealers in my time, and never NEVER have I seen anyone start pulling out guns and shooting at eachother. This drugs = violence premise of yours is flawed.
posted by Thoth at 7:39 PM PST on February 8

This is not really accurate either. Jamaicain drug gangs in New York in the late 1970 and 1980s were incredibly ruthless.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 7:43 PM on February 8, 2005

I would still think that if drug laws didn't allow these crooks to have this business to support them, the entire Open Market would suffer from the loss of revenue.

And I agree. What are we going to do until that change occurs?
posted by Juicylicious at 7:45 PM on February 8, 2005

I think the reality is drug violence is perpetuated by the drug laws.

Well, that remains to be seen. Gambling is legal in a number of places and is de facto legal online. Has it decreased illegal gambling? Has it stopped bookies from breaking fingers when they don't get paid on time? Are there any more or less compulsive gamblers in the world?

I realize that drugs != gambling, but the similarities are close enough that it merits an examination.

C'mon, this is not happenning in Kosciusko County, Indiana.

What, rural white people are incapable of violence? That's only for those dark-skinned folk in inner cities? I seem to recall reading reports that rural areas were one of the few demographics where violent crime was going up. That probably has a lot to do with economics, and that the fact the latest drug crazes (oxycontin, methamphetamine) are homemade, and don't require nearby port cities for importation.
posted by jonmc at 7:46 PM on February 8, 2005

Just witty and a couple others who don't seem to care at all about the overzealousness of the WOD.

For Christ's sake delmoi... read my posts. I said, I think the sentence is harsh, perhaps excessive. I'm a bit surprised by it. But my sympathy only goes so far. We're not talking about some college student who got caught for the first time (ever) selling a few nickel bags to his fraternity brothers. If that were the case, I would agree with the lot of you in probably every way. The guy in this story has a rap sheet with multiple drug offenses, including things other than marijuana (which I agree should be treated much more leniently than other "drugs"). What does a judge have to do to get it through the moron's thick skull? Will 20 years, that will look quite menacing on his record but probably won't be fully served, help? Well, that's what he got.
posted by Witty at 7:47 PM on February 8, 2005

Is it possible for me to have, or convince you that I have, empathy for this guy as a human being without having to gush all over this thread with it?

Yes...

Yet, at the same time not feel terribly sorry for the guy for breaking the law multiple times and "not getting a clue"?

...no. You either feel sorry for this guy on account of the injustice being dealt him, or you don't. You've made it clear that you don't.

Do I get to consider myself in a different class than people who, say, have sex with little boys and dump their mangled corpses in rivers?

Strawman. We were talking about a victimless crime.

Witty, you've laid out your position very clearly several times, you're just fighting the fact that you have to acknowledge it for what it is. Maybe in the 13th century a starving peasant would've been hanged, drawn, and quartered for stealing wheat from the king's field, but things don't work that way anymore. The punishment is supposed to fit the crime.

And as much as you'd like to draw lines between yourself and this guy who just got sentenced to twenty years in jail, those lines are imaginary. They don't really exist. That's what I keep trying to point out and you don't want to acknowledge. Selling two oxycontin pills or possessing marijuana isn't wrong in any kind of absolute sense, like, say, having sex with little boys and dumping their corpses in rivers. It's not wrong because it makes other people suffer or because it prevents them from exercising their rights. It's wrong because the current laws say it's wrong, and many, many folks have lots of good arguments for why this shouldn't be the case. It's an arbitrary distinction.

What if alcohol were illegal? It was at one point, and it's not difficult to make an argument for why it's more dangerous than marijuana. I'm betting that many people on this thread could be convicted for possession or use. Would they all be bad people? Would they all deserve 20 years in jail, since they crossed the line?

What about cigarettes? What about fatty foods? Addictive and potentially harmful substances. If these things were illegal, would you stop using them? Would you agree that they should be illegal, since they kill so many people, and that anyone who becomes addicted to them deserves lengthy jail sentences and no sympathy?

You can repeat "He's a criminal and I'm not" as emphatically as you want and it won't make a difference. You're both people and you're both citizens of this country where everyone is supposed to be treated equally, receive due process, and be protected from cruel and unusual punishment. This guy is being punished wrongly, but you think it's ok because he's one of them. I find that attitude nothing short of abhorrent.

On preview:

It was bound to happen, jonmc, witty and me all lumped together as depraved, irrational, conservatives.

Give me a break with the "omg I can't believe you called ME a conservative!" stuff. I didn't realize we were all permanently affiliated with an ideology - someone can express a "conservative" viewpoint without being a conservative. When your arguments are emotional, reactionary, and utterly irrational, they get called as much. Speaking of which:

And when you have seven bullets fly into your home, two into your son's bedroom, one into the kitchen and four into the living room, a reasonable person doesn't think "now if drugs were legal and guns were banned this wouldn't happen." No, a reasonable person thinks "get these motherfuckers who narrowly missed murdering my family off the streets NOW." And anyone who says different is either disengenious or extremely naive.

Juicy, please stop and think about what you're saying. That's logically no different from "When you have people fly planes into two skyscrapers and kill everyone inside, no reasonable person thinks 'It's time for careful negotiation, investigation, and unity with our allies.' They think, 'It's time to invade these motherfuckers' countries NOW.'"

We all understand emotional responses. However, the point of civilized society is not to deal out justice based on one's first reactions. Arguing for as much is not moving you far from from the irrationality zone.

The people who sell drugs make a concious decision to do so. People who carry guns and fire them without a thought of who may get hurt are depraved.

True, and true. And the two are entirely unrelated.
posted by ludwig_van at 7:49 PM on February 8, 2005

Out of curiosity Witty if all the things you liked to do cook, go hiking, hunt, and see live music shows were declared to be felonies (you know against God's will and all), would you immediately stop doing them? Presumably you would feel that these laws are unjust, but suppose (hypothetically) a majority of you neighbours felt different. Would you always obey such unjust laws? Are you willing to give up everything you care for because politicians have declared it a felony? And if you are not willing to give up something and you are arrested and given a 20 year sentence would you feel that justtice has been done?
posted by dopeypanda at 7:52 PM on February 8, 2005

C'mon, this is not happenning in Kosciusko County, Indiana.

What, rural white people are incapable of violence? That's only for those dark-skinned folk in inner cities?
posted by jonmc at 7:46 PM PST on February 8

jonmc, get off it man. There was nothing rascist in my post, and it is a valid argument. Juicy throws out some drive by nonsense to explain a rural kid getting 20 years, and I'm pointing out there are no drive bys in Kosciusko County, Indiana. Succinctly, there is not a need to "save the children" from crazy random violence because it simply is not happening there.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 7:53 PM on February 8, 2005

Are there any more or less compulsive gamblers in the world?
posted by jonmc at 7:46 PM PST on February 8

No, but when megacorp Harrah's owns the casinos, no one is breaking your fingers.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 7:56 PM on February 8, 2005

Gambling is legal in a number of places and is de facto legal online. Has it decreased illegal gambling? Has it stopped bookies from breaking fingers when they don't get paid on time? Are there any more or less compulsive gamblers in the world?
Well, where I live... Yes, Yes, and no.
Problem gambling does have a large social cost, but at least with its regulation, a hell of a lot more money goes into treatment and operators are much more accountable with respect to their liscenses. Operators are required to accept voluntary self-bans from problem gamblers, who by law must deny those people access to the establishment. Not to mention that a cut of gambling revenue instead of going to underworld operators actually goes to building schools, hospitals etc..

Prostitution is another one. With liscenced and legalised brothels here, there is a hell of a lot less problem with violence against women, pimping and disease. Plus the wider community doesn't have to be bothered with the sight of streetwalkers harming their fragile sensibilities. win win.
posted by Thoth at 7:56 PM on February 8, 2005

That's logically no different from "When you have people fly planes into two skyscrapers and kill everyone inside, no reasonable person thinks 'It's time for careful negotiation, investigation, and unity with our allies.' They think, 'It's time to invade these motherfuckers' countries NOW.'"

ludwig_van: one of those responses to 9/11 is somewhat well reasoned, the other is based in emotion and is dangerous. But they are both based on the assumtion that the victimization of the innocent by violent thugs needs to be dealt with. The analogy breaks down there because many illegal drugs do cause devastation to individuals, families, and communities and those concerns are real and valid.

True, and true. And the two are entirely unrelated.

That's a stretch. The type of person who goes into a business where you risk imprisonment and violent retribution from business rivals, NTM profiting from misery, is someone prepared to be ruthless, up to and including firing into a child's window. So "entirely unrelated," I don't think so. The pile of blow snarfed up by a bunch of yuppies after a night of clubbing may seem harmless to them, but there's a whole lotta devastation involved in getting it to their table.

Juicy throws out some drive by nonsense to explain a rural kid getting 20 years, and I'm pointing out there are no drive bys in Kosciusko County, Indiana.

I'm sure the number of violent crimes is lower because the population is lower, but that dosen't prove a thing about the impact of drugs and crime on rural communities.
posted by jonmc at 7:59 PM on February 8, 2005

In regards to legalized drugs and/or prostitution and the level of violence, don't make me play the Netherlands card!
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 7:59 PM on February 8, 2005

Juicy throws out some drive by nonsense to explain a rural kid getting 20 years

Ummm, I never said that. Please don't misquote me or mischaracterize my statements. I have given the opinion of someone who is directly affected by drug trafficking violence. I have not put forth my personal experiences as support for the one conviction that you speak of. And the "drive by nonsense" that you refer to is very real and very lethal.
posted by Juicylicious at 8:00 PM on February 8, 2005

I have not put forth my personal experiences as support for the one conviction that you speak of.
posted by Juicylicious at 8:00 PM PST on February 8

Then that is my mistake.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 8:02 PM on February 8, 2005

You said it earlier jonmc.

Because all the dope-dealers would magically become upright citizens? More likely they'd just move on to the next profitable activity.
posted by jonmc at 2:19 PM MST on February 8

This is the justification for legalizing drugs right there. Drugs are not the cause of crime, or an incitement to violence. The criminal types will do as they will regardless.

The thing is to not give them such a lucrative and in-demand market, especially when the prosecutorial arm of it sweeps up so many harmless users, brands them as criminals and, after extreme sentencing, spits them back into the world where the system offers only platitudes about making good.

The law would still have plenty of mandate against violent criminals and their businesses dealings whatever they may be. And drug users and addicts could have reasonable prospects for either indulging or ceasing their habit. They should not have to face either prospect of criminal conviction or Black Market dealings for what can more easily be characterized as a medical condition than a criminal predilection.
posted by effwerd at 8:09 PM on February 8, 2005

ludwig_van - If you don't want me to "re-state" my position, then stop trying to explain to me how wrong you think I am. If you think everyone is equal under all circumstances, that's fantastic. I don't.

You can repeat "He's a criminal and I'm not" as emphatically as you want and it won't make a difference.

Won't make a difference to who? You? So what. If this guy and I were up for trial on the EXACT same charge at the EXACT same time, in EXACTLY every way possible, then I would expect us to be treated EXACTLY the same. But if it were my first time EVER and his 12th time, then why is it so ridiculous to think he will be sentenced more harshly or differently or as some other class of criminal? I would expect a more lenient sentence.

20 years is excessive for selling two pills. But that's not what the guy was sentenced for. Why can't you see that? Why can't you understand that I give that more weight in my opinion of this whole thing than you do?

And relax on the whole abhorrent thing... it's a bit dramatic.

dopeypanda - I would have a hard time giving up all of those things, indeed. And I might try to find a way to enjoy some of those things even though they were against the law. But it would depend highly on the risk of being caught and the consequences thereof... extremely dependent. If I got caught, I would expect ot be punished. And I would expect to punished more harshly each time. While I understand your point, comparing the harmless things I like to do for enjoyment to addictive and often quite harmful drugs isn't completely fair.
posted by Witty at 8:10 PM on February 8, 2005

ludwig_van: one of those responses to 9/11 is somewhat well reasoned, the other is based in emotion and is dangerous. But they are both based on the assumtion that the victimization of the innocent by violent thugs needs to be dealt with. The analogy breaks down there because many illegal drugs do cause devastation to individuals, families, and communities and those concerns are real and valid.

I didn't say that victimization of the innocent by violent thugs shouldn't be dealt with. I said that locking up people who have committed non-violent, victimless crimes is not the way to deal with violent thugs, just like invading an unrelated brown-skinned nation was not the way to deal with 9/11.

That's a stretch. The type of person who goes into a business where you risk imprisonment and violent retribution from business rivals, NTM profiting from misery, is someone prepared to be ruthless, up to and including firing into a child's window. So "entirely unrelated," I don't think so. The pile of blow snarfed up by a bunch of yuppies after a night of clubbing may seem harmless to them, but there's a whole lotta devastation involved in getting it to their table.

Ok, I'll change "entirely unrelated" to "entirely unrelated causally."

What's this "type of person" stuff? Profiting from misery? That's the unfounded BS I've been trying to address for half of this thread. You all need to get your arguments straight and stop making flawed points that have already been addressed. If drugs were legal, there wouldn't be a whole lot of devastation and no one would be risking imprisonment.

Plenty of very intelligent, peaceful, conscientious college kids sell drugs because they like to do drugs and so do their friends. That doesn't make them the "type of people" who would do anything like you're implying.

Drug use doesn't make anyone a certain kind of person. It certainly doesn't mean that they're going to shoot your kids. The fact that some criminals use drugs and shoot kids does not imply any kind of causation between the two, and this is the crucial fact that folks seem to keep missing.
posted by ludwig_van at 8:10 PM on February 8, 2005

it amazes me how desperate some people are to lick the boots of fascism ... this thread depresses me ... as far as i'm concerned, i'm not speaking to some of you ... what would be the point?
posted by pyramid termite at 8:15 PM on February 8, 2005

While I understand your point, comparing the harmless things I like to do for enjoyment to addictive and often quite harmful drugs isn't completely fair.

Like cigarettes, alcohol, and fatty foods? Harmless things people do for enjoyment, or addictive and harmful?

Witty, I get it that he did it more than once. The point is, what he did more than once wasn't wrong. He didn't drive by people's houses and shoot anyone. He didn't rape, steal, or kill. Now, not only is he being punished for it, but he's being punished beyond any reasonable expectation for justice.

If you honestly think that we should all accept whatever unjust and arbitrary laws any government sees fit to impose on us, you have no spine and are undeserving of the freedom this country affords you.
posted by ludwig_van at 8:17 PM on February 8, 2005

I'm not concerned about the legality of things: I live by my own moral compass, and if it happens to coincide with what is lawful, that's okay. If it doesn't, that's okay, too.

HOWEVER, I'm also not stupid. Starvation and prison are both mighty big sticks. I don't want to encounter either of them. I will grudgingly violate my own moral principles if it keeps me away from starvation or prison. HOWEVER, that is only up to a point. There are some moral principles that I won't discard, regardless of the penalty/price.

Now, understand that I'm a Scrooge type of guy, in some respects. I agree that that the death of some people isn't unfortunate at all, but merely reducing the surface population, to paraphrase Ebeneezer. If you are stupid enough that you would risk starvation or prison for the reason that Travis Johnson did, then you are already part of that deceased population, in my mind. What he did doesn't deserve prison time at all, and fuck the government (duly elected/appointed or otherwise) for dictating what substances we can imbibe. But his stupidity earns him what he got. I can't feel sorry for someone who takes unreasonable risks and then cries.
posted by Chasuk at 8:18 PM on February 8, 2005

If you honestly think that we should all accept whatever unjust and arbitrary laws any government sees fit to impose on us, you have no spine and are undeserving of the freedom this country affords you.
posted by ludwig_van at 8:17 PM PST on February 8

No need for personal attacks!
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 8:18 PM on February 8, 2005

There isn't a criminal and violent world that swirls around fatty foods.

If you honestly think that we should all accept whatever unjust and arbitrary laws any government sees fit to impose on us, you have no spine and are undeserving of the freedom this country affords you.

Ugh... forget it. You've slipped into drama-mode. Thanks for discussing this with me.
posted by Witty at 8:22 PM on February 8, 2005

There isn't a criminal and violent world that swirls around fatty foods.

Because they're NOT ILLEGAL!
posted by ludwig_van at 8:24 PM on February 8, 2005

Right, I got it. Are we discussing the legalization of drugs or whether or not knucklehead deserves 20 years or not? Pick one.

You want drugs legalized? Great. I'm all for it. But right now they are not. So someone who knows that fact, and this guy did, yet continually pushes it, gets what he gets. You think it's harsh, so do I. You think it's unjust. I think it's unfortunate.

The end. {ding}
posted by Witty at 8:27 PM on February 8, 2005

Because they're NOT ILLEGAL!

Well not yet at least. But of course that can change at any moment. Note also that things like hunting, live music, and even certain kinds of cooking have or are illegal (usually for religious reasons). Some of you guys should read the The Handmaid's Tale : A Novel.
posted by dopeypanda at 8:31 PM on February 8, 2005

Oh come on ludwig, no one is disaggreeing with your point that at least some drugs should be made legal. Okay? Witty is just making the common sense point that if you choose to repeatedly engage in illegal activities, you should expect that you may get caught and face conviction. I don't think that he's said that 20 years is a good sentence. He's just saying that if you do the crime you gotta be ready to do the time. It's you and others who keep saying that if this then that. If drugs were legal, there would be no drug crimes. If guns were illegal, there would be no shootings. He's not disaggreeing with you on those points. Are you witty?
posted by Juicylicious at 8:33 PM on February 8, 2005

He's just saying that if you do the crime you gotta be ready to do the time.

And part of that American social contract mentioned earlier is that we all should be able to count on fair sentencing. Being ready to face the consequences of choosing to use controlled substances rather than non-prescription substances should not include a rather devastating sentence.

You can't say on one hand he doesn't deserve 20 years and then on the other hand retract the sentiment and say he did deserve it because he should have expected the consequences.
posted by effwerd at 8:42 PM on February 8, 2005

Plenty of very intelligent, peaceful, conscientious college kids sell drugs because they like to do drugs and so do their friends.

And who supplies them?
posted by jonmc at 8:45 PM on February 8, 2005

Oxycontin is an extrememly powerful, Schedule II, opiate, equivalent to heroin / morphine in its potency. There has been a rash of addicts buying this stuff off the street or robbing drug stores for it because if you cook it up and shoot it, its basically the same thing as heroin. While 20 years seems really high, this is not the first time some poor fool has been sent away for too long because he sold drugs to the wrong person.

Personally, I am still in favor of drug legalization, but until then, dont sell drugs unless you are willing to face the incredibly harsh penalties that you might face.
posted by sophist at 8:50 PM on February 8, 2005

The resourceful ones grow or make their own at home actually.
posted by dopeypanda at 8:52 PM on February 8, 2005

And who supplies them?

LouReedsSon's son was sentanced to jail by this judge for selling shrooms, which can be grown in a plastic tub with spores easily sourced on the internet, and some vermiculite and brown rice flower. And a little TLC of course.

Weed and even Opium can be grown in a closet. Weed seeds arn't hard to get a hold of, and papaver somniferum seeds are legal, and can be got off Ebay.
posted by delmoi at 8:55 PM on February 8, 2005

FFS Witty, you come out swinging, crying about urban bitches and this being justice, then end up saying it's harsh and unfortunate. A key concept to justice is fairness. If you're supporting injust sentencing, that's something else. But please, make up your mind. It's easier to laugh at you from the sidelines when you're consistent.

Disproportionate punishment is both unfair and a waste of resources, and ends up being a greater drain on society than any benefits gained from locking up bottom-feeders like this.
posted by cosmonik at 8:56 PM on February 8, 2005

[bla bla money] ... Tell me exactly how could he can move his family out of the neighborhood?"

It's easy. You pack your stuff in your car and you
drive out of the neighborhood. Now his family is out of it.

[optional] He could then get an apartment and default on his mortgage.
Sometimes investments go bad, and this was one of those cases. Either your brother is more worried about his credit rating then the safety of his family, or you're exaggerating the risk.

In wars people have literally walkedhundreds of miles to other countries. You're question isn't "How can he move" it's "how can he move without damaging his credit". My answer is, I don't care.

delmoi, you still have answered. Are you too busy looking up two syllable words to tag us with?

Evil is one syllable, pathetic is three.
posted by delmoi at 9:11 PM on February 8, 2005

And who supplies them?

LouReedsSon's son was sentanced to jail by this judge for selling shrooms
posted by delmoi at 8:55 PM PST on February 8

/me jaw drops

And who supplies them?
posted by jonmc at 8:45 PM PST on February 8

You know the answer to this, jonmc. Either it's Mexican schwag (see: 'Blow') or some dank Connecticut hydro that was grown in a rented house by youngish white collar types.

Either way, it's more likely to be pine farmers in Alabama supplying your weed than a rich cartel in the Yucatan.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 9:13 PM on February 8, 2005

His credit? Are you kidding me? That is the most bourgeois comment that I've read in this thread. Credit! LOL.
posted by Juicylicious at 9:20 PM on February 8, 2005

His credit? Are you kidding me? That is the most bourgeois comment that I've read in this thread. Credit! LOL.

LOL indeed. If you want to debate people, you should probably try learning to think.
posted by delmoi at 9:35 PM on February 8, 2005

when you have seven bullets fly into your home, two into your son's bedroom, one into the kitchen and four into the living room, a reasonable person doesn't think "now if drugs were legal and guns were banned this wouldn't happen." No, a reasonable person thinks "get these motherfuckers who narrowly missed murdering my family off the streets NOW."

Juicylicious: I agree that this is an understandable response to this terrifying event. It's not the state's responsibility, however, to act on your behalf in accordance with your sense of what an appropriate response is in the heat of such an awful moment, and furthermore it's not your right to act as an individual in accordance with what you deem to be an appropriate response. In fact, it's the state's duty to prevent you from acting in such a way - this is why vigilante justice is illegal. The whole idea of a social contract is that you surrender to the state the power to act on your immediate needs/desires, in exchange for a just and civil society.

In the current example, the state has failed miserably in this regard, over-punishing some kid in Indiana for the shitstorm your brother faces in his neighbourhood (not to mention fundamentally misunderstanding the causes of that shitstorm, as numerous posts in this thread have pointed out).

If my house is robbed tonight, I'm highly likely to wake up tomorrow thinking that robbery is the No. 1 social problem in my neighbourhood, and I'm also likely to think that robbers should be punished more harshly than the current law allows. It's the state's responsibility to curtail these impulses, and to bring to justice and punish perpetrators of this crime in accordance with what we, as a society, have deemed to be a reasonable use of power.

Twenty years for petty dealing seems excessive in this light, and - more importantly - this kind of overzealous punishment has been proven to be ineffective in doing a damn thing to improve the daily life of people in neighbourhoods like your brother's. You're completely reasonable in your indignation on his behalf, but this just isn't the way to make his situation any better.
posted by gompa at 9:35 PM on February 8, 2005

cosmonik - This is my 18th comment in this thread. It was in my 4th comment that I divulged my surprise at this harsh sentence. 20 years is harsh no matter what the crime, fitting or not... it's 20 years. My position hasn't changed. You can laugh at my comments, while I laugh at your userpage. Huzzah!
posted by Witty at 9:47 PM on February 8, 2005

juicy: I'm a conservative? I've never been called that before. I'm giddy with excitement. Will my liberal membership card be revoked?
Jonmc: Your handgun and copy of National Review are in the mail.

Well, perhaps not a copy of the National Review.
posted by crack at 10:16 PM on February 8, 2005

You want drugs legalized? Great. I'm all for it. But right now they are not. So someone who knows that fact, and this guy did, yet continually pushes it, gets what he gets. You think it's harsh, so do I. You think it's unjust. I think it's unfortunate.

And that's exactly why I called you a crypto-fascist. You seem to love that unthinking acceptance of arbitrary laws that, even if accepted as just laws, are being applied far too harshly. Your own reasoning is simply "I trust the judge", which, given the history of law-enforcement in America, is a dodgy proposition at best.
posted by The God Complex at 10:23 PM on February 8, 2005

If you're defending this sentence, and you have no information other than what's in the article, I implore you to ask yourself why.

From the information available, this seems like a waste of the defendant's life, a waste of taxpayer money and further proof that the "War On Drugs" is just an expensive war on people.
posted by mosch at 10:41 PM on February 8, 2005

Either it's Mexican schwag

The worst!

Juicylicious: I agree that this is an understandable response ... (calm, rational comment)...but this just isn't the way to make his situation any better.
posted by gompa at 9:35 PM PST on February 8

Yes, well played.
posted by ludwig_van at 10:52 PM on February 8, 2005

Rape two 9 year old girls: 16 years
Sell some relatively harmless prescription pills: 20 years
Ruining someones life with an unfair sentence: priceless
posted by jamesmd at 11:28 PM on February 8, 2005

He's not just a different person who has done different things. He's a repeat offender, a criminal... a felon.

Offended who, exactly? Hmm?

they caught the last poor man on a poor man's vacation
they cuffed him and they confiscated his stuff
and they dragged his black ass down to the station
and said "ok the streets are safe now.
all your pretty white children can come out to see spot run
and they came out of their houses and they looked around
but they didn't see no one.

and my country tis of thee
to take swings at each other on talk show tv
why don't you just go ahead and turn off the sun
'cause we'll never live long enough to
undo everything they've done to you
undo everything they've done to you

and above 96th street,
they're handing out smallpox blankets
so people don't freeze
the old dogs they got a new trick
it's called criminalize the symptoms
while you spread the disease
i hold on hard to something
between my teeth when i'm sleeping
and i wake up and my jaw aches
and the earth is full of earthquakes

and my country tis of thee
to take shots at each other on prime time tv
why don't you just go ahead and turn off the sun
'cause we'll never live long enough to
undo everything they've done to you
undo everything they've done to you

they caught the last poor man
flying away in a shiny red cape
and they brought him down to the station
and they said "boy you should know better
than to try and escape"
and i ran away with the circus
'cause there's still some honest work left for bearded ladies
but it's not the same goin' town to town
since they put everyone in jail 'cept
the cleavers and the bradys

and my country tis of thee
to take swings at each other on talk show tv
why don't you just go ahead and turn off the sun
'cause we'll never live long enough to
undo everything they've done to you
undo everything they've done to you

ani
posted by LouReedsSon at 11:33 PM on February 8, 2005

umm... misses alot of this thread and intend to investigate further. Just some hard info that I'm aware of regarding the street sale of OC. You can buy different pills. They start at 10mg pills that are dirt cheap 7 to 10 bucks. Then 20mg pills that are pretty popular. then 40s and then for about 50 bucks a pop, you can buy 80mg pills. You've got to wipe the coating off of them. Then chew em up or, if you want, bust them up and snort em. These are serious drugs along the line of heroin. I don't have any documentation, but 2 80s could probably kill the right individual. Right now, I'm not choosing sides. I don't know enough about anyone's position yet. But don't underestimate this shit. We're not talking Vicodins here. OCs should be handled with care. Of course, I've learned all this anectdotally from near strangers with no personal experience.
posted by firemouth at 12:03 AM on February 9, 2005

I'm not being coy either. I really learned this from people that I don't know very well at all.
posted by firemouth at 12:05 AM on February 9, 2005

Firemouth: there are three similar Alkeloids found in Opium. Morphine, Thebain, and Codine. Morphine and Codine will get you high on their own. They both work the same way, by bonding to endorphen sites in the brain (endorphen is short for endo-morphine, and refers to chemicals that your brain produces that have the same effect as morphine)

Thebain, Codine, and Morphine can be manipulated chemical and converted back and forth. Oxycontin is made from Thebain. Heroin is just a special kind of morphine that soaks through the blood-brain barrier more quickly then regular morphine, and is converted into morphine in the brain.

Vicodin is Codine mixed with tylenol. If you take too much, the tylenol will make you throw up. (thus, tylenol is the most proscribed pain medication in emergency rooms...)

anyway, obviously if you take too much, you'll die. but it's really not very diffrent from vicoden.
posted by delmoi at 12:48 AM on February 9, 2005

Oh, and btw.

If you disolve codine mixed with tylenol in hot water, then cool the water down, the tylenol will persipitate out of the water, but the codine will stay. remove the powdered tylenol, then boil the water. You'll have pure codine.

sorry for all the spelling errors, I havn't a spellchecker on this machine, and mefi's is broken.
posted by delmoi at 12:51 AM on February 9, 2005

delmoi- That's tylenol3, right? I survived on that shit when I lived in England, but I don't think it's available in the States. Does that mean you've got a connection? Or are you in Canada? Also, effwerd solves the thread.
posted by underer at 2:39 AM on February 9, 2005

delmoi: Morphine and Codine will get you high on their own. They both work the same way, by bonding to endorphen sites in the brain (endorphen is short for endo-morphine, and refers to chemicals that your brain produces that have the same effect as morphine)

Just call them opiod receptors, given that your brain makes morphine and possibly codeine.
posted by Gyan at 3:00 AM on February 9, 2005

Witty said: There isn't a criminal and violent world that swirls around fatty foods.

You've got to be shitting me.

Criminal? OK, not overtly. It's really a matter of semantics. Violent? You betcha. It's violence done factory style, day in, day out, a never ending gore-slicked river of it straight from the feedlots right down our greedy gullets.

Oh, and there's the side effects, like death.

"According to former US Surgeon General David Satcher, obesity counts for 300,000 premature deaths per year."

Not to mention the missappropriation of resources due to factory farming cattle, the toxic waste produced by it, the global malnourishment, the politics, the food poisoning, the ruination of the land, the destruction of rainforest and other biodiversity.

Deaths due to illicit drug use, direct or indirect: 17,000. (!)

Deaths due to marijuana: 0

The thing that most Drug War supporters don't realize is that there's no difference at all between food, drink, and drugs. It's just this wide spectrum of stuff, from plain but essential water to basic nutrients to spices, spirits, herbs and on out to synthetics. This is not a quantitative spectrum of good vs. evil, more vs. less harmful, but merely a qualitative spectrum of classification. Too much water will kill you. Some "synthetics" are naturally occurring brain chemicals and yet simultaneously Schedule I contraband chemicals, like DMT. Some naturally occurring amino acids essential to proper nutrition can be used as drugs.

Some of it nourishes or enhances our bodies, some of it nourishes our mind or spirit through the mitigation of all sorts of pain, many (if not all) are toxic in sufficient quantity; All of it can be abused, all should be used wisely and moderately.

There is also the concept of "The Missing Piece".

In each of us humans there seems to be a void, a sort of yawning hunger that is at once bodily and real, and metaphysical, ethereal and spiritual in nature. It seems to be what drives each of us forward in our own way.

I've yet to meet anyone without this void. This is indeed a matter of personal opinion and speculation.

Buddhism seems to be particularly self-conscious of this void.

This void is larger and hungrier in some than it is in others. Each of us attempts to feed it and fill it in their own way and (sometimes) actually search for that missing piece, or ask why there is a missing piece.

Humanity - especially the United States, with it's ravening, consuming hunger and gluttony - will do well to learn more about this missing piece, and how to safely feed it without being consumed in the process.

And lastly, there are millions of peaceful, peaceable and moral drug users that have been bushwhacked and shanghai'ed as though they were violent criminals or exploiters of other humans for attempting - in their own ways - to fill said void. To withdraw from pain. To pursue happiness.

The fact that the vast majority of this drug war is dedicated to eliminating a plant that is, as they say, a weed, and that it grows like one - with the argument (lately) that it is for our own good to protect us from organized crime and stepping-stone or gateway drug effects is completely ludicrous in face of the harm being done to our society. It's like giving cancer to a baby because it has colic. Killing the patient isn't a cure.

And what these moral, ethical drug users (not excluding other, abstaining protesters) have been trying to tell us is that the non-rehabilitative, punitive prison system is not only in itself a violence and a horror unfit for humanities presence, but also creating violent people unfit to live free amongst us.

Wikipedia's entry on the Drug War is recommended reading for anyone on any side of the fence or sitting on it.
posted by loquacious at 4:54 AM on February 9, 2005

While I find this case to be appaling (no one deserves such a sentence...I hope a different lawyer will take up his case for appeal) I do find the sharing/selling of Oxycontin to be equally distasteful.

I am on Oxycontin daily, and the doses I take are enough to kill someone who is not opioid tolerant...it doesn't take much (80mg is enough...the pills come in 10, 20, 40 and 80mg strengths) and anyone should be wary of taking these without a prescription.
posted by gren at 5:09 AM on February 9, 2005

So someone who knows that fact, and this guy did, yet continually pushes it, gets what he gets. You think it's harsh, so do I. You think it's unjust. I think it's unfortunate.

I'm really late to the party, so I thought I'd just ask an honest question, Witty.

You agree that it's a harsh sentence, right? So where exactly is the disagreement? The legalization arguments, historical arguments, hell even the "well what about alcohol..." arguments are all red herrings. The point is, judges are (to a certain extent) granted the power to use their fucking heads when sentencing comes up and decide, "Hey, is this the sort of menace to society that deserves more years than most murder convictions?" I mean, look at the comments of the police here:

“As for it not being a violent crime, drug dealing is a violent crime.”

Well sure, genius, it can be a violent crime. But was it in this circumstance? Answer? No. In fact, does this guy have any indication whatsoever of violent behavior? No. He's a drug user. Thought he would make some extra money on the side--maybe to support a habit, who knows? So fine, he has to serve because he broke the law. But twenty years? How can you not be outraged?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:29 AM on February 9, 2005

delmoi- That's tylenol3, right? I survived on that shit when I lived in England, but I don't think it's available in the States. Does that mean you've got a connection?

Heh, well, I was proscribed Hydrocodine for back pain once. I thought I got Oxy once, when my wisdom teeth were removed, but that would have been in 98 or 99, a year or two before wikipedia said it was available, so now I'm not sure.
posted by delmoi at 7:45 AM on February 9, 2005

I mean, okay the guy's life may be ruined, but who ruined it? HE did.

That's a stretch. The laws may have something to do with it. I think it is up to the legal system to maintain a semblance of legitimacy. When the law goes overboard like this, it's time to start questioning that authority. It shouldn't come to this.

The fact that HE BROKE the law, repeatedly, might have something to do with it. I just can't bring myself to feel sorry for the guy.
posted by Doohickie at 9:01 AM on February 9, 2005

His priors have no bearing on the case except to establish the guy was a user. Previous busts on possession do not establish a tendency to deal. The case at hand is for selling two pills once, which also gives little credence to the characterization of this guy as a dealer. There isn't anything in this case that I can see that merits this sentence.

It undermines the law, it doesn't strengthen it. You may think his priors establish some intransigent criminal attitude but even then the level of criminality seems woefully undeserving of 20 years in prison. If the judge were actually interested in serving justice he might have considered time served and 18 months probation to give the kid an opportunity to make good on his own rather than making it the burden of the state.

The time must fit the crime. Sympathy for this guy in particular is not some prerequisite for being indignant over how this case was handled and what implications it might have on our justice system.

If all you can say is the sentence may be harsh but the guy was asking for it, it just sounds like specious fealty. I'm more of a mind to be ever-vigilant of state abuses and I think this clearly qualifies.
posted by effwerd at 9:52 AM on February 9, 2005

Fucking pussy liberal faggots. This guy wants to sell poison to our children and rape our wives and cut our throats in our homes. Anything less than a bullet between the eyes is too good for scum like him.

...ahem.

If the sale of drugs is so fucking unconscionable, we should execute everybody who works a in liquor store, march north to Canada to lynch all the gray-market stoners, then cross the Atlantic to lay a swath of destruction through the drug dens of Europe. Get to work on that, guys.
posted by Luther Blissett at 10:13 AM on February 9, 2005

Yesterday this bothered me on a personal level... then I got drunk and it took on yet another light. Today I'm just, well, I can't define it, but I wonder something. There are many here among us who feel this is outrageous, so I was thinking, how about we who do write this judge on this guys behalf. I'm pretty sure our efforts can and probably will go the way of the trash can, but maybe a bug in the ear is what some people need? email me.

Peace.
posted by LouReedsSon at 10:19 AM on February 9, 2005

LRS - What ear do we whisper in? The judge has ruled and passed sentencing. Surely the case will go to appeal; does it always go back to the same judge?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:55 AM on February 9, 2005

You could write to the Kosciusko County Circuit and Superior Court
Address: 121 N Lake St, Warsaw, IN 46580. Also, many people write letters to the editor of the newspaper I linked. You can email the editor at news@timeswrsw.com with your letter. Looks like someone else has already complained, but I'm sure you could draft something a little more articulate.
posted by billysumday at 11:13 AM on February 9, 2005

(scroll down to "War On Drugs" in link)
posted by billysumday at 11:16 AM on February 9, 2005

C_D, I understand that everything can be appealed, for as long as legal fees can be paid or some legal aid attorney gives a damn, or maybe some pro bono thing, I dunno, but I see us all here actually annoyed by this and thought that instead of simply commenting here (which I like, don't get me wrong), we could let a lot more people, including this judge to know how we feel.

I'm not under the impression we could force this mans release, but we have right to voice our outrage directly at the public servant we feel is abusing his power. Why can't MetaFilter be a seed for positive or at least democratic action? Things must begin somewhere, no?

Anyway, I'm writing and invite anyone to join me. Thanks billysumday for the link and for the additional info.
posted by LouReedsSon at 12:10 PM on February 9, 2005

I'm willing to bet I was interacting with drug dealers when you were learning to pee.

So that makes you "cool"? Right. And now your best friends are prison guards?

You simply don't like the fact that we aren't drinking your koolaid and we're not afraid to say so.

I think you miss the point. We're not asking you to drink any Kool-Aid (tm). We're asking you to let us make and drink our own Kool-Aid (tm). Do you not see the difference?
posted by mrgrimm at 1:25 PM on February 9, 2005

Out of curiosity Witty if all the things you liked to do cook, go hiking, hunt, and see live music shows were declared to be felonies (you know against God's will and all), would you immediately stop doing them?

Actually, Witty's response to this was far too gentle. The fact of the matter is that dealing in illicit drugs has not suddenly and unfairly been declared to be a felony. It's been illegal for a long, long time. This idiot never enjoyed a legal right to sell pills on a street corner; your strawman argument just doesn't hold water.

Maybe his sentence is too severe. If so, let him appeal or get out after a few years on parole. But I just don't feel sorry for someone who's been put into jail for breaking the law, and doing so numerous times.
posted by Doohickie at 6:49 PM on February 9, 2005

As a follow up to this thread on Oxycontin in Indiana, I must say I may have been wrong.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 9:01 PM on February 9, 2005

The fact of the matter is that dealing in illicit drugs has not suddenly and unfairly been declared to be a felony.

Well, you're halfway right.

But I see, we should only express outrage about new laws which arbitrarily take away our freedoms. Makes perfect sense. Complaining about the old ones is so passe.

P.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_%28drugs%29
posted by ludwig_van at 12:57 PM on February 10, 2005

This is a depressing thread. Orthogonality has made some good posts, though.

We're not talking about some college student who got caught for the first time (ever) selling a few nickel bags to his fraternity brothers. If that were the case, I would agree with the lot of you in probably every way.

why would it make a difference if he were a 'college student selling to his fraternity brothers'? It was the first time he was caught selling anything, and as potentially dangerous as oxycontin might be, it is also a fairly common medication that probably a good portion of people you know have taken at one time or another (I have). Yeah, I realize it's not the same to buy a drug in hopes of getting high vs. getting a script to alleviate pain, but some people who get high are probably just trying to self medicate, and we really don't know the details. In any event, it was two pills.

As others have said, a) the criminal world surrounding drugs is the result of the laws, not the substances themselves (see alcohol prohibition); b) while some people may be purely good or bad, most people are heavily influenced by their environment and the habits they learn growing up, so the best way to alleviate crimes is to implement supportive programs for underprivileged kids, not to give harsh sentences to those who fuck up; c) seriously, why didn't rush limbaugh get more condonement from those who see this as even potentially reasonable?
posted by mdn at 2:11 PM on February 10, 2005

« Older Why did your last diet fail?... | 'Falling in love with the trut... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

Two Little Pills February 8, 2005 10:54 AM Subscribe

Two Little Pills
February 8, 2005 10:54 AM Subscribe