"Ken Thomas" wrote in message
...
I don't think he's being charged for abusing the drugs. I think he's
getting in trouble for how he obtained them. Hey, I agree with a lot
of the things you're saying. Drug use probably can't be changed with
jail time. I hope the guy gets better. It'll be a tough habit to
kick.

Hope so. No sense in wishing ill will even on someone I don't particularly care
for.

I bet it is tough to quit, else why do so many famous people have run-ins with
them, *despite* the risks?

Imagine being a millionaire and still risking jail-time. Must be powerful
stuff.

And I see your point about how they're obtained vs. "punishing" him for using
them. Yes, a law is a law. But some laws are kind of stupid, which is why we
have jury nullification in case someone gets too literal and mis-apply them, and
I thought you were saying that drug use was comparable with child molestation --
and I don't think very many people would agree with that idea at all.

To my way of thinking, he did something stupid which will probably cause lasting
harm to his health, if any of the rumors are true. I'm trying to understand, in
general, why people equate totally and vastly different sorts of crimes. To my
thinking, you ought to get more time for assaulting someone in a bar than
shooting up heroin. In the latter case, you're killing yourself (most heroin
users will eventually die from it if they don't quit), but it's your life to
ruin. In the former case, you're hurting an innocent victim. At least the
addict knows what he's doing, and chooses to do it. Not to be cold, but I'd
rather honor his freedom to **** his life away, than trust government to decide
what is or is not okay and make everybody conform to that.

"We're from the government, and we're here to help you!"

Run!






On 26 Dec 2003 10:41:59 -0800, (Ross Archer) wrote:

Ken Thomas wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 20:57:16 GMT, "Ross Archer" wrote:

Do I
misunderstand? Is there any value in jailing someone for becoming
addicted to
pain medication, after he sought rehab? Any value at all??? I thought
not. No
deterrent value. No rehabilitation value. Huge negative costs.

Is there any value in throwing a confessed sex offender in jail?
After they sought help a few times? Any value at all? Can't deter a
sex offender right? Can they be rehabilitated? Costs?

That's ridiculous. Putting aside the huge difference in degree of
these two crimes -- in your example, there's a clear, unwilling VICTIM
and clear harm, and in Rush's case, whatever harm was done, he did to
himself.

There is no point in discussing such idiotically unconnected examples.

More appropriate would be discussing how to punish those who refuse to
wear seatbelts or insist on smoking. THESE are comparable examples.

Besides, there are stupid laws that violate higher principles. Until
recently, there were actually laws to dictate what consenting adults
were allowed to do in bed, if you can believe that! Wasting valuable
resources that could educate kids, vaccinate poor children, or add
cops to the beat, or incarcerate truly dangerous criminals, to
incarcerate some guy who takes some pills and harms HIMSELF is truly
idiotic, as are arguments supporting such action.

It's obvious to anyone who actually thinks it out.



It's not a question of liberal/conservative values.

No, but it may be a question of reasonable people vs. "wacko" values.

I'm absolutely certain that Barry Goldwater, no liberal by any stretch
of the imagination, would agree with me on principles of liberty.
Where you're coming from -- that laws should be enforced regardless of
whether they're wrong -- is just wacko.

It's pure wackosity to jail someone for abusing perscription drugs
unless you can prove they were driving around under their influence,
or otherwise endangering others by taking them.

Ignoring unjust laws is no vice. Enforcing unjust laws is no virtue.


Who could give a
flying F about how those ideals apply to this argument. If a law was
broken - pay the consequences. If not - no problem. If anything,
he's not a victim of his politics - just a victim of being famous.

As much as Rush's politics irritate me, I beg to differ. I think it's
exactly a politically-motivated attack. When's the last time a famous
movie star was prosecuted criminally for pill abuse? It's not fame,
it's scoring political points off an opponent.

Like I said, it's not hard to take Rush down, but do so on based on
his blatant hypocrisy rather than by violating his rights.


Regards.