|
|
"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. |
From: (Brian)
My mistake. I thought the subject was a Bush policy. You can bash Clinton all you want for all the good it will do now. Sorry, my post this early morn was mis-typed. It is Bush, not Clinton, that is encouraging the outsourcing of US jobs. Anyone with the minimal effort to check a URL could see that it was Bush. Check this URL: http://www.mcgladrey-family.us/kayne...h_permits_outs ourcing.html (For those with not enough time to click a link:) Bush Permits Outsourcing "Higher skilled jobs are going away," said Pricilla Tate, Director of the Technology Managers Forum, a New York-based group representing IT executives at large companies. "There are people who will not get jobs in the IT industry again -- they just have been replaced." And the President isn't going to do a thing about it. ComuterWorld is running a story titled "Bush Administration Won't Impede Offshore Outsourcing". While it's fully within the power of the President to make it harder for companies to outsource work to offshore firms, there are no plans to. Instead of providing a solution, Chris Israel, a deputy assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Commerce, said that "the answer to economic challenges is growth and innovation." Growth and innovation. When Detroit and Japan went toe-to-toe over auto manufacturing, how quickly did growth and innovation help? Ten years? Twenty years? Or how about textile manufacturing, with the United States going up against China and other countries with poor human rights records? The truth is that the manufacturing jobs went overseas and didn't come back. How long can skilled workers remain unemployed? Growth and innovation aren't standing well in the face of greed and commoditization. Many of the IT workers in the United States created processes and technologies that have enabled the globalization of information technology, and they've lost their jobs as a result. They weren't rewarded for their innovation. The Gartner Group predicted that ten percent of all IT jobs are going offshore in 2004. Despite the failing economy, despite all the indicators that this is a crisis in the making, George Bush isn't doing a thing to prevent jobs going overseas. His economic policy of tax cuts for the rich did not create jobs, and his economic policy of tax cuts for parents did not create jobs. He's not even attempting to set guidelines for trade agreements based on comparable workers rights and human rights. His economic policy is a failure, and shows that he is incapable of helping to retain the jobs we have, even as more jobs are lost." Any evidence to the contrary? No? I wonder why not? Bryant Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL Louisville, KY R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K, DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76 (remove "nojunk" to reply) |
|
|
|
|
In article ,
ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote: From: (Brian) My mistake. I thought the subject was a Bush policy. You can bash Clinton all you want for all the good it will do now. Sorry, my post this early morn was mis-typed. It is Bush, not Clinton, that is encouraging the outsourcing of US jobs. Msut be why Clinton signed NAFTA. |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com