WHAT THE (expletive deleted)?
CURRENT EVENTSUntil a July Florida appeals court ruling, Mark O'Hara, 45, had been in prison for two years of a 25-year mandatory-minimum for trafficking in hydrocodone, based solely on the 58 tablets found in his possession in 2004, even though his supply had been lawfully prescribed by a physician. The state attorney in Tampa had pointed out that Florida law did not mention a "prescription" defense to trafficking, and even though O'Hara had lined up a doctor and a pharmacist to testify, the jury wasn't allowed to consider the issue. After the appeals court called the case "absurd" and ordered a new trial with the prescription evidence allowed, the state attorney still refused to drop the case. [St. Petersburg Times, 8-9-07]
I wonder, won't he still get his hydrocodone while in prison?
longhorn said:
Sorry for the pending rant but...
This "war on drugs" is insane. If anyone thinks about it, the real erosion in civil liberties began with the war on drugs. Privacy? We dont need no stinkin' privacy. Employers are allowed to fish in our bloodstreams with impunity, and mostly, it is the lower level workers who get tested.
If it had worked, it might have been different, but it didnt. We didnt learn a damn thing from prohibition in terms of limiting the supply of dangerous substances. You cant legislate morality. Duh.
And the prison industry booms, both in the private sector and the public sector, but the private prison groups like CCA, etc. are VERY dangerous, especially when they reach the intersection where the military industrial complex, the war on terra and the war on drugs intersect.
Can you say gulag? Sure. I thought you could.
I guess intimidation and fear are all the authoritarian types understand. A government that promotes freedom and privacy and the pursuit of happiness is gone. Instead we are left with a nanny state on steroids. Otherwise known as a police state.
I weep for what was and what could have been. In the words of the immortal Micheal Moore..."DUDE, where's my country?"
And the sheeple sleep. When they come for the sheeple, there will be no one left to speak for them.
This "war on drugs" is insane. If anyone thinks about it, the real erosion in civil liberties began with the war on drugs. Privacy? We dont need no stinkin' privacy. Employers are allowed to fish in our bloodstreams with impunity, and mostly, it is the lower level workers who get tested.
If it had worked, it might have been different, but it didnt. We didnt learn a damn thing from prohibition in terms of limiting the supply of dangerous substances. You cant legislate morality. Duh.
And the prison industry booms, both in the private sector and the public sector, but the private prison groups like CCA, etc. are VERY dangerous, especially when they reach the intersection where the military industrial complex, the war on terra and the war on drugs intersect.
Can you say gulag? Sure. I thought you could.
I guess intimidation and fear are all the authoritarian types understand. A government that promotes freedom and privacy and the pursuit of happiness is gone. Instead we are left with a nanny state on steroids. Otherwise known as a police state.
I weep for what was and what could have been. In the words of the immortal Micheal Moore..."DUDE, where's my country?"
And the sheeple sleep. When they come for the sheeple, there will be no one left to speak for them.
lindainks55 said:
Second only to politicians, the rule of law / today's "justice" gets me riled up and frustrated.
Recently I saw a story in the news of a young man who had installed a camera in his vehicle and captured an "encounter" between him and LE on camera, complete with audio. I think it may be time we all take that drastic measure. Now, after we've done that to protect ourselves from those who should be protecting us, how do we protect ourselves from judges who seem to be able to interpret the law to their liking?
Did anyone catch the story of the parents (both mother and father) sent to jail because they allowed their 16 year old to have liquor at his birthday party. They took car keys and those attending agreed to stay the night... I AM NOT SAYING THIS WAS RIGHT! The only point I want to make is both parents are in jail for a few years. I don't remember the details but could find them. My question is would they have spent as much time in jail for murder? Is there any equity in justice?
Recently I saw a story in the news of a young man who had installed a camera in his vehicle and captured an "encounter" between him and LE on camera, complete with audio. I think it may be time we all take that drastic measure. Now, after we've done that to protect ourselves from those who should be protecting us, how do we protect ourselves from judges who seem to be able to interpret the law to their liking?
Did anyone catch the story of the parents (both mother and father) sent to jail because they allowed their 16 year old to have liquor at his birthday party. They took car keys and those attending agreed to stay the night... I AM NOT SAYING THIS WAS RIGHT! The only point I want to make is both parents are in jail for a few years. I don't remember the details but could find them. My question is would they have spent as much time in jail for murder? Is there any equity in justice?
longhorn said:
Oh, and one more thing...
If the guy in this story was Rush Limbaugh? The outcome would have been different. The corruption of the judicial system is complete. Justice, such as it is, really is for sale to the highest bidder.
Just ask the folks who had incompetent and lazy public defenders.
If the guy in this story was Rush Limbaugh? The outcome would have been different. The corruption of the judicial system is complete. Justice, such as it is, really is for sale to the highest bidder.
Just ask the folks who had incompetent and lazy public defenders.
longhorn said:
HEH Linda. Mutual posting. There's no one I'd rather experience mutual posting with than you, Linda dear!
lindainks55 said:
It's really good to come here where thinking people allow us our thoughts. Good morning longhorn!
longhorn said:
Yeah, and thanks to Tracy for creating and maintaining this "flop house" heheheheheh. It is SO nice to blog with you all. Now if we just had more time to be here together like this!
But then, we arent typing with Cheetos stained fingers from our mother's basements either....
But then, we arent typing with Cheetos stained fingers from our mother's basements either....
Vaughn Tolle said:
It looks to me that the jury convicted based solely on the presumption raised by possession of the 58 tablets.
OK, for my rant (limited, I promise):
The real culpable party in the whole incident is the Florida legislature, for not providing a prescription defense. This is what happens when slobbering, ignorant "good ole boys" are in charge of writing laws. The "war on drugs" is at least partially responsible for this, as I'm sure any reasonable attempt made by legislators to include such a defense were shouted down by those who cannot imagine any doctor prescribing drugs in this quantity for individual use; hell, the only reason anyone would have this quantity would be to sell them, don't you know.
While I do not deny the existence of a serious problem with "illegal drugs", see, e.g., meth, the only way this battle will be "won" is through education, not by police action under ill-thought and ill-written statutes. DARE programs are a joke, IMHO; it seems the best education these provide are how to hide the stash better, and how to obtain the contraband without being caught.
There are too many in power who think "Reefer Madness" is a documentary as opposed to a work of fiction, and until and unless folks with this mindset are out of the picture, we are doomed to continue down this road to nowhere, with the loss of personal liberties, etc.
Linda, I daresay that most murder convictions would result in more than three years being served; not so, perhaps, for certain other homicides such as involuntary manslaughter.
OK, for my rant (limited, I promise):
The real culpable party in the whole incident is the Florida legislature, for not providing a prescription defense. This is what happens when slobbering, ignorant "good ole boys" are in charge of writing laws. The "war on drugs" is at least partially responsible for this, as I'm sure any reasonable attempt made by legislators to include such a defense were shouted down by those who cannot imagine any doctor prescribing drugs in this quantity for individual use; hell, the only reason anyone would have this quantity would be to sell them, don't you know.
While I do not deny the existence of a serious problem with "illegal drugs", see, e.g., meth, the only way this battle will be "won" is through education, not by police action under ill-thought and ill-written statutes. DARE programs are a joke, IMHO; it seems the best education these provide are how to hide the stash better, and how to obtain the contraband without being caught.
There are too many in power who think "Reefer Madness" is a documentary as opposed to a work of fiction, and until and unless folks with this mindset are out of the picture, we are doomed to continue down this road to nowhere, with the loss of personal liberties, etc.
Linda, I daresay that most murder convictions would result in more than three years being served; not so, perhaps, for certain other homicides such as involuntary manslaughter.
longhorn said:
You are right VT, Reefer Madness is the root of all this evil. They treat the pot folks worse than the meth folks. Meth, after it's cooked, is easy to hide, and disappears from your system in three days. Pot, on the other hand, is bulky and stinky and not easy to hide, and it takes at least thirty days to leave your system.
So... they take the easy marks, the pot smokers, who are probably the least dangerous of all.
As one of my pals says "I never saw anyone lying in the gutter with a joint in their hand".
But when it comes to alcohol, that's a whole 'nother matter. If we were banning "dangerous" drugs, we'd be rid of alcohol and tobbaky. But then, we know the "dangerous" part isnt really in the equation, otherwise...
The meth cookers would be in for LIFE!
So... they take the easy marks, the pot smokers, who are probably the least dangerous of all.
As one of my pals says "I never saw anyone lying in the gutter with a joint in their hand".
But when it comes to alcohol, that's a whole 'nother matter. If we were banning "dangerous" drugs, we'd be rid of alcohol and tobbaky. But then, we know the "dangerous" part isnt really in the equation, otherwise...
The meth cookers would be in for LIFE!
Tracy Phillips said:
I saw sumbuddy in the gutter with a joint in hand....
thing is, they were passed out DRUNK!
thing is, they were passed out DRUNK!
Loading....