Poor Rush

[Bigus Dickus]

Anyone else believe Joe wasn't trying to be insulting by comparing my relationship to my bf with beastiality?

/raises hand in disbelief.

Oh so Joe attacking my family is not deliberately insulting? Please.

/me so wanting to say something rude and hateful here... enjoy my posting priveledges here... must... fight... the... urge...

 

[dreamin']

Anyone else believe Joe wasn't trying to be insulting by comparing my relationship to my bf with beastiality?

I think anyone, gay or not, should be appalled by such an absurd comparison, and even more so by Joe repeatedly providing "logical reasoning" for it.

That comparison immediately made me think of that http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame39.html

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Hello, Me-Too.

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame3.html

But if you'd be so kind as to reiterate for us what my actual comparison was, in full context, it'd be appreciated.

 

[epicstruggle]

First I bypassed alot of the comments in the last 2-3 pages because alot of people have just gone plain silly.

See I have only one problem with most of the rush-bashing. and that he did not intend to get to the point where he used hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of pain killers. Its not like he woke up one day and said, hmm, lets make life more interesting and start using pain killers. He got addicted to it because he was trying to manage pain.

No one starts off intending to get to the point where they're addicted to any drug epic. No matter what the drug is.

Natoma, you keep confusing almost every post ive place. It might be my fault for not putting everything down properly.

The point I was trying to make above is that the Rush, unlike most high school or college kid who start using drugs for pleasure, started using the drugs out of necessity. He was prescribed the drugs and because of how highly addictive they were he became addicted to them. If I remember correctly Rush made general comments about drug abusers. However in my opinion there should be some difference in treatment and prosecution.

A person who goes out of the way to start drugs for pleasure and gets addicted is completly different than the person who get addicted while they are being prescribed the drug.

I hope my opinion is clearer now.

What he did is still wrong, but if memory serves me correctly JFK was also addicted to drugs to control back pains. Elizabeth Taylor, same boat. Both were addicted and did everything (legal or illegal) to get the drugs they needed. Ive never heard liberals attacking these two particular examples. Just wanted to point out the hypocrisy.

JFK and Liz Taylor didn't spend their adult lives attacking and bashing anything and everything non-coservative as evil and the pillar of the destruction of american society.

JFK did not live long enough to be able to comment on the growing drug problem the nation was going to face. However he did not think having multiple affairs was wrong. And we know that adultery is/was wrong (he was catholic). So the great JFK, the person who is idolized by the left, was just a drug sucking, wife cheating bum, who took bribes from organized criminals. Yeah he was a bastian of morality, if only we could have more leaders like him.

later,
epic

 

[Natoma]

See I have only one problem with most of the rush-bashing. and that he did not intend to get to the point where he used hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of pain killers. Its not like he woke up one day and said, hmm, lets make life more interesting and start using pain killers. He got addicted to it because he was trying to manage pain.

No one starts off intending to get to the point where they're addicted to any drug epic. No matter what the drug is.

Natoma, you keep confusing almost every post ive place. It might be my fault for not putting everything down properly.

The point I was trying to make above is that the Rush, unlike most high school or college kid who start using drugs for pleasure, started using the drugs out of necessity. He was prescribed the drugs and because of how highly addictive they were he became addicted to them. If I remember correctly Rush made general comments about drug abusers. However in my opinion there should be some difference in treatment and prosecution.

A person who goes out of the way to start drugs for pleasure and gets addicted is completly different than the person who get addicted while they are being prescribed the drug.

I hope my opinion is clearer now.

An addiction is an addiction imo. I'm not up for demonizing or attacking anyone who is a drug addict because they are an addict, no matter what the reason for them getting addicted is. As I said, no one starts off with any drug thinking they'll get addicted. If they did, you would see a lot less people using drugs. Yea I know it sounds stupid, but many people have that "Well it won't happen to me" attitude unfortunately.

I'm for making sure they get help. There are myriad reasons other than prescribed medication that people get addicted to drugs, and as I said I have personal family experience on this matter, as I'm sure do many other people.

Treatment for addiction is the same no matter what. In the end, the addict needs to get help for him/herself. And prosecution should remain the same as well. If you break the law trying to obtain drugs illegally, then you should be prosecuted no matter if you got addicted off the street or from your doctor. How you got addicted doesn't change the fact that you broke the law by getting drugs illegally, nor does it change the fact that you're still addicted.

What he did is still wrong, but if memory serves me correctly JFK was also addicted to drugs to control back pains. Elizabeth Taylor, same boat. Both were addicted and did everything (legal or illegal) to get the drugs they needed. Ive never heard liberals attacking these two particular examples. Just wanted to point out the hypocrisy.

JFK and Liz Taylor didn't spend their adult lives attacking and bashing anything and everything non-coservative as evil and the pillar of the destruction of american society.

JFK did not live long enough to be able to comment on the growing drug problem the nation was going to face. However he did not think having multiple affairs was wrong. And we know that adultery is/was wrong (he was catholic). So the great JFK, the person who is idolized by the left, was just a drug sucking, wife cheating bum, who took bribes from organized criminals. Yeah he was a bastian of morality, if only we could have more leaders like him.

AFAIK, what JFK is idolized for, by all people and party affiliations, is the fact that he was one of the spearheads, along with his brother, of the civil rights movement from the government side, and he gave this nation a challenge to land a man on the moon by the end of the 60s, to which this nation responded successfully.

And frankly it doesn't hurt one's stature in terms of historical treatment to be assassinated at the height of being beloved. People tend to get fuzzy memories after a horrid situation such as that.

But nowhere afaik is JFK idolized for being a bastion of morality. He certainly didn't go on public radio every day and speak to millions of listeners going on and on and on about conservative morality and enouraging people to see him as one of the upstanding conservative citizens who knows the inside scoop on america and how to "take it back" from the "evil" liberals, i.e. the blacks, jews, gays, feminists, et al. Huge difference.

 

[Natoma]

Anyone else believe Joe wasn't trying to be insulting by comparing my relationship to my bf with beastiality?

/raises hand in disbelief.

Oh so Joe attacking my family is not deliberately insulting? Please.

/me so wanting to say something rude and hateful here... enjoy my posting priveledges here... must... fight... the... urge...

You're a true credit to your name.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

As I said, no one starts off with any drug thinking they'll get addicted. If they did, you would see a lot less people using drugs.

Actually, I disagree slightly. I think there are people who start using drugs that just don't care if they get addicted or not. (Not that they think it may or may not happen to them...but they don't care if it does.)

Treatment for addiction is the same no matter what. In the end, the addict needs to get help for him/herself. And prosecution should remain the same as well. If you break the law trying to obtain drugs illegally, then you should be prosecuted no matter if you got addicted off the street or from your doctor. How you got addicted doesn't change the fact that you broke the law by getting drugs illegally, nor does it change the fact that you're still addicted.

Agreed. Though the exact punishment for use should depend on individual circumstances. And "intent" should factor into the sentence.

Pre-meditated murder, for example, typically carries a stiffer sentence than other forms of murder, (murder of passion, etc.) To be clear...this is NOT to say that there shouldn't be a conviction, but the sentence should be fitting of the circumstances.

 

[Natoma]

You may or may not be aware that in cases where highly addictive drugs are prescribed by doctors, the patient is made aware that they can become addicted to the drugs, quite quickly I might add, and are setup with outreach programs just in case, or at least instructed to contact their doctor if they feel any symptoms of addiction coming on.

That's why I feel that in the end, being caught purchasing illegal drugs, no matter what the reason for getting started on them, should carry the same sentence. I've never been addicted to drugs, but if my doctor tells me that there's a chance, maybe even strong chance, that I could get addicted to my meds, I'd take every precaution possible and make sure to enroll myself in any outreach program there is. If I still ended up getting addicted and began purchasing drugs illegally and was caught, I would expect to be prosecuted the same in front of the law.

Of course I would have my lawyer argue the genesis of my addiction on my behalf.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

That's why I feel that in the end, being caught purchasing illegal drugs, no matter what the reason for getting started on them, should carry the same sentence.

I disagree strongly.

(I find your opinion in this matter a striking contrast to your apparent view on stealing and piracy, btw.)

A conviction is one thing. If you break the law, you should expect conviction. Punishment for each conviction is highly situational. It can, should, and does depend on a variety of things, including past history, severity of the abuse, intent, etc.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

You're a true credit to your name.

*shudders*

I hope that doesn't get you too aroused.

 

[Natoma]

Naw my opinion isn't any different. If I got caught downloading music off the web and I'm fined, so be it there goes my fine. That doesn't change my opinion on whether or not it's wrong.

Drug abuse is in a whole other category however in what it does to one's mind and body. You never know the true impact of addiction until you see your family and friends go through it, or have experienced it personally. Though thank goodness I've never gone through the last one after seeing what the first two can do.

Now, I'll expand my opinion on the subject of criminalization of illegally obtained drugs because I see you're getting into the different gradations of the justice system. I don't think drug abusers should automatically be sent to prison for 5 - 20 years as many current conviction laws stipulate. All that ends up doing is institutionalizing many addicts. I believe that outreach rehab programs should be mandated for all "low offense" users, i.e. those who did not commit any violent crime (murder for example) while obtaining their drugs. Basically if your only crime was trying to obtain drugs illegally, no matter how you got to that point mind you, you should automatically be put into a drug rehab center, maybe even one that resides inside a prison if you're a repeat offender, even if you started off getting your drugs from a prescription. If you committed a violent act, then you should be sentenced appropriately for that violent act and also given drug treatment. But that would be the only difference imo in sentencing.

Unfortunately the drug laws in this country do not reflect this. You know you can get more jail time for having pot on your person than you can for killing someone? That's how screwed up many of our drug laws are.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Naw my opinion isn't any different. If I got caught downloading music off the web and I'm fined, so be it there goes my fine. That doesn't change my opinion on whether or not it's wrong.

No, that's not what I mean.

Do you think you should be fined the same $300,000 (or pick a figure) that someone who downloads 1000 times as many tracks as you have, and has been convicted of it before?

I don't think drug abusers should automatically be sent to prison for 5 - 20 years as many current conviction laws stipulate.

Nor do I. Durg abusers should be sentenced according to a myriad of mitigating circumstances.

You know you can get more jail time for having pot on your person than you can for killing someone? That's how screwed up many of our drug laws are.

Yes, you can always take the upper range of sentencing for one type of conviction, and find that it's more severe than the lowest range of another type of conviction. This isn't surprising, really.

 

[Natoma]

Naw my opinion isn't any different. If I got caught downloading music off the web and I'm fined, so be it there goes my fine. That doesn't change my opinion on whether or not it's wrong.

No, that's not what I mean.

Do you think you should be fined the same $300,000 (or pick a figure) that someone who downloads 1000 times as many tracks as you have, and has been convicted of it before?

Well you're asking a person who doesn't think he should be fined at all for downloading music. But to answer your question, it's not something that I've ever thought about nor do I really care about.

I don't think drug abusers should automatically be sent to prison for 5 - 20 years as many current conviction laws stipulate.

Nor do I. Durg abusers should be sentenced according to a myriad of mitigating circumstances.

Agreed. I just disagree that being an addict because of abusing prescription drugs and being an addict because of abusing street drugs should somehow be treated differently.

You know you can get more jail time for having pot on your person than you can for killing someone? That's how screwed up many of our drug laws are.

Yes, you can always take the upper range of sentencing for one type of conviction, and find that it's more severe than the lowest range of another type of conviction. This isn't surprising, really.

It shouldn't even be close imo. If you maliciously kill someone that should be automatically imo 20 years to life. Possession of drugs in many cases (barring pushing drugs or killing someone over drugs et al) is no worse than a misdemeanor and should carry no sentence longer than 5-10 years, and/or probation and rehabilitation.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Well you're asking a person who doesn't think he should be fined at all for downloading music. But to answer your question, it's not something that I've ever thought about nor do I really care about.

??

It's a simple question. No matter if you think it's right or wrong, it's against the law. Many people don't think that drug use should be illegal either.

Do you think all people who are convicted of "music piracy" should be subject to the same penalty?

Agreed. I just disagree that being an addict because of abusing prescription drugs and being an addict because of abusing street drugs should somehow be treated differently.

I do. But to clarify, the distinction is not simply one of "street drugs" vs. "perscription drugs." I agree, that doesn't make a difference in and of itself.

The distinction is why drug use was started in the first place.

In other words, if it is found out that Rush was never actually perscibed pain killers for any valid reason, (and he just persued them because he wanted some kind of high), then that's no different than someone who pursues street drugs for the same reason.

If it's proven that Rush started taking pain killers for a valid reason, and then became addicted to them, (if addiction is a reasonable outcome given the legally perscibed amount of time he was on them) that's different.

We don't know the facts of this case, of course.

It shouldn't even be close imo. If you maliciously kill someone that should be automatically imo 20 years to life.

I have to ask you though, to define "malicious killing" in terms of a legal conviction. (Involuntary Manslaughter qualify?) In other words, Involutary manslaughter is in fact killing someone, and can carry a relatively light sentence. Is that wrong?

Are there really "relatively light" senteces out there for a conviction of 3rd degree murder?

 

[RussSchultz]

Do you two need to be separated?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Do you two need to be separated?

Why? At the present moment anyway, this is a reasonable conversation, is it not?

Or are you just perhaps suffering from demalion withdrawl?

 

[Natoma]

Well you're asking a person who doesn't think he should be fined at all for downloading music. But to answer your question, it's not something that I've ever thought about nor do I really care about.

??

It's a simple question. No matter if you think it's right or wrong, it's against the law. Many people don't think that drug use should be illegal either.

Do you think all people who are convicted of "music piracy" should be subject to the same penalty?

I gave you a simple answer. I don't care. I'm not being flippant about it. More a sense of blase. I just really don't care about the penalties associated with downloading music. Pretty much the same way I feel about parking tickets or jaywalking. Meh.

Agreed. I just disagree that being an addict because of abusing prescription drugs and being an addict because of abusing street drugs should somehow be treated differently.

I do. But to clarify, the distinction is not simply one of "street drugs" vs. "perscription drugs." I agree, that doesn't make a difference in and of itself.

The distinction is why drug use was started in the first place.

In other words, if it is found out that Rush was never actually perscibed pain killers for any valid reason, (and he just persued them because he wanted some kind of high), then that's no different than someone who pursues street drugs for the same reason.

If it's proven that Rush started taking pain killers for a valid reason, and then became addicted to them, (if addiction is a reasonable outcome given the legally perscibed amount of time he was on them) that's different.

We don't know the facts of this case, of course.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

It shouldn't even be close imo. If you maliciously kill someone that should be automatically imo 20 years to life.

I have to ask you though, to define "malicious killing" in terms of a legal conviction. (Involuntary Manslaughter qualify?) In other words, Involutary manslaughter is in fact killing someone, and can carry a relatively light sentence. Is that wrong?

Are there really "relatively light" senteces out there for a conviction of 3rd degree murder?

No it's not wrong. That's why I said maliciously killing, i.e. 1st or 2nd degree murder, someone should automatically carry a minimum sentence of 20 years in prison.

For instance, accidentally hitting someone with your car (for instance a child who jumps out into the street), and because of that they end up dying, is completely different that deliberately trying to run someone down. Now there are cases where someone gets killed by a drunk driver. What happens is that the driver is sentenced not only for the DWI, but for the involuntary manslaughter charge sure to follow. I don't think that's wrong.

But malicious killing should start off automatically at 20 years, no matter the circumstances surrounding the situation, save for "in defense" of course.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Do you think all people who are convicted of "music piracy" should be subject to the same penalty?

I gave you a simple answer. I don't care. I'm not being flippant about it. More a sense of blase. I just really don't care about the penalties associated with downloading music. Pretty much the same way I feel about parking tickets or jaywalking. Meh.

Meh indeed.

Unless you answer otherwise, then I'll assume that your views wrt convictions / penalties are consistent with your view on drugs. That is, you do think that anyone convicted of pirating music, should face the same penalties, irregardless of circumstances of the individual pirate.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Yup.

No it's not wrong. That's why I said maliciously killing, i.e. 1st or 2nd degree murder, someone should automatically carry a minimum sentence of 20 years in prison.

So, can you reference a 1st or 2nd degree murder sentence that carry a lesser mandatory penalty than drug posession? (I'm curious if this is a federal thing, or some specific states.)

Anyway, you're underscoring my point. You have just separated "malicious" killing from "normal" killing.

Why not separate "arduous" or "malicious" drug use from "normal" drug use? What's the difference?

For instance, accidentally hitting someone with your car (for instance a child who jumps out into the street), and because of that they end up dying, is completely different that deliberately trying to run someone down.

Of course I agree.

But to be consistent with your drug use logic....the end result is, you caused someone's death. You said:

That's why I feel that in the end, being caught purchasing illegal drugs, no matter what the reason for getting started on them, should carry the same sentence.

Causing someone's death is causing someone's death, isn't it? No matter what the reason or the mitigating circumstances, the fact of the matter is in the end, you played part in the cause of someone's death. "Intention" shouldn't matter, right? They should carry the same sentence.

But that's only if you're going to be consistent.

 

[Natoma]

Meh indeed.

Unless you answer otherwise, then I'll assume that your views wrt convictions / penalties are consistent with your view on drugs. That is, you do think that anyone convicted of pirating music, should face the same penalties, irregardless of circumstances of the individual pirate.

I don't care if the charges are the same or if they're different for downloading music. As I said, I really don't care. So hard to believe that someone can have no opinion about something? But assume away if that's your wish.

<snip rest of post regarding consistency>

This explains completely how I feel about drug abuse:

I don't think drug abusers should automatically be sent to prison for 5 - 20 years as many current conviction laws stipulate. All that ends up doing is institutionalizing many addicts. I believe that outreach rehab programs should be mandated for all "low offense" users, i.e. those who did not commit any violent crime (murder for example) while obtaining their drugs. Basically if your only crime was trying to obtain drugs illegally, no matter how you got to that point mind you, you should automatically be put into a drug rehab center, maybe even one that resides inside a prison if you're a repeat offender, even if you started off getting your drugs from a prescription. If you committed a violent act, then you should be sentenced appropriately for that violent act and also given drug treatment. But that would be the only difference imo in sentencing.

The bold being the most pertinent part. The result is the same, based on a need to rehabilitate, not incarcerate, if no violent crime is involved. That is where the difference lies. In the violent crime associated with the abuse of drugs, not the actual abuse of drugs. I don't know if you skipped over it or didn't read it closely enough, but I thought I was clear in that point.

As for a murder, violence is always involved, so that obviously cannot be the comparative factor between the two. In the case of drugs, the heavier sentence imo should be given on whether or not violence accompanies the drug offense. In the case of murder, the heavier sentence imo should be given on whether or not it was intended.

Not everything is comparitively black & white Joe.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Natoma... be consistent? Surely you jest.


And yes... I am thoroughly enjoying playing the role of "me too" and taking little jabs here and there. Trying to have an intellectual discussion with Natoma using logic and reason as guiding principles is simply impossible, as I've painfully learned, so I have no problem with ignoring most of the argument and picking small tidbits to comment on.