Poor Rush

All taken with a grain of salt from a guy who calls himself bigus dickus. Yea.....

 

All you do is reinforce my point. You are indeed a true credit to your name.

 

I see absolutely no parallel between downloading music and drug addiction and punishment.

The only problem here is that you see a black & white comparison here where I don't believe there is one.

Must be a blue moon.

Never said it was a crime, nor did I allude to that. That statement should be read as "How you got addicted doesn't change the fact that you broke the law by getting drugs illegally. How you got addicted doesn't change the fact that you're still addicted and need help."

Well this is something different. My statements have all been predicated on someone purchasing drugs for their drug abuse which is what I thought we were talking about. Someone who is involved in drug trafficking however would face different criminal charges as it is a different crime. It deals in the willfull addiction of another human being whether for profit or not, and that is a far worse offense than abusing drugs imo.

That's why our criminal system punishes drug traffickers far worse than drug abusers, and I agree with that. It's a different class of charges and cannot be compared to drug abuse imo.

Indeed.

That's what I stated in my original post. As I said earlier I don't know if you skipped over it or didn't read it correctly, but that was how I was framing my opinion on the matter when it comes to whether prison time should be doled out or not.

First time offense, no violent crime: Rehab
Multiple offense, no violent crime: Rehab + Light prison time
Any offense + violent crime: Rehab + Appropriate prison time

I'm not going to make a sweeping statement for "other" offenses. I'm only speaking about drug abuse and murder.

Well, I don't see how someone who purchases drugs illegally from a NARC is somehow less guilty or should be punished less because they became addicted through prescription drugs, and someone who purchases drugs illegally from a NARC is somehow more guilty or should be punished more because they became addicted through street pharma.

 

I didn't say I didn't understand what you were talking about. I just don't agree with it.

While I agree in principle, it doesn't change the fact that drugs were obtained illegally. Again, as I said before, I don't think a first time offense such as Rush should mean prison time if there was no violent crime. However, if say a couple of years from now he was caught again, then I would say that he he should be sent back to rehab with light prison sentencing. Basically a graduated punishment scale.

While he got addicted to drugs because of his prescriptions, it doesn't change the fact that he purchased drugs (ok fine, allegedly) through illegal channels, which imo is no better than a street pharma abuser who purchases his/her drugs illegally. It's a fine line, yes.

I'm not sure how one can document an addiction? What precisely are you referring to?

As for punishment, my opinion on the matter, after seeing people become institutionalized and hearing about it as well, is that incarceration should be the last resort for non-violent crimes. Studies in criminology have shown that non-violent offenders who are incarcerated on their first offense are more likely to in the future commit violent crimes than non-violent offenders who are put into rehab or probation. Why? Because they are exposed to the harshness of prison life and begin the process of prison institutionalization. But then this is another subject that could be given its own topic.

Btw, that scale I gave for punishment was not an end-all-be-all-lets-write-it-into-law scale. It was merely a rough sketch to outline my opinion on the subject.

1) Agreed.

2) Well as established earlier this is where we disagree. My opinion, again, is that the activity that led to the addiction does not matter if you are still purchasing drugs through illegal means.

In both cases you're dealing with someone who is physically and mentally addicted to a drug trying to illegally obtain said drug. If you want to be truly anal about it, the person who got addicted to his/her drugs illegally should have known from the beginning to get help from his/her doctor as soon as addictive symptoms came up. You could easily argue that they are even worse than the street addict because they had every channel available to them in order to avoid their fate.

 

I have seen instances where Rehab has been highly unsuccessful, and cases (such as the case of my aunt) where rehab has been a complete success. I have also seen instances where prison time has been highly unsuccessful (as in the cases of my cousins on my great aunt's side of the family), and cases where it has been a complete success (as in the case with my cousin JT).

Why do I believe rehab should be used first before prison time? To try our best to avoid institutionalization. I believe in the innate ability of human beings to get themselves back on track if they have help. I don't believe in the lock-em-up-immediately mentality that a lot of people in this country have espoused. As you can see, we still have a terrible drug epidemic in this country despite all the prisons we've built.

Basically what it comes down to is that it's much easier to espouse prison immediately, i.e. zero tolerance drug laws, when it doesn't affect ones family and friends, as I'm sure many Rush supporters are confronting in light of the circumstances today.

 

Pot as far as I know doesn't addict physically as much as mentally. It's a much harder addiction to beat because of that fact. With something like crack or heroin, the addiction is strongly physical, which makes it "easier" to beat after the withdrawal period has passed. However, the physical strain during the withdrawal period is apparently hellish.

But then this should all be taken with a grain of salt. It's not scientifically backed up. It comes from speaking with people in my family, and friends and acquaintances who have been addicted.

 

Gave it up years ago. It was fun for that weekend, but I just don't see the long term "joy" to continue it. It just aint that great imo.

 

Just as long as he doesn't start on one of his patented hypocritical rants about how druggies should be sent up, we'll be fine.

 

I read that. And the fact of the matter is, he didn't avoid the subject of drugs. He said specifically that druggies should be convicted and sent up. Where is this black and white appraisal of the situation wrt to his own situation? Why is he still free, given his "put em in jail!" mantra?

If he weren't being hypocritical, he'd volunteer to put himself away, just as he stated druggies should be.