Also, lots of good baseball discussion, including Lookout Landing with a look at a failed prospect, Braves and Marlns talk, and a look at the White Sox farm system.
The accelerating rate of incarceration over the past few decades is just as startling as the number of people jailed: in 1980, there were about two hundred and twenty people incarcerated for every hundred thousand Americans; by 2010, the number had more than tripled, to seven hundred and thirty-one. No other country even approaches that.
We love the idea of American exceptionalism, and there is a great deal for Americans to be proud of, but this should be a source of shame. More importantly, it should be seen as a problem that needs to be solved. We should be working hard to discuss and hopefully answer the following questions: Why are so many people incarcerated in this country? Do they all really need to be incarcerated (are there other sentences which make more sense for some of these offenders)? Why is there so much crime? What can we do about that? Is there a better way we could allocate resources which might help this problem?
In the past two decades, the money that states spend on prisons has risen at six times the rate of spending on higher education.
Does that make sense? Would it make sense to invest in some things which might help to genuinely prevent crime by keeping many people out of the circumstances which lead to crime? If many other countries have much less crime, what are they doing (or not doing) differently from us? Should we seriously look into this?
This is the downside to the theory of American exceptionalism. If this is unquestionably the best country in the world, then we must be doing everything the best. How can we even consider that others might be doing something better than us and that we might be able to learn something important from them.
And most in this country do not realize that sentencing someone to a maximum security prison, or in most cases even a medium security prison, means sentencing that person to a punishment of terror, violence and often rape. Sure it is not the criminal justice system’s goal that a prisoner be beaten, killed or raped, but we know that a higher percentage of them will be. And we close our eyes. “What can you do?” is the typical response. Well, there is much than can be done, but it takes resources. And in this society, we’d rather throw convicted felons in a cage with other felons for a number of years and let whatever happen, happen. Is that cruel? Is that inhuman? Who cares. That scum is off the streets for a while. Who cares what happens to them. What’s exceptional about that?
should mainly be for violent offenders, and there should continue to be tough sentences for those things. As the article states, this has actually been useful in the reduction of violent crime.
Although it only alludes to it peripherally, the largest factor in the number of people in prison has been the failed “War on Drugs.” It mentions decriminalizing marijuana as a start, and although I have never been a drug user, I agree with this. Unlike violent crime, it has not been reduced, and is never going away. Sell it, tax it, and let it become an economic boon rather than an albatross. I feel the same way about gambling.
Another factor in the prison population explosion has been white collar fraud, especially credit fraud. There can be, as the article suggests, more creative types of punishments, such as community service, forfeiture of wealth and property, and wage garnishment, as well as an inability to borrow money or get loans after you have been caught for these things. Economic crimes, economic punishments.
These can also be addressed from the preventive side. Requiring a photo on your credit card like you do on your driver’s license would not prevent all credit fraud, but it would certainly make it more difficult. For tax fraud, taxing spending rather than income would grow the country’s economy immensely and lessen the benefit of many white collar crimes (as well as drug dealing, where the lure of untaxable cash is part of the temptation.) I am not foolish enough to believe that our bureaucracy will allow this major change to take place, but it is a rather simple and well researched solution.
Instead we have a society where all these people are lumped in together, and jail is the only solution. Many prisons are now run by private companies who have powerful lobbyists puming money and favors into our lawmakers to ensure an increasing population and one whose average stay is longer.
Bureaucracy is a snowball rolling downhill. Once something is set in motion in this country, it just gets bigger until the solution we already have becomes the only one available. The system becomes bigger and more complex until it is just easier to try and tweak it (and make it even more complex) than to commit to a different idea. The tax system, the criminal justice system, the war on drugs-the system feeds itself, and the inertia of “having always done it this way” makes it difficult for a government run by committees and at war with itself to make a real change.
Constitutional issues aside, the author makes some interesting points although ultimately I remain unswayed. I don’t think being softer on crime is exactly the answer. We need to be smarter about crime. Its not about the punishment IMO. Its about what do we make of these people in our society?
The illegal drug industry and how this country deals with it has helped turn generations of poorer Americans into career criminals. The vast majority of incarcerated persons in this country are in for a drug-related offense.
I think it is directly tied into the privatization of prisons. There are a lot of people making a lot of money off of sending people to jail. It is in those business’s best interest to have a large client base.
I have never understood why prision inmates get such a full spectrum of constitutional rights
If you are a convicted felon serving a sentence, you shouldn’t have the right to shit.
Let future criminals know, if you get caught, you aren’t just going to be hanging out with your buddies all day watching cable and taking naps. You are going to work 6 days a week and if you refuse, you will live in solitary confinement with no stimuli and fed balony and whitebread 3 times a day. Fuck ’em. they are significantly contributing to the ruin of this country.
Its hard for me to see most felons as the hard working types. Otherwise they would have chosen more traditional career paths that involved legal employment in the first place.
We are likely talking about menial task, manual labor for no pay, and being ordered around by a prison authority. Some would for sure but not most. A small minority imo.
My point is, a prison sentence should be a true punishment. It should be something that would make them think twice before breaking serious laws.
Also, and most importantly, it would help offset (as much as possible) the 35 thou or whatever the cost is up to now, per prisoner per year in tax dollars.
I don't think I'll change your mind, but I'll try anyhow...
I’ve taught in Juvie, and the kids there are so thankful for anything that gets them out of their cell. Juvie is prison for sure, orange jumpsuits and all. I never had any problems in class because the alternative is back to your cell. And I was there as a sub (I mean, of course I thought I’d have some problems). I’ve also had some cousins who did some real time and they both said the worst part is that time just stands still. Sample size sure, but what else do I have to go on?
Really, you’re entitled to whatever opinion you want, but if you want to believe that those dudes are happy to just “hang out” I have to tell you that it’s my experience that they aren’t and would be thrilled with your plan.
I at least once a week get into an argument with a coworker
about whether or not America is truly the best country. And he can’t back it up with anything other than “it just is” even though he has never left the country, and actually really hasn’t traveled much in this state.
because the act of shooting in an aggression against all those nearby who may be hit by it.
The point is things that people do to their own body is their business. Anything that hampers or harms another, including threat of a bullet caving in their head after Jimbo’s 4th of July celebration, is different.
a crack/meth dealer who actively recruits and introduces his highly destructive product to impressionable adolescents, is a serious criminal and should be prosecuted as one.
I do understand that this does not account for the majority of those behind bars as we speak on drug convictions all over the country.
Well, legalization would come with regulation in these scenarios.
An OTC approach to drugs would certainly eliminate much of that practice as there is a seriously diminished reason to have these dealers, seeing as though there is significantly reduced financial gain for trying to go into such a business.
I would also like to point out that I am not a drug user. It’s just that the war on drugs seems to have needlessly criminalized a segment of the population that don’t really fit the psychological profile of a criminal in need of imprisonment.
Knowing crack and meth are both way nastier drugs than pot...
a crack/meth dealer who actively recruits and introduces his highly destructive product to impressionable adolescents, is a serious criminal and should be prosecuted as one.
I still have to say that even allowing pot to go the “impressionable adolescents” isn’t a harmless act. After working with high school kids over the last half decade, it’s pretty clear that those who engage in it often show noticeable signs of use.
Seriously, though, smoking marijuana is carcinogenic.
And while the possibility of chemical addiction to marijuana is at least harder to prove the existence of, it is certainly a substance to which one can become psychologically/emotionally dependent upon.
I thought that the article was interesting and thought provoking; however, the author seems to be operating in a vacuum and does not take into account that many crimes, whether it is crimes of violence or burglaries or thefts, are committed due to drug use/addiction.
As a criminal defense attorney, it seems that a majority of the crimes that I am appointed to represent indigent defendants on are due to the use of illegal drugs, mostly methamphetamine. This runs from simple to aggravated battery (getting high and beating up signifcant other or fellow user), child abuse/neglect (causing injuries to children when high or putting the child in danger when high), and burglaries and thefts (stealing to support the drug habit). Additionally, the manufacture of methamphetamine can be extremely dangerous due to the combination of chemicals. While I agree in some respects that a person should be able to do what he or she wants with his or her body, these ancillary crimes do have an effect on other individuals or society as a whole.
Tonight I’m working on the written plea agreement for a 45 year old woman addicted to methamphetamine and prescription pills. Three years ago, she robbed her best friend of her pain medication and, after being arrested, forgot about the pain medication in her bra and pled to felony theft and felony trafficking in contraband in which she received sentences totalling 57 months. The judge gave her probation and ordered drug treatment. She never went to drug treatment and she was later arrested for stealing a camera from a local store. As she had two prior misdemeanor thefts, she was charged with a felony theft. She pled to felony theft, received a sentence of 10 months, and the judge granted her probation in that case, and reinstated probation in the earlier two cases after giving her a six month county jail sentence on an unrelated misdemeanor conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia. After getting out of the county jail, she didn’t report to her probation officer or go to treatment, and was caught selling pain medication to feed her habit and get a hotel room. The county attorney has agreed to recommend that she do 6 years on all four cases in prison. At least she will be in prison with her daughter who smuggled syringes and methamphetamine in her “hoochie-coochie” into the county jail after the judge gave her a furlough to attend a family funeral. At least the women’s pod at the county jail had a fun time.
In a vacuum, I would argue that simple possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use should be punished with a fine like a traffic ticket. Additionally, I agree and support drug courts where persons arrested on simple possession receive drug treatment/education. However, even given the chance at drug treatment/education, some people will not take advantage of the opportunity.
Alcohol leads people to commit these crimes as well.
People with a predisposition towards addiction will often find a vice (legal or otherwise) to fill their need. They will often commit either crimes or acts detrimental to themselves or their families to support their habits. Addiction therapy should be our primary concern on this front.
Unless you want the help, addiction therapy is pointless.
So, most of the time, it is pointless as most addicts don’t find, or even want, success in their sobriety when they are first introduced to the idea. The addiction industry is booming right now. People go to rehab three of four times, hear the same things, and continue the same behaviors. After the first trip, it is really a waste of money. Unless you are at the end of your rope and decide to quit, the charade will keep going.
Isn't our society far far more sober now than it was 100 years ago?
While it may not always work on an individual level, it seems like a focus on treatment and limiting access to drugs has been fairly successful on a societal level.
If those drugs went prescription in the U.S., it would be harder to buy them in the U.S., but the mexican drug cartels are buying their ingredients in bulk from India. I don’t see how making the drugs prescription only in the U.S. would affect the drug cartels’ supply at this point.
When I get a little cold or my allergies hit hard in the fall, it’s nice to be able to go pick up the good Claritin at the pharmacy without paying money to a dr. That’s selfish as hell and I would trade it if that cleaned it up. Knowing the history of drugs in the US, I doubt it’s that easy anyway.
The drug affected is regular Sudafed (pseudoephedrine: sud-a-fed-rin). The new Sudafed PE uses a different drug (that doesn’t really work) while regular Sudafed is only available behind the counter
Without looking anything up, I’d imagine illicit drug use has skyrocketed in this country from 100 years ago.
It seems like people have too easy access to drugs now when you consider how many millions of Americans are on physch meds. There are plenty of cases where these meds are warranted, but with people addicted to things like Xanax, Percocet, and especially Oxys, it would appear that these drugs are too abundant in our society.
I was under the impression that use of cocaine was down a comparable amount to alcohol, and I know that tobacco use is way down, but I don’t know how much.
I could see opiate use being relatively unchanged, given the abuse of prescription pain medications, but I’d guess that, even here, the drug control policy is having some substantial effect.
I have no idea on marijuana use, and I’d be a little surprised if useful figures exist for use a century ago.
Unfortunately, it is a fairly typical case that I deal with. However, I try to focus on the positive outcomes that I have, and drug education/treatment is effective for those who put the energy in and try to change.
The Mariners/Andersen article about a failed pitching prospect was interesting but not really informative
It was 1997, so TINSTAAPP was not widely known, and I would think the risk inherent in young pitchers was underestimated and expectations correspondingly elevated. But that’s not really groundbreaking. Pitching prospects get injured, and sometimes that ruins their career.
Good reminder, though, that the only way to consistently generate successful pitchers from the farm is by strength in numbers.
Olney’s new Insider piece suggests the new CBA didn’t do as much to help small and mid market clubs as you might think and there is about to be a huge gulf again because of some mammoth TV deals for certain markets.
Is what will hurt small market clubs isn’t that the Yanks and Red Sox are spending five times what the Royals and Pirates are, its that there will be many more Yanks and Red Sox, or at least junior versions – the Rangers, Dodgers, Angels and Mariners, possibly more (Nats? Marlins?)
I thought there were some reports of more revenue sharing
And the penalties for exceeding the luxury tax are much stiffer now – many people are attributing the Red Sox lack of movement (and the fact they actually had a salary dump of Scutaro) as evidence of that.
Yes, that’s true about the luxury tax, but I wonder how much that will hamper the large market teams (like the top 10) over the term of this CBA. I didn’t read about more revenue sharing, but I sure hope that is part of the CBA and that it is significant.
From what I read, a lot of the motivation was about putting the luxury tax in place
rather than having a large effect initially. Once the luxury tax has become the “standard” then it can be raised/lowered as the league sees fit. So, in the sense that the luxury tax exists (contrasted against not having one at all), that is a good thing.
I believe the draft changes will be (or are at least an attempt to be) beneficial to the mid and small market teams. The slotting preempts the eventual outcome of big-market teams owning the draft just like they own free agency. It already existed to an extent and was only going to get worse. I also think laying the groundwork for an international draft will be a good thing in the long run as well.
The luxury tax rate doesn't help with revenue sharing
Money in that department goes to the MLB general fund. The luxury tax really isn’t that big of a deal anyway. The Yankees had a 201M payroll this season, and all the tax did was make the payroll 210M.
I don’t see 10M a year being that big of a deterrent for the high revenue teams. I get why it is there, but I don’t think it is a harsh enough. The players probably don’t want the luxury tax because it would drive down salaries potentially, so it is likely never going to get much higher.
It’s hard to get a good estimate of how much the Red Sox receive in initial revenue sharing, but according to Maury Brown writing at BA, revenue sharing re-distributed $433M from big-market teams to small-market teams in 2009. Gasper explains that revenue sharing works by pooling a share of all clubs’ local revenue and then dividing it evenly, so if $433M is being re-distributed, then the total payouts to all clubs must be larger than $433M. That gives us, at least, a hard floor – initial revenue sharing receipts are at minimum $15M for each club. Being even a single dollar over the luxury tax threshold would cost a team more than $15M in revenue, probably much more. That would function as a de facto hard cap, an effective fine of tens of millions of dollars for any team with a payroll over the luxury tax threshold.
So maybe it is harder than in the past. The money still won’t go to the Royals, but to guys like Keith Lockhart and Ron Karkovice. Guys like that want the spending to go up, up, and away.
We're doing something wrong
We love the idea of American exceptionalism, and there is a great deal for Americans to be proud of, but this should be a source of shame. More importantly, it should be seen as a problem that needs to be solved. We should be working hard to discuss and hopefully answer the following questions: Why are so many people incarcerated in this country? Do they all really need to be incarcerated (are there other sentences which make more sense for some of these offenders)? Why is there so much crime? What can we do about that? Is there a better way we could allocate resources which might help this problem?
Does that make sense? Would it make sense to invest in some things which might help to genuinely prevent crime by keeping many people out of the circumstances which lead to crime? If many other countries have much less crime, what are they doing (or not doing) differently from us? Should we seriously look into this?
This is the downside to the theory of American exceptionalism. If this is unquestionably the best country in the world, then we must be doing everything the best. How can we even consider that others might be doing something better than us and that we might be able to learn something important from them.
And most in this country do not realize that sentencing someone to a maximum security prison, or in most cases even a medium security prison, means sentencing that person to a punishment of terror, violence and often rape. Sure it is not the criminal justice system’s goal that a prisoner be beaten, killed or raped, but we know that a higher percentage of them will be. And we close our eyes. “What can you do?” is the typical response. Well, there is much than can be done, but it takes resources. And in this society, we’d rather throw convicted felons in a cage with other felons for a number of years and let whatever happen, happen. Is that cruel? Is that inhuman? Who cares. That scum is off the streets for a while. Who cares what happens to them. What’s exceptional about that?
Scott McKinney - January 27, 2012
This
And education.
But our military is AWESOME.
RoyalsRetro - January 27, 2012
Prisons
should mainly be for violent offenders, and there should continue to be tough sentences for those things. As the article states, this has actually been useful in the reduction of violent crime.
Although it only alludes to it peripherally, the largest factor in the number of people in prison has been the failed “War on Drugs.” It mentions decriminalizing marijuana as a start, and although I have never been a drug user, I agree with this. Unlike violent crime, it has not been reduced, and is never going away. Sell it, tax it, and let it become an economic boon rather than an albatross. I feel the same way about gambling.
Another factor in the prison population explosion has been white collar fraud, especially credit fraud. There can be, as the article suggests, more creative types of punishments, such as community service, forfeiture of wealth and property, and wage garnishment, as well as an inability to borrow money or get loans after you have been caught for these things. Economic crimes, economic punishments.
These can also be addressed from the preventive side. Requiring a photo on your credit card like you do on your driver’s license would not prevent all credit fraud, but it would certainly make it more difficult. For tax fraud, taxing spending rather than income would grow the country’s economy immensely and lessen the benefit of many white collar crimes (as well as drug dealing, where the lure of untaxable cash is part of the temptation.) I am not foolish enough to believe that our bureaucracy will allow this major change to take place, but it is a rather simple and well researched solution.
Instead we have a society where all these people are lumped in together, and jail is the only solution. Many prisons are now run by private companies who have powerful lobbyists puming money and favors into our lawmakers to ensure an increasing population and one whose average stay is longer.
Bureaucracy is a snowball rolling downhill. Once something is set in motion in this country, it just gets bigger until the solution we already have becomes the only one available. The system becomes bigger and more complex until it is just easier to try and tweak it (and make it even more complex) than to commit to a different idea. The tax system, the criminal justice system, the war on drugs-the system feeds itself, and the inertia of “having always done it this way” makes it difficult for a government run by committees and at war with itself to make a real change.
KHAZAD - January 27, 2012
Thoughts on going back to corporal punishment?
Constitutional issues aside, the author makes some interesting points although ultimately I remain unswayed. I don’t think being softer on crime is exactly the answer. We need to be smarter about crime. Its not about the punishment IMO. Its about what do we make of these people in our society?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2079933,00.html#0_undefined,0_
RoyalsRetro - January 27, 2012
interesting article
I would not be against using this for certain types of crimes. Why would this be considered crueler than prolonged rape and torture?
KHAZAD - January 27, 2012
The war on drugs is a key issue
The illegal drug industry and how this country deals with it has helped turn generations of poorer Americans into career criminals. The vast majority of incarcerated persons in this country are in for a drug-related offense.
Scott McKinney - January 27, 2012
this issue is getting changed
Google: Drug courts.
Bronzillo - January 27, 2012
Not true of state or Federal prisoners
Probably true of county and city jails, though, most of the people in jail are there for drugs, drunk driving or domestic abuse.
maguro - January 27, 2012
The war on drugs is key but
I think it is directly tied into the privatization of prisons. There are a lot of people making a lot of money off of sending people to jail. It is in those business’s best interest to have a large client base.
Jacob Mac - January 27, 2012
If you drink booze, you are a drug user.
Bronzillo - January 27, 2012
in Dubai
Loose Seal - January 27, 2012
Prisoners should work full time
This would solve a lot of problems.
I have never understood why prision inmates get such a full spectrum of constitutional rights
If you are a convicted felon serving a sentence, you shouldn’t have the right to shit.
Let future criminals know, if you get caught, you aren’t just going to be hanging out with your buddies all day watching cable and taking naps. You are going to work 6 days a week and if you refuse, you will live in solitary confinement with no stimuli and fed balony and whitebread 3 times a day. Fuck ’em. they are significantly contributing to the ruin of this country.
Bronzillo - January 27, 2012
The 70,000 annual rapes sure argues against
your portrayal of prison life as hanging out with buddies, watching cable and taking naps.
Jacob Mac - January 27, 2012
Definitely
Plus all of the other non-sexual violence.
Scott McKinney - January 27, 2012
Most prisoners would leap at the prospect of working full time.
Beats doing nothing.
Dadunca - January 27, 2012
I very highly doubt that.
Its hard for me to see most felons as the hard working types. Otherwise they would have chosen more traditional career paths that involved legal employment in the first place.
We are likely talking about menial task, manual labor for no pay, and being ordered around by a prison authority. Some would for sure but not most. A small minority imo.
My point is, a prison sentence should be a true punishment. It should be something that would make them think twice before breaking serious laws.
Also, and most importantly, it would help offset (as much as possible) the 35 thou or whatever the cost is up to now, per prisoner per year in tax dollars.
Bronzillo - January 27, 2012
Considering the horrific violence, including rape which is endemic in America’s prisons, it is a true punishment.
Scott McKinney - January 28, 2012
Karma
Bronzillo - January 28, 2012
I don't think I'll change your mind, but I'll try anyhow...
I’ve taught in Juvie, and the kids there are so thankful for anything that gets them out of their cell. Juvie is prison for sure, orange jumpsuits and all. I never had any problems in class because the alternative is back to your cell. And I was there as a sub (I mean, of course I thought I’d have some problems). I’ve also had some cousins who did some real time and they both said the worst part is that time just stands still. Sample size sure, but what else do I have to go on?
Really, you’re entitled to whatever opinion you want, but if you want to believe that those dudes are happy to just “hang out” I have to tell you that it’s my experience that they aren’t and would be thrilled with your plan.
Dadunca - January 28, 2012
I have had strong opinions about our prison system for a long time,
but I don’t wan’t to be close-minded on any issue and I am not an authority on this subject by any measure.
So, I will take you at your word. They certainly are human beings and it certainly isn’t club med (fed?) in there.
Thanks for your input.
Bronzillo - January 28, 2012
So does that mean it is harsh punishment?
Also, are you comfortable sentencing U.S. citizens to violent rape?
Scott McKinney - January 28, 2012
Objection
Speculation
Bronzillo - January 28, 2012
I at least once a week get into an argument with a coworker
about whether or not America is truly the best country. And he can’t back it up with anything other than “it just is” even though he has never left the country, and actually really hasn’t traveled much in this state.
averagegatsby - January 27, 2012
That sounds about right.
OnixConcepcion - January 29, 2012
The drug war is ridiculou
The law should be as follows.
Was there a victim?
No? No crime.
Yes? Find a way to pay restitution.
The entire idea of “crimes against the state” are fictitious. Crimes can only be committed against people or their property.
Kyled85 - January 27, 2012
so you're for people shooting wildly in the air as long as the bullets doesn't hit anybody?
Chiefshero - January 27, 2012
No
because the act of shooting in an aggression against all those nearby who may be hit by it.
The point is things that people do to their own body is their business. Anything that hampers or harms another, including threat of a bullet caving in their head after Jimbo’s 4th of July celebration, is different.
Kyled85 - January 28, 2012
proofread
shooting in the air is an aggression
Kyled85 - January 28, 2012
there's no victim if it doesnt hit anyone
there’s no victim the vast majority of the time when people drive drunk
billybeingbilly - January 28, 2012
Selling meth, crack, heroine
Kills millions. Shitloads of victims.
Selling weed kills nobody.
Bronzillo - January 27, 2012
taking meth, crack, heroin
kills millions. Selling it kills nobody.
Making it illegal only creates violence by pushing it onto a black market.
Kyled85 - January 28, 2012
So, crack and meth dealers are actually innocent,
Its the purchasers who are all to blame. Got it.
Also, if the goverment just legalized these types of drugs, the problems would fade away.
Check and Check. Thanks for clarifying.
Bronzillo - January 28, 2012
The real debate point in favor of legalization and regulation
is that it’s not a criminal issue, it’s a health care issue. Putting a drug user in jail does nothing to address the issue of them using drugs.
Old Man Duggan - January 28, 2012
I agree with you to a point
a crack/meth dealer who actively recruits and introduces his highly destructive product to impressionable adolescents, is a serious criminal and should be prosecuted as one.
I do understand that this does not account for the majority of those behind bars as we speak on drug convictions all over the country.
Bronzillo - January 28, 2012
Well, legalization would come with regulation in these scenarios.
An OTC approach to drugs would certainly eliminate much of that practice as there is a seriously diminished reason to have these dealers, seeing as though there is significantly reduced financial gain for trying to go into such a business.
I would also like to point out that I am not a drug user. It’s just that the war on drugs seems to have needlessly criminalized a segment of the population that don’t really fit the psychological profile of a criminal in need of imprisonment.
Old Man Duggan - January 28, 2012
Knowing crack and meth are both way nastier drugs than pot...
I still have to say that even allowing pot to go the “impressionable adolescents” isn’t a harmless act. After working with high school kids over the last half decade, it’s pretty clear that those who engage in it often show noticeable signs of use.
Warden11 - January 28, 2012
This is not true.
Warden11 - January 28, 2012
Yes, the fact that there are tens of thousands of snack-related deaths every year keeps getting swept under the rug by the NORML propaganda machine.
Old Man Duggan - January 28, 2012
Seriously, though, smoking marijuana is carcinogenic.
And while the possibility of chemical addiction to marijuana is at least harder to prove the existence of, it is certainly a substance to which one can become psychologically/emotionally dependent upon.
Old Man Duggan - January 28, 2012
This is definitely true.
And my comment is more about the selling part than those who smoke.
Warden11 - January 28, 2012
The simple act of selling (disregarding the illegality of it)
wouldn’t actually kill the buyer, which was what the statement seemed to be about.
Old Man Duggan - January 28, 2012
It seems pointlessly reductionist to say that the act of selling doesn't kill anyone
By the same rationale, fraud would not be illegal because the act of misinforming someone causes no harm in and of itself.
KSinDC - January 28, 2012
I'm merely acting as the interpreter,
not my statement or point. I live in a very gray world.
Old Man Duggan - January 28, 2012
Ancillary problems of drug use/addiction
I thought that the article was interesting and thought provoking; however, the author seems to be operating in a vacuum and does not take into account that many crimes, whether it is crimes of violence or burglaries or thefts, are committed due to drug use/addiction.
As a criminal defense attorney, it seems that a majority of the crimes that I am appointed to represent indigent defendants on are due to the use of illegal drugs, mostly methamphetamine. This runs from simple to aggravated battery (getting high and beating up signifcant other or fellow user), child abuse/neglect (causing injuries to children when high or putting the child in danger when high), and burglaries and thefts (stealing to support the drug habit). Additionally, the manufacture of methamphetamine can be extremely dangerous due to the combination of chemicals. While I agree in some respects that a person should be able to do what he or she wants with his or her body, these ancillary crimes do have an effect on other individuals or society as a whole.
Tonight I’m working on the written plea agreement for a 45 year old woman addicted to methamphetamine and prescription pills. Three years ago, she robbed her best friend of her pain medication and, after being arrested, forgot about the pain medication in her bra and pled to felony theft and felony trafficking in contraband in which she received sentences totalling 57 months. The judge gave her probation and ordered drug treatment. She never went to drug treatment and she was later arrested for stealing a camera from a local store. As she had two prior misdemeanor thefts, she was charged with a felony theft. She pled to felony theft, received a sentence of 10 months, and the judge granted her probation in that case, and reinstated probation in the earlier two cases after giving her a six month county jail sentence on an unrelated misdemeanor conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia. After getting out of the county jail, she didn’t report to her probation officer or go to treatment, and was caught selling pain medication to feed her habit and get a hotel room. The county attorney has agreed to recommend that she do 6 years on all four cases in prison. At least she will be in prison with her daughter who smuggled syringes and methamphetamine in her “hoochie-coochie” into the county jail after the judge gave her a furlough to attend a family funeral. At least the women’s pod at the county jail had a fun time.
In a vacuum, I would argue that simple possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use should be punished with a fine like a traffic ticket. Additionally, I agree and support drug courts where persons arrested on simple possession receive drug treatment/education. However, even given the chance at drug treatment/education, some people will not take advantage of the opportunity.
ks.cowboy - January 28, 2012
Alcohol leads people to commit these crimes as well.
People with a predisposition towards addiction will often find a vice (legal or otherwise) to fill their need. They will often commit either crimes or acts detrimental to themselves or their families to support their habits. Addiction therapy should be our primary concern on this front.
Old Man Duggan - January 28, 2012
Unless you want the help, addiction therapy is pointless.
So, most of the time, it is pointless as most addicts don’t find, or even want, success in their sobriety when they are first introduced to the idea. The addiction industry is booming right now. People go to rehab three of four times, hear the same things, and continue the same behaviors. After the first trip, it is really a waste of money. Unless you are at the end of your rope and decide to quit, the charade will keep going.
BeauJackson - January 28, 2012
Isn't our society far far more sober now than it was 100 years ago?
While it may not always work on an individual level, it seems like a focus on treatment and limiting access to drugs has been fairly successful on a societal level.
KSinDC - January 28, 2012
If a prescription were required for ephedrine and pseudoephedrine based Cold medicines,
The meth epidemic in America would literally disappear entirely.
The evidence is overwhelming in this PBS Frontline doc
Highly recommended.
Bronzillo - January 28, 2012
I was under the impression almost all meth sold in the U.S. was made in Mexico
I’ll have to watch that Frontline show
KSinDC - January 28, 2012
You are exactly right, and that directly ties in to this investigation
KSinDC seriously, watch this video.
Bronzillo - January 28, 2012
I watched it and I still don't really understand
If those drugs went prescription in the U.S., it would be harder to buy them in the U.S., but the mexican drug cartels are buying their ingredients in bulk from India. I don’t see how making the drugs prescription only in the U.S. would affect the drug cartels’ supply at this point.
KSinDC - January 30, 2012
Now that I re-read the summary, I see that they claim that the shipments from India no longer
I guess I’m pretty dubious that they’re no longer getting their rootstock in bulk.
KSinDC - January 30, 2012
I think you mean NEW Mexico.
I learned that from Breaking Bad.
Old Man Duggan - January 28, 2012
That would suck though.
When I get a little cold or my allergies hit hard in the fall, it’s nice to be able to go pick up the good Claritin at the pharmacy without paying money to a dr. That’s selfish as hell and I would trade it if that cleaned it up. Knowing the history of drugs in the US, I doubt it’s that easy anyway.
Warden11 - January 28, 2012
Claritin would be unaffected
The drug affected is regular Sudafed (pseudoephedrine: sud-a-fed-rin). The new Sudafed PE uses a different drug (that doesn’t really work) while regular Sudafed is only available behind the counter
KSinDC - January 30, 2012
I've Used Pseudoephedrine
All my life. I can still get it, but it is a pain in the ass.
philofthenorth - January 30, 2012
Are you talking just alcohol?
Without looking anything up, I’d imagine illicit drug use has skyrocketed in this country from 100 years ago.
It seems like people have too easy access to drugs now when you consider how many millions of Americans are on physch meds. There are plenty of cases where these meds are warranted, but with people addicted to things like Xanax, Percocet, and especially Oxys, it would appear that these drugs are too abundant in our society.
BeauJackson - January 28, 2012
Interesting question.
Either way, don’t you have to go by the result of the drug use (being high) and not actual drug use?
Warden11 - January 28, 2012
I know that use of alcohol is down like 80%
I was under the impression that use of cocaine was down a comparable amount to alcohol, and I know that tobacco use is way down, but I don’t know how much.
I could see opiate use being relatively unchanged, given the abuse of prescription pain medications, but I’d guess that, even here, the drug control policy is having some substantial effect.
I have no idea on marijuana use, and I’d be a little surprised if useful figures exist for use a century ago.
KSinDC - January 30, 2012
Thats an incredibly sad story.
That woman is almost assuredly beyond help at this point. Her daughter appears to be following the same path.
If these are typical of the types of cases you deal with on a routine basis cowboy, then i respect you for that. You are at least trying to help.
I would find it too depressing I think. Then again, I have never had even the slightest desire to be a lawyer. To each his own.
Bronzillo - January 28, 2012
I used to work with kids in Minneapolis who had to be removed from unsafe environments
but were too unstable for typical placement. Rough work.
Old Man Duggan - January 28, 2012
And this ties back into the very first comment.
Try teaching that child.
Warden11 - January 28, 2012
Thanks for the kind comment, Bronzillo
Unfortunately, it is a fairly typical case that I deal with. However, I try to focus on the positive outcomes that I have, and drug education/treatment is effective for those who put the energy in and try to change.
ks.cowboy - January 29, 2012
keep up the good work.
Bronzillo - January 31, 2012
it could also mean that your police system is the most effective?
Yamfun Cheng Kamfun - January 27, 2012
The Mariners/Andersen article about a failed pitching prospect was interesting but not really informative
It was 1997, so TINSTAAPP was not widely known, and I would think the risk inherent in young pitchers was underestimated and expectations correspondingly elevated. But that’s not really groundbreaking. Pitching prospects get injured, and sometimes that ruins their career.
Good reminder, though, that the only way to consistently generate successful pitchers from the farm is by strength in numbers.
SagehenMacGyver47 - January 27, 2012
Along the lines of that Braves article
Olney’s new Insider piece suggests the new CBA didn’t do as much to help small and mid market clubs as you might think and there is about to be a huge gulf again because of some mammoth TV deals for certain markets.
RoyalsRetro - January 27, 2012
And what is interesting
Is what will hurt small market clubs isn’t that the Yanks and Red Sox are spending five times what the Royals and Pirates are, its that there will be many more Yanks and Red Sox, or at least junior versions – the Rangers, Dodgers, Angels and Mariners, possibly more (Nats? Marlins?)
RoyalsRetro - January 27, 2012
Did anyone think that the CBA helped small market teams
or did anything to address the disparity between richer and poorer teams?
Scott McKinney - January 27, 2012
I thought there were some reports of more revenue sharing
And the penalties for exceeding the luxury tax are much stiffer now – many people are attributing the Red Sox lack of movement (and the fact they actually had a salary dump of Scutaro) as evidence of that.
RoyalsRetro - January 27, 2012
Yes, that’s true about the luxury tax, but I wonder how much that will hamper the large market teams (like the top 10) over the term of this CBA. I didn’t read about more revenue sharing, but I sure hope that is part of the CBA and that it is significant.
Scott McKinney - January 27, 2012
From what I read, a lot of the motivation was about putting the luxury tax in place
rather than having a large effect initially. Once the luxury tax has become the “standard” then it can be raised/lowered as the league sees fit. So, in the sense that the luxury tax exists (contrasted against not having one at all), that is a good thing.
I believe the draft changes will be (or are at least an attempt to be) beneficial to the mid and small market teams. The slotting preempts the eventual outcome of big-market teams owning the draft just like they own free agency. It already existed to an extent and was only going to get worse. I also think laying the groundwork for an international draft will be a good thing in the long run as well.
SagehenMacGyver47 - January 27, 2012
The luxury tax rate doesn't help with revenue sharing
Money in that department goes to the MLB general fund. The luxury tax really isn’t that big of a deal anyway. The Yankees had a 201M payroll this season, and all the tax did was make the payroll 210M.
BeauJackson - January 27, 2012
Right, but it serves as a drag on salaries
At least in theory.
RoyalsRetro - January 27, 2012
With these new TV contracts.
I don’t see 10M a year being that big of a deterrent for the high revenue teams. I get why it is there, but I don’t think it is a harsh enough. The players probably don’t want the luxury tax because it would drive down salaries potentially, so it is likely never going to get much higher.
BeauJackson - January 27, 2012
And the larger market teams don't want to share significantly more revenue
So that’s not likely to happen either.
So in order for the Royals to succeed, they are going to need an excellent front office.
Scott McKinney - January 27, 2012
Or one of these two as commissioner
thelaundry - January 27, 2012
When I was last in Corpus Christi,
Billie Jean was in my heart.
Old Man Duggan - January 28, 2012
Is that Tank Girl?
Bronzillo - January 28, 2012
The Legend of Billie Jean
starred Helen Slater with the unrelated Christian Slater playing her brother and Keith Gordon as a nerdy weird rich kid who befriended them.
You might recognize Helen Slater from her work as Supergirl or in The Secret of My Success or even more recently in The Lying Game on ABC Family.
Old Man Duggan - January 28, 2012
There is speculation the penalty is much higher than that
No one seems to know for sure, but there has to be a reason why the Yanks and Red Sox seem determined to get under the limit by 2013.
Here’s a conversation on the possibility:
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/sox_therapy/discussion/youre_telling_me_theres_a_salary_cap_in_the_new_cba
RoyalsRetro - January 27, 2012
The Red Sox do seem concerned about it.
So maybe it is harder than in the past. The money still won’t go to the Royals, but to guys like Keith Lockhart and Ron Karkovice. Guys like that want the spending to go up, up, and away.
BeauJackson - January 27, 2012
Those single-season HR records
are depressing.
Yodazilla - January 27, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Royals Review to post a comment.