this is your war on drugs

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it was the prescription violation? Didn't they claim he was dealing the pills out, and that's why he got such an insane sentence?

[/ QUOTE ]

adios wants to keep reminding us that this is a boring story because the guy is guilty of forging prescriptions.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it was the prescription violation? Didn't they claim he was dealing the pills out, and that's why he got such an insane sentence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Punishing Pain


What followed was a legal saga pitting Mr. Paey against his longtime doctor (and a former friend of the Paeys), who denied at the trial that he had given Mr. Paey some of the prescriptions. Mr. Paey maintains that the doctor did approve the disputed prescriptions, and several pharmacists backed him up at the trial. Mr. Paey was convicted of forging prescriptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the real issue:

He was subject to a 25-year minimum penalty because he illegally possessed Percocet and other pills weighing more than 28 grams, enough to classify him as a drug trafficker under Florida's draconian law (which treats even a few dozen pain pills as the equivalent of a large stash of cocaine).

[/ QUOTE ]

For you that's the real issue. Someone questioned whether he was convicted for forging prescriptions and apparently he was. I dug up this story:

Richard Paey Story


In Florida, the illegal possession of certain prescription painkillers -- in amounts more than 28 grams, enough to fill less than two bottles -- is considered drug trafficking. The penalty is equivalent to that meted out to hard-core heroin dealers -- a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years in prison. Prosecutors convinced a jury that Paey had forged enough prescriptions to qualify as a drug trafficker. He is barely a year into serving the sentence.

I think the following is also relevant and is part of the story:

Before his first trial date in 2001, Paey declined a deal of pleading guilty to a lesser offense and accepting house arrest and probation -- but no prison time. But Paey said he could not plead guilty to a crime he insists to this day he did not commit.

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it was the prescription violation? Didn't they claim he was dealing the pills out, and that's why he got such an insane sentence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Punishing Pain


What followed was a legal saga pitting Mr. Paey against his longtime doctor (and a former friend of the Paeys), who denied at the trial that he had given Mr. Paey some of the prescriptions. Mr. Paey maintains that the doctor did approve the disputed prescriptions, and several pharmacists backed him up at the trial. Mr. Paey was convicted of forging prescriptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the real issue:

He was subject to a 25-year minimum penalty because he illegally possessed Percocet and other pills weighing more than 28 grams, enough to classify him as a drug trafficker under Florida's draconian law (which treats even a few dozen pain pills as the equivalent of a large stash of cocaine).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's what a figured.

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it was the prescription violation? Didn't they claim he was dealing the pills out, and that's why he got such an insane sentence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Punishing Pain


What followed was a legal saga pitting Mr. Paey against his longtime doctor (and a former friend of the Paeys), who denied at the trial that he had given Mr. Paey some of the prescriptions. Mr. Paey maintains that the doctor did approve the disputed prescriptions, and several pharmacists backed him up at the trial. Mr. Paey was convicted of forging prescriptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the real issue:

He was subject to a 25-year minimum penalty because he illegally possessed Percocet and other pills weighing more than 28 grams, enough to classify him as a drug trafficker under Florida's draconian law (which treats even a few dozen pain pills as the equivalent of a large stash of cocaine).

[/ QUOTE ]

For you that's the real issue. Someone questioned whether he was convicted for forging prescriptions and apparently he was. I dug up this story:

Richard Paey Story


In Florida, the illegal possession of certain prescription painkillers -- in amounts more than 28 grams, enough to fill less than two bottles -- is considered drug trafficking. The penalty is equivalent to that meted out to hard-core heroin dealers -- a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years in prison. Prosecutors convinced a jury that Paey had forged enough prescriptions to qualify as a drug trafficker. He is barely a year into serving the sentence.

I think the following is also relevant and is part of the story:

Before his first trial date in 2001, Paey declined a deal of pleading guilty to a lesser offense and accepting house arrest and probation -- but no prison time. But Paey said he could not plead guilty to a crime he insists to this day he did not commit.

[/ QUOTE ]

For me it's the issue, yes. Because what he was actually guilty of was irrelevant to the sentencing. The sentencing was based on mandantory minimums.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it was the prescription violation? Didn't they claim he was dealing the pills out, and that's why he got such an insane sentence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Punishing Pain


What followed was a legal saga pitting Mr. Paey against his longtime doctor (and a former friend of the Paeys), who denied at the trial that he had given Mr. Paey some of the prescriptions. Mr. Paey maintains that the doctor did approve the disputed prescriptions, and several pharmacists backed him up at the trial. Mr. Paey was convicted of forging prescriptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the real issue:

He was subject to a 25-year minimum penalty because he illegally possessed Percocet and other pills weighing more than 28 grams, enough to classify him as a drug trafficker under Florida's draconian law (which treats even a few dozen pain pills as the equivalent of a large stash of cocaine).

[/ QUOTE ]

For you that's the real issue. Someone questioned whether he was convicted for forging prescriptions and apparently he was. I dug up this story:

Richard Paey Story


In Florida, the illegal possession of certain prescription painkillers -- in amounts more than 28 grams, enough to fill less than two bottles -- is considered drug trafficking. The penalty is equivalent to that meted out to hard-core heroin dealers -- a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years in prison. Prosecutors convinced a jury that Paey had forged enough prescriptions to qualify as a drug trafficker. He is barely a year into serving the sentence.

I think the following is also relevant and is part of the story:

Before his first trial date in 2001, Paey declined a deal of pleading guilty to a lesser offense and accepting house arrest and probation -- but no prison time. But Paey said he could not plead guilty to a crime he insists to this day he did not commit.

[/ QUOTE ]

For me it's the issue, yes. Because what he was actually guilty of was irrelevant to the sentencing. The sentencing was based on the insane (but inevitable) escalation caused by catastrophic failure of the "war on drugs" .

[/ QUOTE ]

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
If people want to do away with prescriptions altogether I see the "war on drugs" as basically a peripheral issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they're not related, then why was Paey's home raided by a paramilitary swat team used for drug enforcement?

natedogg

[DblBarrelJ]

The OP really troubles me, and here's why. I don't like people using these arguments, because they're not commonplace.

Before you link up three or four stories to prove me wrong, hear me out. The fact of the matter is, 98% of people currently incarcerated for drug offenses are pure, recreational users. Do I have a problem with recreational drug use? Hell no, marijuana is pretty much harmless, and hard drugs kill people and I look at it as natural selection at it's finest.

But lets be honest here, using arguments like the story in the OP are no different than rabid pro-choicers dragging out stories about twelve year old girls who were raped and inpregnated by their fathers. Does it happen? Sure! Statistically, what percentage of abortions are performed because of that reason? Less than 1%.

The statistics are almost identical for those incarcerated for prescription drug and marijuana offenses who were using for medicinal purposes. I'm against the war on drugs, but lets be against it for the right reason, and not drag out some strawman argument about a situation that is a statistical blip on the radar of the overall picture.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If people want to do away with prescriptions altogether I see the "war on drugs" as basically a peripheral issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they're not related, then why was Paey's home raided by a paramilitary swat team used for drug enforcement?

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Here we go again. I didn't say they weren't related.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The OP really troubles me, and here's why. I don't like people using these arguments, because they're not commonplace.

Before you link up three or four stories to prove me wrong, hear me out. The fact of the matter is, 98% of people currently incarcerated for drug offenses are pure, recreational users. Do I have a problem with recreational drug use? Hell no, marijuana is pretty much harmless, and hard drugs kill people and I look at it as natural selection at it's finest.

But lets be honest here, using arguments like the story in the OP are no different than rabid pro-choicers dragging out stories about twelve year old girls who were raped and inpregnated by their fathers. Does it happen? Sure! Statistically, what percentage of abortions are performed because of that reason? Less than 1%.

The statistics are almost identical for those incarcerated for prescription drug and marijuana offenses who were using for medicinal purposes. I'm against the war on drugs, but lets be against it for the right reason, and not drag out some strawman argument about a situation that is a statistical blip on the radar of the overall picture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post. I feel like one sided accounts are nothing more than attempts at manipulation.

Edit: Out of curiosity what do you think regarding prescription drugs? Should we have them? Sort of an open ended question and I realize that you might believe that the system could be improved so I'm not saying it couldn't be improved upon. I'm just asking you about the practice of having some drugs available only via prescription. I also understand if you choose not answer due to the risk of facing a "firestorm" from some posters.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact of the matter is, 98% of people currently incarcerated for drug offenses are pure, recreational users. Do I have a problem with that? Hell no, marijuana is pretty much harmless, and hard drugs kill people and I look at it as natural selection at it's finest.


[/ QUOTE ]

I understand you to be saying that you don't have a problem with people using drugs recreationally (please correct me if my understanding is inaccurate).

You're also stating that 98% of the people incarcerated for drug offense are incarcerated for purely recreational drug use. Wow, that seems really high, but I suppose you are probably correct.

Let me ask you this, please: do you have a problem with the law that would incarcerate such a huge number of rec drug users? And further, do you feel (as I do) that police officers and prosecutors are acting immorally by enforcing such immoral laws?

Finally, do you think (as I do) that the prisons and jails are unsafe and that no non-violent, recreational drug user should be put into, or forced to remain in, such an unsafe environment? And that it is criminal to force them (and others who similarly have done nothing horrible against society nor seriously victimized anyone) into such an environment?

I think all police officers, prosecutors, prison guards and even judges who act to place non-violent, non-dangerous "criminal" offenders behind bars are acting more imorally, and are also in effect greater criminals themselves, than are the lawbreakers whom they are imprisoning.

I realize that I've asked you a string of questions: if you could please try to respond to them sequentially, followed by a summary, it would be appreciated. I think my line of moral reasoning is intact, but I am aware that not everyone will share my premises. To my way of thinking, though, the conclusion generally follows from the moral chain of questions and thinking presented above.

Thanks for reading.