One of the Worst Abuses I Have Read About In A While
I can't possibly excerpt this story of the jailing and torture of a woman for buying a box of Sudafed. Read it all and get totally pissed off. It makes me want to go to law school and pass the bar just so I can represent this woman pro bono.
me:
And the worst part - they succeed sticking it to the innocent, with no repercussions for the deed or the damages. F-ing fascist police state.
April 12, 2012, 9:14 ameCurmudgeon:
As others have pointed out, in the not-so-distant future people will have to start buying meth on street corners, taking it home and cooking it back down into effective cold medicine.
April 12, 2012, 9:18 amme:
Snort :D
First time I've ever heard that one, it's great. Thank you!
April 12, 2012, 9:37 amgn:
How does that chair make it past "cruel and unusual punishment"?
April 12, 2012, 10:05 amMike:
Wow. Words fail me.
April 12, 2012, 11:00 amFrank Waleczak:
When this first happened last year, I read an investigative piece that refuted much of her sob story. I also do not remember any mention of Scuba Diving at that time. The search engines seem to have been professionally stacked so that the only stories I can find are the one that you are referred to above. I will keep digging and post the link if I find it.
April 12, 2012, 2:38 pmMark:
This has been posted before. I think before you jump to conclusions that the entire story needs to be looked at.
She was found guilty by a jury who actually heard the evidence first hand, not the edited version we are getting here. Why would 12 jurors find her guilty based on the facts presented in this story?
April 12, 2012, 2:40 pmFrank Waleczak:
Btw, my skepticism does not mean I approve of the law restricting Sudafed sales
April 12, 2012, 2:40 pmMark:
I totally support a law restricting Sudafed sales. Why make the produciton of crystal meth that much easier.
Limiting sales and making the buyer present identification are minimal restrictions on your freedom for the purchase of such a chemical.
April 12, 2012, 3:41 pmClay:
One can make a fine LSD substitute from Morning Glory seeds. Should we make the purchase of MG seeds a crime?
April 12, 2012, 5:35 pmOr what about the purchase of ethylene glycol (automotive anti-freeze) which I can use to kill you by progressively spiking your iced tea.
I can dissolve styrofoam packing peanuts in a Coke bottle of gasoline to make Napalm and use it to destroy a building. Therefore we should criminalize the purchase of packing peanuts. What a joke the "drug war" has become.
Clay:
There was no victim in this case therefore there was no crime. The jury convicted her of what, a crime against whom? We must understand that just because it is a "law" it is not automatically "just". There must be a victim. She did not aggress, impede, hinder, destroy, maim, injure, violate, harm or in any way impose on the property or person of another. How then is it possible for her to have committed a "crime"?
April 12, 2012, 5:39 pmmarkm:
"She was found guilty by a jury who actually heard the evidence first hand, not the edited version we are getting here." No, they heard a differently edited version - for example, a few seconds of "confession" edited out of an hour of interrogation.
April 12, 2012, 5:44 pmMark:
"No, they heard a differently edited version – for example, a few seconds of “confession” edited out of an hour of interrogation."
You have no clue what the jury heard. Twelve individuals all agreed to her guilt. Why? THe way the case is presented in this article, it is open and shut, not guilty. But, 12 reasonable people heard the actual testimony and found her guilty.
"One can make a fine LSD substitute from Morning Glory seeds. Should we make the purchase of MG seeds a crime?"
Sure, it is all a joke to you. But crystal meth is a major problem in our communities. There are many different measures to control access to drugs that can create such terrible, addictive drugs. The state and people of the state have the power to regulate such commerce via their legislature, and this is an appropriate use of such powers. Legitimate usage of the product is not restricted, any intrusion into privacy is limited, and at most, it is a minor inconvenience to purchase the product.
"There was no victim in this case therefore there was no crime."
More libertarian bull crap. This type of talk is what makes libertarians look like fools. There are many "victimless" crimes and the deterrence factor alone justifies making "victimless" crimes illegal. Drunk driving, speeding, running red lights, these are all "victimless" crimes and only idiots advocate repealing them.
April 12, 2012, 10:41 pmJim Collins:
The jury probably found her guilty, because she was guilty. Guilty of crossing state lines to buy Sudafed. It is the law that is the problem here. It is bullshit. What I want to know is did the police sting have any State or Federal funding? This funding or as I like to call it "Cop Welfare" is a major cause of innocent people being railroaded by our so called Justice System. In order to keep the funding they have to show results. I'll bet that this is just a way for them to justify more funding. Most people would have taken the plea deal, resulting in a conviction so that the DA can brag about how he is tough on drugs and the police can show that they deserve more grant money.
April 13, 2012, 7:13 amMark2:
@Mark the reason the pseudophed bans are silly is because they didn't do anything to stop the meth problem. It just took away American Jobs as the meth production went to Mexico. Anyone who wants meth can still easily get it. And now millions of cold suffers do not have a viable medication to relieve congestion for the pain of a few thousand who like Meth.
I am still upset that the decongestant that works best for me was banned about 10 years ago. Phenylpropanolamine was non tiring, but it did not hop you up either like pseudophed does, and it lasted 12 hours rather than just 4. Many medicines including Tavist D used to contain the ingrediant. But due to doctored up liability issues drug companies were forced to remove it, and now the US considers it a controlled substance, because - you can manufacture it into something or other (no-one does btw)
April 13, 2012, 3:04 pmMark:
"Anyone who wants meth can still easily get it."
False. The sudefed ban by definition makes it harder to get. If the drug production moved to Mexico, all the better. Trying to smuggle the drugs across the border makes it much more expensive, and thus harder to get. Even illegal drugs follow the laws of supply and demand. THANK YOU FOR PROVING MY POINT.
April 13, 2012, 6:36 pmErisGuy:
Wow. So every time I holiday I break the law by buying Sudafed outside my home town. This war on Sudafed has been going on for a long time. (Isn't there a web essay on how to make Sudafed from easily-available meth?)
The Founding Fathers started a war which lasted eight years over a stamp tax. The French philosophies started a rebellion and war which lasted for decades over taxes. When, o, when o will it be our turn? Should we buy bullets or sharpen our guillotines to serve justice to those who would regulate allergy medicine?
"Sure, it is all a joke to you. But crystal meth is a major problem in our communities."
This is what happens when a nation wages a "war on drugs" it doesn't intend to win.
April 13, 2012, 6:54 pmMark:
"This is what happens when a nation wages a “war on drugs” it doesn’t intend to win."
No, this is what happens when morons like you equate "winning the war on drugs" with the complete eradication of drugs. And, then, since drugs are still be abused illegally, believing the only possible solution is to legalize.
It is equivalent to claiming, we have a "war on murder" with laws that make murder illegal. BUT, since there still is murders happening every day we should legalize murder because obviously the laws do not make it stop.
Libertarians, no matter how much I can understand the theory, are morons when it comes to reality.
April 13, 2012, 7:42 pmMark2:
@Mark, it isn't false. It is marginally more difficult at best to get Meth in this country since the new war started. Production costs are lower in Mexico, and the cartels are expert at bringing drugs over the border as we can see with the incredible supplies of crack, meth heroine, pot, and cocaine freely available in this country.
All we did was make it harder for people with colds to get the only remaining allowable decongestant (since the government seems to have a war against all of them) to help relieve symptoms.
I haven't purchased any in years, since I have heard horror stories of granny getting sick and buying some, and then going again and buying some in the same week for the grandkids and then get arrested. I don't need that hassle.
April 14, 2012, 10:02 pmMark2:
This, if we can save but one person business is garbage, you are ruining the lives of millions for the "but one" you are trying to save, and I see this over and over, with drugs, toys, etc.
You know we ban chocolate Easter eggs in this country that are allowed all over the rest of the world, but for the one kid who might choke on it? The government confiscates about 50K of them a year, mostly at airports and Canadian border crossings in customs.
http://nacla.org/blog/2012/4/6/us-border-war-easter-eggs
April 14, 2012, 10:08 pmMark:
"All we did was make it harder for people with colds"
Really? SHowing an id and being limited to a box or two? Give me a break. That is insignificant.
The fact is, there may be experts at smuggling but that still makes the cost more expensive. Risk is a cost.
Until the libertarians can find better solutions, this is what we got.
April 15, 2012, 2:34 pm