25-Year Sentence for Medication

http://www.reason.com/news/show/123589.html

Richard Paey was sentenced to 25 years in a Florida prison for possessing too many opiates. Prosecutors in the case said he was an addict; that no person could consume that many opiates and he must be selling them. The prosecutors in the case admitted they did not have any evidence that he was selling drugs, they just assumed it because he had so many. Due to the high profile nature of the case he was pardoned by the Governor of Florida (Charlie Crist). He had served 4 years and quite a few days in solitary confinement.

On a rather ironic and perverse note, when he got to prison the doctors gave him more drugs than he was taking when he was arrested. The prosecutors, who weren’t doctors, said he couldn’t possibly be using that many drugs for medical purposes. And the doctors in the prison said he needed more drugs. I’m not a doctor, I don’t know how much drugs he really needed, but he’s the patient he should decide that with his doctor.

He said something very poignant in the interview with Reason magazine.

“I was convicted because the prosecutor hammered away at the jury that I was an addict and that my doctor was a pusher. I was sort of blindsided when the prosecutor started to make that argument—that I was nothing more than an addict. I can’t think of a worse slur to attach to a person.”

“I can’t think of a worse slur (addict) to attach to a person.” I began to think in modern society he’s probably right. Not because there aren’t worse people than addicts. If someone calls you fat, lazy, stupid, a nigger, or a kike they have no more power over you than what you give them. However there are certain labels that the user can use that do have power, addict being one of them. If someone calls you an addict and they can convince the right people of that they can take your rights away. It’s sad that in America the term addict, which is basically a sick person, is now synonymous with criminal.

Zero-Tolerance = Intolerance

Intolerance:

1. lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.
2. incapacity or indisposition to bear or endure
3. abnormal sensitivity or allergy to a food, drug, etc.
4. an intolerant act.

Zero-tolerance policies fit the second definition of intolerance. Zero-tolerance: the “incapacity or indisposition to bear or endure.” Fear-mongering and prejudice has led to more and more zero-tolerance policies ever since I was a kid. Schools now have zero-tolerance policies for violence, guns, racism, sexual harassment, alcohol, and drugs.

Now you might be saying that these things are very bad and should not be tolerated. This is true, but you have to have clear cut policies. Here’s what effects zero-tolerance policies can have.

http://www.usatoday.com/educate/ednews3.htm

A 14 year old girl was sentenced to 5-months in a military style boot camp for bringing alcohol to school. This was her first offence and she was also an honor student. You can Google “zero-tolerance policies” to look up other incidences. And remember, those are just the ones that make the news.

When I was in high school, there was a student at a middle school that was suspended for saying “I’m going to kill you” on the school bus to another student. People in town talked about it a lot. I remember saying things like when I was a kid. I remember having people say things like that to me. I didn’t want them suspended.

Here’s a story from Reason magazine about a man who was sentenced to 25 years in prison for using prescription drugs to treat his own pain.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/123589.html

The prosecutor in the case said he was an addict and not a patient. They said he couldn’t possibly have as much drugs as he had for personal use and must be selling them even though they had no proof he was selling drugs. When he went to prison the doctors there ended up giving him more drugs than what he was convicted of possessing. I’ll talk more about this case in another post. He was later pardoned after serving four years.

We’ve become a zero-tolerance society. Mess up once in your life and you pay for it until you die.

Follow Up: A Sales Tax Solution

I was thinking more about the “Fair Tax” idea and another benefit occurred to me. It would help those in debt. By taxing earnings debtors pay taxes no matter what. If you tax their spending they would have more incentive to save money. Of course people always have an incentive to make more money, but it’s usually easier to cut expenses than to get a raise. Well not just debtors would have more incentive to save money, but also anybody else. This would definitely help people in America who are in debt.

Current Scenario 1:

$30,000 income
$20,000 expenses
- $7,500 taxes on income (25% income)
$2,500 to pay off debt

Fair Tax Scenario 1:

$30,000 income
$20,000 expenses
- $5,000 taxes on expenses (25% expenses)
$5,000 to pay off debt

Scenario 1 shows how people will probably spend less. Look at Scenario 2 after cutting $5000 in expenses. Scenario 2 shows how people have an incentive to cut expenses.

Current Scenario 2:

$30,000 income
$15,000 expenses
- $7,500 taxes on income (25% income)
$7,500 to pay off debt

$5,000 in more savings (100% of debt reduction)

Fair Tax Scenario 2:

$30,000 income
$15,000 expenses
- $3,750 taxes on expenses (25% expenses)
$11,250 to pay off debt (125% of debt reduction)

$6,250 in more savings (125% of debt reduction)

Pro:

• People would have more incentive to save money
• People in debt could pay off their debt faster by earning more through cutting expenses

However I did come up with a major con of the system. People are more inclined to save money up front than to save money in the long run. People are all about instant gratification. Every time they would buy something they would see that 25-30% or so tax. Most people would probably rather only see their taxes once or twice a month rather than everyday even if it would save them money to get it regularly.

Con:

• People would rather have instant gratification, lower prices up front instead of lower cost in the long run.

A One Check Entitlement

Charles Murray, a member of the American Enterprise Institute, has a new book out called “In Our Hands : A Plan To Replace The Welfare State.” In it he argues that all social programs (Welfare, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicair, Food Stamps, etc.) should be done away with and instead be replaced by a $10,000 a year, tax-free, check to each person living below the poverty line. I haven’t read the book and I haven’t computed the numbers, but I think the main idea is solid.

Just give each person living below the poverty line a check for $10,000 a year, sounds good. Of course the poverty line could be adjusted to something reasonable, and we could have a reasonable progressive policy where the less you make the more you get. Just average it at $10,000 per year per person living below the poverty line. This would eliminate bureaucracy, promote freedom, and people could decide for themselves how best to spend their money. They might spend it on buying a new car to get to work, taking some classes, saving money for their retirement, sending their kids to a better school, or taking a few days off a week to find a better paying job.

I have a suspicion some of you are saying to yourselves, “You can’t do that, people might spend the money on beer and cigarettes.” I would say that is elitism. Basically the idea is that people, in this case the poor, are generally stupid and the elite, this case the bureaucrats, need to decide what’s best for them and tell them how to spend their money. More freedom is always good as long as it doesn’t impose on another’s freedom.

I highly doubt many would want to go along with this idea. There’s an old expression, “If there’s a shipwreck, at least I own the wreckage.” Making people give up their own power to pass it on to individuals is always difficult, even if their power is for the purpose of helping those individuals.

No IRS: A Sales Tax Solution

Conservative radio talk-show host Neal Boortz co-authored a book with Congressman John Linder called the “Fair Tax Book.” In it they spell out reasons to dismantle the IRS, income taxes, and every other tax and impose a 23% national sales tax on all consumed goods. I have not read the book and don’t know all the details of this proposal, however I can give some pros and cons to basing the entire tax system on a sales tax.

Pros:

1. Less fraud in the tax system.
   
2. No filing taxes.
3. Simplified tax code.
4. People who do not usually pay taxes (illegal immigrants, prostitutes, drug dealers, tourists, strippers, anyone with good tax lawyers) would all pay their fair share of taxes through this system.
5. When politicians say they need to raise taxes everyone would have to contribute, not just the top 1%. New programs would be more debated and would have to be universally accepted.

Cons:

1. Possible creation of a black market.
2. Some of the ultra-wealthy might live as misers and avoid paying taxes.
3. Retirees would have to pay taxes during consumption when they already paid taxes on earning the money.
4. Growing pains in the system, before-tax prices would immediately.
5. Individuals would have a hard time selling things by themselves.

There are probably other concerns, but I think the cons can be addressed. There are black markets now, and law enforcement could deal with that. If the wealthy don’t spend their money, they’re not necessarily avoiding the taxes; eventually the money would get spent. Retirees could get a waiver. Anyone collecting social security could simply pay a lower tax and over time it would be phased out. We could phase in the tax and cut existing taxes in proportion to raising the sales tax. Individuals could just send off taxes every year. Tax evaders are already prosecuted, we could refocus investigations. Or, we could just say that only new goods and services get taxed. I believe Boortz’s plan calls for that. I’ll have to read the book to double check.

This “Fair Tax Plan” should be considered. According to Congressman Linder he has introduced the bill in Congress and it has received over 50 co-sponsors. The idea is popular and maybe it should be. If I read the book I’ll report more on it. You can buy it from Amazon here:

http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Tax-Book-Saying-Goodbye/dp/0060875496/ref=tag_dpp_lp_edpp_img_in

Crazy Ron Paul Supporters

Yesterday the American Thinker magazine posted an article about Ron Paul on their website.

The article is titled “The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters”. You can view it here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html

I always knew he had a loyal fan base, but these people are just fanatical. Now he has received support from some vile characters. Some of Ron Paul’s more vile supporters include:

Pat Robertson: conservative who ran for President in 1992, 1996, and in 2000. He has a history of racist and anti-Semitic remarks.

Don Black: a neo-Nazi who founded Stormfront.org. He gave Ron Paul $500. Ron Paul’s campaign has not reported that they have given it back. Stormfront has a link at the bottom of their homepage to Ron Paul.

Will Williams (aka ‘White Will'): one of Paul’s top Tennessee Internet organizers. Used to be the southern coordinator of William Pierce’s National Alliance Party, the largest neo-Nazi party in the U.S.

David Duke: former KKK leader and Presidential candidate. His website http://www.whitecivilrights.com repeatedly has posts to about Ron Paul and fundraising links.

Alex Jones: radio talk show host and leader in the 911 “truth” movement. Ron Paul has appeared on Alex Jones’s radio show five times.

This article was written after radio talk-show host Michael Medved posted this letter on townhall.com:

Dear Congressman Paul:

Your Presidential campaign has drawn the enthusiastic support of an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 "Truthers" and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.

Do you welcome- or repudiate - the support of such factions?

More specifically, your columns have been featured for several years in the American Free Press -a publication of the nation's leading Holocaust Denier and anti-Semitic agitator, Willis Carto. His book club even recommends works that glorify the Nazi SS, and glowingly describe the "comforts and amenities" provided for inmates of Auschwitz.

Have your columns appeared in the American Free Press with your knowledge and approval?

As a Presidential candidate, will you now disassociate yourself, clearly and publicly, from the poisonous propaganda promoted in such publications?

As a guest on my syndicated radio show, you answered my questions directly and fearlessly.

Will you now answer these pressing questions, and eliminate all associations between your campaign and some of the most loathsome fringe groups in American society?

Along with my listeners (and many of your own supporters), I eagerly await your response.

Respectfully, Michael Medved

That post received over 500 comments from Paul supporters. They included:

• "Your own Zionism is slipping, Medved! Why should anyone disassociate from 9/11 Truthers?"
• "I suggest you take off the tin-foil yamika (sic), your brain is fried."
• "You will do anything to smear this good man to try and safeguard US policy in Israel."
• "Hey Medved. Tell your AIPAC handlers to be nervous. You are failing miserably."
• "It's patently obvious why you don't support Dr. Paul: He's not hand-picked by AIPAC and the Likud Party."

Here’s an article by the American Thinker that shows how Ron Paul supporters reacted to the mentioned article.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/11/reactions_to_ron_paul_campiagn.html

Ron Paul needs to address these concerns, block these racist sites from linking to his, denounce these supporters, and comment on his more appalling quotes. If these concerns are not cleared up I think it would be justifiable if the Republican Party threw him out.

By the way, I would find it flattering if some of his more crazy supporters posted similar comments to this post.

Compared to What?

This is a follow-up to my “Making An Argument” post. A few months ago I was watching John Stossel’s special entitled “Stupid in America.” It was about the educational crisis in America. He was interviewing a man from some action group that was trying to convince people that America needs more private education through school vouchers or something. I don’t remember all the details. Anyway, Mr. Stossel said something like, “You know most people in America are happy with the schools their kids go to.” The man replied, “Compared to what?” His point was that Americans are comparing their “good” schools to “bad” schools.

Most school systems in America are good compared to say San Diego where only 25% of students graduate on time. It’s a “frame of reference” problem. People don’t have a proper frame of reference to compare against. They’re comparing schools to other American schools. They for the most part don’t have experience with private schools or other countries’ schools like France or Belgium. In France they subsidize private education and it’s only $500 to go to a private school. Belgium has a school voucher system where public funds go to private schools based on how many students are enrolled. Both countries also have public schools.

This “frame of reference” problem exists in most places. Europeans think they are taxed fairly because they don’t know what it’s like to live in a country with great prosperity and relatively low taxes like America. Canadians think their healthcare system is fine because they don’t know what a private system is like in America where we have the best quality healthcare in the world. Americans don’t know what a real quality educational system is because we don’t know what it’s like to go to school in Belgium where the average student learns to speak several languages.

I don’t really know how to overcome these problems. I suppose with global 24-7 news like CNN, Fox, BBC, and the Internet people from all over the world can learn about systems in other places. However, media professionals, and non-professionals, are really only concerned about what goes on in their back yards. There’s an expression in news rooms, “news is what happens to my editors.” Editors are usually only concerned about their neighbors, hence low coverage of minorities, lower-income people, and foreign countries. When they do report news that affects these groups it is usually in relation to how it affects us. For example, Fox News seems to be the major source of news on Iran, however they only report things about Iran that relate to America. How are they a threat to us? Are they killing American soldiers in Iraq? Stuff like that. Not about how they are treating their own citizens. The world didn’t seems to really care how Hitler was treating his own Jews until he started invading other countries and threatening his neighbors.

First we need to start caring about others, report about what’s happening to others, and then we can learn from others. Doing this helps others and us.