- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
why is it that a snappy title gets read more than one with a less inflammatory one?
Edited for who needs it. No, it isnt about Rush and a crack whore.
Every now and again, something happens to draw attention to an issue which should have been dealt with long ago, but falls below the threshold for national recognition and action. Drug use and addiction are such issues.
For purposes of this post, I choose to emphasize the addiction side and its implication for individuals and society.
Recap:
Rush became addicted to pain killers, and as a result has committed a crime. Seeking controlled substances to satisfy addiction in itself is a crime. Going to illicit sources to obtain them is another violation of law. There is no question on this. What he admits to is illegal.
Now, this raises the issue as to what to do about it. This is a crime potentially punishable in most states by a stay in jail.
Will Rush do time? Unlikely, as most states are lenient for first offenses. Buying controlled substances is another matter though, and what happens as a result is another matter.
What will probably happen points out, the inequities of society and the justice system when dealing with the ?commoners? (most of us) and the aristocracy (Rush, other celebs., and the wealthy in general).
In dealing with the ?important? members of society, judges have the tendency to look the other way. Notice the number of professional athletes who repeatedly break the law for drug offenses (and violent crimes of all kinds). Except for the most egregious cases, they are returned to their pitching or tackling or basket shooting career perhaps with a token fine, and maybe a dire warning about what happens if they do this again. Of course when that happens, he gets a token fine, and maybe a dire warning about what happens if they do this again. Of course the next time? Well you get the idea. Further, Rush gets to check into the best treatment centers money can buy. Most others are not so lucky.
Now, Joe Average gets busted for pot. Usually he gets a fine (proportionately more severe), perhaps community service and a dire warning. If he comes before that judge again, does he get the same thing? Well, maybe, but the chances are that he will be in big trouble with the court. If he has a serious addiction, is the quality of treatment anywhere near that provided to Hollywood? I don?t think so. He or she would be lucky to get anything at all. Oh and they just might get fired too.
Where is the justice in this unequal treatment based on status? I know some will say that it has been that way since the beginning of crime and punishment. That is very true. Beating spouses was always an acceptable way of life, slavery was a viable economic and social system. Duels, dangerous child labor, all these things have always been around.
None of those things is acceptable today. Because a thing has ?always? been done, does not mean that it must. Only de facto approval by us allows it. Like Nancy Reagan said, just say no.
There is also unequal application of justice in society that goes beyond the courtroom and it starts with peoples attitudes. How many defend Rush, citing his acceptance of responsibility, mitigating circumstances etc, who were only too glad, and may still be, to tear into blacks and ?white trash? who find themselves addicted? Let?s look at this a little.
Regarding taking the blame, what does that really mean? Anyone can commit murder and say they accept responsibility. What does his Mea Culpa mean? A loss of face and time. Those so inclined will be eager to forgive him. He will not lose his customer base, and in the long run is not likely to suffer financially. Oh the sponsors can withdraw their support, but let me know when this happens and he goes off the air. Most likely they too realize that once a dittohead, always a dittohead. Those people are still going to be just as susceptible to their advertising as they were before. Will he be held accountable though? I mean in a way that creates a problem severe enough to keep him from putting bread on his table? No.
Does Rush advocate ?zero tolerance? work requirements, ones that would result in the termination of employment? I don?t know if he does or not. If so, then he ought to retire. ?Punish the workers, but let me redeem myself? is not justice.
Now, there is a point where impairment becomes a problem, where it presents a danger to others or interferes with performance in a tangible way. I understand that cannot be allowed. I understand that tolerance can only go so far. If one chooses not to use rehab, or if for some reason they fail utterly, they cannot be allowed to inflict themselves on others. We ought to do whatever is in our power to prevent worst case scenarios.
Rush now has something in common with the lowest, dirtiest junkie on the street. Because he is clean not dirty, powerful and not subject to draconian zero tolerance work policies, wealthy and not a poor single mother, famous and not a nameless face lying in a cardboard box in the back of an alley, changes nothing at all.
So, what do we do about drug addiction? We have few choices.
First, do nothing. Let everything go on as it is. Rush gets a pass, and perhaps a family member of yours gets fired and his family placed at risk for losing their home, and the means to put food on the table. What the heck, we are good at ignoring the homeless as it is. We can ignore more families on the street. Not an acceptable option to me.
Assuming you want something constructive to come about, what to do? How could Rush/single mom/street person be helped?
First, change your attitude if it needs adjustment.
Think of drug dependency as a problem, not a crime. Problems can have solutions. Punishment is the failure to find a way out. Turning the key and locking up the ?problem? is the ultimate failure. Give a damn.
Second, extend this to the workplace.
People hide problems that will get them in trouble. It certainly does not do a company good to have a policy that only uncovers a problem after a potentially serious accident. Policies and procedures need to be established, AND FOLLOWED, in letter and spirit, at helping workers, and with employee retention being a key goal.
Third, criminal law reform.
Stop sending people to jail for simple drug addiction. That means anyone. If punishment is something the judge feels useful, then there is plenty of roads with trash that needs to be picked up. Make sure that Rush gets to wear his safety orange and work alongside of Joe American too. Social or financial standing must not influence punishment.
Fourth, civil law reform.
Since conscience rarely influences business, legislation ought to be enacted to ensure appropriate action on the part of employers. There needs to be a clearly laid out set of actions and consequences for both employers and employees that are universal. A ?roadmap? if you will. Workers get paid leave, and a guarantee of their job upon return. Upon successful treatment, and a probationary period, they become reinstated without prejudice. Penalties to the business for failure to comply are draconian, and target the offenders personally. Shareholders need not pay the price for this indiscretion of management. On the other side of it, there are advantages for the company. They can identify a problem, and do something about it. There would be specific requirements the employee must meet. At the end of a definite period of time, the employer either gets a worker better able to work, or gets rid of a problem.
Is this going to cost the company money? Yes it is. It can be mitigated in whole or part by what I will call progressive tax benefits.
Currently there are tax breaks that are completely ridiculous. For example, Marriot (the hotel chain) got more than 100 million off its tax bill last year with just one deduction. What was it? Alternative energy research! Huh? Well, it turns out that the tax code provides for ?developing alternate energy sources?. What the tax code does not do is lay out what the requirements are, or even what constitutes research. It does not need to pass any sort of real world test for merit or results. If Marriot buys into a group that takes coal and adds something (virtually anything) they then can claim something like 2000% of that value off its taxes. Good return on investment, eh? There are hotel chains, Midwestern hardware stores, restaurant franchises, all taking advantage of this ?research?. There are other loopholes in use too.
Stop that. Instead, give a 110% tax credit on the cost of wages, lost production and quality treatment programs. This gives an incentive to the business to participate, and the penalties for fraud are again remarkably harsh to prevent abuse.
Programs for the unemployed/homeless are going to cost money too, but one needs to take a look at the costs of doing nothing as well.
Money needs to be spent on treatment, education, and financial assistance. Some people who may balk at spending public funds on social programs need to consider what that money buys. Drug abuse causes violent crime. Demand for drugs causes robberies, injury and deaths. Money then needs to be spent on law enforcement, prosecution, and incarceration of those who harm others by the profit made on addiction. All these things are VERY expensive. If you look you will see that the swell in the prison population is largely driven by drug related crime. Add to that the financial loss of the victim, whether by direct theft or loss of income due to death or injury. Whoever employs that person may lose a good worker, and insurance needs to be paid out, adding to the total. All of this is fantastically expensive, and I am just talking money. The personal suffering of all involved should be painfully obvious.
Now, back to Rush. He has focused the public attention for an ever so brief moment on this serious and universal problem. People in power may listen for a little while.
If you agree this is a problem worth tackling, then what to do?
Go back to my first suggestion. Change your attitude, but not just about addiction, but about effectively speaking up. I have taken my suggestions and am sending them to my state and federal representatives. I am doing the same with the Democratic candidates, and even the White House. Will anyone look at what I have to say? Someone just might. People talk about the need to vote. Truthfully those who can should, but that is just the most basic level of participation in our representative democracy. Write letters to senators, congressmen, businesses, whoever has authority to act.
So what if a politician you like gets elected if they hear only the voice of the few? Add yours and it may be heard.
From adversity comes opportunity. We should act now, with constructive purpose.
Edited for who needs it. No, it isnt about Rush and a crack whore.
Every now and again, something happens to draw attention to an issue which should have been dealt with long ago, but falls below the threshold for national recognition and action. Drug use and addiction are such issues.
For purposes of this post, I choose to emphasize the addiction side and its implication for individuals and society.
Recap:
Rush became addicted to pain killers, and as a result has committed a crime. Seeking controlled substances to satisfy addiction in itself is a crime. Going to illicit sources to obtain them is another violation of law. There is no question on this. What he admits to is illegal.
Now, this raises the issue as to what to do about it. This is a crime potentially punishable in most states by a stay in jail.
Will Rush do time? Unlikely, as most states are lenient for first offenses. Buying controlled substances is another matter though, and what happens as a result is another matter.
What will probably happen points out, the inequities of society and the justice system when dealing with the ?commoners? (most of us) and the aristocracy (Rush, other celebs., and the wealthy in general).
In dealing with the ?important? members of society, judges have the tendency to look the other way. Notice the number of professional athletes who repeatedly break the law for drug offenses (and violent crimes of all kinds). Except for the most egregious cases, they are returned to their pitching or tackling or basket shooting career perhaps with a token fine, and maybe a dire warning about what happens if they do this again. Of course when that happens, he gets a token fine, and maybe a dire warning about what happens if they do this again. Of course the next time? Well you get the idea. Further, Rush gets to check into the best treatment centers money can buy. Most others are not so lucky.
Now, Joe Average gets busted for pot. Usually he gets a fine (proportionately more severe), perhaps community service and a dire warning. If he comes before that judge again, does he get the same thing? Well, maybe, but the chances are that he will be in big trouble with the court. If he has a serious addiction, is the quality of treatment anywhere near that provided to Hollywood? I don?t think so. He or she would be lucky to get anything at all. Oh and they just might get fired too.
Where is the justice in this unequal treatment based on status? I know some will say that it has been that way since the beginning of crime and punishment. That is very true. Beating spouses was always an acceptable way of life, slavery was a viable economic and social system. Duels, dangerous child labor, all these things have always been around.
None of those things is acceptable today. Because a thing has ?always? been done, does not mean that it must. Only de facto approval by us allows it. Like Nancy Reagan said, just say no.
There is also unequal application of justice in society that goes beyond the courtroom and it starts with peoples attitudes. How many defend Rush, citing his acceptance of responsibility, mitigating circumstances etc, who were only too glad, and may still be, to tear into blacks and ?white trash? who find themselves addicted? Let?s look at this a little.
Regarding taking the blame, what does that really mean? Anyone can commit murder and say they accept responsibility. What does his Mea Culpa mean? A loss of face and time. Those so inclined will be eager to forgive him. He will not lose his customer base, and in the long run is not likely to suffer financially. Oh the sponsors can withdraw their support, but let me know when this happens and he goes off the air. Most likely they too realize that once a dittohead, always a dittohead. Those people are still going to be just as susceptible to their advertising as they were before. Will he be held accountable though? I mean in a way that creates a problem severe enough to keep him from putting bread on his table? No.
Does Rush advocate ?zero tolerance? work requirements, ones that would result in the termination of employment? I don?t know if he does or not. If so, then he ought to retire. ?Punish the workers, but let me redeem myself? is not justice.
Now, there is a point where impairment becomes a problem, where it presents a danger to others or interferes with performance in a tangible way. I understand that cannot be allowed. I understand that tolerance can only go so far. If one chooses not to use rehab, or if for some reason they fail utterly, they cannot be allowed to inflict themselves on others. We ought to do whatever is in our power to prevent worst case scenarios.
Rush now has something in common with the lowest, dirtiest junkie on the street. Because he is clean not dirty, powerful and not subject to draconian zero tolerance work policies, wealthy and not a poor single mother, famous and not a nameless face lying in a cardboard box in the back of an alley, changes nothing at all.
So, what do we do about drug addiction? We have few choices.
First, do nothing. Let everything go on as it is. Rush gets a pass, and perhaps a family member of yours gets fired and his family placed at risk for losing their home, and the means to put food on the table. What the heck, we are good at ignoring the homeless as it is. We can ignore more families on the street. Not an acceptable option to me.
Assuming you want something constructive to come about, what to do? How could Rush/single mom/street person be helped?
First, change your attitude if it needs adjustment.
Think of drug dependency as a problem, not a crime. Problems can have solutions. Punishment is the failure to find a way out. Turning the key and locking up the ?problem? is the ultimate failure. Give a damn.
Second, extend this to the workplace.
People hide problems that will get them in trouble. It certainly does not do a company good to have a policy that only uncovers a problem after a potentially serious accident. Policies and procedures need to be established, AND FOLLOWED, in letter and spirit, at helping workers, and with employee retention being a key goal.
Third, criminal law reform.
Stop sending people to jail for simple drug addiction. That means anyone. If punishment is something the judge feels useful, then there is plenty of roads with trash that needs to be picked up. Make sure that Rush gets to wear his safety orange and work alongside of Joe American too. Social or financial standing must not influence punishment.
Fourth, civil law reform.
Since conscience rarely influences business, legislation ought to be enacted to ensure appropriate action on the part of employers. There needs to be a clearly laid out set of actions and consequences for both employers and employees that are universal. A ?roadmap? if you will. Workers get paid leave, and a guarantee of their job upon return. Upon successful treatment, and a probationary period, they become reinstated without prejudice. Penalties to the business for failure to comply are draconian, and target the offenders personally. Shareholders need not pay the price for this indiscretion of management. On the other side of it, there are advantages for the company. They can identify a problem, and do something about it. There would be specific requirements the employee must meet. At the end of a definite period of time, the employer either gets a worker better able to work, or gets rid of a problem.
Is this going to cost the company money? Yes it is. It can be mitigated in whole or part by what I will call progressive tax benefits.
Currently there are tax breaks that are completely ridiculous. For example, Marriot (the hotel chain) got more than 100 million off its tax bill last year with just one deduction. What was it? Alternative energy research! Huh? Well, it turns out that the tax code provides for ?developing alternate energy sources?. What the tax code does not do is lay out what the requirements are, or even what constitutes research. It does not need to pass any sort of real world test for merit or results. If Marriot buys into a group that takes coal and adds something (virtually anything) they then can claim something like 2000% of that value off its taxes. Good return on investment, eh? There are hotel chains, Midwestern hardware stores, restaurant franchises, all taking advantage of this ?research?. There are other loopholes in use too.
Stop that. Instead, give a 110% tax credit on the cost of wages, lost production and quality treatment programs. This gives an incentive to the business to participate, and the penalties for fraud are again remarkably harsh to prevent abuse.
Programs for the unemployed/homeless are going to cost money too, but one needs to take a look at the costs of doing nothing as well.
Money needs to be spent on treatment, education, and financial assistance. Some people who may balk at spending public funds on social programs need to consider what that money buys. Drug abuse causes violent crime. Demand for drugs causes robberies, injury and deaths. Money then needs to be spent on law enforcement, prosecution, and incarceration of those who harm others by the profit made on addiction. All these things are VERY expensive. If you look you will see that the swell in the prison population is largely driven by drug related crime. Add to that the financial loss of the victim, whether by direct theft or loss of income due to death or injury. Whoever employs that person may lose a good worker, and insurance needs to be paid out, adding to the total. All of this is fantastically expensive, and I am just talking money. The personal suffering of all involved should be painfully obvious.
Now, back to Rush. He has focused the public attention for an ever so brief moment on this serious and universal problem. People in power may listen for a little while.
If you agree this is a problem worth tackling, then what to do?
Go back to my first suggestion. Change your attitude, but not just about addiction, but about effectively speaking up. I have taken my suggestions and am sending them to my state and federal representatives. I am doing the same with the Democratic candidates, and even the White House. Will anyone look at what I have to say? Someone just might. People talk about the need to vote. Truthfully those who can should, but that is just the most basic level of participation in our representative democracy. Write letters to senators, congressmen, businesses, whoever has authority to act.
So what if a politician you like gets elected if they hear only the voice of the few? Add yours and it may be heard.
From adversity comes opportunity. We should act now, with constructive purpose.
Facebook
Twitter