posted on December 28, 2000 10:12:56 AM new
It's not a question of "punishment for addictive behavior". It's about punishment for breaking the law. Mr Downey was on probation for possession of illegal drugs. He broke the law. Before that he crashed his car while driving under the influence of illegal drugs. That is against the law. If he serves jail time, it is because he broke the law, not because he is an addict.
posted on December 28, 2000 10:34:58 AM new
I read in todays paper that he pled innocent. Um hm. And Im snow white
Seriously, who is to say he wont get loaded and crash his car into someone killing them? He needs jail as well as detox. Just like everyone else who ISNT a celebrity.
posted on December 29, 2000 04:34:42 AM new
"He needs jail as well as detox. Just like everyone else who ISNT a celebrity."
What an addict, celebrity or not, needs is an effective detox program. What an addict, celebrity or not, doesn't need is jail. I think what you're saying is that he needs detox and deserves jail. A lot of times what happens is that regular people can't get into the detox they need, or the detox is ineffective, so they end up going to jail instead. I don't see the logic in looking at the problem of jailing non-rich people who have a disease and deciding that fairness demands that rich folks need to be treated in the same wrong way.
The "problem" isn't that rich people avoid going to jail for drug addiction, the "problem" is that poor people, or anyone, for that matter, goes to jail for drug addiction.
posted on December 29, 2000 06:01:25 AM new
The punishment here was not for "addictive behavior" or for a "disease," but for possession of an illegal drug.
Should addiction should be a mitigating factor, much in the same way legal insanity is? IOW, assuming possession remains illegal, if the accused can't prove he's an addict, should he be incarcerated? Or should EVERYbody convicted of possession, addicted or not, go through detox?
posted on December 29, 2000 07:05:37 AM new
There must be one person in 10,000 who does not go 5 or 10 miles an hour over the speed limit. So if you don't like the law and can get away with it at minimal risk it is different....isn't it? You won't go slow on a dry street in daylight when all your senses and experience tells you it is unreasonable out of some abstract respect for the law.
Stupid speed limits are another way respect for the law is eroded. It becomes another form of taxation - not for safety.
The law is a whole lot more sacred to those of you who have never been in the lock up.
posted on December 29, 2000 07:20:11 AM new
HCQ is right. The punishment in question here is not for "addictive behavior" but for breaking the law. For instance, the alcoholic who drinks him/herself into a coma every night in his/her living room is exhibiting "addictive behavior", but that is not grounds for arrest. If that alcoholic gets in a car and drives while drunk, then that is breaking the law. If there are bottles of vodka in the car when the alcoholic is pulled over, it is still not against the law, since possession of alcohol is not illegal. (In my state, they must be unopened or it IS against the law). That alcoholic is in need of detox and a treatment program, but this is a separate issue from breaking the law by driving while intoxicated. As to HCQ's second question, there IS a difference, since not EVERYONE convicted of possesion of an illegal substance is neccessarily a drug addict. Consider the drug dealer who deals only, but never samples his wares.
posted on December 29, 2000 07:40:04 AM new
I don't really have a problem with Mr Downey's slow suicide. It's just the method that he's chosen. Mr Downey is not just a danger to himself and he is not acting alone. He's a supporting player in a much larger show. He endangers our society by providing money to and supporting the pipeline which provides drugs to anyone who can pay. While Mr Downey does have the abilty to pay (for now), many must commit crimes to get the money. And with the eventual degeneration of the people who are addicted, comes a whole plethora of social ills. Mr Downey may have been alone in a hotel room when he was caught this time, but he (and others) has been known to drive while under the influence, thus putting at risk everyone who crosses his path.
I do feel sorry for him, he obviously cannot control his need for addictive and physically degrading substances, as has happened to many others. Short of confining him for his own good and stripping him of his civil rights, there's nothing we can do to protect him from himself. But he is dangerous, and we have to protect ourselves from him. I agree that jailing an addict serves no purpose for the addict. I just don't want one creating a market for drugs in my neighborhood or posing a threat to my family.
If you know of a way which successfully detoxes an addict, and keeps them clean, I'll stop asking that they be jailed.
posted on December 29, 2000 07:42:00 AM new
You can't separate the disease of addiction from using the drug, anymore than you can separate the disease of tuberculosis from coughing. To say that, yes, we can see that a person has a drug addiction, but he should have stopped himself from taking that drug is like saying - Yes, we can see that that person has tuberculosis, but he should have stopped himself from coughing. To say that you're not incarcerating someone for the disease of drug addiction, but instead incarcerating them for using the drug is preposterous. Using the drug is the symptom of the disease. That's what drug addiction is.
Whether the state has made taking a drug illegal or not is irrelevant to the nature of the disease, just like whether alchohol is prohibited or not is irrelevant. An alcholic during the time of Prohibition could no more have stopped himself from taking a drink, or stopped himself from going into DT's by forgoing a drink than that same alcholic could have when alcohol was legal.
The difference between alcohol and drugs is that alcohol is socially and legally acceptable, while drugs are not. Alcoholism is recognized as a disease, and drug addiction is not. (Lip service is paid to drug addiction being a disease, but it's not treated as a disease.) This isn't because of a real difference between the two situations, but merely an artificially created social and legal distinction.
You can call it a crime, and write a statute to make a legal penalty for it, and throw people in jail for it, but that's not going to solve the problem. You could call Rheumetoid Arthritis a crime, write a statute to make a legal penalty for that too, and throw people in jail for it, but that wouldn't cure that problem either.
posted on December 29, 2000 07:53:28 AM new
"If you know of a way which successfully detoxes an addict, and keeps them clean, I'll stop asking that they be jailed."
posted on December 29, 2000 08:03:31 AM new
So what are you saying, donny? That the "disease" is the crime? Or that committing a crime is a "symptom" of the disease?
To say that, yes, we can see that a person has a drug addiction, but he should have stopped himself from taking that drug is like saying - Yes, we can see that that person has tuberculosis, but he should have stopped himself from coughing. To say that you're not incarcerating someone for the disease of drug addiction, but instead incarcerating them for using the drug is preposterous.
First, the person is not being incarcerated for using the drug, but for possession.In the case of Mr. Downey, he was on probation for a previous crime, the terms of that probation were to NOT possess or USE illegal drugs. He violated the terms of that probation, and so now must face the consequences. To say that the alcoholic or drug addict has no more choice in using than the tuberculic does in coughing is a simplistic and erroneous comparison. There IS choice, ask any AA or NA member. One must choose not to use on a daily basis, a minute, an hour, a day at a time. I know this. It has worked for me for 17 years.
posted on December 29, 2000 08:22:33 AM new
Jail works in that society is protected FROM Mr Downey. I don't believe that Mr Downey, or any other addict, can be forcibly rehabilitated. They may have a disease, but they refuse treatment for their disease, and their disease put us at risk. Mr Downey may be under the influence when next he drives a car and kills a busload of children. At some point, we have to recognize that his drug addiction, and the crimes it supports and encourages, is a danger to society. I don't want my family killed by a known drug addict, who has been unscuccessfully detox'ed and who has access to a car. I don't want a drug laboratory in the house next door, making drugs available to my high school children. I don't want to be assaulted for the money someone needs for a fix.
How do you suggest we protect ourselves? Hugs and kisses and positive reinforcement don't work. Unless you can suggest a way to keep Mr Downey sober, I suggest that quarantining him is the only way.
posted on December 29, 2000 09:54:04 AM new
Drug addiction is the same type of disease as alcoholism. Alcohol is legal. Big whoop. Kills tens of thousands - they either drink themselves to death or they drink and drive and kill someone else or they drink and get pissed off at the spouse and kids and beats the hell outta them.
I want my children protected from every single person who has an alcohol problem. Let's lock em all up.
The government and it's "War on Drugs" is a joke. They are harder on people who smoke cigarettes than they are on people who buy booze. Why? Because it's much more comfortable for people to look at smoking cigarettes as "drug addicted" than to admit that alcohol is a drug, too - and label it as such.
posted on December 29, 2000 12:36:42 PM new
I do not completely accept the addiction-as-disease model of drug addiction and/or treatment. For one thing, it's fairly rare if not unheard of for TB patients to recover without medical treatment. Yet we all know of persons who did quit drinking or drugging of their own accord, without treatment programs, detox, or jail. I am in NO way saying it is easy, but I don't agree that there is no element of choice involved. The fact that the choice is an incredibly hard one to make and people fail repeatedly when they make that choice, does not mean it is impossible. I've seen literature that estimates as much as 1/3 of alcoholics (for instance) who stop drinking, do so on their own without 'treatment'. I was a smoker and physically addicted to nicotine (2 packs a day or MORE for 10 years). Do I wish I could smoke every day of my life? Pretty much. Do I decide not to every day of my life? Yes. Was it easy? No. Did I try and fail many times? Yes. Did the fact that I was addicted and tried many times to quit mean I could NEVER quit? NO.
posted on December 29, 2000 12:49:57 PM new
"So what are you saying, donny? That the "disease" is the crime? Or that committing a crime is a "symptom" of the disease?"
I'm saying that when you criminalize a social problem, you create a class of criminals, and you don't solve the social problem. In fact, you get other problems - Among them a legal system bogged down with trying to handle the flood of cases, and a prison system overwhelmed with trying to incarcerate these types of criminals.
"Mr Downey may be under the influence when next he drives a car and kills a busload of children"
If this is the rationale, why not incarcerate every casual user of alcohol? There's a chance that any social drinker might have one too many, get behind the wheel, and kill a busload of kids.
For that matter, incarcerate anyone who owns a cell phone, they might talk on it while driving, anyone who owns a brush or makeup, they might use them while driving, anyone who has a kid, they might turn around to holler at them while driving. Or, incarcerate anyone who has, or might come down with, a head-cold. Those make me pretty groggy and lower my reaction time, I might get in a car and hit a busload of kids when I have one.
posted on December 29, 2000 01:08:31 PM new
I agree with donny. In fact, I believe the sale and use of so-called recreational drugs should be totally decriminalized for adults.
posted on December 29, 2000 01:53:12 PM new
I believe that if the money that is now spent to jail drug addicts
could be spent on medical treatment that there would be fewer drug
related crime and accidents.
I have an interesting situation in my neighborhood, Montgonery County,
Maryland. The government is in complete control of the sale of
alcohol! How is that for creating a market? They sell booze to
anybody and then go out and arrest them for drinking it.
posted on December 29, 2000 02:26:54 PM new
HCQ - But not for the reasons you might think. I think that most people who have never been arrested and locked up have this superior attitude that it will never happen to them. Just happens to the lower classes you see.
The cops just LOVE to go in for the arrest on a white collar criminal and make a big show if cuffing them and basically humiliating them in front of the coworkers when there is really no danger to anyone and the arrested person would walk out meekly with no resistance.
Once it has been done to you it is kind of - been there done that. Does not hold the terror it did. So you are gonna lock me up?
Whoop de do.
posted on December 29, 2000 02:54:53 PM new
I wouldn't mind having a rational discussion about sensitive subjects if it didn't always degenerate into sophistry, syllogism and specious argument.
Let me try again.
Mr Downey is a known danger.
He was found guilty of using drugs on more than one occasion.
He violated his parole by again using drugs.
Are you with me so far? Mr Downey did not talk on a cell phone, brush his hair or wiggle his ears.
Mr Downey consistently uses mind altering substances that make him a predictable danger to himself and others.
We recently had an automobile "accident" in my little town. The driver who caused the accident had been arrested several times before for DUI and DWI. On this occasion he was legally drunk and driving recklessly at a high rate of speed. We know he was driving recklessly because he was seen driving over the speed limit (which is 35mph) and passing other cars in a 2-lane no passing zone. His last act was to attempt to pass a car by accelerating into a turn lane to pass in a 4-way crossing. Unfortunatly, there was already a car in the turn lane. He struck it and knocked it into another oncoming car. 2 teenagers in the turn lane were killed instantly. The driver of the 2nd car was put into ICU, but lived . The drunk driver was injured, but not seriously.
At any point in time, should this man have been incarcerated?
Was this drunken driver EVER a known danger? How about after he got the 1st DUI/DWI? The 2nd? The 3rd? If he's really, really sorry, shall we let him go free? Should we detox him and then let him go free? After all, he never planned to kill 2 people and he has a disease, alcoholism. He never did any serious time for any of his previous offenses, having not yet actually killed anybody. Other than killing two people, he's probably a heck of a nice guy. Just like Mr Downey.
posted on December 29, 2000 03:25:38 PM new
Victoria, if you find my "points" and "explanations" to be full of sophistry, syllogism and specious argument, I find yours to be the same. I don't agree that anyone using drugs is a "predictable danger" to others. And while a person's drug use might be a predictable danger to himself, so is smoking, drinking, not excersising, and indulging in a diet of fatty foods.
The "predictable danger" I see here is making a segment of our population criminals, subject to criminal penalties, destroying their lives on top of what drugs has already done, and pretending that this "solves the problem." When you think this is the answer to the problem, you stop looking for an answer to the problem. The problem persists, and more problems are added besides.
I agree with Helen that the focus should be on treatment, not on criminalizing the behavior. The U.S. has never had an effective drug treatment program that's accessible to everyone who needs it. And if it takes a drug addict 2, 3, 4, or more times to go through drug treatment before overcoming an addiction, so what? How many alcoholics, who go to AA, fall off the wagon once, twice, three times or more before they finally get sober? We don't say that an alcoholic who falls off the wagon once is an incurable alcoholic, we just say he hasn't been cured yet.
Your story about the drunk driver is interesting but, as Helen points out, it only serves to show the fallacy of your drug argument. Arresting people for addiction isn't effective. It's time to realize that so we can shift our thinking, and put our resources towards finding something that is effective.
posted on December 29, 2000 03:58:14 PM new
No alcoholic is ever "cured". To their dying day, they will remain an alcoholic. Hopefully they will go into "remission".
The point I wanted to make earlier was not about whether decriminalizing drugs was the answer to the addiction disease, but simply that there is a difference between being an addict and breaking the law. Police don't go around arresting people because they are simply addicts. If they catch them in possession of the drugs to which they are addicted, they will arrest them, because that is against the law. The only thing that will change that is decriminalization of drug possession. But even were that to happen, we are still not going to see DUI laws taken off the books. THAT will remain against the law and rightly so. Whether decriminalization of drug possession will increase users who drive under the influence, I honestly don't know.
posted on December 29, 2000 05:25:46 PM new
I do understand your point, KatyD, about how being an addict isn't against the law, only that using and possessing drugs is.
But there's a school of thought that says that the addiction and the using of a drug go hand in hand, can't be separated from each other, it's a distinction without a difference and so, in effect, when you penalize the use of a drug, what you're really penalizing is the status of being addicted.
If you see addiction as a disease, the proper response to a disease is to attempt to cure someone of it, not to incarcerate someone for it.
But we don't really see drug addiction as a disease. Although we pay lip service to drug addiction being a disease, the actual response is not to make a real effort to treat a disease, but to imprison people for manifesting the symptoms of the disease of addiction.
The only benefit that imprisoning a drug addict who is caught doing drugs will bring is to keep him away from polite society for the period of time of his imprisonment. But what then? You're going to have to let him out sometime, aren't you? Or aren't you? Should we have said the first time that Robert Downey Jr. was an incurable drug addict, and that, in Victoria's words, he's a "predictable danger" to society, and that the right way to obviate that danger is to keep him away from the rest of society forever? Until he dies in prison? He's what, 30 something? Imprison him for 40 years. Imprison everyone who uses drugs until they die in prison? If you think that imprisoning a drug user is the answer, then you have to say that the rest of the answer is to keep him imprisoned forever, don't you? Or else he just gets out of prison and does it again, a la Robert Downey Jr., and what has that solved? And even if we wanted to do that, how could we afford it? We should execute them immediately instead, it would be financially workable, whereas imprisoning them forever would not be.
posted on December 29, 2000 07:00:35 PM new
If he has endangered others I will agree in principle to locking him up. Some one said he had crashed a car when high earlier in the thread. If that is so I agree he is a danger. Unlike most people I don't follow these "stars" lives. All I had heard was that he works and functions although he uses drugs, which is really stupid but mainly a danger to himself if he has the money to buy them and does not get behind the wheel.
I worked with a salesman who was an alcohalic and he was ruining his health but he employed a full time driver to take hime everywhere on both his sales and social life. So he could have his 3 martini lunch with clients and never endanger anyone. The perverse thing about it was that having a driver to take him everywhere made a lot of people think he was very successful.
I am sure RD could afford them same thing.
posted on December 29, 2000 09:35:46 PM new
I'm with you, Gravid, I don't keep up with celebrity stuff, and I don't know what he did last time that got him sent to prison.
But I did hear something about what got him arrested this time. He was sitting in his hotel room when he got arrested, someone had anonymously called the cops on the phone reporting that there were drugs and guns there. The cops found drugs, I don't know if they found any guns (I don't think so, but don't quote me)
He'd been on a binge for a day or a few days. He did have a hired driver during that period, and the guy had been driving him around. He wasn't a drug-crazed maniac gunning down the road towards a busload of kids. He was a guy who'd hired someone to drive him around town, and got arrested sitting alone in a hotel room.
I don't think anyone should be sent to jail merely for having a drug problem. What's the sense in that? Jailing doesn't solve the problem. And I don't believe that doing drugs automatically makes someone a danger to society.
posted on December 30, 2000 04:00:23 AM new
The only reason alcoholism is treated as a disease and drug addiction as a criminal offence is that the drug dealers didn't think ahead and buy the legislators they needed to become "legit."
posted on January 5, 2001 10:24:48 PM new
Here is the real story on RDJ:
His family and friends begged him to go with them to Thanksgiving dinner. He, instead, was in his depressive funk and chose to fly to Vegas. He picked up a 'friend' he knows there - a high class call girl - they got some drugs and two guys went with them to Downey's room where they partied all day and into the early hours of the night. He then asked all to leave. One of the guys was pissed off and went to a payphone and called the cops and said RDJ is in xxx room and is in possession. When the cops got there RDJ let them in and said yes, they could search his room (first mistake). One of the cops on the scene even told him you should stop the search when RDJ asked him I'm in trouble, huh - what should I do? Too late, a little box in the closet was found with downers and coke - busted!
*****************
Some points IMHO only:
Drugs versus Alcohol:
The only difference is alcohol is legal. Many studies have been done and alcohol actually causes more damage to society then narcotics do.
Addicts that do coke or speed/meth/crack for any length of time - 5 years or more kill the brains natural ability to produce dopamine. Dopamine is the substance in your brain that triggers happiness. Long term addicts without drugs - become manic depressive as their body has no natural ability to produce dopamine. If the addict does not have the funds or way to obtain depression meds - prozac etc. they will then either needs drugs to come out, commit suicide and/or be unable to function socially. Since most addicts cannot afford meds - they go back to being an addict or commit suicide - a viscious circle. These are the things the first time high school user needs to understand.
RDJ has been through high paid therapy/rehab - betty ford as well as LA County Jail re-hab, of which, he was reported to have completed and done well.
Succesfully kicking coke/speed/meth/crank is not just a willingnes but an understanding that your body will now not be able to give you the sensation of happiness without prescribed legal drugs. You can be willing all you want - when you get out of re-hab and without meds - the downward spiral begins anew.
It is very sad. I have personal knowledge as someone very important to me is an addict and I have done very extensive research. I have called everywhere for help and basically unless you have 5K or become a woa is me case on one of the talk shows that want to 'save you' getting into a reputable drug treatment in house center is impossible. However, once you commit a crime - the court will be more than happy to assist you - so if you are an addict but do not have a spare 5K sitting around - then you must commit a serious enough crime, get a record and then you may get assistance. However, once this happens there is no assistance for the meds you need - so the circle starts again.
Addicts start by snorting, light partying. When that doesn't work anymore - they put it in a pipe and smoke it and when that doesn't work - then it is needles in the arm. All of these methods cause extensive damage to body parts as well as allowing an environment for disease to be passed. I know, you will say, no way do I know anyone like that. Well, you would be suprised. Several very close friends to this person had absolutely no idea he not only did drugs but was and is an addict.
Unless you know an addict and how these drugs work you really cannot understand. Jail is a joke and drugs can be smuggled into most. NA meetings are a bigger joke - all the addicts that are friends listen to a few truly clean long time addicts and then can go outside of the meeting and buy drugs. There are no therapists there to tell the addicts how to deal with their real skin and the problems they have been running from.
Anyway, enough ranting. The drug situation is a very sad one. However, I do not believe the solution is either legalizing drugs or putting addicts in jail. IMHO - alcohol should not be legal either as it is just as dangerous.
MDJ - should be treated just as anyone else as he broke the law. Whether the laws are correct or work isn't the issue. You break the law you face the consequences. Just as OJ getting off - if MDJ does that is also the way it goes.
posted on January 6, 2001 03:58:02 AM new
boysmommy3,
You brought up one point that always makes me shake my head in wonder.
You said that drugs are easily gotten in prison. Exactly, and when I remark to people that if drugs can't be kept out of a controlled enviornment such as prison then how on earth can they be controlled outside prison?
The answer I always get is: There are just too many ways to bring it into the prison and you can't expect it to be kept out.
And, which is worse, Alcohol, drugs or cigarettes?
posted on January 6, 2001 06:09:42 AM new. I have called everywhere for help and basically unless you have 5K or become a woa is me case on one of the talk shows that want to 'save you' getting into a reputable drug treatment in house center is impossible..... NA meetings are a bigger joke - all the addicts that are friends listen to a few truly clean long time addicts and then can go outside of the meeting and buy drugs. There are no therapists there to tell the addicts how to deal with their real skin and the problems they have been running from.
Sorry this has been your experience. It's the diametric opposite of that of some very close friends, all of whom have been C&S for more than a decade.
