Note: The Payson Roundup does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
Been tryingy my best to leave three subjects alone, Sheriff Joe, the current debate in Pennsylvania, and the polygamists thing in texas, but they've become so ever-present they have literally swept everything else aside in the news. I guess there's no way to avoid commenting.
I tell you what I think, and you can tell me what you think. I'll put Sheriff Joe in this string, the Obama gaff in another, and the Texas thing ina third one.
About Sherrif Joe, I think:
a. He is a grandstander. b. He picks on cripples when he does things like making people in his jail wear pink shorts. c. He is dead right on the current issue; he is enforcing the law, exactly what the people of this nation want.
Now, regarding Mayor Gordon, I think:
a. He should be ashamed of himself. b. He is shamelessly pandering to the Hispanic vote. c. His bid to get the FBI involved will blow up in his face because Sheriff Joe is being scrupulously careful to obey all aspects of the law. d. Someone should start a recall petition right now, to teach Gordon and other politicians like him, that the people of the country want the laws enforced.
Tom, Sheriff Joe does the job he was hired to do. Same as Jesse Ventura did when he was governor. What is wrong with prisoners wearing pink shorts? How did Mayor Gordon get in above?
You must be having a day like mine. I had my daughter come over and I tried to take a nap but it didn't happen.
Tom, About Sheriff Joe: a. Enforcing the law isn't grandstanding b. When did criminals become cripples? c. You are exactly right. About Phil Gordon Plain and simple...he is the grand stander and totally wrong.
a) Great, wish we had a supposed grandstander back here in Cook County, IL. b) What kind of cripples are you writing about physical or MENTAL? Wearing “pink shorts” is a psychological action. c) YES
I also agree with Leeta 100%. Phil Gordon is the worst kind of politician, obviously pandering to the Hispanics. Hopefully most people will see him for what he is, a really really bad mayor. I think he's going after the wrong guy, and I hope Sheriff Joe levels him.
When I watch the news at night I'm struck by how many Hispanics are breaking the law, and if you think that's a racist remark, so be it. Someone has got to get that situation under control, and that's exactly what Sheriff Joe is trying to do.
They are boxer shorts underwear. They were for sale for a time to raise money for something and my warped daughter bought her dad a pair. I think I may have them stored somewhere around here. They are almost florescent pink.
The idea behind the pink shorts was if someone escaped and took thier jail clothes off to run. Some one would notice the pink shorts,
Re a and b: Some people will say something to you that they are fairly sure you will agree with, and not tell you about things they don't know whether you agree with or not. They do that to get you on their side. I don't do that; I try to be up front. Therefore, even though I agree with what Sheriff Joe is doing, and almost always feel the same way, I let you know in advance about a couple of places I don't agree with him. That way I'm no fooling anybody. Fair enough?
About a: A lot of what he does is grandstanding. The pink shorts thing is an example. There was no reason for it other than to degrade the folks in the jail (Sorry, Pat: You're wrong. He never made any such claim).
And that brings us to b: He runs on the theory that making things hard in the jail will stop people from entering a life of crime. Might be true if the people in the jail where on their way to a life of crime, but they aren't. The vast majority of them are dummies who got caught up in the system, like the "underage" drinkers we've been talking about on another string. Picking on them is simply picking on cripples. They can't fight back, and they don't need anything other than the jail time they have to serve to "teach them a lesson." If he were to try his methods on the hardened criminals who actually need to learn a lesson (which they never seem to learn) he'd soon learn something himself; namely that the hard core guys don't put up with harassment. He'd learn it by losing some of the sadistic twerps he has running his jail.
Even though someone may have run afoul of the law, he or she is still a citizen and has a right to demand the respect that any citizen deserves. When you have a "trapped audience" that can't fight back, and you lean on them in ways which are patently wrong, you are "picking on cripples."
Having said all that, he is right on most issues, and definitely right on this one.
As for Phil Gordon, I'm dead serious about the recall petition and I am frankly amazed that no one has started one.
The Sheriff , a Commissioner and budget analyst from Eugene ,Oregon have just returned from Phoenix to look at Sheriff Joe's Tent City and discuss the costs and operation procedures he uses there. According to the reports on radio and newspapers, they were impressed and are busy working on a long range plan to do a similar type jail up here.
I understand the criminals not liking Arpaio, but the taxpayers should be really pleased. He has a very modest daily cost to house the criminals and because of that, you don't have the problem of early release which is happening here in Oregon. Eugene just had to close down 84 jail beds because of budget problems and released 84 criminals who had not done their time. No wonder crime rates increase -Nobody has to do the full sentence (if any of it) if they're caught.
Tom, I seldom argue with you, but that is the reason Joe gave for the pink shorts when they were first used.
I see no problem with them. What is the difference in them and the orange coveralls they wear in Payson at the jail?
If I did something I had to do jail time for, I wouldn't give a damn what color my underwear was as long as I had some.
How long since you walked thru a dept. store and looked at the wild colors and prints on mens underwear? They sell, so someone is trying to make a statement. Joe is making a statement. 'This man did something illegal."
I like Joe's statement he does not discriminate. The women get to stay in tents also. I have a friend that had a drinking problem. She got two DUI's in less than a month. She spent 6 months at tent city. I don't think you could hold her down and pour alcohol into her now.
Actually, the purpose of the pink undies was to eliminate the theft of the white underwear that was being stolen by the inmates because they were a "status symbol" as they had MCSO imprinted on the rear. When Sheriff Joe was notified that they had lost over $40,000 in underwear he decided that they should all be died pink to try and prevent that theft. That blows your theory, Tom.
I also disagree with your statement that "the vast majority of them are dummies who got caught up in the system." Give me a break! I agree that SOME are in that category, but not the vast majority. If you are sent to jail, there is a reason for it.
If there's anything I enjoy it's having someone straighten me out when I'm wrong on a fact. I did not know that. Thanks again.
I assumed that the pink shorts were just another example of a pattern of intimidation that just ain't right. My mistake.
Oh, and on the "dummies" thing, I was characterizing people who break the law as not being, on the whole, rocket science material. There was implication that they were innocent victims. The point I was making was that they are not hardened criminals, nor repeat offenders (except perhaps on low level things like DUI and the like). And I did not in any way mean to imply that getting "caught up in the system" was not the same as breaking a law. They are law breakers or they wouldn't be where they are, but the hard time that they get goes far beyond anything which is legally, or morally, permissable. Point is: You can't teach respect for the law by breaking ti yourself, and a lot of what goes on in the jail is in violation of the civil rights of the people in there, who are more or less helpless to do much about it, hence my term "picking on cripples."
We're way off the track here, by the way. The primary point in my post was that Sheriff Joe deserves the support of everyone in the country re illegals, including that of Phil Gordon. I just preceded my comment with the a and b comments to let people know that I'm not one of those people who, just because someone is right about one thing, thinks he is right about everything.
Whew! You guys are wearing me out on a side issue, but I am very well acquainted with what goes on in the jail and I'll just give you one concrete example so that you can see where I'm coming from.
Some of the people arriving at the jail are people who habitually wear a beard. There is no city, county, or state ordinance against wearing a beard while incarcerated (can't be, already settled in Federal court), but the guards, as part of their general policy of intimidation, try to force people to shave them off.
Here's an exact quote: "If any of you dumb a-s bast--ds thinkyou can get away with not shaving, think again. If you don't shave that damn fuzz off your dumb a-s face we're gonna put you in a cell with a six foot, 225 pound queer and let you spend the night with both hands covering your a-s."
That is constitutionally impermissible intimidation, just one example of many that I could cite for you.
The point? You don't garner respect for the law by breaking it yourself. You just foster a bad attitude toward law enforcement.
Why does the military require you to be clean shaven and have short hair or do they have a choice?
They also sleep in tents if lucky. No refrigeration, or TV in Iraq is there?
Tom, Give it up, Sheriff Joe is my hero along with the Marines and Firefighters. (: Since you don't read the other threads you probably don't know what I am talking about, but that goes for most of what I put on here.
Tom, I understand what you are trying to say. However, before I expand on that understanding I have to take exception to your remark ".....low level things like DUI and the like." Do you consider someone plying themselves with alcohol and then arming themselves with a weapon (vehicle), a low level offense? No, I haven't had someone I love die by a drunk driver, but I do love someone that could possibly do that. It scares me and breaks my heart. Drunk driving kills! Just as sure if you were drunk and picked up a gun, a car is a weapon when you are not in control. I am very adamant that drunk driving is NOT a low level offense.
I also have heard, first hand, the horrors of jail/prison life. Even though the people were guilty of the crimes they committed, I could not imagine nor understand the "extra" punishment they had to endure. Our prison system sucks! Terrible prison administration, guards and our basic population that just want the people that don't conform out of our sight. I don't know the answer to the problem, however if enough people explore it maybe it will turn up.
By the way, I'm not trying to pick on you today, you just struck a couple of my cords. ;-)
Pat, I'd much rather have someone smoking pot hit me than someone that is drunk, because the person smoking pot would probably be going only 15 miles per hour. :-)
I have been hit from the rear by a bicycle, the left side a motorcycle while I was stopped to make a left turn, the right side a car, the left side twice by cars and I would rather not have been hit by any of them. NO none were on drugs or alcohol all of them cold sober. Oh yes and one time I was parked in the old slanted parking spaces on Main St in Mesa and was hit on the rear fender and bumper by a car coming around the corner. NONE WERE MY FAULT !
DUI is a misdemeanor, hence by definition a "low level" crime. Even felony DUI is not a prison-time offense; it is strictly jail-time. I don't wrte the laws, so please don't pick on me about them.
Also, I have no interest in getting into a discussion of the relative importance of DUI or any other crime. I was speaking only of how the state, and all other states, treat DUI and similar offenses.
The answer to the ills of our prison system is four-fold:
a. Repeal laws that control what people do to themselves, drug laws and other social laws, and clear out our overcrowded prisons.*
b. Create a federal oversight system for all jails and prisons and prosecute anyone who violates the civil rights of prisoners.
c. Execute career criminals instead of housing them, letting them out, catching them again and husing them, letting them out, vatching them again and....
d. Execute any inmate who commits a crime while within prison.
And, yes, I consider career criminals to be trash, worthy only of being turned into plant food.
There is a thing called the "social contract" which goes more or less like this: In order to enjoy the benefits of society, we all agree to live by its rules. As far as I am concerned, the way people were handled when they broke the social contract in a "state of nature," that is prior to the rise of civilization was the natural and correct way. Those who broke the rules were killed or chased away from the clan or tribe, which amounted to the same thing.
* As a corollary, make people responsible for what they do. That is, if you damage something while drunk (or at any other time) the state should ensure that you pay for it if it takes the rest of your life. The way things are now, the state profits from DUI's by fining the individuals, but no one sees to it that the injured parties are compensated. What kind of justice is that?
If you want cheap labor to pick crops, I'll tell you where to get it. You take people who run away from their debts and you stick them on chain gangs until they pay them off. You DON'T put them in prison where they cost all of us more tax money.
Let--if I may be so bold as to say something logical--the punishment fit the crime.
Just so you will know where I'm coming from (an important thing to know when people speak on an issue) I don't drink while drunk. I never have. Of course, these days I basically don't drink at all (well...a rare beer or a glass of red wine. And I mean rare!).
Tom, you remind me of someone that once was quoted as saying "Let them eat cake"..... execute them all, "off with their heads" :-)
I'm with you, too, on the fact that I don't drink while I'm drunk, either. That's sucha nasty thing.
I love Sheriff Joe. I agree that he's somewhat of a media hog, but whatever - most of the country is at least familiar with the Maricopa Sheriff. Is that such a bad thing?
Tom, You remarked about the haircuts and shaving but didn't answer my question. Does the military have a choice of long hair and beards?
If you do the crime you do the time.
I think most people that are in jail or prison are pretty damn well cared for. Room and board, free medical, clothing, TV, libraries, and usually the state (you and I) take care of their families while they are there. They don't have to get up and to work. Hey, they don't even pay income tax, (: Better than they deserve. Yes, there are exceptions.
Life outside ain't a bed of roses for a lot of us that have worked all our lives and never broke the law.
I remember when the state prison at Florence had the prisoners working. They had big gardens, dairies and I don't know what else as I was very small at the time. They worked in the kitchen and did clean up. The products were sold and helped pay for thier keep. Now all the work is done by paid employees, while the prisoners lay in their cell all day.
If someone wants to get drunk. Thats ok, but the first time you get caught driving, jail time period. Same with any kind of illegal drug. This crap of not arresting the small users because the law is trying to get to the "Big Boys" is stupid. I saw so many drug deals in Tonto Basin it was unbelievable. I quit reporting them because nothing was ever done. Also they found out who was reporting them.
THAT HAD TO COME FROM SOMEONE INSIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT.
The users are still using and loose and the dealers were never stopped.
Don't you all feel a lot safer after the Phoenix PD use time and manpower to have a big raid on the prostitues in Phoenix? (: (: (:
While I am on that subject, what is the difference in a man buying flowers, taking a woman out to dinner, drinking, dancing and going home to bed with her or picking her up on the street and giving her cash for the same thing? The woman that had the dinner isn't arrested.
28-1383. Aggravated driving or actual physical control while under the influence; violation; classification; definition
A. A person is guilty of aggravated driving or actual physical control while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs if the person does any of the following:
1. Commits a violation of section 28-1381, section 28-1382 or this section while the person's driver license or privilege to drive is suspended, canceled, revoked or refused or while a restriction is placed on the person's driver license or privilege to drive as a result of violating section 28-1381 or 28-1382 or under section 28-1385.
2. Within a period of eighty-four months commits a third or subsequent violation of section 28-1381, section 28-1382 or this section or is convicted of a violation of section 28-1381, section 28-1382 or this section and has previously been convicted of any combination of convictions of section 28-1381, section 28-1382 or this section or acts in another jurisdiction that if committed in this state would be a violation of section 28-1381, section 28-1382 or this section.
Three strikes in seven years and you get a felony conviction. 1. Subsection A, paragraph 1 or 2 or paragraph 4, subdivision (b) of this section is a class 4 felony.
2. Subsection A, paragraph 3 or paragraph 4, subdivision (a) of this section is a class 6 felony.
I quote "Even felony DUI is not a prison-time offense; it is strictly jail-time."
Not so grasshopper. Pay close attention to the lasrt word.
E. A person who is convicted under subsection A, paragraph 2 of this section and who within an eighty-four month period has been convicted of three or more prior violations of section 28-1381, section 28-1382 or this section, or any combination of those sections, or acts in another jurisdiction that if committed in this state would be a violation of section 28-1381, section 28-1382 or this section is not eligible for probation, pardon, commutation or suspension of sentence or release on any other basis until the person has served not less than eight months in prison.
It can go as high as two years 2. For a person sentenced pursuant to subsection E of this section, for an individual period of not more than eight months and a total period of not more than two years.
Oh, I'm with you and Jane, I never drink when I'm drunk either! :)
If they had to go to jail for first offense of drunk driving there may not be a second and third time. It is a waste of court time, to slap thier hands.
First offense 10 days in the county jail, all but 24 hours may be suspended with the completion of an alcohol treatment program. So, minimum one day in the county jail.
Pat, short haircuts and the lack of beards (except for squids) are largely for ease of maintaining good hygiene in less than perfect living conditions. No shampoo and conditioner can be barbaric. :)
Clean shaven makes for a good seal when you wear a gas mask!
I had an ex inlaw that was court ordered to attend alcohol and drug treatment programs over 15 times, never spent over 5 days in jail. He died of alcohol, drugs and aids before 40 years old. This was 20 yrs ago, before meth !
If it is not the addicts idea that they want to be helped it doesn't do any good.
People show up for AA meetings here in Payson reeking of alcohol. They are court ordered so they go.
Squid is a slang term for navy personnel. The navy allowed beards. I'm not sure if they still do but they used to allow them.
Your last two sentences are absolutely true. If a person doesn't want to quit they won't. A court order only shows them the door is open when they decide to quit.
AA is a great org. but once you commit to it, it is a life time thing, one day at a time. You never get over being an alcoholic, you are always a recovering drunk. That isn't meant to sound bad. It is a fact. I know and have known many people that have gone to AA and as long as they go to at least one or more meetings a month after getting clean they do fine. It is when they decide they can go on their own that they get in trouble again. There may be a few exceptions but not with the ones I know.
When I owned the bar in Tonto Basin I had an office building next door that I let the AA have thier meetings in every week. Before or after they would usually come into the bar and have a cup of coffee or ice tea but not one of them ever ordered a drink. Cutting into my own profit. (:
It was when they stopped going to the meetings they would start on the alcohol again.
Ye gads! How much time can we waste on a side issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with illegals?
Pat, yes the military allows beards where and when appropriate, and whether ot does or doesn't has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that jails have no legal authority to order someone to shave! PERIOD!
May I ask a polite question? How many of you Sheriff Joe folks have sent him an e-mail supporting what he is doing?
I sent my e-mail to him by going to the Maricopa County site and getting to the sheriff's office that way. There's a place to send an e-mail. I told him that when I posted a supportive string on the blog about what he is doing, it was the first time that I ever saw 100% of you folks agree with me. Told him to hang in there; that the people were with him.
Pat, I only mentioned DUI as an example of the kind of offense that gets put in jail instead of prison when I was trying to point out the kind of people who are in jail (mostly ordinary dodo's) as opposed to the kind who are in prison (mostly career criminals). It's easy to pick on ordinary dodo's because they won't stick a shiv in your back like career criminals will if you lean on them, and there's no point in leaning on the ordinary dodo's because most of them make up their minds not to return once they see the inside of a jail.
How people got talking about DUI itself is beyond me.
And thanks for the thought. It just so happens that today has been one of the worst days of my entire life--and I am not kidding.
Tom, I am getting off the subject again, but I think you will understand. It was one of mine too. Do you think the moon has anything to do with it? I am serious.
I have read, in reliable places, that the tidal forces created by the moon have effects on all living things, particularly animals, and that we may some day--when our science is more sophisticated--be amazed at the effects that they have on us.
In truth, the Moon and its tidal forces have effects--I'm not talking about human or animal effects now--that are much more far-ranging than we imagine.
For one thing, much of the vertical cracking that we see in strata originates with tidal forces. Imagine how different the Earth would be if there were virtually no vertical cracks in strata. Just think about the effects on water flow.
For just one thing, caves are largely formed by water that percolates through small vertical fissures and slowly eats away the rock.
And get this! There would be almost nothing that we would call animal life, and certainly no intelligent life, here on Earth if it were not for the Moon.
We need the Moon to keep the Earth rotating in a basically unchanging manner; if the Earth did what the other moonless planets do, constantly changing the way they rotate, there would be no chance for species to develop as they do. Climate change in any given area would be so rapid it would exceed the ability of large land animals to adapt.
And so--no Earth people.
That's a very rough explanation, but anything that goes into more detail gets too dang complicated (and dull) for a forum like this one.
Also, it gives me something to howl at on nights when things are just becoming too doggone much.
Soooo, does my strong believe in "biorhythms" classify me as just another wacko, or is there reason to believe the chart I check every once in awhile is accurate, and tells me why I feel so tired, or why I just can't get something right?
And Pat, R .U. OK? I now have three (yes, I'm nuts) Internet stores so am behind in communications with everyone.
Yes, you're a wacko, but we forgive you because it helps you fit into the group. :-)
Interestingly, the very first computer course I ever took (as part of my masters degree) put me online to the University of Houston and a program on biorhythms. It was fun to work with a mainframe over a dedicated land line.
I've never done any research into biorhythms, though I used to provide a program for my students (both the kiddos and the older kiddos in my graduate courses) to play with (and keep). They enjoyed it. It was a fun program.
I have no idea whether it is is valid science. I'm sure there must have been studies done, but who cares one way or the other if it helps you.
Pat,
The answer is no. Ever since the aliens in my closet left, there have been no intelligent creatures on Earth.
Sorry to hear that things are even more hectic than usual. Me too. Just spent another ten hours in the ER. Got home at sunrise. I am bleeding through both eyes as I type this.
Though time in the ER is never fun, the folks on the night shift last night were some of the best (most cheerful, most efficient) people I've ever seen there. How they keep their cool I'll never know.
From our little cubbyhole I heard a tiny teenage-sounding female voice whimpering and protesting about the teatment she was getting. Things over there in the next room went on for a long time, and I will say that they were very annoying (loud, intrusive), but when I happened to see the person involved (I went for a drink of water), who turned out to be a female of, I believe, about 30 or so years, my heart just went out to her.
I could see the effects of drug use and I felt I was seeing a person who was in the clutches of a force she could not shake.
Yeah, I know. You get what you earn in this life, but talking about people in the abstract and seeing them with your own eyes are two different things.
It's easy for me to criticize and take a "holier than thou" stand; I have never used drugs, nor had any interest in them. And giving up smoking was downright easy for me, so I am one of the lucky ones with a natural built-in resistance to drugs, and an ability to just give up anything I want to give up.
But I tell you my heart just bled for that woman. Even though I had plenty of my own problems at the time, I wished I could do something for her.
Apparently her game is to go into an ER, claim that she has stomach pains, and get a fix and a prescription for demerol. I take it that that the doctor was wise to her game. I know that the police became involved.
God! How I wish we could help those people!
Dean,
Almost forgot to point out that you aren't the only one on the forum who's a little behind.
Tom, I just spent about 6 hours in the ER my husband was admitted just got home. I only thought the last 2 weeks was bad. Will have to wait till I get my email going.
Hope this coming week will be better for everyone.
I do too Pat. Let's all try to get through these trying times and hopefully the sun will come out again soon. Hopefully, those dark clouds over your head will disappear.
Tom, I'm familiar with the story you told about the ER and the woman who was obviously in withdrawal. The last time my son visited us in Christopher Creek he said he was going fishing, but I didn't know until later he faked an injury and went to the ER here in Payson, so he could get pain medication. I didn't find out about it later until I got the bill from the Payson Hospital. His addiction (oxycontin) had such a grip on him he couldn't kick it, even after going in and out of rehab so many times I lost track. His love of pain medication finally killed him when he took too many.
Even if the hospital had given the woman something to help her, it would probably only be temporary. One of the sad things about addiction is the things an addict will do to get their drugs. Even to their own families.
I'm going to spend the rest of the day thinking positive thoughts and praying everyone is OK.
Since we have been talking about drugs and alcohol on here, That is not my husband's problem. I think it would be easier if it was. I am not saying that makes him a better person, only that drugs are not the problem. Sometimes with them it can be helped.
Thanks to all of you who have said prayers for him.
There's little that anyone can say when you lose someone you love. I know what you're going through because I'm going through it too, a bit at time. I truly do not know what I will do when that day comes. I don't know how I will live without Lolly.
As for drugs, I just can't get over how seeing that woman's face, in other words "putting a face on" drug use, changed my attitude in such a rush. Maybe there's something to the idea of letting kids see what they might be getting into. You know, the "take the kids through the jail" thing.
I don't think laws help much. In fact I think they make things worse by causing people to hide the truth and preventing them from getting the help they need. And I can't think of any possible way that jail time or prison time does anything but make matters worse by putting troubled people in contact with street wise thugs, marking them for life as losers, and making it difficult for them to get a decent job, which virtually forces them to become criminals.
After seeing that woman I am now even more strongly in favor of repealing the drugs laws and replacing them some kind of medical help and counseling.
For one thing, it would take the profit out of pushing drugs.
It just occurred to me: I wonder if money is passing from the drug world to the legislative world for the purpose of keeping drugs illegal?
Note: The Payson Roundup does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
Posted by Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) on April 14, 2008 at 9:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Been tryingy my best to leave three subjects alone, Sheriff Joe, the current debate in Pennsylvania, and the polygamists thing in texas, but they've become so ever-present they have literally swept everything else aside in the news. I guess there's no way to avoid commenting.
I tell you what I think, and you can tell me what you think. I'll put Sheriff Joe in this string, the Obama gaff in another, and the Texas thing ina third one.
About Sherrif Joe, I think:
a. He is a grandstander.
b. He picks on cripples when he does things like making people in his jail wear pink shorts.
c. He is dead right on the current issue; he is enforcing the law, exactly what the people of this nation want.
Now, regarding Mayor Gordon, I think:
a. He should be ashamed of himself.
b. He is shamelessly pandering to the Hispanic vote.
c. His bid to get the FBI involved will blow up in his face because Sheriff Joe is being scrupulously careful to obey all aspects of the law.
d. Someone should start a recall petition right now, to teach Gordon and other politicians like him, that the people of the country want the laws enforced.
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 14, 2008 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom,
Sheriff Joe does the job he was hired to do.
Same as Jesse Ventura did when he was governor.
What is wrong with prisoners wearing pink shorts?
How did Mayor Gordon get in above?
You must be having a day like mine. I had my daughter come over and I tried to take a nap but it didn't happen.
Posted by LeetaRice (Leeta Rice) on April 14, 2008 at 10:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom,
About Sheriff Joe:
a. Enforcing the law isn't grandstanding
b. When did criminals become cripples?
c. You are exactly right.
About Phil Gordon
Plain and simple...he is the grand stander and totally wrong.
Posted by Smallhaven (Carolee Jackson) on April 15, 2008 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with Leeta 100%.
Posted by PaysonHopeful (Paul Woods) on April 15, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear Tom, about Sheriff Joe:
a) Great, wish we had a supposed grandstander back here in Cook County, IL.
b) What kind of cripples are you writing about physical or MENTAL? Wearing “pink shorts” is a psychological action.
c) YES
About Mayor Gordon:
a) yes
b) yes
c)yes
d) yes
Posted by Goldplay (Dean Shields) on April 15, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I also agree with Leeta 100%. Phil Gordon is the worst kind of politician, obviously pandering to the Hispanics. Hopefully most people will see him for what he is, a really really bad mayor. I think he's going after the wrong guy, and I hope Sheriff Joe levels him.
When I watch the news at night I'm struck by how many Hispanics are breaking the law, and if you think that's a racist remark, so be it. Someone has got to get that situation under control, and that's exactly what Sheriff Joe is trying to do.
And I like the pink shorts.
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 15, 2008 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If the prisoners keep thier pants up who is going to see what color thier underwear is? Who cares?
Posted by Goldplay (Dean Shields) on April 15, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think the pink shorts are their pants, not their underwear.
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 15, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
They are boxer shorts underwear.
They were for sale for a time to raise money for something and my warped daughter bought her dad a pair. I think I may have them stored somewhere around here. They are almost florescent pink.
The idea behind the pink shorts was if someone escaped and took thier jail clothes off to run. Some one would notice the pink shorts,
Posted by Goldplay (Dean Shields) on April 15, 2008 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh.
Posted by Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) on April 15, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow!
That's 100% of us in agreement. First time ever!
Re a and b: Some people will say something to you that they are fairly sure you will agree with, and not tell you about things they don't know whether you agree with or not. They do that to get you on their side. I don't do that; I try to be up front. Therefore, even though I agree with what Sheriff Joe is doing, and almost always feel the same way, I let you know in advance about a couple of places I don't agree with him. That way I'm no fooling anybody. Fair enough?
About a: A lot of what he does is grandstanding. The pink shorts thing is an example. There was no reason for it other than to degrade the folks in the jail (Sorry, Pat: You're wrong. He never made any such claim).
And that brings us to b: He runs on the theory that making things hard in the jail will stop people from entering a life of crime. Might be true if the people in the jail where on their way to a life of crime, but they aren't. The vast majority of them are dummies who got caught up in the system, like the "underage" drinkers we've been talking about on another string. Picking on them is simply picking on cripples. They can't fight back, and they don't need anything other than the jail time they have to serve to "teach them a lesson." If he were to try his methods on the hardened criminals who actually need to learn a lesson (which they never seem to learn) he'd soon learn something himself; namely that the hard core guys don't put up with harassment. He'd learn it by losing some of the sadistic twerps he has running his jail.
Even though someone may have run afoul of the law, he or she is still a citizen and has a right to demand the respect that any citizen deserves. When you have a "trapped audience" that can't fight back, and you lean on them in ways which are patently wrong, you are "picking on cripples."
Having said all that, he is right on most issues, and definitely right on this one.
As for Phil Gordon, I'm dead serious about the recall petition and I am frankly amazed that no one has started one.
Posted by Ruby_Finney (Ruby Finney) on April 15, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Sheriff , a Commissioner and budget analyst from Eugene ,Oregon have just returned from Phoenix to look at Sheriff Joe's Tent City and discuss the costs and operation procedures he uses there. According to the reports on radio and newspapers, they were impressed and are busy working on a long range plan to do a similar type jail up here.
I understand the criminals not liking Arpaio, but the taxpayers should be really pleased. He has a very modest daily cost to house the criminals and because of that, you don't have the problem of early release which is happening here in Oregon. Eugene just had to close down 84 jail beds because of budget problems and released 84 criminals who had not done their time. No wonder crime rates increase -Nobody has to do the full sentence (if any of it) if they're caught.
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 15, 2008 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom,
I seldom argue with you, but that is the reason Joe gave for the pink shorts when they were first used.
I see no problem with them. What is the difference in them and the orange coveralls they wear in Payson at the jail?
If I did something I had to do jail time for, I wouldn't give a damn what color my underwear was as long as I had some.
How long since you walked thru a dept. store and looked at the wild colors and prints on mens underwear? They sell, so someone is trying to make a statement.
Joe is making a statement. 'This man did something illegal."
I like Joe's statement he does not discriminate. The women get to stay in tents also.
I have a friend that had a drinking problem. She got two DUI's in less than a month. She spent 6 months at tent city. I don't think you could hold her down and pour alcohol into her now.
Posted by LeetaRice (Leeta Rice) on April 15, 2008 at 7:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually, the purpose of the pink undies was to eliminate the theft of the white underwear that was being stolen by the inmates because they were a "status symbol" as they had MCSO imprinted on the rear. When Sheriff Joe was notified that they had lost over $40,000 in underwear he decided that they should all be died pink to try and prevent that theft. That blows your theory, Tom.
I also disagree with your statement that "the vast majority of them are dummies who got caught up in the system." Give me a break! I agree that SOME are in that category, but not the vast majority. If you are sent to jail, there is a reason for it.
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 15, 2008 at 9:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A lot of people should be there that aren't !
A six month sentence for first offense marijauna may prevent a long term after three or four slaps on the hand.
Posted by Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) on April 15, 2008 at 10:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks, Leeta,
If there's anything I enjoy it's having someone straighten me out when I'm wrong on a fact. I did not know that. Thanks again.
I assumed that the pink shorts were just another example of a pattern of intimidation that just ain't right. My mistake.
Oh, and on the "dummies" thing, I was characterizing people who break the law as not being, on the whole, rocket science material. There was implication that they were innocent victims. The point I was making was that they are not hardened criminals, nor repeat offenders (except perhaps on low level things like DUI and the like). And I did not in any way mean to imply that getting "caught up in the system" was not the same as breaking a law. They are law breakers or they wouldn't be where they are, but the hard time that they get goes far beyond anything which is legally, or morally, permissable. Point is: You can't teach respect for the law by breaking ti yourself, and a lot of what goes on in the jail is in violation of the civil rights of the people in there, who are more or less helpless to do much about it, hence my term "picking on cripples."
We're way off the track here, by the way. The primary point in my post was that Sheriff Joe deserves the support of everyone in the country re illegals, including that of Phil Gordon. I just preceded my comment with the a and b comments to let people know that I'm not one of those people who, just because someone is right about one thing, thinks he is right about everything.
Whew! You guys are wearing me out on a side issue, but I am very well acquainted with what goes on in the jail and I'll just give you one concrete example so that you can see where I'm coming from.
Some of the people arriving at the jail are people who habitually wear a beard. There is no city, county, or state ordinance against wearing a beard while incarcerated (can't be, already settled in Federal court), but the guards, as part of their general policy of intimidation, try to force people to shave them off.
Here's an exact quote: "If any of you dumb a-s bast--ds thinkyou can get away with not shaving, think again. If you don't shave that damn fuzz off your dumb a-s face we're gonna put you in a cell with a six foot, 225 pound queer and let you spend the night with both hands covering your a-s."
That is constitutionally impermissible intimidation, just one example of many that I could cite for you.
The point? You don't garner respect for the law by breaking it yourself. You just foster a bad attitude toward law enforcement.
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 15, 2008 at 10:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why does the military require you to be clean shaven and have short hair or do they have a choice?
They also sleep in tents if lucky. No refrigeration, or TV in Iraq is there?
Tom,
Give it up, Sheriff Joe is my hero along with the Marines and Firefighters. (:
Since you don't read the other threads you probably don't know what I am talking about, but that goes for most of what I put on here.
Posted by LeetaRice (Leeta Rice) on April 15, 2008 at 11:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom,
I understand what you are trying to say. However, before I expand on that understanding I have to take exception to your remark ".....low level things like DUI and the like." Do you consider someone plying themselves with alcohol and then arming themselves with a weapon (vehicle), a low level offense? No, I haven't had someone I love die by a drunk driver, but I do love someone that could possibly do that. It scares me and breaks my heart. Drunk driving kills! Just as sure if you were drunk and picked up a gun, a car is a weapon when you are not in control. I am very adamant that drunk driving is NOT a low level offense.
I also have heard, first hand, the horrors of jail/prison life. Even though the people were guilty of the crimes they committed, I could not imagine nor understand the "extra" punishment they had to endure. Our prison system sucks! Terrible prison administration, guards and our basic population that just want the people that don't conform out of our sight. I don't know the answer to the problem, however if enough people explore it maybe it will turn up.
By the way, I'm not trying to pick on you today, you just struck a couple of my cords. ;-)
Posted by LeetaRice (Leeta Rice) on April 16, 2008 at midnight (Suggest removal)
Pat,
I'd much rather have someone smoking pot hit me than someone that is drunk, because the person smoking pot would probably be going only 15 miles per hour. :-)
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 16, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have been hit from the rear by a bicycle, the left side a motorcycle while I was stopped to make a left turn, the right side a car, the left side twice by cars and I would rather not have been hit by any of them. NO none were on drugs or alcohol all of them cold sober. Oh yes and one time I was parked in the old slanted parking spaces on Main St in Mesa and was hit on the rear fender and bumper by a car coming around the corner. NONE WERE MY FAULT !
(:
Posted by Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) on April 17, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Leeta,
DUI is a misdemeanor, hence by definition a "low level" crime. Even felony DUI is not a prison-time offense; it is strictly jail-time. I don't wrte the laws, so please don't pick on me about them.
Also, I have no interest in getting into a discussion of the relative importance of DUI or any other crime. I was speaking only of how the state, and all other states, treat DUI and similar offenses.
The answer to the ills of our prison system is four-fold:
a. Repeal laws that control what people do to themselves, drug laws and other social laws, and clear out our overcrowded prisons.*
b. Create a federal oversight system for all jails and prisons and prosecute anyone who violates the civil rights of prisoners.
c. Execute career criminals instead of housing them, letting them out, catching them again and husing them, letting them out, vatching them again and....
d. Execute any inmate who commits a crime while within prison.
And, yes, I consider career criminals to be trash, worthy only of being turned into plant food.
There is a thing called the "social contract" which goes more or less like this: In order to enjoy the benefits of society, we all agree to live by its rules. As far as I am concerned, the way people were handled when they broke the social contract in a "state of nature," that is prior to the rise of civilization was the natural and correct way. Those who broke the rules were killed or chased away from the clan or tribe, which amounted to the same thing.
* As a corollary, make people responsible for what they do. That is, if you damage something while drunk (or at any other time) the state should ensure that you pay for it if it takes the rest of your life. The way things are now, the state profits from DUI's by fining the individuals, but no one sees to it that the injured parties are compensated. What kind of justice is that?
If you want cheap labor to pick crops, I'll tell you where to get it. You take people who run away from their debts and you stick them on chain gangs until they pay them off. You DON'T put them in prison where they cost all of us more tax money.
Let--if I may be so bold as to say something logical--the punishment fit the crime.
Just so you will know where I'm coming from (an important thing to know when people speak on an issue) I don't drink while drunk. I never have. Of course, these days I basically don't drink at all (well...a rare beer or a glass of red wine. And I mean rare!).
Posted by Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) on April 17, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pat,
Forgot to point out that i would not have started this string if I didn't admire what Sheriff Joe is doing.
We are stuck on side issues that have almost nothing to do with him personally.
Posted by AZangel99 (Jane Wilcox) on April 17, 2008 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom, you remind me of someone that once was quoted as saying "Let them eat cake"..... execute them all, "off with their heads" :-)
I'm with you, too, on the fact that I don't drink while I'm drunk, either. That's sucha nasty thing.
I love Sheriff Joe. I agree that he's somewhat of a media hog, but whatever - most of the country is at least familiar with the Maricopa Sheriff. Is that such a bad thing?
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 17, 2008 at 7:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom,
You remarked about the haircuts and shaving but didn't answer my question. Does the military have a choice of long hair and beards?
If you do the crime you do the time.
I think most people that are in jail or prison are pretty damn well cared for. Room and board, free medical, clothing, TV, libraries, and usually the state (you and I) take care of their families while they are there. They don't have to get up and to work.
Hey, they don't even pay income tax, (:
Better than they deserve. Yes, there are exceptions.
Life outside ain't a bed of roses for a lot of us that have worked all our lives and never broke the law.
I remember when the state prison at Florence had the prisoners working. They had big gardens, dairies and I don't know what else as I was very small at the time. They worked in the kitchen and did clean up. The products were sold and helped pay for thier keep.
Now all the work is done by paid employees, while the prisoners lay in their cell all day.
If someone wants to get drunk. Thats ok, but the first time you get caught driving, jail time period.
Same with any kind of illegal drug.
This crap of not arresting the small users because the law is trying to get to the "Big Boys" is stupid.
I saw so many drug deals in Tonto Basin it was unbelievable. I quit reporting them because nothing was ever done. Also they found out who was reporting them.
THAT HAD TO COME FROM SOMEONE INSIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT.
The users are still using and loose and the dealers were never stopped.
Don't you all feel a lot safer after the Phoenix PD use time and manpower to have a big raid on the prostitues in Phoenix? (: (: (:
While I am on that subject, what is the difference in a man buying flowers, taking a woman out to dinner, drinking, dancing and going home to bed with her or picking her up on the street and giving her cash for the same thing?
The woman that had the dinner isn't arrested.
Posted by Shovelhead (Mike McLaughlin) on April 17, 2008 at 8:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom, Dui is not always a misdemeanor.
28-1383. Aggravated driving or actual physical control while under the influence; violation; classification; definition
A. A person is guilty of aggravated driving or actual physical control while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs if the person does any of the following:
1. Commits a violation of section 28-1381, section 28-1382 or this section while the person's driver license or privilege to drive is suspended, canceled, revoked or refused or while a restriction is placed on the person's driver license or privilege to drive as a result of violating section 28-1381 or 28-1382 or under section 28-1385.
2. Within a period of eighty-four months commits a third or subsequent violation of section 28-1381, section 28-1382 or this section or is convicted of a violation of section 28-1381, section 28-1382 or this section and has previously been convicted of any combination of convictions of section 28-1381, section 28-1382 or this section or acts in another jurisdiction that if committed in this state would be a violation of section 28-1381, section 28-1382 or this section.
Three strikes in seven years and you get a felony conviction.
1. Subsection A, paragraph 1 or 2 or paragraph 4, subdivision (b) of this section is a class 4 felony.
2. Subsection A, paragraph 3 or paragraph 4, subdivision (a) of this section is a class 6 felony.
I quote "Even felony DUI is not a prison-time offense; it is strictly jail-time."
Not so grasshopper. Pay close attention to the lasrt word.
E. A person who is convicted under subsection A, paragraph 2 of this section and who within an eighty-four month period has been convicted of three or more prior violations of section 28-1381, section 28-1382 or this section, or any combination of those sections, or acts in another jurisdiction that if committed in this state would be a violation of section 28-1381, section 28-1382 or this section is not eligible for probation, pardon, commutation or suspension of sentence or release on any other basis until the person has served not less than eight months in prison.
It can go as high as two years
2. For a person sentenced pursuant to subsection E of this section, for an individual period of not more than eight months and a total period of not more than two years.
Oh, I'm with you and Jane, I never drink when I'm drunk either! :)
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 17, 2008 at 9:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If they had to go to jail for first offense of drunk driving there may not be a second and third time. It is a waste of court time, to slap thier hands.
Posted by Shovelhead (Mike McLaughlin) on April 17, 2008 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
First offense 10 days in the county jail, all but 24 hours may be suspended with the completion of an alcohol treatment program. So, minimum one day in the county jail.
Posted by Shovelhead (Mike McLaughlin) on April 17, 2008 at 10:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pat, short haircuts and the lack of beards (except for squids) are largely for ease of maintaining good hygiene in less than perfect living conditions.
No shampoo and conditioner can be barbaric. :)
Clean shaven makes for a good seal when you wear a gas mask!
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 17, 2008 at 11:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What is a squid?
I had an ex inlaw that was court ordered to attend alcohol and drug treatment programs over 15 times, never spent over 5 days in jail.
He died of alcohol, drugs and aids before 40 years old.
This was 20 yrs ago, before meth !
If it is not the addicts idea that they want to be helped it doesn't do any good.
People show up for AA meetings here in Payson reeking of alcohol.
They are court ordered so they go.
Posted by Shovelhead (Mike McLaughlin) on April 18, 2008 at 12:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Squid is a slang term for navy personnel.
The navy allowed beards. I'm not sure if they still do but they used to allow them.
Your last two sentences are absolutely true. If a person doesn't want to quit they won't. A court order only shows them the door is open when they decide to quit.
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 18, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
AA is a great org. but once you commit to it, it is a life time thing, one day at a time.
You never get over being an alcoholic, you are always a recovering drunk. That isn't meant to sound bad. It is a fact.
I know and have known many people that have gone to AA and as long as they go to at least one or more meetings a month after getting clean they do fine.
It is when they decide they can go on their own that they get in trouble again. There may be a few exceptions but not with the ones I know.
When I owned the bar in Tonto Basin I had an office building next door that I let the AA have thier meetings in every week. Before or after they would usually come into the bar and have a cup of coffee or ice tea but not one of them ever ordered a drink.
Cutting into my own profit. (:
It was when they stopped going to the meetings they would start on the alcohol again.
Posted by Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) on April 18, 2008 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ye gads! How much time can we waste on a side issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with illegals?
Pat, yes the military allows beards where and when appropriate, and whether ot does or doesn't has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that jails have no legal authority to order someone to shave! PERIOD!
May I ask a polite question? How many of you Sheriff Joe folks have sent him an e-mail supporting what he is doing?
Posted by Goldplay (Dean Shields) on April 18, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What is his e-mail address?
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 18, 2008 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom,
Sorry !
I have never seen a conversation or posting on here that stays on one subject, as one comment leads to something else.
I believe you brought up the subject of DUI and it went from there.
Hope the rest of your day is better.
Posted by Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) on April 18, 2008 at 11:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dean,
I sent my e-mail to him by going to the Maricopa County site and getting to the sheriff's office that way. There's a place to send an e-mail. I told him that when I posted a supportive string on the blog about what he is doing, it was the first time that I ever saw 100% of you folks agree with me. Told him to hang in there; that the people were with him.
Pat, I only mentioned DUI as an example of the kind of offense that gets put in jail instead of prison when I was trying to point out the kind of people who are in jail (mostly ordinary dodo's) as opposed to the kind who are in prison (mostly career criminals). It's easy to pick on ordinary dodo's because they won't stick a shiv in your back like career criminals will if you lean on them, and there's no point in leaning on the ordinary dodo's because most of them make up their minds not to return once they see the inside of a jail.
How people got talking about DUI itself is beyond me.
And thanks for the thought. It just so happens that today has been one of the worst days of my entire life--and I am not kidding.
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 19, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom,
I am getting off the subject again, but I think you will understand.
It was one of mine too. Do you think the moon has anything to do with it?
I am serious.
Posted by Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) on April 19, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have read, in reliable places, that the tidal forces created by the moon have effects on all living things, particularly animals, and that we may some day--when our science is more sophisticated--be amazed at the effects that they have on us.
In truth, the Moon and its tidal forces have effects--I'm not talking about human or animal effects now--that are much more far-ranging than we imagine.
For one thing, much of the vertical cracking that we see in strata originates with tidal forces. Imagine how different the Earth would be if there were virtually no vertical cracks in strata. Just think about the effects on water flow.
For just one thing, caves are largely formed by water that percolates through small vertical fissures and slowly eats away the rock.
And get this! There would be almost nothing that we would call animal life, and certainly no intelligent life, here on Earth if it were not for the Moon.
We need the Moon to keep the Earth rotating in a basically unchanging manner; if the Earth did what the other moonless planets do, constantly changing the way they rotate, there would be no chance for species to develop as they do. Climate change in any given area would be so rapid it would exceed the ability of large land animals to adapt.
And so--no Earth people.
That's a very rough explanation, but anything that goes into more detail gets too dang complicated (and dull) for a forum like this one.
Also, it gives me something to howl at on nights when things are just becoming too doggone much.
;-o
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 19, 2008 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom,
The more I read on here, I wonder do we have intelligent life on earth? (:
Posted by Goldplay (Dean Shields) on April 20, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Soooo, does my strong believe in "biorhythms" classify me as just another wacko, or is there reason to believe the chart I check every once in awhile is accurate, and tells me why I feel so tired, or why I just can't get something right?
And Pat, R .U. OK? I now have three (yes, I'm nuts) Internet stores so am behind in communications with everyone.
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 20, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is not room on here to tell you what my last 2 weeks have been like.
Posted by Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) on April 21, 2008 at 1:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dean,
Yes, you're a wacko, but we forgive you because it helps you fit into the group. :-)
Interestingly, the very first computer course I ever took (as part of my masters degree) put me online to the University of Houston and a program on biorhythms. It was fun to work with a mainframe over a dedicated land line.
I've never done any research into biorhythms, though I used to provide a program for my students (both the kiddos and the older kiddos in my graduate courses) to play with (and keep). They enjoyed it. It was a fun program.
I have no idea whether it is is valid science. I'm sure there must have been studies done, but who cares one way or the other if it helps you.
Pat,
The answer is no. Ever since the aliens in my closet left, there have been no intelligent creatures on Earth.
Sorry to hear that things are even more hectic than usual. Me too. Just spent another ten hours in the ER. Got home at sunrise. I am bleeding through both eyes as I type this.
Though time in the ER is never fun, the folks on the night shift last night were some of the best (most cheerful, most efficient) people I've ever seen there. How they keep their cool I'll never know.
From our little cubbyhole I heard a tiny teenage-sounding female voice whimpering and protesting about the teatment she was getting. Things over there in the next room went on for a long time, and I will say that they were very annoying (loud, intrusive), but when I happened to see the person involved (I went for a drink of water), who turned out to be a female of, I believe, about 30 or so years, my heart just went out to her.
I could see the effects of drug use and I felt I was seeing a person who was in the clutches of a force she could not shake.
Yeah, I know. You get what you earn in this life, but talking about people in the abstract and seeing them with your own eyes are two different things.
It's easy for me to criticize and take a "holier than thou" stand; I have never used drugs, nor had any interest in them. And giving up smoking was downright easy for me, so I am one of the lucky ones with a natural built-in resistance to drugs, and an ability to just give up anything I want to give up.
But I tell you my heart just bled for that woman. Even though I had plenty of my own problems at the time, I wished I could do something for her.
Apparently her game is to go into an ER, claim that she has stomach pains, and get a fix and a prescription for demerol. I take it that that the doctor was wise to her game. I know that the police became involved.
God! How I wish we could help those people!
Dean,
Almost forgot to point out that you aren't the only one on the forum who's a little behind.
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 21, 2008 at 3:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom,
I just spent about 6 hours in the ER my husband was admitted just got home.
I only thought the last 2 weeks was bad. Will have to wait till I get my email going.
Hope this coming week will be better for everyone.
Posted by Goldplay (Dean Shields) on April 21, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I do too Pat. Let's all try to get through these trying times and hopefully the sun will come out again soon. Hopefully, those dark clouds over your head will disappear.
Tom, I'm familiar with the story you told about the ER and the woman who was obviously in withdrawal. The last time my son visited us in Christopher Creek he said he was going fishing, but I didn't know until later he faked an injury and went to the ER here in Payson, so he could get pain medication. I didn't find out about it later until I got the bill from the Payson Hospital. His addiction (oxycontin) had such a grip on him he couldn't kick it, even after going in and out of rehab so many times I lost track. His love of pain medication finally killed him when he took too many.
Even if the hospital had given the woman something to help her, it would probably only be temporary. One of the sad things about addiction is the things an addict will do to get their drugs. Even to their own families.
I'm going to spend the rest of the day thinking positive thoughts and praying everyone is OK.
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 21, 2008 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Since we have been talking about drugs and alcohol on here,
That is not my husband's problem. I think it would be easier if it was.
I am not saying that makes him a better person, only that drugs are not the problem.
Sometimes with them it can be helped.
Thanks to all of you who have said prayers for him.
Posted by Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) on April 22, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pat,
I'll say another one.
Dean,
There's little that anyone can say when you lose someone you love. I know what you're going through because I'm going through it too, a bit at time. I truly do not know what I will do when that day comes. I don't know how I will live without Lolly.
As for drugs, I just can't get over how seeing that woman's face, in other words "putting a face on" drug use, changed my attitude in such a rush. Maybe there's something to the idea of letting kids see what they might be getting into. You know, the "take the kids through the jail" thing.
I don't think laws help much. In fact I think they make things worse by causing people to hide the truth and preventing them from getting the help they need. And I can't think of any possible way that jail time or prison time does anything but make matters worse by putting troubled people in contact with street wise thugs, marking them for life as losers, and making it difficult for them to get a decent job, which virtually forces them to become criminals.
After seeing that woman I am now even more strongly in favor of repealing the drugs laws and replacing them some kind of medical help and counseling.
For one thing, it would take the profit out of pushing drugs.
It just occurred to me: I wonder if money is passing from the drug world to the legislative world for the purpose of keeping drugs illegal?
Posted by msmike2003 (Mikey Kerns) on April 23, 2008 at 1:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom -
May I refer you back to the post titled "The 545 People Responsible for America's Woes" ...
Post a comment
(Requires Payson.com registration. You will then need to request that your user details be verified.)