Another Celebrity Buys Drugs

[bejohnson]

HERE WE GO AGAIN
Another Celebrity Buys Drugs

Matt Drudge is reporting that the National Enquirer is breaking a story that Matt Lauer bought cocaine from a dealer in the 1980's five or six times. So ... here we go again. Remember, it was the Enquirer that broke the story on Limbaugh. It will be interesting to compare the coverage.

Again ... if the National Enquirer story is correct and if Matt Lauer did purchase cocaine fifteen or so years ago then no, I don't think he should go to jail. He would come under the category of a non-violent drug offender; someone who has violated nobody's rights, and there is no logical reason to punish him for these actions.

Come on folks, get with the program. Study after study shows that the most effective way to address drug use in this country is through treatment ... not through punishment. If your goal is to punish people for being weaker and less perfect than you are, then let's lock them up. If your goal is to help these people and to reduce drug usage in the United States, then let's stop all of this drug war nonsense and move to effective treatment programs.
Source: Neal Boortz

Let's hear what you think.

[Maniacmous]

I say test him...if he's clean, no harm no foul...if he's on it today, nail him. Personally, I don't see why a little recreational drug use so long ago would matter now...people change a whole lot in that kind of time, and by the sounds of it, he harmed nobody but himself if he did use them those few times. There comes a time when stuff just doesn't matter any more...there is some legal principle right now whose name I forget at the moment that deals with this...a time, past which someone cannot be prosecuted for a crime.

I'm sick of tabloids and other crap just drudging up scum from someone's past and making it out to be the crime of the century...its none of our business to begin with, let alone if it was just a bad time in their lives that they've moved past....this constant craving for information that has taken over our society of late is reaching the point where it is just going too far now.

[bejohnson]

Originally posted by Maniacmous
I say test him...if he's clean, no harm no foul...if he's on it today, nail him. Personally, I don't see why a little recreational drug use so long ago would matter now...people change a whole lot in that kind of time, and by the sounds of it, he harmed nobody but himself if he did use them those few times. There comes a time when stuff just doesn't matter any more...there is some legal principle right now whose name I forget at the moment that deals with this...a time, past which someone cannot be prosecuted for a crime.

I'm sick of tabloids and other crap just drudging up scum from someone's past and making it out to be the crime of the century...its none of our business to begin with, let alone if it was just a bad time in their lives that they've moved past....this constant craving for information that has taken over our society of late is reaching the point where it is just going too far now.
You are referring to the Statute of Limitations. I want to see if this story has the legs of the Rush Limbaugh story. Both are quasi-news celebrities and both seem to have used drugs. I, like Boortz, am curious to see if the coverage by the mainstream press is equivalent because one is from the conservative media and the other the liberal media.

Also, This is a good place to discuss the de-criminalization of drugs so we can address the problem effectively.

[efernandez_98]

Originally posted by bejohnson
Also, This is a good place to discuss the de-criminalization of drugs so we can address the problem effectively. I'm for the decriminalization of drugs. :thumb

[Maniacmous]

I am all for support and regulation of drugs...the way I figure it, people will do them either way, might as well help ensure purity and quality controls while at the same time taxing it (and putting the money toward anti-drug programs and schools, or something like that). Granted, this is an oversimplification of the plan, but the basic gist.

[thephenom]

Originally posted by Maniacmous
I am all for support and regulation of drugs...the way I figure it, people will do them either way, might as well help ensure purity and quality controls while at the same time taxing it (and putting the money toward anti-drug programs and schools, or something like that). Granted, this is an oversimplification of the plan, but the basic gist.
Would that really be ethical?

[Maniacmous]

Originally posted by thephenom
Would that really be ethical?

Ethical...prob. not...but its realism here. No law we can make will prevent the people that want them from getting them...I think we can all agree on that much. Now, the question now becomes: if we cannot stop them...how do we help them (protection, not get wasted).

Simple fact is that often street drugs are laced with other drugs or harmful substances, strengths are inconsistent, and thus many people die from taking what would be a "normal" dosage. If we can eliminate that impurity issue with regulation, it will make their usage much more safe. At the same time, legalizing drugs will take money out of the hands of illegal drug cartels, helping to reduce crime (regulation as a side effect will also reduce prices, in turn reducing crime rates as addicts won't have to steal (or as much) in order to pay for their habit). Then, we can tax them, enabling some good to come out of the evil, which as I said before, cannot be avoided.

The way I see it...we might as well do the most good we can with the bad. If we can't eliminate it...we can do our best to make some good come with it, while at the same time focusing on anti-drug programs to curb drug usage before it even becomes an issue...hopefully a self-resolving issue.

[thephenom]

Originally posted by Maniacmous
Ethical...prob. not...but its realism here. No law we can make will prevent the people that want them from getting them...I think we can all agree on that much. Now, the question now becomes: if we cannot stop them...how do we help them (protection, not get wasted).

Simple fact is that often street drugs are laced with other drugs or harmful substances, strengths are inconsistent, and thus many people die from taking what would be a "normal" dosage. If we can eliminate that impurity issue with regulation, it will make their usage much more safe. At the same time, legalizing drugs will take money out of the hands of illegal drug cartels, helping to reduce crime (regulation as a side effect will also reduce prices, in turn reducing crime rates as addicts won't have to steal (or as much) in order to pay for their habit). Then, we can tax them, enabling some good to come out of the evil, which as I said before, cannot be avoided.

The way I see it...we might as well do the most good we can with the bad. If we can't eliminate it...we can do our best to make some good come with it, while at the same time focusing on anti-drug programs to curb drug usage before it even becomes an issue...hopefully a self-resolving issue.
Well, yeah, people are going to do it anyhow, but decriminalizing will only get MORE people to start on it. And drugs are too addictive, if one tries and falls in love with it, we've got another addict on our hands. When these guys get desperate, it would create plenty of social problems. (Theft, robbery, etc)

So why not keep preventing people from trying it and let the addicts keep getting addicted. For those who have no will to quit the drug, let them DIE...... for those who want to quit, you'll have programs to help them quit. By the time the addicts are DEAD, there wouldn't be a drug problem.

[ch0g0nda]

As long as he wasn't on the sock it's all good.

[Artcwolf]

Problem with legalization is, if it does NOT work you won't be able to make drugs illegal again.

Another issue you will see is more and more becoming addicted and more and more of the same issues coming up because they have been legalized.

[wazman]

Oh my God! Somebody bought drugs from somebody 20 years ago!

So what?

If he's still doing drugs today, then prosecute him as the law says to. If not, then what is the point of any of this?

I mean, come on - lots of people did stuff in the 80's, or the 70's, or the 60's, or whenever, and don't do it now. Why is something somebody did 20 years ago newsworthy? The National Enquirer should have better things to do than tattletale on everybody it can find, and this Neal Boortz guy, whoever he is, should stop drawing attention to it.

Just like when (who was it?) People did a story on Mark David Chapman (cover story) a few years ago. And Ozzy Osbourne, of all people, wrote to the mag and gave them what for for giving Chapman any attention at all.

To be frank, I don't care what Matt Lauer did in the 1980s. I don't care what anybody did in the 1980s. If they're not doing it today, and they're not harming anybody in 2003, then I could care less.

It's part history, and it makes no difference to me.

[Vector Man]

Where can I find the chronic, cuz my spots have dried up.

[Maro]

YAWN!

Who cares

Anyway didn't Dubya have a "drink Problem" - still drugs

More crimes are commited as a result of Alcohol abuse than any other drug.

Apart from burglary, most drug users are too caned to bother! Alcohol usually makes people do the horrific things !:(

[ChKFlores]

Originally posted by Maro
More crimes are commited as a result of Alcohol abuse than any other drug.

Apart from burglary, most drug users are too caned to bother! Alcohol usually makes people do the horrific things !:(

Is that a fact or just your opinion?

[egarrard]

Originally posted by ChKFlores
Is that a fact or just your opinion? I think it would depend on the drug. I've never seen cocaine make anybody laid-back. Or meth, either.

[Maro]

It is a fact - simply by definition of the access to Alcohol opposed to Meth/Charlie etc - hard drigs are not as easy to get as people make out - plus the pureness of them is unlikely to be high. Anyonr can walk into a liquor store and buy Vodka etc.

If you add up all total crime, you can easily se the pattern of Alcohol influence - DUI, Assault, abuse etc.

People who take Cocaine regularly are hardly likely to rob a bank - crack users might.

Dope-heads would be too paranoid to pull it off