Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Lawrence man sentenced to more than six years in child pornography case

January 7, 2009

Advertisement

Richard McNett

Richard McNett

A 51-year-old Lawrence man was sentenced to 6 1/2 years in federal prison for possessing child pornography, officials said Wednesday.

Richard McNett pleaded guilty to the charge in August 2008, admitting that investigators found more than 13,000 images of child pornography in his possession, acting U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker’s office said.

The investigation was sparked by McNett’s wife, who told investigators she became concerned about McNett locking himself into a room with a computer and not allowing anyone in, said Jim Cross, a U.S. attorney spokesman.

Investigators found 1,202 child pornography images on disks; 7,740 images on McNett’s computer hard drive; and 13,990 images on 11 compact discs, Cross said.

McNett was sentenced Tuesday afternoon by Kathryn Vratil, chief judge for the Kansas U.S. District Court in Kansas City. Prosecutors had said McNe

Comments

EarthaKitt 5 years, 11 months ago

I just don't get it. What's wrong with people? (rhetorical)

KansasVoter 5 years, 11 months ago

"The investigation was sparked by McNett’s wife, who told investigators she became concerned about McNett locking himself into a room with a computer and not allowing anyone in..."This is a serious subject, but I find that detail pretty danged funny. This perv would still be a free man enjoying his illegal pornography if he would have just shown some restraint.

evergreen 5 years, 11 months ago

Walter Sobchak: "Eight-year-olds, Dude."

Strontius 5 years, 11 months ago

Six years in federal prison for possession of child pornography? Did he take the pictures? Did he force children to carry out sex acts? What good does putting someone like him in Federal prison do? Surely he has some sort of mental issue that would be better addressed than federal prison, which will only focus on humiliating, demoralizing, and most likely, making his condition worse. Meanwhile, someone who actually solicits sex on the internet from what he assumed was a 13 year old girl gets a lighter sentence:http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/jan/06/carbondale-man-sentenced-five-years-internet-sex-s/We throw far too many people in jail who haven't committed any real crime, and then act shocked when their behavior doesn't change.

alm77 5 years, 11 months ago

Stron, Are you seriously saying he didn't commit any "real crime"? EEeeww. Maybe you need help too. I am not saying that he doesn't need help. He does. Very much. Will he get that in prison? No. But that's what's broken, the fact that there is no (or at least not enough) reformation efforts in our prison system. But he should DEFINITELY be in prison. This wife deserves an award. Too many gals turn their head or deny, deny, deny. Kudos to you ma'am.

Strontius 5 years, 11 months ago

"Stron, Are you seriously saying he didn't commit any “real crime”? EEeeww. Maybe you need help too."He committed a crime. Possession of child pornography is illegal. I'm calling into question the punishment and its effectiveness, but I have to wonder if an action which doesn't hurt anyone (or hurts people a lot less than some legal activities) should be considered a crime. Clearly this man has some mental issues that prison is most likely going to make worse. What do you suppose he'll do when he gets out of prison? That's the scarier thought. "But he should definitely be in prison."For what? Possessing pictures? Non-violent crimes should not result in prison. You agree that he needs help, but then you immediately retract from that statement and want him punished in a prison for years which will only make the situation worse. Clearly you don't think there is anything wrong here, and just want this person out of society and off the street. Well, he'll be back on the street in a few years, untreated, brutalized, and thrown away by the society that put him into prison. Is it any wonder that so many of these people strike back even harder then before at society? A society can best be judged by the way it treats its prisoners... or doesn't.

geniusmannumber1 5 years, 11 months ago

There is no market without demand. This man, and others like him, create demand. There is no supply of this particular product without inflicting grievous harm on multiple innocents, and what's more, there is no conceivable way that such supply can be satisfied without creating such harm (which distinguishes it from truly victimless crimes, like marijuana possession). That is why he is in jail, and why he should be in jail.

backyardwino 5 years, 11 months ago

Walter again:"The man is a sex offender. With a record. Spent six months in Chino for exposing himself to an eight-year-old.""When he moved down to Venice he had to go door-to-door to tell everyone he's a pederast."

alm77 5 years, 11 months ago

whoa, genius and I agree on something. Completely and totally agree. This is hardly a "nonviolent" crime. I don't it gets any more violent as a matter of fact. However, I would also cite deterrence as a reason to make it an imprisonable offense. He had the forethought to hide his activities because he knew it was wrong, he should have had the guts to get help instead. Some people do that and by doing that, they avoid prison.

alm77 5 years, 11 months ago

Should say "I don't think it gets any worse..." Sorry, brain and hands not connecting today.

KansasVoter 5 years, 11 months ago

We'll never be able to see these pictures and videos, so there's no way to know whether they were violent or not.

mightyquin 5 years, 11 months ago

Strontius, I don't agree that his crime didn't hurt anyone. If it wasn't for pervs like him creating the demand for those pictures then maybe fewer children would be exploited. I am not saying that there wouldn't be any child porn out there but the more of these guys we put away the better. And another thought, how long before this slimeball escalated his perversion and wanted to take his own pictures or worse abuse a child directly. Yes I know prison is not the perfect solution but I feel better with him off the street for even a few years. Maybe chemical castration would be better, I don't know but his crime is not victimless in my opinion.

temperance 5 years, 11 months ago

When the Supreme Court looked at this issue in 1986 (Osbourne) they upheld Ohio's law banning the possession of child pornography, and they used geniusman's reasoning: possession of the pictures creates a market, which perpetuates the worst forms of child abuse. To me, that makes a lot of sense, although I think Stron makes some good points.On an unrelated note, why do child porn pervs tend to look like Philip Seymour Hoffman?

mightyquin 5 years, 11 months ago

KansasVoter, I don't have to see the pictures to know. The act of taking those pictures is, in my opinion, a violent act. It is an invasive, degrading and humiliating event. That is violence.

Shane Garrett 5 years, 11 months ago

I think the man needs help. Prison is not where this person is going to get the help he needs. He is basiclly serving the same amout of prison time, or more, than someone who committed murder.

sitdownandshutup 5 years, 11 months ago

Let's give her an award? You want some background on the marriage? He's been doing that for years, it wasn't until she got hooked up with an inmate at the Douglas County Jail (she was working there as a nurse) did she decide to do anything. She has know for at least 5 years that he was looking at pictures on the web, but when she wanted to move her drug dealing boyfriend in she had to get rid of the husband. Chester Brockman ring a bell with anybody? That’s her ‘boyfriend’ whom is in jail now for selling drugs out of her trailer. Oh and by the way this upstanding wife is on probation for trying to sneak drugs into the Lansing Correctional Facility for Chester. I say she turned him in for revenge more than being concerned. I DO NO agree with what Richard done but his wife is just low as him. Oh and when Chester got out of jail (the county jail) he moved in with her…and Richard. Here’s a link to her boyfriend. http://165.201.143.205/kasper2/offender.asp?id=34283

KansasVoter 5 years, 11 months ago

mightyquin -- A photograph is a violent act? They're just pictures, and he isn't even the one who took them. The article didn't say anything about this guy purchasing these pictures, so how is he contributing to the market for them? If anything, he's hurting the market by not paying for them.

mightyquin 5 years, 11 months ago

KansasVoter, TAKING the photo is the violent act and whether or not he actually purchased the photos is irrelevant. They are available because there are pervs who do pay for them and send them to others like Richard for whatever reason and that is why he is contributing to the market for them.

geniusmannumber1 5 years, 11 months ago

A photograph is not a violent act. Sexual exploitation, in whatever form, is a violent act. And you may need to work on your economics, Kansas Voter.

TravisTyson 5 years, 11 months ago

To backyardwino lol... Bulls**t. Mark it eight dude. Great BL reference.

Alexander Neighbors 5 years, 11 months ago

wow I am shocked Marietta Parker actually used real evidence to win this case........... probably why it didn't run on for 4 years like another one of her cases I know about. anyone know where I am going with this ????

geniusmannumber1 5 years, 11 months ago

Alex -- Yes. You and your entire family are self involved. No one cares.

KansasVoter 5 years, 11 months ago

"geniusmannumber1 (Anonymous) says…you may need to work on your economics, Kansas Voter."Please enlighten me on how getting something for free contributes to the market for it. The RIAA and MPAA have fought successfully in court to prove that the opposite is true.

mightyquin 5 years, 11 months ago

KansasVoter, are you being purposefully obtuse? The motivations for illegally copying songs and movies are completely different from the motivations for getting free child porn. As you said the article didn't mention how he acquired his collection so he may well have paid for it himself. However, even if he got them for free he is still contributing to the market by encouraging those who purchase such material as well as those who actually take the pictures.

alm77 5 years, 11 months ago

mighty/Kansas, most things that are free on the internet are paid for through advertising... how would that even fit? I'm just trying to understand both sides of this "market" argument.

weluvbowling 5 years, 11 months ago

Wow the boyfriend looks promising! Seems he has a future ahead of him (rolls eyes and laughs). Sounds like some real upstanding Citizens here! Also, when you have "demand" for this kind of stuff...in order to have the "supply" someone is getting hurt somewhere! I just hope they didn't have any kids!!!!

geniusmannumber1 5 years, 11 months ago

I have odd tastes. My favorite food is a candy bar covered in dog hair. I invented it myself. I want to share my favorite food with the world. I am willing to make a dog hair candy bar for every man, woman and child in this country -- for free. Why? Many possible reasons. Maybe I want to share the happiness I've found with everyone else. Maybe there are some people who make candy bars with camel hair, or people hair, and I don't know about them, but they'll hook me up with some new candy bars.Only problem is, despite my massive internet advertising campaign, despite giving it away for free, nobody wants my dog hair candy. Not one person. They think it's gross for some reason -- or, because of social pressures, they're afraid to admit that they'd like to try it. In any event, I get no takers. Should I spend the money to whip a few million bars when there's absolutely no demand for them? Why would I do that. What is my incentive to create these candy bars that no one wants?And note that this equation does not change if I try to charge everyone a quarter for these candy bars. They still don't want them.But what if there's a small portion of the population that's interested in my candy bars -- say 10,000 people. Assuming my motivations are still the same, maybe I whip up a few hundred thousand bars. All of a sudden, I have a supply to meet a demand. No money has changed hands, yet a market exists nonetheless.Analogy clear?

alm77 5 years, 11 months ago

The barter system stills has the element of supply and demand. Got it.

KansasVoter 5 years, 11 months ago

"mightyquin (Anonymous) says…KansasVoter, are you being purposefully obtuse? The motivations for illegally copying songs and movies are completely different from the motivations for getting free child porn."Are they? It seems to me that the motivation to illegally download songs, movies, and pornography are exactly the same: to obtain something that you enjoy. If you don't pay for the songs, movies, or pornography you're actively hurting the producers of those media....at least that's what the RIAA and MPAA have successfully proven in court. ===================="geniusmannumber1 (Anonymous) says…Analogy clear?"I don't think that your analogy is apt. Why would anyone take the risk of producing and distributing an illegal product if there's no money to be made?

geniusmannumber1 5 years, 11 months ago

I'll admit that the analogy as stated lacks that element. But can you not think of two dozen situations in which this is the case? Why receive child pornography when it's illegal? Why solicit children when there's no money to be made? Why hit a guy over the head with a stick cause he looks at you cross eyed? Why jaywalk? Why give away perfectly good LSD just to turn a whole city on when you could sell it? Why assume that a) everyone acts rationally, all the time, and b) that profit is the only factor motivating behavior? It can't possibly jibe with your personal experience, and no serious economist would subscribe to either of those statements.The fundamental point is that if nobody wanted it, it wouldn't exist.And this gets academic at a certain point, due to lack of evidence, but I would find it hard to believe this guy did not purchase or barter for at least some of the images. How this makes him more or less culpable is beyond me, but there you go?

mightyquin 5 years, 11 months ago

KansasVoter, your premise that everything is motivated by money and profit is absurd.

mightyquin 5 years, 11 months ago

Some guys (or gals even) take these kinds of photos to make money granted. But there are so many others out there who do it just because thats the kind of sick SOB's they are. They take them and pass them on to others without any thought of monetary gain. They do it because they get their jollies out of it. So the guy who just sits at home and collects it for free may not be contributing to anybody's pocketbook is still creating a demand for the stuff. Now having said that, here is a question. Who is worse? The person who does it just for the money and gets no sexual gratification out of it, or the person who is truly a sicko and does for their own perverse gratification?

KansasVoter 5 years, 11 months ago

" mightyquin (Anonymous) says…Some guys (or gals even) take these kinds of photos to make money granted. But there are so many others out there who do it just because thats the kind of sick SOB's they are."Well, if that's the case then it wouldn't matter whether someone downloads the pictures or not, so why punish people who download them? According to that reasoning, if the "sick SOB's" are doing it just for their jollies imprisoning downloaders isn't going to stop the "sick SOB's" from producing more.

KansasVoter 5 years, 11 months ago

edit: My last sentence would make more sense with a comma after "jollies."

Kyle Reed 5 years, 11 months ago

Sheesh, you people could convolute the answer to someone asking what is 2+2. The bottom line is the guy is a perv, he should be in jail. The person(s) that took the photos should be in jail longer. End of story.Oh, and the hair covered candy bar thing was just plain gross to read. Eww...

mightyquin 5 years, 11 months ago

KansasVoter, so maybe if the guy didn't collect free photos then the other guy wouldn't have anyone to send them to so he might not take as many ( I seriously doubt he would stop completely) photos thereby not harming as many kids as he would if he had a lot of like minded pervs to send them to. It is still a supply and demand dynamic, just not a monetarily driven one.

notajayhawk 5 years, 11 months ago

edjayhawk (Anonymous) says… "Just like the false argument that Marijuana leads to hard drugs, so does possession of porn leads to sexual acts."I'll go one better along those lines.First, I am in no way defending this guy or even saying he shouldn't be in prison. My comment is aimed solely at those who are using the argument that he should be punished for creating the market for child porn.I'm curious - do those same people hold the same beliefs regarding, say, possession of marijuana? After all, we wouldn't have hundreds of people dying in the war zone around the Mexican border if it wasn't for the people up here creating the demand for drugs. How about 8 years for possession of marijuana, geniusmannumber1 and mightyquinn?

igby 5 years, 11 months ago

Images of naked children are clean and pure too these sex addicts who suffer from Howard Hughes syndrome. Lol.

alm77 5 years, 11 months ago

nota, I think your argument fails because the only reason people are harmed in the marijuana market is because it is illegal. You don't see tobacco shootings or caffeine wars or moonshine murders. Legalize it. Regulate it and tax the hell out of it. That can never be said of the market this monster is helping to create.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 5 years, 11 months ago

He's not being punished for "creating a market" for child porn. He being punished for being a part of the exploitation of a child. Everyone who uses those images is part of exploiting the child. Imagine this: Some dude puts a camera up to your window and takes pictures of you having sex with your spouse. Then they post it on the web, and people - KNOWING that you didn't consent to the taking of the photo (remember that a child cannot consent) - begin sharing the photos. Since those third parties are knowingly sharing what should be your private moments, would you be justified in feeling violated by those people? They aren't "doing" anything to you, are they? And yet, you are being violated by them.Direct physical contact isn't the only issue.

notajayhawk 5 years, 11 months ago

alm77 (Anonymous) says… "nota, I think your argument fails because the only reason people are harmed in the marijuana market is because it is illegal."I actually expected someone else to say that very thing, but I knew someone would.I'm happy for you, alm, that you have never experienced or seen the damage caused by marijuana quite independent of the legal consequences. The clients with ruined lives I see on a daily basis all believed the exact same thing as you at one point. I sincerely hope you can recognize the error of your statement before you get to where they are. (But if it makes you feel better, substitute cocaine or heroin for marijuana.)Nonetheless, my argument does not include anything to do with the reason for the illegality. It's irrelevent. The fact is that marijuana, for reasons valid or not, IS illegal, and people ARE dying to bring it to the people that cause the demand. The comparison is completely valid. Well, except for one thing - the people who actually make child porn do it for their own satisfaction as well as for the business reasons, i.e. if you removed the demand for their product, they would still exploit these children. The same can not be said for drugs.****OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says… "He's not being punished for “creating a market” for child porn. He being punished for being a part of the exploitation of a child. Everyone who uses those images is part of exploiting the child."Not so sure 'being part of the exploitation' is entirely accurate here. Again, I am in no way defending this person, just playing devil's advocate. Suppose some historian were to discover that the models used by Ruben or another of the masters were eleven or twelve years old - would that mean everyone who stood in a museum and looked at the pictures participated in that exploitation?

Alexander Neighbors 5 years, 11 months ago

you people should really look up what the definition of pornography is, you will find its not Definable even the supreme court could not give a concrete definition. The closest definition for porn describes the definition for Art.Just a thought.

Alexander Neighbors 5 years, 11 months ago

notajayhawk,WOW last time I checked Alcohol kills more people than weed. Weed doesn't cause problems if you check your history it was outlawed because it made white women want to have sex with black men.

Christine Anderson 5 years, 11 months ago

OK, enough already!! Could someone please tell me how to contact the U.S. Attorney who prosecuted this case?I wish to speak with her. I've got info to share, and quickly, before it leaves the LPD evidence room.I wonder if she would be interested in a pervert (who works handling Medicare claims out at Vangent). I want to tell her about two very dedicated and diligent LPD detectives who spent months combing through my ex's computer, and finally did find some child porn. Which, by the way, their forensics people took the time to verify that the images of nude, preteen girls had been deliberately downloaded, vs being received as "spam". These same detectives even got the slimewad to confess to choosing to download nude images of preteen girls.Dg. Co. ADA named Amy McGowan declined to press charges. Perhaps it is the Feds I should go to. So, who out there on comment-land has info on how to contact the US Attorney? At least it could occupy some time, right?Oh, I'm painfully aware my ex was not charged in this matter, just in case his lawyer happens to read this. My point is, there are many, many perverts and sickos out there, whom a parent will not be able to find on an offender site, because the individual was not charged. Does this make them any less dangerous around our children? NO!!! It makes them more dangerous, because they have successfully slipped through the cracks in the system, and can even retain joint physical care of minor children!!I would like to offer a "without name", generic description of this one particular pervert who got away with it. Persons who ride the T route #5 westbound between 6:20 p.m. to 6:58 p.m., keep your children close by you. Also beware if you ride the #5 eastbound around 0900 to 1000. Do not seat your children close to an obese man, about 5'7", with black hair, dark brown eyes, glasses, and usually reading a book on the bus. Another identifier is the Vangent lanyard hanging around his neck. Usually seated in the back half of the bus.

Mike Blur 5 years, 11 months ago

notajayhawk, your last post reminded me of that line in "Half-Baked" where a white, hippie-ish guy meets two black guys in rehab. He tells the two black guys he's in rehab for pot smoking. The black guys burst out laughing and asks the hippie dude, "Hah! Ever (performed fellatio) for pot?"

jayhawkgrandma 5 years, 11 months ago

I have known this man and his family for many years and was completely "blown away" when everything became public. Sometimes the people you least expect to do something like this are the ones who do. He was always very shy and reserved. I just hope that his daughter or any of her friends were not photographed without their knowledge or any of his extended family members which include numerous neices and nephews all under the age of 13.

weluvbowling 5 years, 11 months ago

misplaced cheesehead, you are so right! There are so many pedofiles and other sex offenders out there that are unreported. I know of one living in So Padre/Rockport, TX who has gotten away with it for about 50 years now. Some are just "smooth" (for lack of other words). I use to work at Vangent. I left there in September of 2007 for a better job closer to home. There are alot of "weird" people who work there. I am trying to place this one but in all honesty he fits the description of alot of men AND women. You may wish to check out the US Department of Justice on their website (http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/) or call 1-202-514-2000 if you feel that you have something that was mishandled or some sort of misconduct was done by the local law enforcement/attorneys. They have a mailing and email address on their website to send correspondence to as well.Good Luck!

gusto2002 5 years, 11 months ago

Turn him loose in general population somewhere he'll get treatment alright.......and get what he deserves. Burn him at the stake - I'll bring the wood and fuel for the fire.

notajayhawk 5 years, 11 months ago

was_freashpowder2 (Alexander Neighbors) says… "WOW last time I checked Alcohol kills more people than weed. Weed doesn't cause problems if you check your history it was outlawed because it made white women want to have sex with black men."Uh huh. A little defensive this morning are we, powder?Somehow I can't recall making any comparison between marijuana and any other drug, including alcohol. I simply stated, from experience, that marijuana can and does damage lives in ways other than the legal ramifications. As I said to alm, I am sincerely grateful that you have never had to find this out first-hand, although some people have the capacity to learn from other peoples' mistakes instead of having to find out for themselves.*****mike_blur (Mike Blur) says… "notajayhawk, your last post reminded me of that line in “Half-Baked” where a white, hippie-ish guy meets two black guys in rehab. He tells the two black guys he's in rehab for pot smoking. The black guys burst out laughing and asks the hippie dude, “Hah! Ever (performed fellatio) for pot?”"I don't know which surprises me less, Mr. Blur, the fact that you found a movie called "Half-Baked" to be so memorable that you can quote from it, or that you'd use it as a defense of marijuana use.Sorry but I'm not familiar with that epic title. I looked for it at the library, but it was conspicuously missing from the classic shelf between 'Gone with the Wind' and 'It's a Wonderful Life.' Maybe somebody forgot to return it.

KansasVoter 5 years, 11 months ago

"OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…He's not being punished for “creating a market” for child porn. He being punished for being a part of the exploitation of a child. Everyone who uses those images is part of exploiting the child."That's the most ridiculous argument that I've ever heard regarding this topic. How can viewing pictures of a person that you don't know and most likely will never see in real life be exploiting them? That's like saying that every time I look at a picture of a murder victim he or she is murdered all over again. But for the sake of argument let's say that what you say is true, what about the pictures and videos that are made with the consent of the minors? And don't tell me that they can't consent. There are hundreds of minors consenting to appear in Nickelodeon and Disney Channel programs every single day, and with the proliferation of cell phone cameras more and more minors are making their own illegal pornography. Everyone who is against child pornography seems to see it in black and white terms, but there are dozens of shades of gray that I feel need to be taken into account when talking about this subject.

trente 5 years, 11 months ago

KansasVoter... I am disgusted at the comments you are posting. Are you saying it is okay for these sick people to look at child pornography? I am having a difficult time understanding why would someone defend a pedophile's actions? The only reason I can come up with is that they are a pedophile too. Do you really think these people are not doing any harm by looking at child pornography? Or are you just trying to stir things up?Anyway, anyone with a child should check the national sex offender registry. I check on familywatchdog.

alm77 5 years, 11 months ago

nota, I hope you're not assuming that because I think pot should be legal that I use this illegal substance, because you would be wrong. I do, however, consume alcohol as many, many people do without becoming an alcoholic. It's absurd to assume that anyone who smokes a joint will have his or her life messed up enough to be your "client" whatever that means. And no, coke and heroin are not on the same plane as beer and pot, sorry. My point was that sometimes the consumption of a product produces direct violence (like the case here) and sometimes the violence is consequential to the demand, but only as a byproduct of the circumstances (like making substances illegal). I'm assuming you think alcohol should be illegal as well?

KansasVoter 5 years, 11 months ago

"trente (Anonymous) says…I am disgusted at the comments you are posting. Are you saying it is okay for these sick people to look at child pornography? I am having a difficult time understanding why would someone defend a pedophile's actions? The only reason I can come up with is that they are a pedophile too."You sound like one of those people who will call someone an anti-semite if they criticize Israel.

KansasVoter 5 years, 11 months ago

Well, I guess that proves that you're too hysterical about this topic to be taken seriously. Good day to you.

Marcus DeMond 5 years, 11 months ago

When this turdbucket collected these child porn images, he broke the law and deserves to go to jail. They are illegal because these kinds of images influence certain pervs to take their own sick pics. I understand when some people say he was not really hurting anyone since he did not take these particular photos, but these laws do catch some of the pervs who get so addicted to new photos, they end up taking their own. I'm not not saying all of them would go that far, but if it prevents some new victims, why object?

notajayhawk 5 years, 11 months ago

alm77 (Anonymous) says… "nota, I hope you're not assuming that because I think pot should be legal that I use this illegal substance, because you would be wrong."I assumed, and said, no such thing. And I meant what I said - I am sincerely glad that you have never had to experience having a child steal money from your wallet to buy marijuana, or drop out (or flunk out) because of using it; that you've never been struck by a car driven by someone under its influence; that you aren't a business owner whose employees do their jobs poorly, unsafely, or don't show up to do them at all because they're stoned, or have been a victim of an industrial accident caused by a stoned co-worker; that you don't have a sibling (or parent) who failed to care for their children because they were constantly high. Your lack of experience with the negative impact of marijuana use, however, makes you even less qualified to advocate for its legalization."It's absurd to assume that anyone who smokes a joint will have his or her life messed up enough to be your “client” whatever that means."And as I said, without exception, my clients all believed exactly the same thing at one point in time. A client, although I would have hoped an explanation wasn't necessary, is someone who comes to the agency that employs me asking for help quitting, since they are unable to do so on their own, and the consequences of that in their life has have become so unmanageable that they have recognized the need for help. And having recognized the wreckage they've made of their life and the lives of the people around them, they really don't give a fig whether you, in your ignorance of the matter, find their need for help "absurd."[continued]

notajayhawk 5 years, 11 months ago

[continued]"And no, coke and heroin are not on the same plane as beer and pot, sorry."Not that I said they were. I simply said if you didn't like the marijuana comparison, you could substitute cocaine or heroine - i.e., should simple possession of one of those draw an eight year sentence because the demand led to the violence associated with its trade? But speaking of "only as a byproduct of the circumstances (like making substances illegal)," the same argument could be applied to cocaine or heroine. You're being pretty arbitrary here, unless we're to understand you have more personal experience with those substances than with marijuana? You would likely be amazed at the doctors, lawyers, college professors, firemen, etc., who use one of those substances on a regular basis, and do their jobs, pay their bills, take care of their families, and meet all their other obligations. Like any other substance (including alcohol), there are some people who can use them without getting into trouble and others who can't. So the violence resulting from the demand for those products is equally as 'circumstantial' as that of marijuana."My point was that sometimes the consumption of a product produces direct violence (like the case here) and sometimes the violence is consequential to the demand, but only as a byproduct of the circumstances..."And again, you are completely in error. As I already pointed out, even if there were no commercial demand for pornographic pictures or videos involving children, the children would still be victimized, since the pornographers derive something other than money from it. I.e., the perpetrators get their jollies whether anyone else sees the pictures or not. But if the demand for drugs were to disappear, the violence would cease entirely, whether that violence is 'circumstantial' or not – drug manufacturers are dealers (at least the successful ones) get no benefit from their efforts unless someone buys their product.

notajayhawk 5 years, 11 months ago

Sorry, should have been "and dealers," not "are dealers."

Commenting has been disabled for this item.