Archive for Friday, March 23, 2012

8 indicted in Oxycodone trafficking case

March 23, 2012


A grand jury in Kansas City, Kan., has returned a superseding indictment against eight Ottawa residents accusing them of conspiring to distribute and possession with intent to distribute Oxycodone over more than two years beginning in January 2010.

According to U.S. Attorney Barry Grissom’s office, Ottawa residents Connie Edwards, 60; Brandi Bevins, 30; Shirley Price, 44; Angela Mitchell, 35; Tamara Ledom, 36; Brittany Edwards, 19; Dustin Price, 23; and Joel Keith Price, 54, are all charged in the indictment.

In addition, Edwards is charged with three counts of distribution of Oxycodone, conspiracy to commit money laundering and two counts of maintaining a residence to further drug trafficking in the 400 block of South Sycamore Street and 800 block of South Lincoln Street. Price is charged with eight counts of distribution and one count of maintaining a residence to further drug trafficking in the 1000 block of South Locust Street. Mitchell faces charges of maintaining a residence to further drug trafficking at all three residences and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.


Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 6 months ago

There's something very important left out of this article, and that is what is the cost of this for the taxpayers? There are no victims mentioned. No one was assaulted, burglarized, murdered, raped, or robbed.

Investigations, arrests, possible trials, and incarceration cost a whole lot of money. I was under the impression that the state has a budgetary problem, and the citizens think they are taxed too much.

And of course, there's that little mouse hiding in the corner. There are a lot of violent crimes that don't get solved or prosecuted because so much money goes towards investigations such as this one.

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 6 months ago

Many states spend much more money on incarceration than they do on higher education.

One year at Princeton University: $37,000. One year at a New Jersey state prison: $44,000.


A prison cell costs about $65,000 to build and $24,000 a year to operate. States spend nearly $50 billion a year on corrections, more than four times the amount from 20 years ago, and they are projected to spend an additional $25 billion over the next five years to accommodate more inmates."

Source: The Lawrence Journal-World, March 22, 2008:

That was a while ago, so it's much more expensive now!

tomatogrower 3 years, 6 months ago

Notice that they will recoup some of these costs. The properties that were maintained to distribute drugs will now belong to the police.

Steve Jacob 3 years, 6 months ago

So your saying nobody ever gets "assaulted, burglarized, murdered, raped, or robbed" by people either on or trying to come up with the money to try Oxycodone? Less drugs on the streets, the safer we are.

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 6 months ago

You are very naive, as most people are about many things.

It would be very inexpensive if it were to be decriminalized, so it would not be necessary to commit crimes to come up with money to buy drugs.

Also, I might point out that very few people are going to be able to get any money out of raping anyone unless he is very handsome, or she is very good looking. And in which case, it would be a prostitution case instead. So, viewed in that light, that facet of your claim strikes me as rather funny.

Do you really think that no one ever steals to get cigarettes? If so, you are sadly mistaken. Many robberies are made just to get the cigarettes. And, many crimes are committed to get money to buy alcohol.

But the reason I felt the need to get up and out of bed so early was actually to put a qualifier on my above comments. And that is, I would never have specifically felt the need to say anything about a methamphetamine case. That is known to be very harmful.

But, most of the medical problems associated with the use of methamphetamine are not due to the drug itself, but to the impurities that are in what is available on the street. That is why people's teeth turn brown and fall out, it is not because methamphetamine does that to you.

The really serious problem here is that in our society today, many people do have a problem with drug use, and it should be viewed as a medical or a psychiatric problem instead of a legal problem.

That is certainly the way it will be viewed when a person goes into a hospital and reports a problem. There, he will see psychologists and psychiatrists instead of a jail cell, prison guards, and other prisoners who will teach him many, many new and very creative ways to commit crimes in order to get money.

In fact, prisons should be thought of as:

'Institutions of Higher Learning for the Commission of Crimes'.

And so, you're worried about the victims of crime? You basically said you're not. You're illogical, and did not get the point of my comment. What I said was that since so much time, effort, and money is put into prosecuting drug crimes, there isn't enough funding to more effectively reduce crimes that actually have victims.

Read up a bit, know some people, listen to what they have to say, and think about it, and then maybe you won't be making such a naive statement.

Jayhawk_4_Life 3 years, 6 months ago

if he/she's naive, you're really arrogant

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 6 months ago

Sorry, I'm said to be very intelligent, a genus for sure. So I suppose I have the right to be arrogant.

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 6 months ago

Sorry, I shouldn't be so bothered when people don't understand what I'm saying.

Bob Forer 3 years, 6 months ago

You seemed to be an alright guy until that dribbled out of your mouth.

I know genius, and Ron, you ain't no genius.

fadamaudave 3 years, 6 months ago

I am not commenting here to change your thinking, however, for those who may think your any points might have some validity, I would like to point out a few things-particulary about any "victims". 1) prescription drugs have been known to fall in the hands of kids who have died or survived with life long organ injury from overdoses, check out how many by looking into the overdose cases in any ED, or ICU. 2) prescribers are plagued by worry about the consequenses (not only the patient) of this medication from potential misuse and trying to cover legitimate pain for people in need--this issue drives medical malpractice insurance up by thousands of dollars--passing on costs to private payors and keeps more people from entering the profession (because afterall--is it really worth it?) 3) by making prescription drugs "street legal" they are taken without regard on how they interact with any other drug/herbal remedy or any other medical condition which can be lethal 4) Drug abusers are rigorously helped by prescribers and not "thrown in jail" as you presume--they are also seen in jail by psychologists to help them determine how they got into the situation in the first place. 5) Did you happen to catch the names and age of the biggest victims of all (the ones who were indited on the charges!) last name Price, age 54, son's name Price, age 19. What a parental tribute--father initiates son into same problem and now they must face the consequence together.

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 6 months ago

fadamaudave, you certainly do have valid points. But surely there is something that can be done to address those issues.

Matthew Herbert 3 years, 6 months ago

Decriminalizing doesn't necessarily make things cheaper. Typically, as with your examples of cigs and booze, the government will place a hefty excise tax upon it causing the price to be massively inflated

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 6 months ago

The guy got busted and the lab got shut down, and so now, years later, I can talk about it.

I met a man who had gotten out of prison less than two weeks ago. He appeared to be clean cut, and he was making a very serious effort to improve his life by earning some money.

He was a purveyor of LSD. He could you all you wanted, $3 or $4 a hit, I forget which. Do you want 1,000 hits? He would line that up for you, sure, it was a business. He didn't care if was for resale, he just wanted the money. High school kids were doing it.

He had made the connection in prison. That's how the LSD was distributed, by word of mouth within the Kansas prison system, between the prisoners who would need to earn money right away after they got out of prison.

Within a week or so, the prisoner left, and as far as I know, no one ever knew his last name, who he was, or where he came from, or anything about him other than he just got out of prison. Then, there was no more LSD available, so the kids had to wait until someone else got out of the 'Institution of Higher Learning for the Commission of Crimes' and knew where to get it to get any more LSD.

And you want to send people there. Some people, I just don't know what to think. But then, I am very different. I have a habit of listening to people, and trying to learn as much as I can from everyone I meet.

Everyone you meet can teach you something.

I can teach you something right now. The proper contraction for "you are" is written "you're".

Cai 3 years, 6 months ago

Ron, This comment in particular points to a need to readdress how our penal system works - not to give us cause to not enforce the law.

The fact remains that many (if not all) drug trafficking rings also end up surrounded by violent crimes - crimes that have victims. By busting the ring, they're able to actively prevent some crimes (at least in theory - we're not at Minority Report levels here).

While I completely, 100% agree with you that if you were to legalize, tax, regulate, and oversee the distribution of several currently illegal drugs (such as oxycodone, marijuana, heroin, LSD, etc), these violent crimes would be lessened (though, as you point out with the cigarettes, they wouldn't go away). But the fact remains, that as it stands now, the drugs ARE illegal, and as a result, they cause crime that DOES have victims. And, while I agree that prosecuting and getting 'justice' for the victims of crime is worthwhile - wouldn't it be better to prevent the crimes in the first place?

You're very, very good at pointing out the problems in the system (here, and elsewhere). I'd love to talk about actual, workable solutions - both long term AND short term. (IE, we obviously agree that some sort of law change is necessary - long term. But what do we do in the mean time?)

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 6 months ago

Cai, as far as I can see, the only thing we can do at an individual level is try to get reasonable points across to people that actually can make a difference by changing the laws.

That's one of the reasons I'm on this forum so much, I do have problems and I'm limited in what I can do. But, I can read and write, and I'm trying my best to make the world better by doing so very publicly.

Cai 3 years, 6 months ago

Ron, in going through and reading this, as well as other comments, i'm struck by the fact that you didn't really answer my question.

Yes. I agree. Legalize, regulate, and tax the drugs. All of 'em - (for those reading, I have my reasons, but they're not the point here). Argue for the legalization. Write beautiful shining rhetoric, and convincing political speeches.

But what are our police supposed to do NOW? Just ignore the laws that exist? Let them arbitrarily pick and choose which laws to enforce? You say you hate wasting our tax money on this problem, and that's fine. You want to fix the big picture, and that's necessary and admirable that you recognize that the law is the problem, rather than the cops themselves.

But what, exactly, would you like the law enforcement to do about? Stop doing the job that they get (meagerly) paid for?

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 6 months ago

Another thing: The violent crimes occurring every day along the US border with Mexico and in South America by the drug cartels are at intolerable levels.

If it were possible for the people that are going to be using the drugs anyway to get them in a legal and taxed fashion, the profits for the drug cartels would disappear overnight. Without any profits, it would be like any other business, they would be closed down very quickly.

It's just like when the Prohibition of alcohol ended in 1933. Many people who were making huge profits from the manufacture and sale of alcohol had the floor pulled out from under them. And today, the government collects huge revenues from the sale of it, and nobody cares.

Anyone that's seen the gangster movies about characters from the 1920s and early 1930s, except for bank robbers, should know all about it.

When it became legal, the gangsters all needed to find other activities, which is exactly what they had to do in 1933, when people could buy what they wanted and were going to get anyway, somehow, in a store and pay a tax on it.

Instead of collecting taxes, the government is paying huge sums of money, and the only real result of it is that the profits remain very high because it is a risky business. And, if anyone talks, well, that problem needs to end. Thus, many people die.

Sometimes I suspect that the drug cartels have lobbyists in Washington, DC, and in the state capitals, to insure that the drugs people want and are going to use anyway remain illegal.

Because if that ever changes, they're going to be out of business overnight.

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 6 months ago

I need to correct something. I do not know that high school kids were getting the LSD, but the kids coming and going sure did look young to me. There certainly was no age restriction on getting it, all it took was the money. It was so strange, the dealer was staying with a friend's roommate. He didn't stay long though, when you're in the business you need to head on down the road. So, he was not a long term problem.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 6 months ago

Complete and utter B.S. As long as the 'war on drugs' continues, no one is safe.

xclusive85 3 years, 6 months ago

Ron, I generally enjoy reading what you write on this forum. Today, however, I have to agree that I am finding you more than a little arrogant. Perhaps someone named bozo hacked your account?

Anyway, I think you may have contradicted yourself just a bit. You say that if drugs were decriminalized it would not be necessary to commit crimes to come up with money to buy them. In the same post, you say that people steal to get cigarettes and alcohol, which are legal.

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 6 months ago

You have a point, I was half asleep in the middle of the night. Take a look at the time stamp. But, the crimes committed to steal for cigs and booze are nowhere near the level of the crimes committed in order to purchase much more expensive drugs.

Here's what it really is all about: I am extremely frustrated that so many violent crimes are never solved, and I'm sure that more of them would be if more resources were allocated in that direction.

Actually, extremely frustrated is a serious understatement. I'm mad as hell about it.

Bob Forer 3 years, 6 months ago

6:54 a.m. is hardly the "middle of the night."

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 6 months ago

If it's a TV show you're right. I never watch television. And, I never did see a movie with that title.

trinity 3 years, 6 months ago

Good grief....don't bump your head when you fall off that high horse of yours, Ron...what a windbag. Oxy(unprescribed, misused) is such a nasty nasty drug, and the people who get caught up in it on all sides are often a mess.

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 6 months ago

Yes, using drugs is not good. But what is needed is treatment for the problem, not incarceration along with hardened criminals that have committed violent crimes.

One might take a look at the Netherlands, where marijuana is freely available. The amazing thing is that the rates of usage of it by teenagers is lower than it is in the United States. And, there is little to no crime associated with it.

But, they are very strict on some drugs. I do not know how strict they are on the misuse of prescription drugs such as Oxycodone.

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 6 months ago

You should see me in person when I get ticked off about something like this!

MarcoPogo 3 years, 6 months ago

You can always use this doozy again: "You are very naive, as most people are about many things."

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 6 months ago

But she's not, Pywacket made a very valid point, and does understand some of the issues, instead of swallowing the "Official Government Policy Statement".

ottawaway 3 years, 6 months ago

There is a little more to this story which actually hasn't come out yet. This Edward's woman was obtaining all these drug's frauduently through Medicare. Through the stories I have been hearing this woman was going to several counties and somehow getting perscriptions filled illegally. This woman has found many way's to get around the system for many year's. It all caught up to her when Medicare noticed what she was doing through their records.

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 6 months ago

Ahhhh,,, Now we know more! If fraud is involved, I have no problem with prosecution of the case. Too many people commit too much fraud, that is one thing that is a for sure. And, fraud is NOT a victimless crime.

Shane Garrett 3 years, 6 months ago

Ron I agree with your points mostly. I listened to NPR on the way to work today, and they were talking about the Popes' visit to Mexico and the Narco-war in that country. I guess there will be a truce for three days instead of a pile of dead bodies or a line of heads in front of the state building. My thought was, while these drugs are bad... cocaine, meth, pills, ect. would the cost be less if it were legal and controlled by the state? I think the answer is yes. However, would we the people become like some science fiction movie all zombies droning on for our next fix of zoma?

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 6 months ago

Wallythewalrus, here's my mathematical solution to the problem:

1) Tax the products heavily, and apply that amount towards the US budget deficit.

2) End the funding for investigation, prosecution, and incarceration for drug cases, determine exactly what that amount of money is, and call it X.

3) Divide X by 2.

4) Apply X/2 towards the US budget deficit.

5) Put X/2 towards the treatment of people with drug problems, and charge them nothing for it.

Many people want to quit, they really do. It's just like the smokers of cigarettes, they don't like it, and many of them actually do realize they would be better off without them. But, there is no place to go for help for many of them.

Missingit 3 years, 6 months ago

So if we decriminalize meth,cocaine in a effort to reduce cost. Who wants their pilots on meth or cocaine, how about judges or police?? A bus driver or a teacher. The cost of drugs to society is not measured in dollars and cents!

asixbury 3 years, 6 months ago

Those people you mentioned will still be tested for drugs by their companies, even if the drugs were made legal. For an example of this, marijuana can still be tested on employees (whose employment can be revoked if they fail) in states that have medicinal marijuana legalized, even if these employees had a medicinal reason to be on it.

Missingit 3 years, 6 months ago

Let's add the next step! Since all these drugs are readily available in this farce. What about children born addicted to crack,meth, heroin or whatever else we are legalizing here. Lets build a mountain of new hospitals or are all of you now going to tell a woman she can't do a "legal" substance?? Or wait maybe we can expand Obamacare to cover this?? This is not a money issue and to boil it down to a "cost" as such is ridiculous!

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 6 months ago

It shouldn't be much more difficult than explaining to a 12 year old why he can't buy cigarettes. I would never advocate no restrictions, but you're right, the present situation is a farce.

And, it's a very expensive farce.

Missingit 3 years, 6 months ago

Oh yeah instead of a paycheck my boss can offer me a kilo of cocaine. Hey man, we were gonna offer you some stock options and a 401k match but the accounting guys said a kilo would make for a white Christmas. Congratulations!! Aww, thanks!

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 6 months ago

Missingit? I've read that's been done years ago in Hollywood. It was claimed that the movie stars were given cocaine and amphetamines. It's relatively common knowledge that Elvis Presley was a very heavy user of amphetamines.

From Wiki, but it's sourced:

"To keep up with the frantic pace of making one film after another, Garland, Rooney, and other young performers were constantly given amphetamines, as well as barbiturates to take before going to bed. For Garland, this regular dose of drugs led to addiction and a lifelong struggle and contributed to her eventual demise."

Missingit 3 years, 6 months ago

So according to the quote you used Ron. You are fine If tt works for Hollywood, you are fine with addiction and you are fine with drug addiction leading to death?? You brought the King into this!! Damn man is nothing sacred!! You messed with my blue suede shoes! To be perfectly clear I don't want anyone to die on the toilet!

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 6 months ago

You're assuming doctors, judges, pilots, etcetera are going to use drugs if they become legal? That's quite a stretch. If they really wanted to use hard drugs then, news flash, they're already using them now. Who cares? I don't, as long as they're doing them in the privacy of their own home and harming no one but themselves... Prohibition is unenforceable and idiotic. The people in favor of prohibition are either ignorant, a drug dealer, or intimately connected to the prison industrial complex, i.e. criminal lawyer, police, prison guard, probation officer, urinalysis salesman...

jhawkinsf 3 years, 6 months ago

Hey Ron - Have you ever read the book "The Eden Express" by Mark Vonnegut? (yes, Kurt's son). He writes of his experience as a fairly normal, upper middle class hippie kid, graduates college in the '60's and goes off to Canada with some friends to live in a commune. While there, he tries LSD for the first time. It triggers a psychotic reaction, he having a borderline schizophrenia that he managed to live with. He then spent the next several years in and out (mostly in) psychiatric institutions.
I mention this because the reason LSD is illegal is not because of the 99 people who will use it and have no problems. It's illegal because of the 1 person who will experience this sort of problem. Would you care to guess the cost of a several year commitment in a psychiatric hospital? Would you care to guess at the cost of treatment facilities? Would you care to guess at the very high numbers that relapse after treatment, necessitating treatment again, and again? Care to guess at the lost productivity of these individuals who use drugs? Care to guess what we could be spending that money on if we didn't have to spend so much on hospitalization, treatment, etc.? Care to guess at the health care costs of drug users as they abuse not only drugs, but their own bodies? Care to guess who will pick up the tab for this? When mentioning the cost of incarceration, please address the costs I mentioned. Compare them. Then tell me one costs so much more than the other. But just saying incarceration costs "X" amount of dollars without giving the other costs doesn't really help much.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 6 months ago

Maybe. Then again, if it's made legal, or decriminalized, it might happen to a second person out of 100. Or a third. That, we'll never know. But I still stand by the argument that when factoring costs, add them all up fairly, then compare. Also, be honest that with society no longer sending the message that drug use is "wrong" (however we want to define that), we do run an increased risk of the situations that Mr. Vonnegut found himself in. And when we talk about costs, a risk assessment should be considered.

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 6 months ago

How many people die of lung cancer from smoking cigarettes? And how many people die of cirrhosis of the liver from drinking alcohol? And wrecking cars, that's a problem too.

How much does it cost to treat those problems?

I think a comparison with those issues should certainly be included in any serious discussion that might lead to some sort of solution to what is always going to be a very serious problem, no matter what laws are changed.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 6 months ago

There is a trend towards increased regulations, increased law enforcement, increased court costs in regards to both tobacco and alcohol. Perhaps part of this is precisely because the costs to society are so high. And of course a total prohibition might be advocated, yet we all seem to know that would likely fail. What you seem to be advocating is that while we trend one way with alcohol and tobacco, we trend the other with drugs. Perhaps you're advocating a meeting in the middle. But as you correctly point out, the costs of alcohol and tobacco are enormous. The costs of drugs will likely equal that and might exceed that number. So the costs of incarceration would be transferred to health care. No savings that I can see. Your earlier comment seemed to suggest there would be a savings. I don't see it. And as I pointed out, if use increases, as I suspect it would, the suffering that cigarette smokers experience, the cirrhosis that alcohol abusers suffer, you're advocating for an increase in that type of suffering by sending the message that drug use will be tolerated just as tobacco and alcohol use is tolerated.

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 6 months ago

I don't know what the solution is, but I can sure tell there's a problem.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 6 months ago

My main point in the legalization/decriminalization debate is that you're trading one set of problems for another set of problems. I have no particular problem trying that route. I just don't want us going that route while wearing rose colored glasses. And it's statements like those made about substantial cost reductions due to reduced incarceration, without mentioning the likely cost increases in things like health care, rehab., etc., that contributes to the rose colored glasses outlook.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 6 months ago

Maybe? Might? Shoulda, coulda, woulda. Look at history and learn from it. 40 years of failure is nothing to be proud of. Calling yourself the 'land of the free' and having more people in prison that any other country in the world is ironic. It isn't because we have more law's because we have a bunch of B.S. laws.

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 6 months ago

jhawkinsf, I have read a bit about a possible link between borderline schizophrenia and LSD, and I don't remember where it was. What I did read came to the conclusion that almost all of the people that had long lasting psychotic problems were people that were what is called borderline schizophrenic, which means that they had what psychiatrists call a high genetic propensity towards developing schizophrenia. Meaning, sure, it happened, it just happened sooner than it would have otherwise.

But, as with any other psychiatric issue, it's very difficult to tell for sure because everyone is so totally different.

AND there is something else that does not seem to be common knowledge. Most of the LSD sold on the street is not LSD at all. Heavy metals and arsenic mimic the effects of LSD quite well, and so they are sold as "LSD". There is only one thing for sure:

No one knows if Mark Vonnegut ever did LSD in the first place. Just because he thought that was a dose of LSD does not mean it actually was. There are many other toxic chemicals it could have been. But if it was from the batch made by Sandoz in the late 1950s, it actually was LSD.

Plus, there are a few other things about LSD. It is the only treatment for alcoholism that has ever had anything more than a minimal success rate. The success rate was very high, some were claiming over 50%, I think.

And, many psychiatrists were working with psychotic patients using it as a therapeutic drug to access long term memories that contained their issues that would not otherwise be accessible.

Suddenly, untreatable problems became treatable. Something happened, and you don't remember what it was? Well, here, you take this pill, and we'll talk about it all day long, and by tonight, you'll remember exactly what it was, then we will work on that.

The psychiatric community was extremely excited. Suddenly, they had a tool that could be used to reach the inner workings of the human brain.

But, Big Brother in Washington, DC ended all that research in the 1960s.

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 6 months ago

Do NOT Eat Arsenic!!!

You Will Probably DIE!!!

And it will Hurt Real BAD The Whole Time You Are Dying!!!

Heavy Metals WILL Give You Brain Damage!!!

You might not be able to walk if you do!!!

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 6 months ago

Along with treatment for the users. Why do they feel the need to use the drugs? That's the real problem.

classclown 3 years, 6 months ago

You guys leave him alone. Shouldn't you think it's nice we have our very own Forrest Gump here? Aren't you amazed that we have someone to enthrall us on practically every article with his stories about his personal life that always relate to every single thing that's printed in this paper/website?

It's wonderful to have an expert on absolutely every subject that comes up here isn't it?

Remember, life is like a box of chocolates.

Richard Payton 3 years, 6 months ago

I heard a talk radio guy say more people are in jail in the United States than any other country. I haven't researched this so I'm not certain if this statement is true or not?

jhawkinsf 3 years, 6 months ago

I think it's more correct to say that as a percentage of our population, we have more people in jail. I think I heard that a while ago, though I too haven't researched it.
An interesting question might be do we, as a society, commit more crimes than other societies? Or, because our society limits how "bad" our prisons can treat someone, has that philosophy diminished the deterrent factor? Or has the diversity we all feel is good somehow caused us to feel less shame within "our" community, thereby allowing us to feel less bad about having committed a crime? Or, (I can think of many more questions that might explain why we have so many in jail).

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 6 months ago

It's true. The land of the free (USA) has more people in prison (per capita) than any other country including China (a police state). Why? Because we've turned prison into a for profit business. We have a military-industrial-congressional complex, a prison-industrial-congressional complex, and a religious-industrial-congressional complex.

Judges Plead Guilty in Scheme to Jail Youths for Profit :

U.S. prison population dwarfs that of other nations:

Cognitive dissonance is a beach, ain't it?!?!

classclown 3 years, 6 months ago

What I don't understand is why is there a market for this stuff anyway?

I took it after having surgery and while I did get addicted to it, it's not like I ever got high from it. All it did was make the pain not as bad.

I can understand people smoking dope or taking acid or what have you, but this stuff doesn't do anything to you like those drugs. It's just pain medicine.

So what's the attraction?

Bob Forer 3 years, 6 months ago

RonHolzwarth wrote: "Sorry, I'm said to be very intelligent, a genus for sure. So I suppose I have the right to be arrogant."

Most intelligent people are comfortable enough in their own skin to refrain from belittling others or boasting about their intellect. Sounds like you have a lot of inner demons to deal with. I am sorry you are unhappy and wish you the best in bolstering your emotional IQ.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.