Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 3, 2016, 1:41 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Police seize winning lottery ticket bought with drug money

Topic closed. 41 replies. Last post 9 years ago by KY Floyd.

Page 3 of 3
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar

United States
Member #972
December 30, 2002
465 Posts
Offline
Posted: January 23, 2008, 12:32 am - IP Logged

Do the police/judges have the right to seize anything and everything allegedly bought with drug money? There is seemingly no limit to this type of RICO seizure - I have read accounts of boats and cars being confiscated because a joint was found in them.  They can literally take anything they feel like that the guy has. I also have very little faith that items of monetary value will be disposed of properly. The Boston Globe ran a big article recently about all the drug evidence that "disappeared" from evidence rooms.  

    spy153's avatar - maren

    United States
    Member #28409
    December 15, 2005
    1198 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: January 23, 2008, 9:04 pm - IP Logged

    "But without a police force, there would be total chaos everywhere."

     

    Justx, let's not forget how sexy they are in those uniforms!  OMG!  I am such a sucker for a man in uniform.

    voir-vous dans mes reves!Cool

      ThatScaryChick's avatar - x1MqPuM
      Idaho
      United States
      Member #56506
      November 21, 2007
      6537 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: January 23, 2008, 9:37 pm - IP Logged

      "But without a police force, there would be total chaos everywhere."

       

      Justx, let's not forget how sexy they are in those uniforms!  OMG!  I am such a sucker for a man in uniform.

      That may be the number one reason to have the police around. Smash   LOL

      "No one remembers the person who almost climbed the mountain, only the person who eventually gets to the top."

        Avatar
        NY
        United States
        Member #23835
        October 16, 2005
        3474 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: January 24, 2008, 10:07 am - IP Logged

        Do the police/judges have the right to seize anything and everything allegedly bought with drug money? There is seemingly no limit to this type of RICO seizure - I have read accounts of boats and cars being confiscated because a joint was found in them.  They can literally take anything they feel like that the guy has. I also have very little faith that items of monetary value will be disposed of properly. The Boston Globe ran a big article recently about all the drug evidence that "disappeared" from evidence rooms.  

        Yes, the government does have the right to seize anything and everything bought with drug money. Since drugs are illegal the alternative is to allow criminals to profit from their criminal activity. I can only assume the posters who think this guy should get to keep the winnings also think that a bank robber should be allowed to keep everything bought with money stolen from a bank, or they're unable to think clearly when somebody doesn't get a lottery prize, regardless of the reason.

        As far as cars and boats being seized over possession (perhaps I should say "presence") of trivial amounts of illegal drugs, the argument is that items used in the commission of a crime are subject to seizure.  If you legally own a hammer and use it to break into a house it will be seized. The problems are when the punishment doesn't fit the crime, and when property is seized from innocent people. Apparently, when it comes to seizures of property the courts have forgotten that anyone who hasn't been convicted yet is innocent. 

        Most of us once figured out that prohibition created far bigger problems than it solved, but since then a lot of people who are happier with simplistic solutions than functional ones have succeeded in repeating the history they can't learn from. That the winnings are subject to seizure because they were bought with money from criminal activity isn't the problem. The problem is whether or not the activity should be a crime.

          Rick G's avatar - avatar 1766.jpg
          FEMA Region V Camp #21
          United States
          Member #520
          July 27, 2002
          5699 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: February 2, 2008, 2:41 pm - IP Logged

          Yes, the government does have the right to seize anything and everything bought with drug money. Since drugs are illegal the alternative is to allow criminals to profit from their criminal activity. I can only assume the posters who think this guy should get to keep the winnings also think that a bank robber should be allowed to keep everything bought with money stolen from a bank, or they're unable to think clearly when somebody doesn't get a lottery prize, regardless of the reason.

          As far as cars and boats being seized over possession (perhaps I should say "presence") of trivial amounts of illegal drugs, the argument is that items used in the commission of a crime are subject to seizure.  If you legally own a hammer and use it to break into a house it will be seized. The problems are when the punishment doesn't fit the crime, and when property is seized from innocent people. Apparently, when it comes to seizures of property the courts have forgotten that anyone who hasn't been convicted yet is innocent. 

          Most of us once figured out that prohibition created far bigger problems than it solved, but since then a lot of people who are happier with simplistic solutions than functional ones have succeeded in repeating the history they can't learn from. That the winnings are subject to seizure because they were bought with money from criminal activity isn't the problem. The problem is whether or not the activity should be a crime.

          Good post.

          The US government does not have the right to tell its citizens what they can or cannot put into their bodies.  The Constitution says nothing about that.  You know why?  Because most of them were getting high on one thing or another that was available at the time. 

          "Isn't it 4:20?", asks Thomas Jefferson.

          Posted 4/6:  IL Pick 3 midday and evening until they hit:  555, 347 (str8).


            justxploring's avatar - villiarna
            Wandering Aimlessly
            United States
            Member #25360
            November 5, 2005
            4461 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: February 2, 2008, 3:20 pm - IP Logged

            KY Floyd & Rick

            Whoa!  This man was NOT arrested for using drugs.  The prescription he had was legal.  He was arrested for selling them.  This happens all the time on this board.  The right to privacy has nothing at all to do with our right to put whatever we want into our bodies.

            So are you saying it's perfectly okay for someone to sell drugs, prescription or not?  What if one of your kids bought his drugs? Drugs can be impure and cut with poisons. In this case, they were from a pharmacy, so they weren't.  Also, the article didn't state this, but I will bet that he got the methadone from a clinic and that money is coming from our taxes. 

            On the other hand, let's say it becomes legal to stick a needle in your arm and get high or smoke crack, then I suppose if an addict robs you at gunpoint, you'd be just fine with it?  After all, it's his right to take drugs and he needs your wallet and watch to buy more.  If it is someone's "right" to do whatever he pleases with his body, then why can't people drive drunk or high? 

            John Couey was high on drugs when he abducted little Jessica Lunsford, kept her in a closet, raped her and then buried her alive.  Andrea Yates was on legal meds when she had her psychotic breakdown and drowned 5 children in a bathtub. The reason society has to be protected from drug dealers and addicts is because when people put these substances into their bodies, they often hurt or kill others.  I honestly don't care what an adult does with his life if it (a) doesn't endanger people, especially children and (b) doesn't cost the taxpayers money.  However, children who live with alcoholic parents or parents who use drugs are at the most risk.   Domestic violence (including the murder of a spouse) is often directly connected to drugs & alcohol.

              Rick G's avatar - avatar 1766.jpg
              FEMA Region V Camp #21
              United States
              Member #520
              July 27, 2002
              5699 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: February 2, 2008, 5:36 pm - IP Logged

              KY Floyd & Rick

              Whoa!  This man was NOT arrested for using drugs.  The prescription he had was legal.  He was arrested for selling them.  This happens all the time on this board.  The right to privacy has nothing at all to do with our right to put whatever we want into our bodies.

              So are you saying it's perfectly okay for someone to sell drugs, prescription or not?  What if one of your kids bought his drugs? Drugs can be impure and cut with poisons. In this case, they were from a pharmacy, so they weren't.  Also, the article didn't state this, but I will bet that he got the methadone from a clinic and that money is coming from our taxes. 

              On the other hand, let's say it becomes legal to stick a needle in your arm and get high or smoke crack, then I suppose if an addict robs you at gunpoint, you'd be just fine with it?  After all, it's his right to take drugs and he needs your wallet and watch to buy more.  If it is someone's "right" to do whatever he pleases with his body, then why can't people drive drunk or high? 

              John Couey was high on drugs when he abducted little Jessica Lunsford, kept her in a closet, raped her and then buried her alive.  Andrea Yates was on legal meds when she had her psychotic breakdown and drowned 5 children in a bathtub. The reason society has to be protected from drug dealers and addicts is because when people put these substances into their bodies, they often hurt or kill others.  I honestly don't care what an adult does with his life if it (a) doesn't endanger people, especially children and (b) doesn't cost the taxpayers money.  However, children who live with alcoholic parents or parents who use drugs are at the most risk.   Domestic violence (including the murder of a spouse) is often directly connected to drugs & alcohol.

              Nancy,

              Alcohol is legal because Prohibition didn't work.  During Prohibition there were gang wars and many people were killed while other organized crime activities were being funded by selling alcohol.  Today's financing tool is drugs.  Terrorists and most organized crime get their major funding from the profit of selling illegal drugs. 

              If you live in a major city you become inurred to the gang killings every day on the news.  How do these gangs make their money, why do they even exist?  Because they have an easily sellable product with a huge profit margin....huge enough to kill for.  It's all based on drugs and the fact they are illegal.

              You seem to think I advocate the use of drugs.  I don't advocate them.  I was speaking of the legality aspect itself. 

              However I do advocate the legalization of marijuana...compared to alcohol and its related problems, it's a baby aspirin. 

              Posted 4/6:  IL Pick 3 midday and evening until they hit:  555, 347 (str8).


                Avatar
                NY
                United States
                Member #23835
                October 16, 2005
                3474 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: February 3, 2008, 1:23 am - IP Logged

                KY Floyd & Rick

                Whoa!  This man was NOT arrested for using drugs.  The prescription he had was legal.  He was arrested for selling them.  This happens all the time on this board.  The right to privacy has nothing at all to do with our right to put whatever we want into our bodies.

                So are you saying it's perfectly okay for someone to sell drugs, prescription or not?  What if one of your kids bought his drugs? Drugs can be impure and cut with poisons. In this case, they were from a pharmacy, so they weren't.  Also, the article didn't state this, but I will bet that he got the methadone from a clinic and that money is coming from our taxes. 

                On the other hand, let's say it becomes legal to stick a needle in your arm and get high or smoke crack, then I suppose if an addict robs you at gunpoint, you'd be just fine with it?  After all, it's his right to take drugs and he needs your wallet and watch to buy more.  If it is someone's "right" to do whatever he pleases with his body, then why can't people drive drunk or high? 

                John Couey was high on drugs when he abducted little Jessica Lunsford, kept her in a closet, raped her and then buried her alive.  Andrea Yates was on legal meds when she had her psychotic breakdown and drowned 5 children in a bathtub. The reason society has to be protected from drug dealers and addicts is because when people put these substances into their bodies, they often hurt or kill others.  I honestly don't care what an adult does with his life if it (a) doesn't endanger people, especially children and (b) doesn't cost the taxpayers money.  However, children who live with alcoholic parents or parents who use drugs are at the most risk.   Domestic violence (including the murder of a spouse) is often directly connected to drugs & alcohol.

                " I suppose if an addict robs you at gunpoint, you'd be just fine with it?"

                I'm guessing you didn't actually reach that conclusion. If you think you have a point worth making perhaps you'd like to try to make it using logic or reason?

                "After all, it's his right to take drugs and he needs your wallet and watch to buy more.  If it is someone's "right" to do whatever he pleases with his body, then why can't people drive drunk or high? "

                Hopefully you're intelligent enough to differentiate between the right to do things to yourself and the absence of a right to harm others, but I don't see anything in your post to suggest that you've recognized any difference yet.

                "The reason society has to be protected from drug dealers and addicts is because when people put these substances into their bodies, they often hurt or kill others."

                Perhaps you don't know, but  society is plagued by many problems resulting from gambling.  Some gamblers resort to crime to pay their gambling debts, so clearly society needs to be protected from gamblers, and all forms of gambling should be illegal, right? Perhaps we should criminalize use and possession of whatever dangerous drugs Andrea Yates was using. After all, the crime was clearly caused simply by the use of those drugs and nothing else. You apparently recognize the  problems caused by alcohol, so I  presume you're working dilligently for the return of prohibition. After all, it was such a resoundin success the last time it was tried.

                "I honestly don't care what an adult does with his life if it (a) doesn't endanger people, especially children and (b) doesn't cost the taxpayers money."

                Everything everybody does has the potential to cost the taxpayers money.  Have you seen all those fat, unhealthy people at the mall? Have you ever wondered who subsidizes their health or life insurance premiums? Other than that, I suppose there's some hope that if you were to think about it rationally, perhaps you'd reach the conclusion that  many of the problems with illegal drugs are either caused or made worse simply because the drugs are illegal. That's certainly the conclusion that a lot of people reached after watching the result of prohibition. Making drugs (or any other substance with a significant demand) illegal does little to reduce demand, but making the price artificially high has a huge effect on the amount of money people spend to acquire them.  Most of that money comes from legitimate sources, and a small amount comes from crime.  With far more people abusing alcohol than illegal drugs, do you suppose there's any significance to the relative lack of crimes committed to purchase alcohol?

                  justxploring's avatar - villiarna
                  Wandering Aimlessly
                  United States
                  Member #25360
                  November 5, 2005
                  4461 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: February 5, 2008, 2:50 pm - IP Logged

                   Perhaps you don't know, but  society is plagued by many problems resulting from gambling

                  KY Floyd, I just noticed this response to my comment, and I'm not going to spend an hour defending it.  Both your comments and Rick's have nothing to do with the article or the reason the man was arrested.  He was NOT arrested for possession.  Rick is talking about the right to put whatever we want into our bodies (I'm wasn't arguing that point) and you are comparing selling drugs to drinking alcohol and gambling. 

                  Since gambling is also regulated and alcohol can't be sold without a license (neither can cigarettes) if you set up a business selling booze or ran a bookmaking operation out of a sleazy hotel room, you'd also be breaking the law.  Obviously, since you can't look at reason, there's no point in trying to reason with you.  The man bought a lottery ticket with money from a sting operation.  It was never his money.  It wouldn't matter if he sold M&M candy.  Everything you've written about society, drugs, prohibition, etc., whether true or not, is totally unrelated to the news article being discussed here.

                    Avatar
                    NY
                    United States
                    Member #23835
                    October 16, 2005
                    3474 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: February 6, 2008, 2:53 pm - IP Logged

                     Perhaps you don't know, but  society is plagued by many problems resulting from gambling

                    KY Floyd, I just noticed this response to my comment, and I'm not going to spend an hour defending it.  Both your comments and Rick's have nothing to do with the article or the reason the man was arrested.  He was NOT arrested for possession.  Rick is talking about the right to put whatever we want into our bodies (I'm wasn't arguing that point) and you are comparing selling drugs to drinking alcohol and gambling. 

                    Since gambling is also regulated and alcohol can't be sold without a license (neither can cigarettes) if you set up a business selling booze or ran a bookmaking operation out of a sleazy hotel room, you'd also be breaking the law.  Obviously, since you can't look at reason, there's no point in trying to reason with you.  The man bought a lottery ticket with money from a sting operation.  It was never his money.  It wouldn't matter if he sold M&M candy.  Everything you've written about society, drugs, prohibition, etc., whether true or not, is totally unrelated to the news article being discussed here.

                    "your comments and Rick's have nothing to do with the article"

                     

                     Sure they do. The article is about seizure of property, and that's exactly what my post was about.

                       

                    "The man bought a lottery ticket with money from a sting operation.  It was never his money."

                     

                    Would it have been any different if the money had been from a sale to a real drug user instead of a sting operation? Would the money then have been his? That's where this thread started. Some people don't seem to be clever enough to figure out that the ticket (and therefore the prize) was bought with money he got from committing a crime, and is therefore subject to seizure just like any other property bought with money that was acquired through criminal activity. That lead to a series of posts about property seizure, and when somebody asked about the government's right to seize  "anything and everything allegedly bought with drug money" I answered their question. For some reason that promted you to tell us that the guy wasn't arrested for using drugs. 

                     

                    "Since gambling is also regulated and alcohol can't be sold without a license (neither can cigarettes) if you set up a business selling booze or ran a bookmaking operation out of a sleazy hotel room, you'd also be breaking the law."

                     

                    Why would selling alcohol from a sleazy hotel room be breaking the law?  I suppose you were just doing bad job of suggesting that it's illegal to sell without the proper authority from the government? If so, what's your point? I'll guess that  your point is that  people selling illegal drugs do so without approval from the government. That could easily be solved by regulating them instead of a blanket prohibition. That works reasonably well for many other things that society believes need to be regulated, including legal drugs that are potentially dangerous if abused. Maybe things are different in your part of the world, but around here there are no dangerous turf wars between competing dealers of legal drugs. Even though some of those drugs are far more expensive than illegal drugs there doesn't seem to be a problem with people resorting to crime in order to buy them, either. Regulating drugs that are currently illegal would  reduce many of the problems and would reduce the enormous cost of "fighting" illegal drugs. It would also eliminate the need to seize property acquired from the sale of those drugs, or the seizure of the car somebody  is in when they're found to have half a gram of pot.

                      justxploring's avatar - villiarna
                      Wandering Aimlessly
                      United States
                      Member #25360
                      November 5, 2005
                      4461 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: February 8, 2008, 2:10 am - IP Logged

                      KY Floyd,

                      There's no point in continuing this, because of your nasty nature.  You've always been this way on LP, but I think this time you must be suffering from a very bad case of hemorrhoids.

                      "Some people don't seem to be clever enough to figure out that the ticket (and therefore the prize) was bought with money he got from committing a crime, and is therefore subject to seizure just like any other property bought with money that was acquired through criminal activity. " 

                      Well, I guess "some people" aren't clever enough to know how to read and understand a comment, since that's exactly what I said in the first place.   

                        Avatar
                        NY
                        United States
                        Member #23835
                        October 16, 2005
                        3474 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: February 8, 2008, 3:38 pm - IP Logged

                        KY Floyd,

                        There's no point in continuing this, because of your nasty nature.  You've always been this way on LP, but I think this time you must be suffering from a very bad case of hemorrhoids.

                        "Some people don't seem to be clever enough to figure out that the ticket (and therefore the prize) was bought with money he got from committing a crime, and is therefore subject to seizure just like any other property bought with money that was acquired through criminal activity. " 

                        Well, I guess "some people" aren't clever enough to know how to read and understand a comment, since that's exactly what I said in the first place.   

                        It sounds like you think "some people" was referring to you. If that's the case, perhaps you should reread the whole thread. I know you said the money came froma crime.