A Maine man who was arrested Thursday for selling methadone to an undercover police officer apparently used money from the sale to buy a lottery ticket that won him $1,000.
Michael David, 46, will not be allowed to keep the winning ticket.
"I guess it will be up to a judge to decide, but it's in our possession right now as proceeds from a drug transaction," Ellsworth Police Chief John Deleo said Friday.
David, who has been staying at a motel on High Street, went into the Irving Mainway gas station Thursday and left the clerk a methadone pill and a phone number, Deleo said.
"He told the clerk that if anyone was looking to buy methadone [a prescription narcotic], they should call him," the chief said.
Instead, the gas station clerk called the police.
Deleo said one of his officers exchanged his uniform for plainclothes and asked the clerk to call David to set up a sale. The officer, Jeremy Cox, met David Thursday evening and bought four 10-milligram pills for $15 each, the chief said.
David apparently then immediately went back to the Irving Mainway and bought, among other things, lottery tickets, one of which ended up being a $1,000 winner.
When the man went back to his hotel room, police were waiting for him.
Deleo said officers seized the lottery ticket, along with several more methadone pills from the man's hotel room. David had a valid prescription for the pills, the chief said.
The man has been charged with unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs, a Class B felony that carries fines up to $20,000 and a prison sentence not to exceed 10 years; and unlawful furnishing of scheduled drugs, a Class C felony that carries fines up to $5,000 and a prison sentence not to exceed five years.
He was taken Thursday evening to Han County Jail and remained there as of late Friday afternoon.
I don't know why this bothers me so much. Maybe I just don't like anyone else getting the winnings except the one who scratched it off and won it. I don't like the idea that it is okay for the police or anyone else to take someone else's winnings if they aren't (yet) in debt to someone or the state or the government. I fully support the back child support thing and other stuff, for instance if you filed bankruptcy within the last six months and that sort of thing. But something about this story bothers me. What are they going to do with it?
The man was caught selling drugs! I assume the money will be held in evidence, since the police can't spend it anyway. If the man is convicted of a felony, then maybe the money will be donated to charity - like a treatment center!
I don't understand the above comments. Do you realize how much it costs taxpayers to feed and shelter these people? First he commits a crime and then we're supposed to reward him with more of our money? People are never supposed to benefit from crime. If he got a legal prescription, then it's very possible the methadone was paid for by us too.
Well, it's now up to the courts. The judge will decide what to do with the winning prize.
No, I just don't think it was admissable as evidence. Or useable in any other way as pertained to the arrest and conviction of the perpetrator. I hate druglords. They have cost me some family members. In fact, I can't think of anyone who hasn't been affected by the abuse of drugs one way or another. But explain to me how this is relevant. I don't get it. It just seems to me that the government will use any old excuse they can to take your winnings from you.
Spy, it clearly says that he sold the drugs to the undercover cop and bought the lottery ticket with the money. So it is very much directly related to criminal activity.
The officer, Jeremy Cox, met David Thursday evening and bought four 10-milligram pills for $15 each, the chief said.
David apparently then immediately went back to the Irving Mainway and bought, among other things, lottery tickets, one of which ended up being a $1,000 winner.
The money belongs to the city. Cops don't use personal money to make undercover buys.
Spy, to me you are making no sense whatsoever. What if he took the money and bought a gun? This has nothing to do with the lottery except that the news article is appearing on a lottery board. Whatever money he received from a drug buy doesn't belong to him!
If he took $100 from a man to have sex with a 9 year old, went out and bought a PB ticket and won $50 million, it wouldn't be his money either. It was obtained from committing an illegal act, just like robbing a bank. He was selling drugs for God's sake to an undercover police officer. If he had purchased the ticket the week before, that would have been entirely different. In that case, they would need to prove that he used illegal funds to purchase it. That is what the judge will determine I suppose.
Anyway, I just realized that this discussion serves no purpose (for both of us) because this man is probably going to jail. Do you think he should still get the $1,000? Let's give free room & board to people and lottery tickets too. I think I'm going to begin a life of crime. Who said crime doesn't pay? LOL
You have a point, justx. Can't argue with that one at all. But chances are, he already has a gun and probably a whole bunch of friends who go with him with guns too. I'll bet when he was arrested, he had at least two buddies waiting in the wings with weapons in case anything-- other than the police coming --happened.
It just seems all the headlines I have been reading lately say if you win the lottery, you will not be able to keep it because the government -or some form of the government- will find a reason to take it from you. It has me discouraged. Do you remember the story of the old gentleman who was in a nursing home and won the lottery and they refused to let him have it, saying he wasn't sane enough to have the money? Sounds more like they are playing GOD there, doesn't it? Where does it end? He won, what does it matter to me how he spends it, as long as it doesn't harm us?
Yes, Spy. I agree that they're sticking their noses where they don't belong. Believe me, I don't trust the government either. Signs of fascism are everywhere! But I think this is different. Just my opinion.
Imagine the controversy if it was a jackpot and not $1,000!
But this, from the OP, c'mon:
"A Maine man who was arrested Thursday for selling methadone to an undercover police officer apparently used money from the sale to buy a lottery ticket that won him $1,000.
Michael David, 46, will not be allowed to keep the winning ticket.
"I guess it will be up to a judge to decide, but it's in our possession right now as proceeds from a drug transaction," Ellsworth Police Chief John Deleo said Friday.
David, who has been staying at a motel on High Street, went into the Irving Mainway gas station Thursday and left the clerk a methadone pill and a phone number, Deleo said."
Quote: Originally posted by spy153 on Jan 21, 2008
I don't know why this bothers me so much. Maybe I just don't like anyone else getting the winnings except the one who scratched it off and won it. I don't like the idea that it is okay for the police or anyone else to take someone else's winnings if they aren't (yet) in debt to someone or the state or the government. I fully support the back child support thing and other stuff, for instance if you filed bankruptcy within the last six months and that sort of thing. But something about this story bothers me. What are they going to do with it?
Its bothersome because drugs, money, weapons and other "evidence" has so often "disappeared" from evidence lockers that they don't even bother to report it, anymore. Much of it never makes it into the 'counting room'.
These pills magically become "wrong" because the person peddling them is not wearing a lab coat.
The excuse that he used 'drug money' to buy the ticket is a smokescreen for people who don't engage in much critical thinking. If the 'drug money' had been in his left pocket, while the money that bought the winner was in his right pocket or on his debit card, would that have made a difference? Of course not.
What you are seeing is the institutionalization of theft in the name of crime prevention. It won't be long before your car can be taken because you have an unpaid parking ticket.
Quote: Originally posted by time*treat on Jan 22, 2008
Its bothersome because drugs, money, weapons and other "evidence" has so often "disappeared" from evidence lockers that they don't even bother to report it, anymore. Much of it never makes it into the 'counting room'.
These pills magically become "wrong" because the person peddling them is not wearing a lab coat.
The excuse that he used 'drug money' to buy the ticket is a smokescreen for people who don't engage in much critical thinking. If the 'drug money' had been in his left pocket, while the money that bought the winner was in his right pocket or on his debit card, would that have made a difference? Of course not.
What you are seeing is the institutionalization of theft in the name of crime prevention. It won't be long before your car can be taken because you have an unpaid parking ticket.
I've seen cars taken for that already. And I agree completely. Everything. You nailed it! You said what I was getting at. Thank you!
I don't think the guy should get to keep the ticket,because it was purchased with money he made from sellling drugs.I know some people may feel this is unfare.But the is law.If he would have purchased a car or a house the police would have also taken them away from him for the same reasons.
What will happen to the clerk when this man gets out of jail? Does the press even have to mention the clerk's part in this? Is it not enough public information that a policeman had gone underground and busted this man? What happens to "responsible reporting"?
Quote: Originally posted by spy153 on Jan 21, 2008
I don't know why this bothers me so much. Maybe I just don't like anyone else getting the winnings except the one who scratched it off and won it. I don't like the idea that it is okay for the police or anyone else to take someone else's winnings if they aren't (yet) in debt to someone or the state or the government. I fully support the back child support thing and other stuff, for instance if you filed bankruptcy within the last six months and that sort of thing. But something about this story bothers me. What are they going to do with it?
usually any money or items of value that are confiscated during a drug arrest are auctioned off and the proceeds are returned to the local drug enforcement agency.
Quote: Originally posted by Miss Bee on Jan 22, 2008
usually any money or items of value that are confiscated during a drug arrest are auctioned off and the proceeds are returned to the local drug enforcement agency.
Same thing happens when people are caught poaching in my state. Everything is confiscated, even the truck they were in. If they're convicted it's all auctioned off. I think it's very fair. If they weren't out there breaking the law, we wouldn't need to be paying people to catch them. So it's only fair that when they're convicted they help pay for the resources they caused to be needed.
Quote: Originally posted by Jack Pot on Jan 22, 2008
What will happen to the clerk when this man gets out of jail? Does the press even have to mention the clerk's part in this? Is it not enough public information that a policeman had gone underground and busted this man? What happens to "responsible reporting"?
Quote: Originally posted by Jack Pot on Jan 22, 2008
What will happen to the clerk when this man gets out of jail? Does the press even have to mention the clerk's part in this? Is it not enough public information that a policeman had gone underground and busted this man? What happens to "responsible reporting"?
I guess it's obvious that they don't have a program there where you can report criminal activities anonomously. An article like this tells me that if I lived there I wouldn't report anyone in the fear of repercussions.
Another thing the article said he APPARENTLY used drug money to buy the tickets.
Definition of apparently: according to what seems to be the case but may not actually be so.
I'm sure when all is said and done the drug money will have been what was used to buy the tickets.
Quote: Originally posted by Miss Bee on Jan 22, 2008
usually any money or items of value that are confiscated during a drug arrest are auctioned off and the proceeds are returned to the local drug enforcement agency.
Yep, even if they were Birthday presents or Christmas gifts. A lady was complaining when her son got busted for selling drugs and he had just recently received a huge settlement from a car accident and law enforcement took that too. So that's the price you pay for being a drug dealer. Drug dealers know this going into it.
Drug law enforcement will work better if they would just stop the drugs from coming into the country and into the city.
Spy, this is just my opinion, but I think the reason this bothers you so much is because the man has been arrested, tried and convicted in four column-inches of newsprint. The guy's obviously guilty; he's a drug dealer, after all, so why bother with a trial?
As we progress into the 21st century, our legal system seems to be reverting to the archaic ways of 16th century England, when the monarchy could take anything they wanted from the serfdom without process. This practice caused a revolution in America, which led to our independence from the crown.
Here in Indiana, the governor and the legislature are considering a bill which would allow the citizens of our state to hold referendum votes. Currently, referendums are illegal here unless approved by the State House. There is also a law on our books which makes it a crime to collect signatures on a recall petition against an elected official who isn't doing his job. The police in Indiana can arrest anyone without probable cause, they're not required to read a suspect his Constitutional rights, they don't have to tell us what we're being charged with and they have no obligation to tell us we're under arrest. In addition, Indiana prosecutors can use perjured testimony to try to gain a conviction. I'm NOT exaggerating; all of these things actually happened to me, and I was told, "There's nothing you can do about it." Fortunately, I had the good sense to insist on a trial by jury, and I was acquitted of all charges. However, despite my acquittal, I still lost many of my civil and Constitutional rights, and I've been defeated in all attempts to have my property returned to me.
Three years ago, I never would have believed this could happen in this country, just as some of you refuse to believe it now. I've been a victim of our system of "justice," and if it can happen to me, the odds are better than average that it can happen to you, too. I didn't even break the law, but I found myself in a courtroom facing six years in state prison for stopping a man who was trying to flee from the police during the commission of a felony.
As for America's "drug problem," I would like to point out one tiny fact: if the good citizens of this nation didn't buy illegal drugs by the ton, the dealers would have no marketplace. Yes, the guy in the article will probably go to prison for a while, but someone else will step up to provide the services abandoned by the jailed offender. The guy sold one methadone tablet for fifteen dollars, and the State of Maine will spend $50,000 in taxpayer money to send him to jail, then they'll pay up to $60,000 PERYEAR to keep him there.
Since Ronald Reagan left office, America has spent nearly a trillion dollars on the War On Drugs. With that kind of money behind the mission, the war should be over any day now ...
Yep, even if they were Birthday presents or Christmas gifts. A lady was complaining when her son got busted for selling drugs and he had just recently received a huge settlement from a car accident and law enforcement took that too. So that's the price you pay for being a drug dealer. Drug dealers know this going into it.
Drug law enforcement will work better if they would just stop the drugs from coming into the country and into the city.
TJ:
I was not pleased about the LADY & her son "LOSING" present's
or Chrimast gift's>>>>>>>goverment got UR $$$$
BUT, did HE WIN a GOVERNMENT LOTTERY>>>>>>>>>>>>TOO??
WAS the money played $$$$$$$$$$$$$$MARKED??????????????
WAS he a citizen of the US or was he about to make an app for??
YES>>>>>>>>>>>>>WE OWE, WE OWE off to WORK we GO!!
THANK you for your support TJ.....UR a great CITIZEN of USA !!!!!!
"It won't be long before your car can be taken because you have an unpaid parking ticket."
That's nothing new. I knew someone in 1975 who had his car towed for having too many tickets. They used to use a boot, but that was a long time ago. So what? If you violate the law too many times, you should pay the price! I guess all of us should park in front of fire hydrants and hospitals or drive 50mph past a school bus and just get away with it! Driving a car is not a right, it's a privilege. So many people who grow up seeing everyone driving around them forget that it's a weapon made from steel that can kill, not a toy. It has to be regulated. A parking ticket is a minor offense, and they don't tow your car for one ticket. I don't like parking meters and don't like tickets either. Do you think I like getting a speeding ticket? Of course not! But without a police force, there would be total chaos everywhere.
I'm not crazy about the police and the abuse of power either, but most people who are hassled by cops are doing something wrong. Most people in jail (not all) did something wrong. Your remark about the property disappearing cannot possibly apply to this story since it's public information. If the police were going to steal ths $1,000 bucks, it wouldn't be in a newspaper article in the first place! Duh?
I agree with Jim on several points. I also believe that the rich will get preferential treatment. the man probably wasn't a big drug dealer, since what he was selling is often given to heroin addicts to ease the pain of withdrawal and he probably was selling them for rent money. Still, he was doing something illegal. We need to have laws. Do you know that if a doctor prescribes Valium for me to sleep and I sell a 10mg pill to my neighbor for $20 I will also be arrested? That is the law and everyone knows it. You can't share narcotics or controlled substances, legally prescribed or not. Many of them are wrong and should be challenged, but without laws I wouldn't want to leave my house without a weapon.
Quote: Originally posted by justxploring on Jan 22, 2008
"It won't be long before your car can be taken because you have an unpaid parking ticket."
That's nothing new. I knew someone in 1975 who had his car towed for having too many tickets. They used to use a boot, but that was a long time ago. So what? If you violate the law too many times, you should pay the price! I guess all of us should park in front of fire hydrants and hospitals or drive 50mph past a school bus and just get away with it! Driving a car is not a right, it's a privilege. So many people who grow up seeing everyone driving around them forget that it's a weapon made from steel that can kill, not a toy. It has to be regulated. A parking ticket is a minor offense, and they don't tow your car for one ticket. I don't like parking meters and don't like tickets either. Do you think I like getting a speeding ticket? Of course not! But without a police force, there would be total chaos everywhere.
I'm not crazy about the police and the abuse of power either, but most people who are hassled by cops are doing something wrong. Most people in jail (not all) did something wrong. Your remark about the property disappearing cannot possibly apply to this story since it's public information. If the police were going to steal ths $1,000 bucks, it wouldn't be in a newspaper article in the first place! Duh?
I agree with Jim on several points. I also believe that the rich will get preferential treatment. the man probably wasn't a big drug dealer, since what he was selling is often given to heroin addicts to ease the pain of withdrawal and he probably was selling them for rent money. Still, he was doing something illegal. We need to have laws. Do you know that if a doctor prescribes Valium for me to sleep and I sell a 10mg pill to my neighbor for $20 I will also be arrested? That is the law and everyone knows it. You can't share narcotics or controlled substances, legally prescribed or not. Many of them are wrong and should be challenged, but without laws I wouldn't want to leave my house without a weapon.
JP:>>>>>>>>>>>>>THANK's UR or RYOUR >>>>>THOUGHT"S >>>>>ON YOUR true^^
RUforDEATH senentence ?????TOO KILL
LOL JP on your death penality wishes to kill true USA citizen's
NOTE:
PLEA to all TOO JP for JUSTICE to ALL>>>>>BOW to JP for JUSTICE!
SUPPORT PSYMO>>>>>>AGAINST the DEATH PENALITY!!!!!!!
NO DEATH PENALITY to a US CITIZEN!!!!!!
LOL>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>WHEN U WIN A >>>>>>>>>>JACKPOT
Ugh, more Dingbats. The best way to quit using drugs is to never start. You gotta be in it to lose it! It is a good question what the ticket was worth when he purchased it? An unplayed ticket is worth whatever its cost is. It would be interesting if they had confiscated an unplayed ticket or before the drawing (was it a scratch-off or other?) and if the Police had then played or checked the ticket to see if it had any value.
As we progress into the 21st century, our legal system seems to be reverting to the archaic ways of 16th century England, when the monarchy could take anything they wanted from the serfdom without process.
Which creates an inherent conflict of interests. An innocent person still has to spend their time and resources to fight the case. That money goes into lawyer fees and court costs.
If the person does jail time, there's plenty of money paid to house, guard(sic), and feed them. Well over $15, but the "Do de crime, do de time" people are bad at math. I guess it would be pointless to mention that there's even a group of (current and former) Law Enforcement officers Against the drug Prohibition laws, or that the prohibition of alcohol (18th amendment) mainly helped strengthen a) organized crime & b) Canadian breweries.
Those who go along with "whateva de law say" haven't been paying attention to some of "de laws" that have been passed lately. They would do well to look up the phrase 'habeas corpus' and know that it has been suspended.
Yep, even if they were Birthday presents or Christmas gifts. A lady was complaining when her son got busted for selling drugs and he had just recently received a huge settlement from a car accident and law enforcement took that too. So that's the price you pay for being a drug dealer. Drug dealers know this going into it.
Drug law enforcement will work better if they would just stop the drugs from coming into the country and into the city.
That doesn't and hasn't worked. IMHO, when the users start being targeted and jailed, it'll make recreational drug use a whole lot less attractive.
20/20 did a report about cops targeting out of state cars in Louisiana for seizure due to traffic tickets. One was enough. They would hold the car until court and if the court deemed it necessary, the car was sold and the profits given to the police department. The money was used for ski holidays for cops.
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.
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.
Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on Jan 24, 2008
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.
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.
Quote: Originally posted by justxploring on Feb 2, 2008
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.
Quote: Originally posted by justxploring on Feb 2, 2008
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?
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.
Quote: Originally posted by justxploring on Feb 5, 2008
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.
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.
Quote: Originally posted by justxploring on Feb 8, 2008
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.
Any excuse will do
.
I don't know why this bothers me so much. Maybe I just don't like anyone else getting the winnings except the one who scratched it off and won it. I don't like the idea that it is okay for the police or anyone else to take someone else's winnings if they aren't (yet) in debt to someone or the state or the government. I fully support the back child support thing and other stuff, for instance if you filed bankruptcy within the last six months and that sort of thing. But something about this story bothers me. What are they going to do with it?
The man was caught selling drugs! I assume the money will be held in evidence, since the police can't spend it anyway. If the man is convicted of a felony, then maybe the money will be donated to charity - like a treatment center!
I don't understand the above comments. Do you realize how much it costs taxpayers to feed and shelter these people? First he commits a crime and then we're supposed to reward him with more of our money? People are never supposed to benefit from crime. If he got a legal prescription, then it's very possible the methadone was paid for by us too.
Well, it's now up to the courts. The judge will decide what to do with the winning prize.
No, I just don't think it was admissable as evidence. Or useable in any other way as pertained to the arrest and conviction of the perpetrator. I hate druglords. They have cost me some family members. In fact, I can't think of anyone who hasn't been affected by the abuse of drugs one way or another. But explain to me how this is relevant. I don't get it. It just seems to me that the government will use any old excuse they can to take your winnings from you.
" But explain to me how this is relevant. "
Spy, it clearly says that he sold the drugs to the undercover cop and bought the lottery ticket with the money. So it is very much directly related to criminal activity.
The officer, Jeremy Cox, met David Thursday evening and bought four 10-milligram pills for $15 each, the chief said.
David apparently then immediately went back to the Irving Mainway and bought, among other things, lottery tickets, one of which ended up being a $1,000 winner.
The money belongs to the city. Cops don't use personal money to make undercover buys.
So if he would have gotten nothing from it, would they have kept the ticket? Nope. The only reason they are taking it is because it was a winner.
Spy, to me you are making no sense whatsoever. What if he took the money and bought a gun? This has nothing to do with the lottery except that the news article is appearing on a lottery board. Whatever money he received from a drug buy doesn't belong to him!
If he took $100 from a man to have sex with a 9 year old, went out and bought a PB ticket and won $50 million, it wouldn't be his money either. It was obtained from committing an illegal act, just like robbing a bank. He was selling drugs for God's sake to an undercover police officer. If he had purchased the ticket the week before, that would have been entirely different. In that case, they would need to prove that he used illegal funds to purchase it. That is what the judge will determine I suppose.
Anyway, I just realized that this discussion serves no purpose (for both of us) because this man is probably going to jail. Do you think he should still get the $1,000? Let's give free room & board to people and lottery tickets too. I think I'm going to begin a life of crime. Who said crime doesn't pay? LOL
You have a point, justx. Can't argue with that one at all. But chances are, he already has a gun and probably a whole bunch of friends who go with him with guns too. I'll bet when he was arrested, he had at least two buddies waiting in the wings with weapons in case anything-- other than the police coming --happened.
It just seems all the headlines I have been reading lately say if you win the lottery, you will not be able to keep it because the government -or some form of the government- will find a reason to take it from you. It has me discouraged. Do you remember the story of the old gentleman who was in a nursing home and won the lottery and they refused to let him have it, saying he wasn't sane enough to have the money? Sounds more like they are playing GOD there, doesn't it? Where does it end? He won, what does it matter to me how he spends it, as long as it doesn't harm us?
Yes, Spy. I agree that they're sticking their noses where they don't belong. Believe me, I don't trust the government either. Signs of fascism are everywhere! But I think this is different. Just my opinion.
Imagine the controversy if it was a jackpot and not $1,000!
But this, from the OP, c'mon:
"A Maine man who was arrested Thursday for selling methadone to an undercover police officer apparently used money from the sale to buy a lottery ticket that won him $1,000.
Michael David, 46, will not be allowed to keep the winning ticket.
"I guess it will be up to a judge to decide, but it's in our possession right now as proceeds from a drug transaction," Ellsworth Police Chief John Deleo said Friday.
David, who has been staying at a motel on High Street, went into the Irving Mainway gas station Thursday and left the clerk a methadone pill and a phone number, Deleo said."
staying at a motel on High Street,
Good catch, Coin Toss. Very observant of you! LOL
Its bothersome because drugs, money, weapons and other "evidence" has so often "disappeared" from evidence lockers that they don't even bother to report it, anymore. Much of it never makes it into the 'counting room'.
These pills magically become "wrong" because the person peddling them is not wearing a lab coat.
The excuse that he used 'drug money' to buy the ticket is a smokescreen for people who don't engage in much critical thinking. If the 'drug money' had been in his left pocket, while the money that bought the winner was in his right pocket or on his debit card, would that have made a difference? Of course not.
What you are seeing is the institutionalization of theft in the name of crime prevention. It won't be long before your car can be taken because you have an unpaid parking ticket.
I've seen cars taken for that already. And I agree completely. Everything. You nailed it! You said what I was getting at. Thank you!
I see an ugly pattern developing.
I don't think the guy should get to keep the ticket,because it was purchased with money he made from sellling drugs.I know some people may feel this is unfare.But the is law.If he would have purchased a car or a house the police would have also taken them away from him for the same reasons.
What will happen to the clerk when this man gets out of jail? Does the press even have to mention the clerk's part in this? Is it not enough public information that a policeman had gone underground and busted this man? What happens to "responsible reporting"?
usually any money or items of value that are confiscated during a drug arrest are auctioned off and the proceeds are returned to the local drug enforcement agency.
Same thing happens when people are caught poaching in my state. Everything is confiscated, even the truck they were in. If they're convicted it's all auctioned off. I think it's very fair. If they weren't out there breaking the law, we wouldn't need to be paying people to catch them. So it's only fair that when they're convicted they help pay for the resources they caused to be needed.
??????????......too?
WAS this person play'n with marked $$
MONEY?????? IF SO THAT PERSON may
be lobster "STEW"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I guess it's obvious that they don't have a program there where you can report criminal activities anonomously. An article like this tells me that if I lived there I wouldn't report anyone in the fear of repercussions.
Another thing the article said he APPARENTLY used drug money to buy the tickets.
Definition of apparently: according to what seems to be the case but may not actually be so.
I'm sure when all is said and done the drug money will have been what was used to buy the tickets.
Yep, even if they were Birthday presents or Christmas gifts. A lady was complaining when her son got busted for selling drugs and he had just recently received a huge settlement from a car accident and law enforcement took that too. So that's the price you pay for being a drug dealer. Drug dealers know this going into it.
Drug law enforcement will work better if they would just stop the drugs from coming into the country and into the city.
Spy, this is just my opinion, but I think the reason this bothers you so much is because the man has been arrested, tried and convicted in four column-inches of newsprint. The guy's obviously guilty; he's a drug dealer, after all, so why bother with a trial?
As we progress into the 21st century, our legal system seems to be reverting to the archaic ways of 16th century England, when the monarchy could take anything they wanted from the serfdom without process. This practice caused a revolution in America, which led to our independence from the crown.
Here in Indiana, the governor and the legislature are considering a bill which would allow the citizens of our state to hold referendum votes. Currently, referendums are illegal here unless approved by the State House. There is also a law on our books which makes it a crime to collect signatures on a recall petition against an elected official who isn't doing his job. The police in Indiana can arrest anyone without probable cause, they're not required to read a suspect his Constitutional rights, they don't have to tell us what we're being charged with and they have no obligation to tell us we're under arrest. In addition, Indiana prosecutors can use perjured testimony to try to gain a conviction. I'm NOT exaggerating; all of these things actually happened to me, and I was told, "There's nothing you can do about it." Fortunately, I had the good sense to insist on a trial by jury, and I was acquitted of all charges. However, despite my acquittal, I still lost many of my civil and Constitutional rights, and I've been defeated in all attempts to have my property returned to me.
Three years ago, I never would have believed this could happen in this country, just as some of you refuse to believe it now. I've been a victim of our system of "justice," and if it can happen to me, the odds are better than average that it can happen to you, too. I didn't even break the law, but I found myself in a courtroom facing six years in state prison for stopping a man who was trying to flee from the police during the commission of a felony.
As for America's "drug problem," I would like to point out one tiny fact: if the good citizens of this nation didn't buy illegal drugs by the ton, the dealers would have no marketplace. Yes, the guy in the article will probably go to prison for a while, but someone else will step up to provide the services abandoned by the jailed offender. The guy sold one methadone tablet for fifteen dollars, and the State of Maine will spend $50,000 in taxpayer money to send him to jail, then they'll pay up to $60,000 PER YEAR to keep him there.
Since Ronald Reagan left office, America has spent nearly a trillion dollars on the War On Drugs. With that kind of money behind the mission, the war should be over any day now ...
TJ:
I was not pleased about the LADY & her son "LOSING" present's
or Chrimast gift's>>>>>>>
goverment got UR $$$$
BUT, did HE WIN a GOVERNMENT LOTTERY>>>>>>>>>>>>TOO??
WAS the money played $$$$$$$$$$$$$$MARKED??????????????
WAS he a citizen of the US or was he about to make an app for??
YES>>>>>>>>>>>>>WE OWE, WE OWE off to WORK we GO!!
THANK you for your support TJ.....UR a great CITIZEN of USA !!!!!!
LOL
PSYKOMO
"It won't be long before your car can be taken because you have an unpaid parking ticket."
That's nothing new. I knew someone in 1975 who had his car towed for having too many tickets. They used to use a boot, but that was a long time ago. So what? If you violate the law too many times, you should pay the price! I guess all of us should park in front of fire hydrants and hospitals or drive 50mph past a school bus and just get away with it! Driving a car is not a right, it's a privilege. So many people who grow up seeing everyone driving around them forget that it's a weapon made from steel that can kill, not a toy. It has to be regulated. A parking ticket is a minor offense, and they don't tow your car for one ticket. I don't like parking meters and don't like tickets either. Do you think I like getting a speeding ticket? Of course not! But without a police force, there would be total chaos everywhere.
I'm not crazy about the police and the abuse of power either, but most people who are hassled by cops are doing something wrong. Most people in jail (not all) did something wrong. Your remark about the property disappearing cannot possibly apply to this story since it's public information. If the police were going to steal ths $1,000 bucks, it wouldn't be in a newspaper article in the first place! Duh?
I agree with Jim on several points. I also believe that the rich will get preferential treatment. the man probably wasn't a big drug dealer, since what he was selling is often given to heroin addicts to ease the pain of withdrawal and he probably was selling them for rent money. Still, he was doing something illegal. We need to have laws. Do you know that if a doctor prescribes Valium for me to sleep and I sell a 10mg pill to my neighbor for $20 I will also be arrested? That is the law and everyone knows it. You can't share narcotics or controlled substances, legally prescribed or not. Many of them are wrong and should be challenged, but without laws I wouldn't want to leave my house without a weapon.
JP:>>>>>>>>>>>>>THANK's UR or RYOUR >>>>>THOUGHT"S >>>>>ON YOUR true^^
RUforDEATH senentence ?????TOO KILL
LOL JP on your death penality wishes to kill true USA citizen's
NOTE:
PLEA to all TOO JP for JUSTICE to ALL>>>>>BOW to JP for JUSTICE!
SUPPORT PSYMO>>>>>>AGAINST the DEATH PENALITY!!!!!!!
NO DEATH PENALITY to a US CITIZEN!!!!!!
LOL>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>WHEN U WIN A >>>>>>>>>>JACKPOT
PSYKOMO
Ugh, more Dingbats. The best way to quit using drugs is to never start. You gotta be in it to lose it! It is a good question what the ticket was worth when he purchased it? An unplayed ticket is worth whatever its cost is. It would be interesting if they had confiscated an unplayed ticket or before the drawing (was it a scratch-off or other?) and if the Police had then played or checked the ticket to see if it had any value.
As we progress into the 21st century, our legal system seems to be reverting to the archaic ways of 16th century England, when the monarchy could take anything they wanted from the serfdom without process.
Which creates an inherent conflict of interests. An innocent person still has to spend their time and resources to fight the case. That money goes into lawyer fees and court costs.
If the person does jail time, there's plenty of money paid to house, guard(sic), and feed them. Well over $15, but the "Do de crime, do de time" people are bad at math. I guess it would be pointless to mention that there's even a group of (current and former) Law Enforcement officers Against the drug Prohibition laws, or that the prohibition of alcohol (18th amendment) mainly helped strengthen a) organized crime & b) Canadian breweries.
Those who go along with "whateva de law say" haven't been paying attention to some of "de laws" that have been passed lately. They would do well to look up the phrase 'habeas corpus' and know that it has been suspended.
That doesn't and hasn't worked. IMHO, when the users start being targeted and jailed, it'll make recreational drug use a whole lot less attractive.
o maaaaaaaan, I would be sooo mad but then again he shouldn't have asked a gas station clerk to hook him up with clients
20/20 did a report about cops targeting out of state cars in Louisiana for seizure due to traffic tickets. One was enough. They would hold the car until court and if the court deemed it necessary, the car was sold and the profits given to the police department. The money was used for ski holidays for cops.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
" 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?
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.
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.