Idiot Proposes Lengthy Prison Sentence for George Michael
George Michael’s latest drug arrest has reduced Ross Clark at The Times Online to a sputtering mess. In an embarrassing editorial entitled It's just as wrong to use drugs as it is to sell them, Clark compares drug use to child pornography and calls for casual users to serve long sentences:
Clark goes on explain that drug addiction doesn’t happen to intelligent people:
Dude, chill out. No one wants to spend $250,000 imprisoning a guy for $20 worth of dope. I’m sure you had fun writing this, but do you actually agree with your own idea? Did you know that it costs money to keep people in jail? If you hate drug users so much, do you really want to pay for all their food and clothes and healthcare for 10 years every time we catch one? No you don’t, so shut up before we lock George Michael in your pantry and make you take care him forever.
With stolen goods, illegal weapons and child pornography, the law is clear: the user is as guilty as the supplier. The police didn't let Gary Glitter off with a little rap on the knuckles and the rest of us didn't shake our heads and say: “Poor Gary, how sad that he has fallen victim to these evil porn dealers.”
He was prosecuted, quite rightly, on the basis that those who provide the market for child porn are implicated in its production. So why then do such different attitudes persist in the case of drugs? If it is wrong to produce and trade drugs, then it is equally wrong to use them.
Clark goes on explain that drug addiction doesn’t happen to intelligent people:
…Among drug users and drug peddlers alike, there are, of course, sometimes mitigating circumstances. If you have been brought up by drug addicts, beaten and abused, it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise if you grow up with a somewhat confused sense of right and wrong.
But none of this applies to George Michael, who is intelligent enough to know that taking crack is not just an issue of personal liberty: there is a clear association between use of the drug and propensity to commit violent crime. If caught with illegal drugs he should be treated to no less a punishment than if he had smuggled them into the country and sold them on the streets.
Dude, chill out. No one wants to spend $250,000 imprisoning a guy for $20 worth of dope. I’m sure you had fun writing this, but do you actually agree with your own idea? Did you know that it costs money to keep people in jail? If you hate drug users so much, do you really want to pay for all their food and clothes and healthcare for 10 years every time we catch one? No you don’t, so shut up before we lock George Michael in your pantry and make you take care him forever.
Looking for the easiest way to join the anti-drug war movement? You've found it!
Boring Ross Clark
There is a clear association between use of the drug alcohol and propensity to commit violent crime.
There is a clear association between the desire to acquire money and a propensity to commit violent crime.
There is a clear association between the use of petroleum and propensity to commit violent crime on a global scale.
To Ross Clark taking crack is not just an issue of personal liberty.
To George Michael taking crack is clearly an issue of personal liberty as Ross Clarks "somewhat confused sense of right and wrong" is legislated and enforced at gunpoint.
Beer & rednecks
"there is a clear association between use of the drug and propensity to commit violent crime"
So I guess Clark has never been around drunk rednecks?
They become very violent and it's a LEGAL drug.
More manure!
Clark is self-righteous and prejudist
He knows nothing about drugs or why people use them. He is simple-minded, self-righteous, and prejudist.
He assumes that any drug user who has kids, not only is automatically and addict, but also beats and abuses his kids. Plus, he thinks that the only "understandable" reason why anyone would use drugs is if they were beaten and abused as children by drug addicted parents. Then this part really clearly shows how self-righteous he is:
"But none of this applies to George Michael"
Is he George Michael's psychologist? Does he even know the guy personally? How the hell would he know?
Perhpas he just sees him as 'not from the ghetto', and 'not from the ghetto' means intelligent, and "knowing better" than to use drugs.
And another thing: is he actually arguing that if someone is abused as a child it should be legal for them to use drugs? Or maybe he just thinks that they should go to mandatory drug treatment (but probably not mandatory psychological treatment, since, *obviously*, you can be allowed to have psychological problems but you can't be allowed to have drug problems) and that 'people like George Michael' should just go to jail.
also, maybe he just hates gay people
It politically incorrect to say anything bad about gay people, but it is still allowed to say bad things about drug users.
Everyone's addicted to something
Just happens the guy who wrote this article is addicted to ignorance and lies. "There, but for the grace of God, go I..."
Seriously, I do a lot of thinking about this, and it's become clear to me that EVERYONE is addicted to something. Show me ONE person who is perfectly temperate? Human nature will always force us toward hedonism. Some people are addicted to church. Some are addicted to power and control. Others, the Internet. Still others, mountain biking, dancing, etc. The list goes on and on...
It just so happens that drugs are the black sheep, at least for now. I'd like to say that hypocrites like the one who wrote that disgraceful (trainwreck, as you put it - LMAO) article would be imprisoned for a taste of their own medicine, but that would make me just as bad as them! I hope that one day, people the world over learn TOLERANCE! It's a much better and more necessary virtue than temperance.
A confused argument
I don't understand his comment "And yet how many drug users live in fear of ending up behind bars" I was under the impression that every drug user keeps that little black fear in their minds at all times.
It also seems as if Mr. Clark has confused the War on Drugs with Classism. The reason Mr. Michaels gets off and the drug mule goes to jail is because Mr. Michaels has a seven figure bank account. His whole comparison of the two is highly strange. If he is upset that Mr. Michaels is getting off and thus calls for more stringent sentincing, they why does he open with bemoning the fate of a coerced drug mule?
When he moves on to compare drug use to child pornography I am just baffled. Does he truely beleive that private non-violent drug use is the equvilant of such a heinous act? I suppose I can understand him comparing drug cartels to child porn rings, but if you legalize drugs the cartels fall apart. If you legalize child porn, well, it's still terrifying and wrong.
Post new comment