The National Reporter
47-year-old Robert Jeffreys has been roaming the streets of Fort Lauderdale Florida dressed like Frankensteins monster since he had a bad reaction to LSD when was 16 years old.
Local residents were amused at first, but in the past few years his shenanigans have gone from amusing to down right frightening.
What started out as harmless fun soon became a serious psychosis.
He really believed that he was Frankenstein.
His first violent out burst was recorded on video tape at Fort Lauderdale’s busy Coral Ridge mall.
He was video taped walking through the mall which he did everyday since he was 16 when he suddenly grabbed a small child and tried to drop her in the fountain.
Mall security guards quickly grabbed him and escorted him out of the mall and banned him from coming back.
Robert Jefferys is shown here walking through the Coral Ridge mall moments before he grabbed the child.
For the next two weeks the streets of fort Lauderdale were void of Roberts Jefferys daily strolls dressed like Frankenstiens monster.
Then in the early hours of December 18th, he reappeared in the lobby of the Colonial bank with a more sinister motive in mind other than to scare people with his monster costume.
He came to rob the bank.
“Everyone knows Robert, he’s a nut that dresses like Frankenstien and walks around town trying to look scary.” Robbery witness Tim Howell told us. “I always thought he was harmless until now. It was really wierd, he didn’t have a gun or anything.
He just thought that the tellers were going to hand the money over to him because he was dressed like Frankenstien and they would be terrorfied.
He just stood there grunting and saying gimmie money, me want money,..gimmie money!!”
Me want money,..gimme money! he grunted
“No one said anything, everyone thought he was just fooling around like he always does.
Then when the security guard walked over to tell him to leave, he swatted him aside with his arm and stomped towards the counter.
That was when we realised that he had finally gone over the edge and completely lost his mind.”
The teller hit the silent alarm button when Robert started roaring insanely and climbed over the counter.
He rolled over the counter and fell to the floor and struggled to get to his feet for a minute or two, he had a hard time because of his extra-large Frankenstein boot with the half-foot lift bottoms.
Once he got to his feet he began scooping up cash and stuffing it into his Frankenstein jacket.
When he had filled his jacket, he roared at the tellers and the customers again and climbed back over the counter to make his get away.
He was grabbed by police and the FBI seconds after he walked out side and arrested.
Robert Jeffreys AKA, Frankenstein, being led away by police and the FBI after his unsuccessful bank robbery.
When he was brought into court for his arraignment, he had to strapped to a wheel chair because he had become increasingly violent while in custody.
Judge Ernest Goldman said he had never seen such a deranged individual in all his 36 years on the bench.
Roberts defence attorney is expected to enter the insanity plea.
Robert Jeffreys AKA, Frankenstein, being rolled into court for his arraignment.
Mr. Jeffreys is still in jail under suicide watch.
Judge Goldman has set his bail at 1 million dollars.
The National Reporter will be on hand to cover his trial when it comes up in mid July.
NEW YORK–Teva Pharmaceutic Industries Ltd. Said Monday U.S. Wellness regulators scaly cover dietary and health restrictions on its Parkinson’s Disease dose Azilect.
Teva said the intelligence labeling eases interested around drug interactions with early medications, including terminated-the-buffet cold-blooded medicines.
The intelligence labeling also states that patients no longer birth to surveil general dietetic restrictions on levels of tyramine, an aminic battery-acid foundation in certain foods, including spreading-dried and fermented meats. Because of increased sensibility in around patients, nonetheless, the tidings labeling recommends against heights grading of the pane.
The Nutrient and Dose Administration affirmative Azilect in 2006 as a day-after-day treatment for Parkinson’s Disease.
Shares of Teva Pharmaceutic Industries Inc. Fell 9 cents to $53.40 in astern-hours trading.
Ran across a blurb that Tiger Woo, in a drastic measure to get his life together and maybe keep his wifey, is goin’ into’ therapy for his sexual addiction (the excuse/reason?) and use of the drugs, Ambien and Vicodin.
Plan is that he check in early next month. Snitches say he’s willin’ to do whatever Elin says to keep her, and this is at the top of the list of demands.
Is this the logical next step for people like Tiger? It seems like it- all these famous folks, once they get caught at some shyt, have a breakdown and admit the fault, and then ‘go into rehab/therapy’? Then come out fresh and brand new, and all is forgiven?
Well good for him, anyway. But I still think Elin is takin the kids, the cash, and whats left of her dignity, and movin’ to Sweden. This may get you an extra visit or two…
Armed men have killed family members of a Mexican special forces marine involved in a military raid last week that ended in the death of a powerful drug leader.
The attack at the family’s home in Quintin Arauz on Tuesday took place just hours after the military honored the officer, Melquisedet Angulo Cordova, as a national hero.
He died in the same raid that killed Marcos Arturo Beltran Leyva, a cartel head in Cuernavaca.
Officials condemned the killing of the mother, brother, sister and aunt of Cordova as an unprecedented revenge killing.
More than a dozen men reportedly broke in the door of the home in the eastern Mexican state of Tabasco with a sledge hammer before opening fire in the living room and bedrooms.
Felipe Calderón, Mexico’s president, called the shooting a “cowardly and contemptible act of violence.”
“These outrageous actions show the lack of scruples of organized crime in mowing down innocent lives,” he said in a public speech.
Police said a joint police, army and navy team was searching for the killers, who were suspected of working with the Beltrán-Leyva Cartel.
The Mexican government had hailed the death of Levya as a major blow to organized crime in the country, but cautioned its citizens that violent retributions might only increase in the short term, Al Jazeera’s Franc Contreras, reporting from Mexico, said.
“The brutal murders of Codova’s family members seem an affirmation of that grim prediction,” he said.
Regional official killed
In an unrelated attack, armed men fired on and killed the tourism secretary in the western state of Sinaloa – a stronghold for drug-trafficking gangs.
Local media also reported that gang members fired on a restaurant in the northern city of Piedras Negras, Coahuila, where government officials had been meeting the mayor of Eagle Pass, a US border town in Texas.
Calderon has deployed more than 45,000 army troops across Mexico in a bid to secure the population and weaken cartel strongholds.
Despite these measures, more than 7,000 drug-related deaths have been reported this year.
Government officials say revenge killings complicate their efforts to attract new army and police recruits, and raises fears among those already involved that their families are at risk.
As an american actress and singer,Brittany Murphy starred in films such as Clueless, Girl, Interrupted, 8 Mile, Sin City and Riding in Cars with Boys, and performed vocals on a range of films and with dance musician Paul Oakenfold, together garnering a number one dance music hit in the United States in 2006.
She has captured the hearts of many with her stunning beauty and incredible talent.
Hollywood and her fans worldwide are shocked by the sudden death of Brittany Murphy. The actress who celebrated her 32nd birthday last month, died Sunday in Los Angeles. She was 32. Murphy was pronounced dead at 10:04 a.m. at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, hospital spokeswoman Sally Stewart said.now friends of the star are claiming she had a serious problem with prescription drugs. One said sadly, ”We have been very worried something like this was about to happen. Brittany had been living life on the edge.” It had been rumoured recently that the actress had a cocaine habit, but this has been denied. Instead she had developed an addiction to painkillers after a recent bout of cosmetic surgery. It is thought Brittany’s mum Sharon discovered her daughter’s unconscious body in the shower and quickly called the emergency services. Sadly, however, they were unable to resuscitate her. Brittany’s neighbour said last night that while the paramedics worked on her in the front garden, the actresss’ husband Simon Monjack was wandering around his his pyjamas looking bewildered. An official cause of death has yet to be released.
“Today the world lost a little piece of sunshine. My deepest condolences go out 2 Brittany’s family, her husband, & her amazing mother Sharon,” tweeted Ashton Kutcher, Murphy’s “Just Married” co-star and former off-screen boyfriend. “See you on the other side, kid.”
Lindsay Lohan wrote: “My deepest condolences go out to all of Brittany Murphy’s loved ones and may she rest in peace. … She was a great talent w/a beautiful soul xo.”
“Brittany Murphy was an incredible ray of light to so many people,” Jessica Simpson tweeted. “Her smile was contagious. My prayers are with her family and loved ones.”
Friend Eliza Dushku said, “My heart aches having just learned of Brittany Murphy’s death. We were friends time-to-time thru the yrs. I always admired her pure spirit.”
“This is horrible news when anyone passes,” Khloe Kardashian wrote on her Twitter. “I’m so sorry for her family. Send prayers out, please!”
“Brittany Murphy and I did a USO Tour together in 2003,” Alyssa Milano recalled. “She was a sweet soul, with a lot of talent and heart.”
Fred Durst, whose manager Murphy used to date, wrote, “RIP Brittany Murphy. What a sweet human being. My prayers are with her friends and family.”
“Am beyond words by the loss of Brittany Murphy,” Soleil Moon Frye tweeted. “I was so blessed to know your grace. My heart goes out to your mama+ loved ones.”
“Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist” star Kat Dennings wrote simply, “R.I.P Brittany Murphy. This is so awful.”
“Am very shocked to hear of Brittany Murphy’s passing,” director Edgar Wright tweeted. “Was a fan of her in ‘Clueless,’ ‘Freeway’ and ‘Sin City.’ Very sad to lose someone so young.”
Simon Pegg said: “Just heard about Brittany Murphy. How very sad. Met her briefly after Sin City. Seemed a great girl. My sympathy to her friends and family.”
And critic Roger Ebert tweeted her praise, writing, “Brittany Murphy, dead at 32. She had a genuine quality.”
I’m really grateful for excellent bloggers like JR Atwood at Playthink. JR has again prompted me to write an entry that is essentially a response/reflection on one of his recent posts. JR’s post has a highlight section of the discussion between Bill Simmons and Malcolm Gladwell about sport celebrity…that, to me, goes nowhere. The topic of the part of the discussion posted in JR’s blog is about the public reaction to sports-celebrities’ behaviors, and how “random” those reactions appear to be.
While a fascinating topic in itself, that conversation really goes nowhere. There are no answers in the end. Why?
That’s the reason for this post.
I’m confused by the Gladwell/Simmons conversation. They only talk around their subject-matter, describing it, but not uncovering anything.
What’s strange to me is that neither of them points out that expectations of (or reactions-to) professional athletes and their behavior are entirely fabricated. They’re created by the media, the consensus-view of the commentators, and the consensus-view of the viewers. Granted, that’s a vague statement, but stick with me for a second.
What I’m saying is that there is no “strict moral ground” by which to judge the behavior of celebrity athletes (or any celebrity, for that matter). Instead, the reaction is more a conflagration of the “public image” of that athlete, the media’s reaction/billing of the behavior, and the public’s buy-in to that billing.
I don’t think the reaction has anything to do with the “volatility of statistics.” Stats are meaningless if a game is “infinite” (played for its own sake, to continue playing, as opposed to played to win). Therefore, the value of stats is agreed-upon before the sport is begun. The rules are laid out. “This is a finite game. It is played to win. Therefore, we keep track of everything.”
This is also a cultural creation. What are the meaning of statistics? The meaning, like the meaning of celebrity athletes’ behavior, is culturally created. What is the meaning of one or several players taking performance-enhancing drugs (PED’s) and thereby skewing those stats? How can one really know?
At this point, I’d like to turn to the PED discussion. Because it does highlight what’s happening underneath this discussion of celebrity-athlete behavior and public reaction.
Here’s the deal, and here’s what fascinates me the most – This “debate” itself is a game.
It’s similar to the “healthcare debate” entry I posted. Till cultural change occurs that supports all of the talk about healthcare change/promotion, any talk about healthcare is mere lip-service. No true change can occur until the culture will support that change.
Similarly, until a systematized, reliable, regular, and transparent method of testing athletes for PED’s is put into place, there’s no real telling what the “true” stats are.
Along with any other specifics about the subject matter they propound on, Gladwell and Simmons don’t discuss the testing policies/procedures in place now, or the history behind those policies.
While they were “banned” in 1991, “random” drug testing was only started in MLB in 2001. Steroids were only banned in the NBA in 1999. And, though steroids were “banned” in the NFL in 1990, loopholes were found in 2005 that allowed Carolina Panthers players to be prescribed banned substances two weeks prior to the 2004 Superbowl. (go here for the USA Today article outlining the last two references).
I put “random,” and “banned’ in quotes above, because, to the best of my knowledge, testing is far from random, and (as in the case of the Panthers), performance-enhancing substances are far from truly banned. Instead, players are tested who will test positive. Occasionally, a scapegoat may be needed, or someone out of which to make an example, and they’ll be tested. Or, someone from outside the organization will report unfavorable news and the whole thing will blow up.
My point about testing, above, is to say that the stats are already skewed. It’s impossible to know what the true stats are for sports until everyone is tested. If that’s your goal.
But I don’t think that it is.
This site has a nice “news-based” overview of drugs in sports, that shows clearly that athletes have always used “performance-enhancing drugs” of some sort or other. So the question I come to is not whether or not PED’s should be banned, or whether or not they’re skewing sporting outcomes, but what the game is behind this discussion.
What is the purpose of organized sports? “Bread and circus?” – that is, a distraction for the masses?
For those who believe that organized sports are simply there because so many people enjoy watching them, I strongly disagree. At the point at which a thing becomes a multi-billion dollar industry, people’s enjoyment, as being free from coercion, diminishes exponentially.
So if it doesn’t really matter…that is, if there’s no way to know what the “real” stats are, and there’s no “real” ground by which to judge a (any) celebrity’s behavior, what are we talking about here?
I don’t think we’re really talking about anything. Certainly nothing of importance. Just surface characteristics of a much larger dynamic.
It’s like talking about the weather. How is it? The city-slicker hates the rain, the farmer loves it. Same rain.
But hate it or love it, there it is.
Why do we talk about the weather? It’s easier than doing something. It’s easier than admitting that we have no control over it. Comfort? I don’t know…you tell me.
Two issues — that shouldn’t be issues — are raised by international reportage and commentary on the demise of gangster Arturo Beltran Leyva:
Who done it?
I don’t know why this jumped out at people, but there were several commentators (and a couple of e-mails to me) incredulous of the factoid that the late Arturo Beltran Leyva met his maker at the hands of naval personnel.
A commentator in the Huffington Post seemed incredulous of the idea that Mexican has — or ever has had — a navy (hint… check a map) or needed one (having been invaded by sea twice by the United States, twice by France, Spain and Britain… and German U-boats), yes, indeed Mexico needs a navy.
Burro Hall thought it hilarious that the navy was sent into Cuernavaca.. far from any seaport. But, then, it’s the burro’s job to be snarky (and he snarks well).
AP and the New York Times called the troops involved in the operation “naval personnel” (which they were), but not — as Time Magazine called them — “sailors”. Not really, anyway.
Two non-issue issues that have been raised by international reports on the death of gangster Arthuro Beltran Yes, the navy does have land troops, just like every other navy in the world. Although there are only about 8,000 Mexican Marines — mostly stationed on-board ships (they are the ones who board ships stopped at sea suspected of carrying contraband) or around seaports and oil platforms — and many of their functions have been transferred to the Army in recent years, there are several Marine bases throughout the country. I don’t think Beltran was taken down by the Presidential Guard (which are Marines), but there are a couple of rapid-response marine units stationed in the Mexico City area.
Given that the late Mr. Beltran was in the Colombian import-export trade, and the Colombian agricultural products in which Mr. Beltran invested for re-export to the United States mostly entered Mexico by sea, naturally the Navy was involved in their interdiction, and in disrupting his business activities.
Do as we say, not as we do:
No one has yet to comment on the fact that Arturo Beltran Levya will never receive his day in court (nor, that despite having abolished the death penalty years ago, even gangland mob bosses should be eligible for “social readaption”). Not that I’m going to fret much about it, but it was interesting that United States Ambassador Carlos Pascual was quoted just before the Cuernavaca raid as praising military deployment in what is basically a criminal justice/police matter. Gancho mightily argues that this is not really interventionism, but I’ll believe it when the United States Marines march down Wall Street and start blowing away the money launderers and banksters who control the U.S. end of the cocaine trade.
Anti-narcotics Police Commander Francisco Patiño announced today that authorities seized three tons and 153 kilos of marijuana during an operation carried out yesterday morning in Cauca. The drugs reportedly belonged to the FARC’s sixth front headed by alias ‘Sargento Pascuas’, and were ready for distribution to various regions throughout the country. ‘Sargento Pascuas’ is one of the oldest and most wanted FARC leaders, for whom the Colombian government has recently offered a COP2 billion (almost USD1 million) capture reward.
UNITAID, the international finance mechanism for drugs to treat HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, has given the go-ahead for a patent pool for antiretroviral drugs, a mechanism to promote wider licensing of patented drugs to generic manufacturers, in order to lower the cost of treatment. The decision, taken by UNITAID’s Executive Board, was announced on December 14. The pool, scheduled to start operating in mid-2010, aims to make newer medicines available at lower prices, for low- and middle-income countries. Expected savings exceed one billion dollars a year, which will make more medicines available for more people.
The idea of a Patent Pool has been in discussion for a number of years. In 2006, Knowledge Ecology International and Médecins Sans Frontières proposed it to UNITAID. Earlier this year, RESULTS activists joined with MSF and the Stop AIDS Campaign to campaign for a patent pool.
“This is an historic day,” said Philippe Douste-Blazy, Chair of UNITAID’s Executive Board. “UNITAID has now put in place a mechanism that will make medical advances work for the poor, while compensating companies for sharing their technology.”
The Patent Pool will allow generic companies to make lower cost versions of widely patented new medicines by creating a common space for patent holders to license their technology in exchange for royalties. This will spur competition and further bring down the price of vital new and effective medicines, says UNITAID.
It is hoped that the administrative efficiency of managing voluntary licenses through the patent pool will prove attractive to companies which must currently manage a proliferating number of licenses.
UNITAID says that it has already had consultations with several major manufacturers of antiretrovirals including Gilead, Tibotec, Merck, as well as Sequoia, a biotechnology company that is developing an agent that could replace ritonavir as a booster for protease inhibitors.
One of the chief merits of the patent pool proposal, say its advocates, is the opportunity it gives for the creation of novel fixed-dose drug combinations that will aid adherence and cut down on supply chain management problems.
Rather than waiting for 20 years for patents to expire, generic producers would be able to develop new products quickly to respond to emerging needs, says UNITAID.
The first three-drug fixed dose combinations were created by Indian generic manafacturers using products that were not patented in India. These products were critical in permitting rapid scale-up of antiretroviral treatment from 2003 onwards.
Patent pool advocates say that similar products will be needed in order to promote access to lower-cost second-line treatment, and to encourage adoption of safer, more potent drugs for first-line treatment.
Potential combinations of interest will include a wider selection of three-drug combinations that include tenofovir and efavirenz, in order to promote greater price competition in the first-line therapy market.
In second-line treatment there will be interest in creating fixed dose products that contain the protease inhibitor atazanavir and two nucleoside analogues, or the integrase inhibitor raltegravir in combination with a boosted protease inhibitor.
None of these second-line combinations are currently available as products created by the patent holders.
UNITAID has identified 19 products from nine companies for potential inclusion into the pool. The pool will facilitate the development of fixed-dose combinations (FDCs).
“FDCs are especially important in the treatment of children, who make up 10% of current treatment needs,” said Jorge Bermudez, UNITAID Executive Secretary. “The Patent Pool will greatly help us accomplish our mission of scaling up treatment access, particularly for specific target groups otherwise neglected by the market – that is, children and people who fail on older therapies.”
“Today is a good day for people living with HIV/AIDS in developing countries,” said Nelson Otwoma, the HIV/AIDS community representative on UNITAID’s Executive Board. “When my son was a baby we had to break pieces of adult tablets for him – treating him was guess work. The Pool gives me hope that we’ll have better medicines to treat children in the future.”
After my post on Friday, Brian O’Dea, former drug smuggler and current author-slash-filmmaker, sent me the video of his interview with CNN’s Kyra Phillips last week.
O’Dea thinks domestic drug policy is backwards. “We brag about increased [drug] arrest rates. That’s not something to brag about,” he said, adding that decriminalization would increase the number of addicts seeking treatment, although it’s not quite clear from his interview exactly how. As I type, I’m working through a policy study from The Cato Institute on drug decriminalization in Portugal, which O’dea used as a case study in decriminalization. Maybe the answer’s in there.
It’s hard to call drug decriminalization an inherently responsible or safe piece of public policy, but it’s even harder to argue with the empirical evidence that says it has reduced drug consumption and generated other favorable results. And drug policy is one area of public policy that’s far more important than it initially seems: chasing and locking up dealers and users diverts police forces and clogs up the criminal courts, and imprisonment is the most economically unproductive thing I can think of. It’s also not ridiculous to point out that drug consumption plays a role in funding the kind of terrorism that necessitates yet more funds to try and contain through war and military occupation.
O’Dea is absolutely right to point out that current drug policy isn’t working, and that perhaps the answer lies in some form of decriminalization.
(Note: O’Dea is on Twitter and wrote a book about his former role as an international drug trafficker that I’m anxious to read.)
According to an article in the Guardian, a review published in the British Medical Journal questions how effective Tamiflu really is. The problem is that Roche, the drug’s manufacturer, has not released sufficient information to be able to the judge the effectiveness of Tamiflu. Roche has made approximately £1.6bn this year.
[Professor] Freemantle said he saw “very little evidence to support the widespread use of oseltamivir [Tamiflu] in the otherwise healthy population who are developing signs of influenza-like illness.”
There is a virtual consensus among the American public that drunk driving is an horrific crime that deserves only ruthless punishment. Indeed, the level of consensus on this issue is so unanimous that virtually the only debate that ever occurs with regard to drunk driving revolves around how best to step up enforcement and inflict ever more merciless punishments on people who choose to drive drunk. Few and far between are any substantive criticisms of the idea of hunting down and imprisoning people, just because they happen to have an arbitrary amount of alcohol in their blood.
One of the major reasons why this level of consensus has emerged in recent decades is that the proponents of drunk-driving prohibition have seized the moral high ground. They have accomplished this primarily by portraying drunk drivers as uniquely dangerous and uniquely evil drivers – drunk drivers are the great and deadly scourge of the modern world. The drunk driver is painted as the moral and legal equivalent of a man pointing a loaded shotgun at a crowd of innocent people – a menace crying out for the state to step in and “disarm” (i.e., mercilessly punish him) before he kills or hurts anyone.
The glaring problem with the argument that drunk drivers are uniquely dangerous and uniquely evil, however, is that there are plenty of other drivers in this world that are equally dangerous and deadly, but who are not vilified, hunted down and imprisoned by the state. There are sleepy drivers, drivers toying with their stereos, drivers old enough to have seen Great Depression I, drivers with dogs on their laps, drivers putting on makeup, drivers with glasses thicker than their taillights, teenage drivers, drivers looking at maps, drivers with the flu, drivers screaming at their spouses, drivers with kids fighting in the backseat, drivers eating tacos, virtually every single driver in Los Angeles…
Recognizing the fact that there are plenty of other idiotic and deadly dangerous drivers on the road, drunk-driving prohibitionists have to supplement their portrait of drunk drivers with the idea that drunk drivers “choose” to get behind the wheel while intoxicated, and this fact makes them uniquely dangerous and evil. According to this commonplace argument, Grandma didn’t “choose” to slow down her reflexes and become shorter than her steering wheel, but the evil drunk driver does “choose” to get behind the wheel after drinking. Similarly, one often hears the claim that people don’t “choose” to become sleepy while driving, but they obviously “choose” to drink alcohol before driving. Hence, we are urged to conclude, drunk drivers deserve all the punishment we can throw at them for having “chosen” to drive drunk.
As a rhetorical strategy designed to vilify drunk drivers as uniquely dangerous and uniquely negligent, it would be difficult to contest the effectiveness of this argument. When one looks at the argument itself, however, one cannot help but be struck by how thoroughly foolish and fallacious it is.
In the first place, it should be obvious that drunk drivers do not always choose to become “drunk.” For example, imagine a man and his wife going out for a nice meal of tapas and margaritas. They do not intend to get drunk, by any means, but to a very large extent the choice is not up to them. The bartender could be distracted when he mixes the drinks, (or he could just be a good sport), and thus might make them much stronger than the couple is expecting. It is easy to play armchair designated driver and condemn the couple for having “chosen” to drive drunk afterward, but it seems disingenuous at the very least to describe their accidental intoxication as a uniquely deliberate “choice” worthy of time spent in jail.
The problem with the argument that drunk drivers are uniquely responsible for having “chosen” to drive runs much deeper than this, however. Indeed, the argument asks us to believe two contradictory things about the drunk driver. On the one hand the argument specifically asks us to believe that drunk drivers are uniquely responsible for “choosing” to get behind the wheel, but, on the other hand, the argument is predicated upon the assumption that drunk drivers are hopelessly dangerous, due to their lack of “judgment.” The argument, in other words, looks something like this:
A: Unlike other deadly dangerous drivers, (like the decrepit elderly, for example), drunk drivers are uniquely responsible for “choosing” to get behind the wheel in an intoxicated state.
B: Drunk drivers are extremely dangerous because they thoroughly lack the judgment to be able to drive safely.
It should be obvious that these propositions contradict one another. Drunk drivers cannot be both uniquely responsible for their choices and lacking judgment at the same time. If we want to say that drunk drivers lack the necessary judgment to decide when it is safe to drive, then we cannot at the same time say that they are uniquely responsible for their actions. In fact, we would be closer to the mark if we said that they were less responsible for their “choices.” Conversely, if we want to say that drunk drivers are uniquely responsible for their “choice” to get behind the wheel, then we must not say that they lack the judgment to decide when it is safe to drive.
The logical problems only multiply when we shift our attention to other deadly dangerous drivers. The argument that drunk drivers are uniquely responsible and uniquely dangerous because they “choose” to get behind the wheel rests upon the ludicrous notion that other deadly dangerous drivers do not “choose” their impairment. Extremely dangerous elderly drivers, as was noted above, are often portrayed as helpless victims of time, whereas drunk drivers are portrayed as calculating and diabolical villains. But, in what sense can we really describe grandma’s decision to get behind the wheel as any less of a deliberate “choice” than the drunk driver’s? To be sure, grandma did not “choose” to let time ravage her mind and body, but she absolutely does “choose” to turn the ignition in her gigantic Buick and creep out of her driveway. The same is true of the cross-country motorist who gets sleepy – while he does not “choose” to get tired, he undeniably does “choose” to continue driving in that condition.
The simple fact of the matter is that drunk drivers are exactly the same as other drivers, and they are responsible for their actions in exactly the same manner, and to exactly the same degree, as other deadly dangerous drivers. Any appeal to the fact that drunk drivers “choose” to get behind the wheel is completely irrelevant, because all people, no matter what their condition, “choose” to get behind the wheel and drive. The fact that other drivers are extremely dangerous should not be allowed to be ignored or forgotten simply because if the irrelevant fact that drunk drivers “choose” to drive drunk. Of course they do, and so does everyone else who drives in a dangerous condition.
This brings us to the question of what is to be done about all of these extremely dangerous drivers on the road. Simple logical and legal consistency demands that we deal with all of these drivers in exactly the same way. The woman who plays with her iPod, thereby jeopardizing the lives of bystanders, must be treated exactly like the man who drives after imbibing at his local pub. Both are responsible for driving, and they both put other people’s lives at risk. Because we must deal with these dangerous drivers the same way, our options are relatively limited.
One option would be to start treating all dangerous drivers, (like those who are caught driving over the age of 65, those caught eating hamburgers while driving, those caught playing with their radios while driving, etc.), exactly the same as we now treat drunk drivers. We could identify all these deadly dangerous drivers and send them all to jail. This could be accomplished by doubling or tripling the number of police on the roads, having mandatory and permanent checkpoints on all major roads and highways, and installing cameras in everyone’s cars to make sure they never put other people’s lives at risk. This solution would certainly be consistent with treating all dangerous drivers equally, but it would have the inconvenient side effect of exterminating any semblance of freedom in America. It would also be slightly difficult to put this into practice, since the police have a nasty little tendency to drive drunk themselves, and so do the elected officials who are supposedly in charge of the police. It would also be a fairly expensive option, since we would have to build jails large enough to incarcerate…well, everyone.
Another option would be to simply recognize the fact that people are responsible for their actions, and only fine and incarcerate them if they actually cause harm to another person. Yes, this option would mean that we would have to leave drunk drivers alone unless they actually hurt someone, just as we now do with drivers who are sleepy or are decrepitly aged. But, is this not the same standard that we employ in other areas of criminal law? We do not deem it morally or legally acceptable for the police to raid the poorer areas of our cities to search out and incarcerate people they think will become criminals one day, simply because the poor are more likely to commit certain crimes. We do not deem it morally or legally acceptable for the police to round up and imprison people according to race, based upon the fact that certain races commit disproportionate amounts of crime. Why, then, do we allow the state to do precisely this to drunk drivers, based solely on the assumption that drunk drivers may harm other people, when we would condemn it if it was done to any other segment of society?
Both justice and freedom demand that we choose the latter option, and not the option of treating one group of people as potential criminals, all in need of incarceration.
I Used to be on ‘Family Ties’ but now I’m a Tatooed Felon – BOULDER, COLORADO - You ever watch those Vh-1 documentaries on former child actors? It’s basically a “where are they now” reality show where former kid actors are hunted down and interviewed against their will, and the viewing audience is wooed into a lost sense of nostalgia by tricky camera angels and narrated goo goo ga ga, until they find out their favorite tv kid is a total loser with a $100 coke habit. Of course Todd Bridges comes to mind when it’s talk of bady boys. He went from being Mr. Drummond’s house boy Willis to boosting cars and sniffing glue in Compton. Not a whole lot different for baby brother Arnold. Gary Coleman went from being America’s “cutest” child actor to a notorious wife beater downs a fifth of vodka a day on his job as a security guard. Same goes for the little dude who played Andy on Family Ties, only the show went best before anybody knew his name, and they still don’t.
Colorado state police arrested 28-year-old former child star Brian Bonsall who played Andy on Family Ties, though little is known about him since the show went off the air before he had a speaking part. Bonsall allegedly got wasted Sunday night and smashed wooden stool over his coke dealer’s head for trying to peddle duff. After being busted for assault and possession of a bong, Andy, little brother of Alex P. Keaton played by Michael J. Fox, told officers he had been drinking Absinthe all day and didn’t remember what the hell happened. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091208/ap_en_tv/us_family_ties_actor_arrested)
According to court records Bonsal lives in Westminster, Colo., about 20 miles south of Boulder, and also lists his occupatoin as a grower of medicinal marijuana. This wasn’t the first time Dandy Andy was nabbed for rocking the ganje, and playing punching bag with a female. He was sentenced to probation in 2007 after assaulting his girlfriend and for possession of a large amount of really good marijuana. A few months later was later accused of probation violations when he failed a drug test every Friday for two months. He is being held in the Boulder County Jail until the judge decides to do with him. He’s not much of a known child star so the chances of him being picked up for Celebrity Rehab are slim to none. The only option might be jail, or at least a cheap, state owned rehab to rid him of the jones for good pot.
We’ve published an interesting review (aren’t they all though?) on a study that discussed the lack of association between marijuana and suicide risk, in what our reviewer Wayne Hall from the University of Queensland, Australia, described as “the largest and best controlled prospective study of the relationship to date“.
It’s a tough topic to tackle, especially in a time when celebrity deaths, marijuana usage and suicide are so closely linked by tabloid media (Marilyn Monroe being the newest revelation) and when fears that teenage brains getting destroyed by cannabis are high on the news agenda. But on the other hand, when a highly-respected scientist such as Professor David Nutt gets vilified by the government for his outspoken views on drugs policy, the media generally showed support for the sacked Professor while still being skeptical of his evidence-based comments (such as cannabis use being safer than horse riding).
Hall looked at the paper, Cannabis and suicide: longitudinal study, by Allebeck and Price at al. from Cardiff University UK, published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, which went beyond previous small cross-sectional studies to look at whether the cannabis/suicide attempt relationship took into account pre-existing suicide risk between young people who become regular cannabis users and their peers who do not.
In the study, more than 50,000 Swedish men aged 18-20 were followed up for 33 years using death registers to identify those who had died from suicide.
Hall says:
As in previous studies, self-reported cannabis use at conscription was positively related to suicide (odds ratio [OR]=1.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-2.07) but this association was no longer significant when plausible potential confounders, such as problematic behavior during childhood, intelligence, alcohol abuse, parental psychiatric disorder, other drug use, and psychiatric diagnosis at conscription were statistically controlled for by logistic regression (OR=0.88, 95% CI 0.65-1.20).
The selection of confounders to control for did not affect the finding that the OR was no longer significant after adjustment for confounders. This study strongly suggests that the modest association observed between regular cannabis use and suicide in cross sectional studies reflects the fact that young people who are at marginally higher risk of suicide are more likely to become regular cannabis users than their peers.
And it’s the last point that is most pressing: those at a slightly higher suicide risk are more likely to become regular pot smokers, not the other way round. If you look at the citation rates on Google Scholar for “cannabis and suicide”, many academics seem to support the view that the two are strongly linked.
Allebeck and Price’s earlier paper, published in 1990 at this study’s 15-year mark, even stated “the proportion of suicides increased sharply with the levelof cannabis consumption“: their new study clarified that the “association was eliminated after adjustment for confounding” and the link was better explained by markers of psychological and behavioural problems.
No doubt long-term studies such as this will lend more weight to the Nutt debate and, if they are given adequate publicity, hopefully help to cut down on biased anti-drug journalism.
Radar Online continues to scrape deeper levels of grime of the Tiger Woods sex scandal:
Now we’ve learned that [Rachel] Uchitel told friends that she and Tiger liked to have sex while taking the drug Ambien. Uchitel told one pal, ‘You know you have crazier sex on Ambien – you get into that Ambien haze. We have crazy Ambien sex.
Now, I have never even heard of Ambien sex before. I’ve played many sports throughout my life, spent time in locker rooms, I’ve discussed filthy stories with my guy friends, and I’ve even had sex with a woman or two. Through all of this, I have never even touched upon this topic.
Tiger is a freak.
This is going to get worse, before it gets better.
IGN Behold the world’s tax dollars at work. A Russian professor at the Saint Petersburg Technological University has developed a process that allows him to take almost any kind of alcohol, turn it into a powder, and then pack it into a pill for easy transport. Yeah, someone actually took the time and the research money to figure this out. Why bring a bottle of wine to your next dinner party when you can just drop a few tablets of whisky on the kitchen table and call it a night?
“We have developed a technology that allowed us to turn any liquid solution into powder,” the scientist was quoted as saying by a web portal.
The mastermind behind the technique is Evgeny Moskalev, who was first able to produce vodka into a “dry” form, supposedly to make it easier for consumer to calculate an exact dosage. After the transformation, the “dry” vodka (or whiskey, or beer) can fit easily into bag or even your pocket.
Let me start off by saying that I adore my family; they allow me to speak my mind and make my own choices without having to worry about judgments, cynicism or being blacklisted from attending any family event ever again like my cousin Joe. They are also very much like me and when we join forces, the combined kookiness makes for a ridiculously entertaining time and Thanksgiving was no exception; I just wish I could remember everything that happened. I am going to write this like a journal entry from Into the Wild because for one, it is easier to organize the blur of events that I managed to retain and also, because no one should have survived.
Day 1: Meet the Sister
I had to work today, but the excitement over seeing my sister Ashley and meeting my step-sis Maggie for the first time got me through the day. We are headed out on a road trip to Montana tomorrow to visit the family and I hope we all get along; otherwise that 7 hour drive is going to be more difficult than getting Tiger Woods’ wife to put down the 9 iron and use her anger management skills. I know that there will be plenty of booze and weed to get us through the holiday though, so pretty much it is going to be at minimum an interesting trip. Aside from not being able to find Maggie at the airport because neither Ashley nor I knew what she looked like, things went pretty smoothly. We came home and played drinking games all night while I informed Maggie of the embarrassing stories that I knew about her brother, as we used to be a couple (Yes, I know this is weird; imagine my apprehension at meeting my ex’s sister who is now my legal step-sister after I wasn’t exactly “Fiancé of the Year” to her brother. If you are confused as to how we are related, just watch an episode of Maury Povich or Jerry Springer; that should clear things right up.)
Day 2: Road Trip
I woke up this morning to Maggie’s arms and legs wrapped around me in a bear hug…either she’s already really comfortable around me, or she is a flaming incestuous lesbian who likes to keep it in the family. I’ve decided to be optimistic and assume that she just likes me in a normal sisterly way. Don’t get me wrong; she’s really hot, but I think it’s a law of human nature that you are allowed to fuck only one of your siblings, and I’ve already done that. I guess Marie Osmond didn’t get the memo.
Despite my raging headache that was inspired by my sisters’ sophisticated taste for cheap beer, I was ready to go and party with the rest of the family. After struggling to pile 24 cans of beer, 6 pieces of luggage, 3 sisters, an unruly Labrador and a partridge in a pear tree into my SUV, we were off. By 7:15pm, we arrived at our destination; Ashley and Maggie were drunk and I was baked (I am adamantly against drinking and driving; cops can easily smell liquor on you and test for it…weed and pills are much safer. Oh, and because it is dangerous. Duh.) As soon as I walked into the door, Dad handed me a joint and welcomed us home while Mom ran upstairs to get her new invention; a tincture. I had no idea what a tincture was, but I knew it would be good if Mom had a hand in making it…turns out it is a combination of everclear and THC oil that you drop under your tongue for an instant high. Don’t worry about commenting on how awesome my parents are; I am already aware of the fact. We did go out, but I honestly cannot remember anything about it. I guess that tincture really does work, Ma!
Day 3: Thanksgiving
I woke up at 8:00am this morning and took a long hot shower…it was the only moment of sobriety that I had today. After getting dressed, I intended to go to the kitchen and aid in the creation of Thanksgiving dinner, but first I needed to smoke a bowl. Somehow, this led to 10:00am at the local watering hole with Ashley. I am not 100% sure on how it happened, but I think that it involved getting apples and milk…only I mistook the bar for the grocery store and replaced the apples and milk with car bombs and whiskey cokes.
This scenario is shockingly similar to last Thanksgiving, only this time Ashley and I were at a regular bar instead of Dancin’ Bare. Hey, I had never been to an all-nude strip club before and was curious about how they could justify selling a can of Pepsi for $8.00…and now I know why. Sorry for leaving Thanksgiving dinner for another pussy, Grandma! I just used the words “Grandma” and “pussy” in the same sentence; I’m going to Hell for sure.
Back to our day; we went outside to smoke a cigarette and bam! All of a sudden we are talking to Shaggy Too Dope from Insane Clown Posse about his woman, who recently broke his shoulder with an axe handle. Yeah I know; totally random, but totally true. After getting wasted and texting all of our friends about our famous encounter, Ashley and I left the bar at about 2:30pm and headed home. When we arrived, we found that Mom was almost finished with dinner and we were ravenous. I smoked another bowl to tie me over until it was ready. At 3:00, we had our grand Thanksgiving dinner. I’m pretty confident in my observation that everyone was on the same level of intoxication at that point.
Oh, and Mom thought it would be funny to put two lemons in each turkey breast and convince us that it had huge nipples. This was the greatest thing that I have ever seen and I totally believed it at first. Ashley, on other hand, wasn’t so amazed and told us that her friend had gotten some turkey tits last year too and that it was normal. If you haven’t figured it out yet, Ashley doesn’t catch on to things too easily.
The meal must have been energizing, because only one hour after wolfing it down I found myself back at the bar with the entire family. I do not recollect what transpired between then and 2:00am, but I do know that I started the night with $100 in cash and it was gone by the end of it. That may not seem like a lot of money, but when you are at a hick bar in Montana where drinks are $2.50 and you look better than most of the sheep in the area, you shouldn’t be spending more than $20; it is safe to say that I was wasted. By 2:30am, Ashley and I had lost Maggie and were at an after party with some dude that I determined was the love of my life because he a) adored that I had all of my teeth and b) knew the basics of quantum physics. I know very little about quantum physics, but apparently it is the key to my heart.
After some self-reflection and determining that I was sticking to my recent resolution to abstain from uncommitted sexual relations, I called it quits at 4:30am and went home with Ashley. At 4:37am, I found myself eating a second Thanksgiving meal. At 5:29am, I found myself puking it up.
Day 4: Brownies
At 8:30am, I woke up to Mom trying to peel me from the hallway floor, which is where I decided to pass out last night after puking up enough to feed a small country. At least I was smart enough to sprawl out on a rug instead of sleeping on the wood planks. Seeing as how it had only been 3 hours since I crawled there in the first place, I decided to smoke a bowl and find an actual bed for additional sleep. Don’t judge me; Thanksgiving is the designated holiday for being grateful, spending time with your family and getting as fucked up as possible because you don’t have any responsibilities for a whole day. They should rename it Thanksgluttony.
It couldn’t have been more than 20 minutes later when my nap was interrupted by the sound of a truck heading up our driveway. Then I heard Maggie scream, “Jared!” and I knew that sleep was not in my future. Jared is my awesome step-brother, but not the one that I was engaged to. Don’t get me wrong; the other one is awesome too but I tend to favor Jared, as he has never painfully ripped my heart into a million irreconcilable pieces and although I appreciate the life lessons that Jack taught me, Jared and I just have more fun together. Maggie and I have been begging him to come for Thanksgiving for days but he decided to hold out and surprise us. As soon as he showed up, the levy (or instinct for survival) that was restricting the flow of alcohol and weed broke and it was Thanksgiving Day all over again. Mom cooked him up a plate of leftovers and I declared that the goal of my day was to make delicious and intoxicating brownies. I followed the recipe for the most part, only I increased the amount of cannabis butter by 50% and added a shot of Mom’s tincture. I am pretty sure that the words “I have never been this high in my life” came out of my mouth at least 4 times this week, and I think that they were true each time I said it.
So, we ate brownies, smoked, drank some wine and headed out. By nightfall, Ashley and I were talking outside of the bar when I noticed movement in the window next to us and turned to investigate it. What was it, you ask? It was Mom; She was licking the window. No, seriously, she was licking the window…I couldn’t make this shit up. I think that at this point, Mom had never been that high in her life either.
There were so many funny things that happened that night and I just don’t remember any of them. I did end up tapping out before midnight and went home to eat more Thanksgiving dinner, which I later fought valiantly to resist throwing up. Either something is wrong with Mom’s stuffing, or I am drinking way too much.
Day 5: Wha?
My thoughts this morning: vacation is almost over and it’s so sad. The fall leaves that once whispered my name are turning into the chilly breeze of winter and…huh? What’s this? Where did I get a gram of coke?! Well shit, I guess I should start drinking again!
Fast forward to 11pm; I’m at a bar and feeling really witty and articulate while talking to an old friend, despite the 4 or 5 Jack and Cokes swimming in my tummy. Ashley is next to me and she’s trying to take it slow by drinking only beer. Since she hadn’t had any tequila and I was feeling sober, our night seemed pretty innocent. Well, it was innocent, until Ashley had one too many beers. See below.
Day 6: The Shed
I didn’t sleep until 6:00 this morning because of that damn blow and woke up at 8:30 to a text from Ashley that said, “I’m on my way home now!” After reading it, I looked over and realized that she wasn’t in the bed with me. Shit. Ashley may be 32, but sometimes she needs help making good decisions and I had let her down. Turns out, she went home with the cook from my old job that we were drinking with. Well, the use of the word “home” isn’t really accurate in this case, considering the fact that he literally lives in a storage shed and has no plumbing, heat or water. I guess I shouldn’t judge it though; home is where the heart is. And my sister’s vagina too, apparently. I wonder if she had to shit in a bucket.
Maggie showed up eventually to eat, and her shirt was soaking wet. Dad made a comment about her breasts leaking beer and we laughed. At this point we are brain dead and everything is making me laugh hard enough to piss myself.
Day 7: Survival
I can’t believe that I am still alive. Furthermore, I can’t believe that I am successfully driving 7 hours after having so little sleep and killing so many brain cells. The dog just puked in the car and it smells like a dead body. Fuck it, I don’t care.
There are so many additional things that happened this week, but TLC made me sign an agreement for our upcoming reality show that won’t allow me to divulge the details, and since TLC doesn’t give a fuck about you, innocent children or anyone else for that matter, I have to leave them out. Sorry!
Out of everything that happened this week, the only thing that has actually struck me as odd is that while I was intoxicated and uninhibited, I had at least 4 chances to get laid and the only slutty thing I did was kiss someone on the mouth with no tongue…and I could easily blame that on the sexiness of quantum physics. Go me!
UNITAID, the international finance mechanism for drugs to treat HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, has given the go-ahead for a patent pool for antiretroviral drugs, a mechanism to promote wider licensing of patented drugs to generic manufacturers, in order to lower the cost of treatment. The decision, taken by UNITAID’s Executive Board, was announced on December 14. The pool, scheduled to start operating in mid-2010, aims to make newer medicines available at lower prices, for low- and middle-income countries. Expected savings exceed one billion dollars a year, which will make more medicines available for more people.
Mark R. Crovelli
11:59 pm
Radar Online continues to scrape deeper levels of grime of the Tiger Woods sex scandal:
IGN