|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » This is why some drugs should be banned

Default This is why some drugs should be banned

May 19th, 2009, 04:53
A Bakersfield father is accused of biting out one of the eyes of his small child and similarly mutilating the other eye, leaving the child blind.

After attacking the child, 34-year-old Angel Vidal Mendoza Sr. quickly left his apartment in a wheelchair, entered a backyard of a nearby vacant home and attacked his own legs with an ax, severely injuring himself, Bakersfield police reported.

The child, 4-year-old Angelo Mendoza Jr., later told police, "My daddy ate my eyes."

Doctors at Mercy Hospital said it is unknown whether the child will regain vision in his right eye.

Child Protective Services cannot discuss the case, CPS program director Brian Parnell said. But in cases of serious abuse, the child is taken into protective custody, he said.

Some foster homes have specialized medical training, but more such people are needed, he said.

The boy's mother, Desirae Marie Bermudez, 23, was not present during the incident. There is a $15,000 warrant for her arrest for failing to complete a drug treatment program in late 2008, court documents say.

A search warrant report said the father "was displaying symptoms of being under the influence of PCP."

Both he and Bermudez were charged with being under the influence of PCP in a 2006 criminal case. Both pleaded no contest to child endangerment charges in that case, records say.

So why was the boy still living with the father?

CPS officials say there has to pretty much be serious physical abuse — major bruises or broken bones — before a child is taken away from his parents automatically.

In cases where parents are using drugs, CPS will definitely check on the child, Parnell said. But they won't necessarily remove the child. That all depends on the extent of the drug abuse or the availability of other care — relatives or neighbors — for the children, he said.

The incident happened in the early evening of April 28 at the apartment the father and son share at 422 Ohio Drive near Terrace Way and Madison Street in southeast Bakersfield.

Police and search warrant reports say:

On the morning of April 28, Mendoza asked neighbor Elizabeth Rodriguez, 36, for a ride to a work-related appointment later in the day.

At 6 p.m., she sent her 12-year-old son to get Mendoza. The boy said Mendoza opened his door slightly and looked nervous, but didn't let him in. Mendoza said he would be right out.

But a few minutes later, Rodriguez saw Mendoza rolling his wheelchair quickly away.

The 12-year-old boy and another neighbor went to Mendoza's apartment and discovered the child on the floor.

Meanwhile, witnesses told police a man was yelling and screaming in a wheelchair from the backyard and hitting his legs with an ax.

Mendoza, who remains in custody in lieu of $1 million bail, is charged with mayhem, torture, child cruelty and inflicting an injury to a child.

He's scheduled for a May 20 hearing.

His criminal history dates back to 1998 and includes convictions for drugs, battery, check forgery and a misdemeanor child endangerment.
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/loca…g-out-sons-eye



Poor kid.
Damian Mahadevan is offline

Damian Mahadevan

Keeper of the Watch

#1

Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,201

Default 

May 19th, 2009, 05:41
Banning drugs would achieve nothing. Getting real about protecting 'at risk' children would!!

If God said it, then that settles it!!

Editor@RPGWatch
Corwin is offline

Corwin

Corwin's Avatar
On The Razorblade of Life
RPGWatch Team

#2

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,248
Send a message via Skype™ to Corwin

Default 

May 19th, 2009, 05:47
This is true too.
Damian Mahadevan is offline

Damian Mahadevan

Keeper of the Watch

#3

Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,201

Default 

May 19th, 2009, 07:10
Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
Banning drugs would achieve nothing. Getting real about protecting 'at risk' children would!!
I suspect this is why shit like this happens even though drugs are (mostly) banned…

Übereil

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

The Chaos Cascade
Ubereil is offline

Ubereil

Ubereil's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#4

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Default 

May 19th, 2009, 12:44
Perhaps we should see if there is a video game link so we can blame that too!

— Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch

#5

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 11,271

Default 

May 19th, 2009, 12:57
I look at drugs the way I look at alcohol - if you're doing it in private and not hurting anyone (except yourself), fine - people should be allowed to 'stupid' themselves to death. BUT, the second you commit a (violent) crime or one resulting in injury/death under the influence, I think it should result in a drastically higher sentence. So if I was on PCP and I hit you with a bat, I should get whatever the average for assault is + 10 years. Or something.

But, speaking from experience (albeit 10 or 15 years old), CPS in California is a joke. Society has a vested interest in protecting children and we've been derelict in carrying it out. We spend waaaaay too much time worrying about what tv they watch or what music they listen to (not to mention what games they play) instead of worrying about their actual physical and psychological safety. Stop letting them eat cheetos, make them run around outside for an hour or so a day.

And for Pete's sake, if the children's parents have a huge history of drug use and committing crimes, take the child away from them.
Rithrandil is offline

Rithrandil

I bent my wookie

#6

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: VA
Posts: 2,299

Default 

May 19th, 2009, 13:17
Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
Banning drugs would achieve nothing. Getting real about protecting 'at risk' children would!!
That, PCP is already banned isn't it?

On a related, UK has apparently just banned GBL (dirty bastard cousin of the already horrible GHB, can be quite date-rapey, also has a very slim margin between an inactive dose and a dose that puts people into comas and / or death) and BZP (slightly dirty cousin of MDMA, not apparently massively toxic but just not very good)

Don't hugely object to either of those, GBL in particular should have been banned to fuck a long time ago, absolutely filthy stuff. BZP . . . . could stay legal, but no real harm if it doesn't. It's already used too much IMO as an adulterant in supposedly MDMA tablets, so maybe making it illegal would encourage people to move back to making things that are what they're supposed to be.

VERY annoyed that GBL is only being made class C (barely illegal at all), while they've slammed good quality drugs like the 2C family as class A (up with cocaine & heroine) in spite of no documented fatalities and incredibly minimal toxicity (in my experience utterly non existant toxicity, far and away the most user friendly and harmless thing I've ever taken, even compared to legal options like alcohol or caffeine).
Benedict is offline

Benedict

SasqWatch

#7

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 2,348

Default 

May 19th, 2009, 13:25
My point was it was a good reason against legalizing all drugs.
Damian Mahadevan is offline

Damian Mahadevan

Keeper of the Watch

#8

Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,201

Default 

May 19th, 2009, 13:44
Well, Portugal decriminalized possession of all drugs five years ago, and look what happened — they all immediately became addicted to crack, PCP, and heroin, went into a huge orgy of eating each other's eyeballs before succumbing to respiratory arrest and/or AIDS.

No, wait, that's not what happened at all. Actually, drug use among teenagers dropped, the number of HIV infections dropped dramatically, and the number of addicts seeking treatment doubled. Weird, huh?

(Linky: [ http://www.time.com/time/health/arti…893946,00.html ])
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#9

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

May 19th, 2009, 13:54
That is strange, but i can see the logic. People dont try to get cured in america because they get into trouble with the law if they do? Anyway reading the article does it say that you can even have access to drugs like pcp over there?
Damian Mahadevan is offline

Damian Mahadevan

Keeper of the Watch

#10

Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,201

Default 

May 19th, 2009, 14:02
Dealing is still illegal; possession of small quantities for personal use is not.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#11

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

May 19th, 2009, 14:08
It's the same argument that a huge number of college presidents make regarding the drinking age being 21. They say if we lowered the drinking age to 18, less college kids would 'go crazy' and binge drink. If you legalize possession it becomes less 'cool', people won't be afraid to seek help if they want it, etc.
Rithrandil is offline

Rithrandil

I bent my wookie

#12

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: VA
Posts: 2,299

Default 

May 19th, 2009, 14:42
Originally Posted by Rithrandil View Post
BUT, the second you commit a (violent) crime or one resulting in injury/death under the influence, I think it should result in a drastically higher sentence. So if I was on PCP and I hit you with a bat, I should get whatever the average for assault is + 10 years. Or something.
How would that help the victims and the addict?

It wouldn't do anything to stop the problem from happening, it would only cost more money to keep the people who cannot handle their freedom locked up, not to mention the price that the victim have to pay.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#13

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,017
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

May 19th, 2009, 15:27
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
How would that help the victims and the addict?

It wouldn't do anything to stop the problem from happening, it would only cost more money to keep the people who cannot handle their freedom locked up, not to mention the price that the victim have to pay.
How does any prison sentence help victims? Sentencing a rapist to twenty years does nothing to help the rape victim. If someone commits some sort of violent crime or hit someone with a car I could care less about their addiction. They knew the consequences and still did committed crimes that hurt/killed/whatever others.

What I suggested would cost us far less then we spend now incarcerating people whose only crime is drug use. How many people go into prison because they smoke crack and then come out actual criminals? How does this benefit society at all? Let people who just use drugs for recreational purposes in their own homes kill themselves with their drug habit if they want. If they go outside and commit crimes while under the influence, though, increase the prison sentence.
Rithrandil is offline

Rithrandil

I bent my wookie

#14

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: VA
Posts: 2,299

Default 

May 19th, 2009, 16:19
Ah, but Rith, you're forgetting that the lefty view of prison is that it's for rehabilitation. We're getting those wayward souls out of circulation just long enough for them to have a moral epiphany and suddenly get right with the world.

Of course, they can't seem to explain the concept of life-in-prison within the above framework, and they're staunchly opposed to death sentences, so I'm not really sure what they want to do with serious offenders.

I've never really understood the thought process behind someone getting 20 years or some such sentence. You take 20 years out of the middle of someone's life and they're not going to be very functional when they get out. Life will have passed them by. The world will have passed them by. With a record that includes an offense bad enough to get 20 years, they're not going to get a decent job ever. At that point, the whole "rehabilitation" fairytale becomes a sham. Seems to me that anything over about 10 years ought to become a death sentence. We might need to tweak a few sentencing guidelines so someone doesn't get 12 years for jaywalking, but that's no big deal.

As far as the drugs, though, if we're going to endorse the use, I'm not sure how we can go after the dealers. If there's a demand, there's got to be a supply. All this "personal use" volume has to come from somewhere. About the only way you get around that is for Uncle Sam to become the sole dealer. That doesn't sound real good to me.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#15

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,197

Default 

May 19th, 2009, 16:28
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
Ah, but Rith, you're forgetting that the lefty view of prison is that it's for rehabilitation. We're getting those wayward souls out of circulation just long enough for them to have a moral epiphany and suddenly get right with the world.

Of course, they can't seem to explain the concept of life-in-prison within the above framework, and they're staunchly opposed to death sentences, so I'm not really sure what they want to do with serious offenders.
I would like for prisons to rehabilitate - in some cases I think it may be possible, but right now our prisons are just so jam packed with people who only used drugs that most of these people who didn't really do anything wrong actually come out hardened criminals and increase our recidivism rates.

Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
I've never really understood the thought process behind someone getting 20 years or some such sentence. You take 20 years out of the middle of someone's life and they're not going to be very functional when they get out. Life will have passed them by. The world will have passed them by. With a record that includes an offense bad enough to get 20 years, they're not going to get a decent job ever. At that point, the whole "rehabilitation" fairytale becomes a sham. Seems to me that anything over about 10 years ought to become a death sentence. We might need to tweak a few sentencing guidelines so someone doesn't get 12 years for jaywalking, but that's no big deal.
If someone told me my choices were between thirty years in jail/a life sentence and execution, I'd honestly choose the execution. At least it's over quick.

Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
As far as the drugs, though, if we're going to endorse the use, I'm not sure how we can go after the dealers. If there's a demand, there's got to be a supply. All this "personal use" volume has to come from somewhere. About the only way you get around that is for Uncle Sam to become the sole dealer. That doesn't sound real good to me.
I'd rather have Uncle Sam do it. You could at least stop things like pipe cleaner being laced into drugs, and guarantee what you are buying is what you think you are buying.

And we could tax the hell out of it, too. So we'd drastically cut down on the number of people in prisons (saving us a good deal of money there) plus add a lot of government revenue (I'd be fine spending that on actual rehab programs, btw) to our coffers. Also, what the hell would the drug cartels do then? We'd pretty much torpedo their business - it's why I'm in favor of the US just purchasing all the poppy from Afghanistan and doing something with it. Buy it directly from the farmers, cut out the drug lords, etc.
Rithrandil is offline

Rithrandil

I bent my wookie

#16

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: VA
Posts: 2,299

Default 

May 19th, 2009, 16:35
Originally Posted by Rithrandil View Post
I'd rather have Uncle Sam do it. You could at least stop things like pipe cleaner being laced into drugs, and guarantee what you are buying is what you think you are buying.

And we could tax the hell out of it, too. So we'd drastically cut down on the number of people in prisons (saving us a good deal of money there) plus add a lot of government revenue (I'd be fine spending that on actual rehab programs, btw) to our coffers. Also, what the hell would the drug cartels do then? We'd pretty much torpedo their business - it's why I'm in favor of the US just purchasing all the poppy from Afghanistan and doing something with it. Buy it directly from the farmers, cut out the drug lords, etc.

Rithandril for president!

Very disappointed that no politician has run the numbers and stuck his neck out, the economic crisis is the perfect time to point out that they could create massive revenue streams and slash prison spending and all with something that everyone working in the field agrees would be a far more effective system.

For all that conservatives may be down on legalisation (after all it's poor people and immigrants who mostly use drugs isn't it) if they're offered a straight choice between tax rises and a change in the law for something they don't use and wouldn't be affected by I think resistance would be quite limited.
Benedict is offline

Benedict

SasqWatch

#17

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 2,348

Default 

May 19th, 2009, 16:58
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
Ah, but Rith, you're forgetting that the lefty view of prison is that it's for rehabilitation.
More like the 19nth century view.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#18

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,017
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

May 19th, 2009, 17:02
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
Ah, but Rith, you're forgetting that the lefty view of prison is that it's for rehabilitation. We're getting those wayward souls out of circulation just long enough for them to have a moral epiphany and suddenly get right with the world.
I never understood how putting pepole in prison was supposed to do that either. I mean, you sit there for a few years. Then you're supposed to be a law abiding citizen all of a sudden? Prisons require more than that to work.

I'm all for rehabilitation though. Punishment doesn't really do that much to keep the crime rate down either. But if you want to rehabilitate pepole then rehabilitate them, don't just lock them into a cell for a couple of years and expect them to grow the sence of responsibility, concience and self esteem required to work within the boundaries of society.

I suspect this would be impossible to do in the states though, considering the sheer number of prisoners you've got in your system. That's the first thing you've got to do, get that number down.

Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
As far as the drugs, though, if we're going to endorse the use, I'm not sure how we can go after the dealers. If there's a demand, there's got to be a supply. All this "personal use" volume has to come from somewhere. About the only way you get around that is for Uncle Sam to become the sole dealer. That doesn't sound real good to me.
This would be handled pretty much the way alcohol is handled. Sweden's the sole dealer for alcohol in Sweden, and I have no problem with that. Then again, I'm left so I'm not alergic to the goverment doing stuff like that…

Originally Posted by Rithrandil View Post
I would like for prisons to rehabilitate - in some cases I think it may be possible, but right now our prisons are just so jam packed with people who only used drugs that most of these people who didn't really do anything wrong actually come out hardened criminals and increase our recidivism rates.
When I first found out you put drug addicts in prison I was suprized to say the least. Since I'm from Sweden I take it for granted that drug addicts belong in drug treatment facilities getting help to battle their mental disease.

And no, not all drug users are addicts. Especialy not when it comes to Marijuana, which is the most common drug to get busted for in the states. When it comes to the likes of Marijuana my initial stance is "legalize it". This is based on the guidline "if it's not worse then alcohol then it shouldn't be illegal". This is to shift the culture away from alcohol as much as possible, because I don't think alcohol is good for society. Especially not now when it's pretty much never questioned.

Übereil

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

The Chaos Cascade
Ubereil is offline

Ubereil

Ubereil's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#19

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Default 

June 17th, 2009, 14:20
As counterpoint, this is why some drugs maybe shouldn't be so banned.
Benedict is offline

Benedict

SasqWatch

#20

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 2,348
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » This is why some drugs should be banned
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 18:53.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch