Archive for drug use

Rand Paul Turns To Felons To Boost GOP Voter Registration


Rand Paul

You gotta hand it to Rand Paul. He marches to another drummer. That doesn't make him a bad person. His politics do.

One thing Republicans (and calling Rand Paul a Republican is misleading-- he's a self-professed Libertarian) are fearful of is that as voting registration increases, the GOP is becoming more and more irrelevant. As if the Tea Party branch hasn't already destroyed any unity of message that could be considered Republican tenets, immigrants, people of color, and women are becoming the bane of its existence.

The GOP solution has been voter restrictions. Making it harder they make it for legal voters to reach the polls or vote absentee is the only solution they have been able to come up with until now: From Raw Story:

CNN host Candy Crowley noted during an interview with [Sen Rand] Paul that he had proposed restoring voting rights for non-violent felons, and wondered if it was an effort to gain minority Republican voters.

“Republicans have been unfairly tarred as, oh, trying to suppress votes,” Paul asserted. “Here’s a Republican who wants to enhance the vote. This is a much bigger problem than anything else limiting voting right now. Nearly a million people can’t vote, and I want to help people get the right to vote back.”

Okay, a little trip down Fact Check Lane. First off, as he himself pointed out “Three out of four people in prison are black or brown for non-violent drug use."

That being the case, why would the minority population after jail want to vote Republican? They're the party that put the bills in motion that placed them in jail in the first place. As a voting block, Blacks and Hispanics are registering in overwhelming numbers as Democrats because the GOP consistently legislates against these oppressed people. So the thinking by Sen. Paul is specious.

Rand Paul questions whether or not it's institutionalized policy that the Republicans are pushing to limit voter registration and access to polling places.

According to the Brennan Center, at least 92 bills restricting voting were proposed by largely Republican-controlled state legislatures during 2013. And that trend has continued

So, it looks like the Junior Senator from Kentucky once again has some faulty thinking going on in his head. It's not surprising.


Video Mid Day Distraction- Catnip: Egress To Oblivion?


Via WT.


Medicating the military has deadly side effects


We have a serious problem in the military: The troops are using psychotropic drugs heavily, which can result in "aberrant behavior,"other health issues, and even death. Prescription drugs are being taken by military members who suffer from stress, depression, anxiety, you name it, and all too often those who take them are suffering not only from the effects of the drugs themselves, but from neglect by those who should be monitoring them.

War wounds are both physical and psychological, but the harm and devastation caused by so-called remedies often go unnoticed.

The L.A. Times has a front page, above-the-fold report that is a must-read:

After two long-running wars with escalating levels of combat stress, more than 110,000 active-duty Army troops last year were taking prescribed antidepressants, narcotics, sedatives, antipsychotics and anti-anxiety drugs, according to figures recently disclosed to The Times by the U.S. Army surgeon general. Nearly 8% of the active-duty Army is now on sedatives and more than 6% is on antidepressants — an eightfold increase since 2005.

One huge problem is that once a soldier is treated, he isn't examined after having been on prescribed drugs for extended periods, and so he or she can become addicted:

Follow-up appointments in the battlefield are often few and far between. Soldiers are sent out on deployment typically with 180 days' worth of medications, allowing them to trade with friends or grab an entire fistful of pills at the end of an anxious day. And soldiers with injuries can easily become dependent on narcotic painkillers. [...]

[T]he modern Army psychiatrist's deployment kit is likely to include nine kinds of antidepressants, benzodiazepines for anxiety, four antipsychotics, two kinds of sleep aids, and drugs for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, according to a 2007 review in the journal Military Medicine.

Some drugs, like mefloquine, which is used in Afghanistan to treat malaria, can cause paranoia, suicidal thoughts, and violent anger.

"Prior to the Iraq war, soldiers could not go into combat on psychiatric drugs, period. Not very long ago, going back maybe 10 or 12 years, you couldn't even go into the armed services if you used any of these drugs, in particular stimulants," said Peter Breggin, a New York psychiatrist who has written widely about psychiatric drugs and violence.

"But they've changed that.... I'm getting a new kind of call right now, and that's people saying the psychiatrist won't approve their deployment unless they take psychiatric drugs."

Reliance on prescription drugs is all too common among civilians, but the damage to the troops is also more than a little worrisome. Sleeplessness, the extreme anxiety of being in combat, and other symptoms are increasingly being treated with pills and then overlooked or even forgotten.

The Times' report gives example after example of families being destroyed, elevated risks of suicides, misdiagnoses that resulted in killings, becoming incapacitated, accidental overdoses, and more.

Even Republicans have to agree that, at least in cases like these, more oversight, not less, can be beneficial, to say the least. When human beings are put in situations of killing other human beings, when they are face to face with the ravages of war, a little extra supervision and care can mean the difference between life and death.


"Ineligible to eat... Shockingly, it turns out that enrolling us in these programs could have landed my mother in jail!"


There is a very special person in my life and her name is Cassie. Her insights are unique and poignant, and I share them with you as often as I can.  If you haven’t already, please read her previous guest posts here.

She has written a new piece over at her place, Cassie @ College, and once again, has graciously allowed us to cross post it here.

Keep in mind, Cassie is a college student– and a “first class kid”– who writes like a seasoned pro:

 Suffer the Little Children

I’ve always been different from other kids.  Smarter, prettier, more resourceful.  Mostly more resourceful.For instance, in elementary school I carried an empty lunchbox to school most days and a full lunchbox home.  My school cafeteria had a little table near the exit for used lunch trays, and a tray in the back where you could put any food still in the package, full milk cartons, or whole pieces of fruit.  That table was my lunch line and my grocery store until we started getting food stamps. One of my teachers told me that it was OK to take an apple from the table and save it for later, and that was like a green light for me to start filling my empty lunchbox every day with enough food for dinner.

When I was little, there were times when we didn’t have enough food in the house.  My mom’s an addict, and feeding us was less of a priority for her than it should have been.

Sometimes we had enough food, but my brother and I weren’t allowed to use the stove or mess up the microwave.  Sometimes my mom had money but used it for drugs rather than food.  Sometimes she forgot.  And sometimes she grocery shopped and cooked wonderful meals. Sometimes we were hungry, and sometimes we were just food-insecure.

I became a much better-fed, happier, and less worried student when I was in fourth grade and we actually signed up for food stamps and the school’s free-breakfast and free-lunch program, after my fourth grade teacher urged my family to sign the forms.  I started eating hot meals at school and worrying less about where my next meal would come from.  Shockingly, it turns out that enrolling us in these programs could have landed my mother in jail!

(Yeah, I know, you follow this blog closely and you already know that my mother went to jail, but not for this.  She served seven years following her second drug-related conviction.)

Why would someone go to jail for signing up for food stamps and trying to feed her family?  Because she had a prior drug conviction, of course!

Matt Taibbi has an article in Rolling Stone explaining how a Mississippi woman in exactly my mother’s condition came to be arrested, convicted, and sentenced to three years in federal prison for lying about her arrest for drugs on her food stamp application:

Last week, a federal judge in Mississippi sentenced a mother of two named Anita McLemore to three years in federal prison for lying on a government application in order to obtain food stamps.

Apparently in this country you become ineligible to eat if you have a record of criminal drug offenses. States have the option of opting out of that federal ban, but Mississippi is not one of those states. Since McLemore had four drug convictions in her past, she was ineligible to receive food stamps, so she lied about her past in order to feed her two children.

The total “cost” of her fraud was $4,367. She has paid the money back.

Taibbi points out what this all means:

Here’s another thing that boggles my mind: You get busted for drugs in this country, and it turns out you can make yourself ineligible to receive food stamps.

How does this make sense? What is wrong with this country?  When and why did we become a nation that allows children to go hungry because of a parent’s prior offense?  Why do we force children into hunger because of their parents’ crimes?  And why are more interested in jailing mothers rather than helping them become better mothers to their children?

If a person is convicted of a crime, they should serve their sentence and then be free to be a productive citizen.  If the state is worried that a parent might sell their food stamps rather than feed their children, the state should send a social worker and make sure the children have food, but they shouldn’t exacerbate the already precarious financial situation of an ex-con by closing off legal avenues of providing for her family.

In my case, my mother was an addict with a serious mental illness, and she wasn’t really able to take care of us and make sure we had enough food, so we took matters into our own little hands. Anita McLemore, however, did everything she could to feed her family.  Her crime was the most noble of frauds, and he should be applauded and not jailed for feeding her children.

Here’s the flip side:

What changed in my life once I started eating at school, and once we had an opportunity to have decent food at home more often?

First, I wasn’t hungry as often.

Second, I knew that my teacher cared whether I ate or not, and that in itself made me more eager to please my teacher and do well in school.  It mattered that someone cared.

Third, I became a better student because I was well-fed and because I knew that my teacher cared.

Fourth, eventually I became a good enough student to earn a scholarship to Princeton.

Finally, the whole situation gave me the compassion and tools to become a blogger and to consider a career advocating for children in situations similar to mine.  Today I’ve found myself identifying with McLemore’s children, wondering who is taking care of them, and hoping that they never feel guilty or try to convince themselves that their mother went to jail because they asked for another apple or a bigger bowl of cereal.

This situation is troubling enough even if you can’t imagine yourself in exactly the position of McLemore’s children,  but Taibbi’s comparison of McLemore’s sentence to the lack of consequences faced by the banking and investment house perpetrators of fraud is even more upsetting:

Compare this court decision to the fraud settlements on Wall Street. Like McLemore, fraud defendants like Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Deutsche Bank have “been the beneficiary of government generosity.” Goldman got $12.9 billion just through the AIG bailout. Citigroup got $45 billion, plus hundreds of billions in government guarantees.

All of these companies have been repeatedly dragged into court for fraud, and not one individual defendant has ever been forced to give back anything like a significant portion of his ill-gotten gains. The closest we’ve come is in a fraud case involving Citi, in which a pair of executives, Gary Crittenden and Arthur Tildesley, were fined the token amounts of $100,000 and $80,000, respectively, for lying to shareholders about the extent of Citi’s debt.

Neither man was forced to admit to intentional fraud. Both got to keep their jobs.

Read more:

Next time you see a little girl walking home from school with a full lunchbox, feel free to wonder if she’s eating at home.  If she’s not, perhaps it’s because we as a country won’t help her parents get food for her.

America is better than this.