United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: OPINION: Drug court saved my niece’s life
Source:
Forsyth County News
URL Source: https://www.forsythnews.com/opinion ... ug-court-saved-my-nieces-life/
Published: Jun 21, 2017
Author: OPINION: Drug court saved my niece’s lif
Post Date: 2017-07-06 13:06:37 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 5457
Comments: 44
I admit it, I grew up pretty sheltered. Sure, I got into a little trouble as a kid, but nothing major. Once in grammar school, while fulfilling my responsibilities as bathroom monitor, I remember the principal catching me swinging like a monkey on the commode stall door frame. I had to stay after school for that one. But to my credit, all you had to do was tell me once, and I’d fall in line. I was no rebel. My sister, older by three years, was the one always getting in the real trouble. Whatever she did to get herself in a bind, I wanted no part of. And so except for a few scrapes along the way, I’ve kept my plate pretty clean, staying out of trouble. I always had a safe home and food on the table. But a lot of kids don’t grow up in a safe home and with the sheltered opportunities I had. Of course, others grow up with every possible advantage, given breaks I would never imagine. But there is one great equalizer, short of death of course, which is my subject today. Last week I had the opportunity to witness a gathering of folks as I describe, from across the socio-economic spectrum. There were seven in all, mostly younger, but not all. They were graduating from Forsyth County Drug Court. The reason I was there is that my niece was one of the graduates. Our entire family went for support. That was an eye-opening experience, especially for those of us who have never done drugs and wouldn’t know one from another if you put them in front of us. Among the seven was a young man born in the projects, another a high-achiever type who a few years ago owned a home in Aspen. There was a third young man who grew up locally experiencing a normal, middle-class childhood. There was an older woman of limited means whose husband was a graduate of the program, still clean and sober today, and of course, my niece, born upper-middle class by my estimation, a college graduate and mother of four. But two years ago, regardless of their starting points in life, each of last week’s graduates had lost everything to the great equalizer – drug addiction. They had lost their families, their money, resorted to thievery, been thrown in jail or prison, which as they described is little different than I would imagine Hell to be. Those seven, regardless of background, were each about as low as a person might go and still breathe. Considering all the offenders in prison for drug-related felonies, the seven who graduated last week might seem an insignificant number. But for those seven, Forsyth County Drug Court and the dedicated legal and medical professionals who work the program no less saved their lives than if they were drowning at the bottom of a river. Seven lives were literally saved by the Forsyth County Drug Court, and all that it entails. After the ceremony, I met the wonderful guy who heads the program: Judge Jeffrey Bagley. Not only does he care about the individuals who enter the drug court, but I can tell he cares just as much about the ones who cannot qualify for the limited- enrollment program or who cannot live up to its rigid requirements, and who he is forced by law to issue prison sentences. There are certain libertarian-minded among us who advocate legalizing addictive street drugs. And although I have never thought the war on drugs to be a huge success, I have generally thought legalization a bad idea. And my experience at drug court showed me exactly why that is. You see, were the drugs responsible for breaking the lives of these seven legal, all seven would now be dead. Without a legal system empowered to stop drug abusers from destroying themselves, and then without dedicated professionals to enforce its guidelines on those who are fortunate enough to be accepted to a program such as this, those seven, including my niece, would be dead. Psychological defenses, I expect, save us from experiencing the full trauma associated with tragedies occurring in the lives of people we simply hear about but don’t really know. With so much tragedy in this world, maybe that is a good thing. But when the tragedy hits close to home, involving friends and loved ones, at times those experiences can border on more than an individual can bear. And so today, I wanted to pause long enough to inform the citizens of Forsyth County of the life-saving program our community is fortunate to offer. But most of all, our entire family would like to thank Judge Bagley and the caring professionals who work in the Forsyth County Drug Court for all they do. Because I can tell you without reservation, along with the other six from last week, they saved my niece’s life, and saved our entire family the life-altering anguish we would have experienced without their intervention. Hank Sullivan is a Forsyth County resident, businessman, author and speaker on American history, economics and geopolitics
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-3) not displayed.
.
.
.
#4. To: Gatlin (#3)
Yes, you are. You're so ignorant that it's hardly worth bothering to refute you. I have no doubt that the shrinking aging LP (Libertarian Party) do favor that. But they are a tiny minority within the broader libertarian movement. Most libertarian Republicans (the vast majority of libertarians) favor decriminalization for most drugs (except the most addictive ones). No LP candidate has ever been elected to Congress, as a governor or a president. However, libertarian Republicans like Ron and Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash and others have done quite well. In addition, there are quite a number of GOP pols who have played a libertarianish policy platform quite well, guys like Mike Lee and Ted Cruz. So we can see where the votes go and just who gets elected. The LP? Never. But libertarian Republicans? It's doable. That must just eat you up.
The War on Drugs is ineffective at limiting access to dangerous drugs and, in instead, empowers dangerous gangs that make incredible fortunes on the black ma market for these illegal drugs. The War on Drugs has imprisoned millions of non-violent people. This is unfair to these people and also uses up resources that would be better spent prosecu prosecuting and imprisoning people who are violent. The War on Drugs is largely responsible for the militarization of police forces in America. It has pitted police against citizens and this is unfair to both. Police need to be able to focus on protecting the American public from violent offenders and fraud. Lastly, Libertarians believe that it is immoral for the government to dictate which substances a person is permitted to consume, whether it is alcohol, tob tobacco, herbal remedies, saturated fat, marijuana, etc. These decisions belong to individual people, not the government. Because of all of these things, Libertarians advocate ending the War on Drugs. You've been accused of being a Tory, but I'm really much more of a Tory than you are. I literally do not think that the American Revolution was justified, and think that it should not have been fought at all, that we and Canada should be a united North American Dominion - had things been done right. I mention that merely to make the point that I am not a "Live Free or Die" or "Sic Semper Tyrannis" or "Don't Tread On Me" libertarian at all. But I do agree with what you posted above. The War on Drugs DOES create organized crime, just like Prohibition did. The War on Drugs DOES imprison, and kill, huge numbers of non-violent people, and that is both unfair and a waste of resources that would be better spent prosecuting the violent. That's true. The War on Drugs IS largely responsible for the militarization of police forces in America, and it HAS pitted police against citizens. I don't agree with the "immoral" part. IF the government COULD prohibit drugs WITHOUT all of the violence and dramatic social dysfunction described above, I would support maintaining the ban. It is perfectly moral to bar people from killing themselves, because no man is an island, and a death from drugs devastates families, and deprives society at large of what that person could have given. It's not immoral to stanch that damage by making certain things illegal...IF that worked. But in a country this vast and heterogenous, it doesn't work. So, while I don't agree with the Libertarians' MORAL argument, at all (in fact, I disagree with it pretty strongly), I DO agree with their pragmatic arguments, as you have presented them. 3 out of 4 ain't bad.
The article referred to Libertarians, not "Libertarian Republicans. You come up with a new category and then get offended. Give me a break. Second, whenever someone says something bad about Libertarians you pop up with your predictable, "But we're not THOSE kind of Libertarians. We're the party of 10 million people with 10 million platforms. That way we can never be criticized." Now we have Libertarian Republicans. So help me understand, what is the difference between a Libertarian Republican and a Republican?
Ending Prohibition didn't end organized crime, but ending the War on Drugs would? If not, there's no justification to make that part of your argument. Keep in mind, any recreational drug kept illegal will continue to be sold by gangs. So what have you accomplished? "The War on Drugs DOES imprison, and kill, huge numbers of non-violent people, and that is both unfair and a waste of resources that would be better spent prosecuting the violent." The War on Drugs does not imprison users. We imprison drug dealers, manufacturers, and traffickers. They ARE violent and deserve prison. "The War on Drugs IS largely responsible for the militarization of police forces in America, and it HAS pitted police against citizens." I would argue that drug dealers, drug manufacturers and drug traffickers are the ones largely responsible for the militarization of police forces in America because they're the ones shooting at the cops. "I don't agree with the "immoral" part." Then you fit right in with Libertarians who don't agree with the immoral part of anything -- drugs, gambling, porn, prostitution, etc. But legalization implies acceptance and that would be the message we'd be sending to kids. That said, I could support Libertarianism in a society consisting only of responsible adults -- like a "Galt's Gulch" world. It just might work.
It's pretty simple. Republicans are just assholes but libertarian Republicans are pretty cool.
I don't know any libertarians that operate with a Galt's Gulch mentality though that obviously comprises your entire notion of libertarianism. Have you read that book or The Fountainhead? Or seen the movies? They're ridiculous books. They picture an America that essentially turns communist. Only a Soviet refugee who didn't know much about Europe or America would write books that stupid and uninformed.
That makes no sense. I thought you said you were a Libertarian Republican.
From what you've said, you don't know any Libertarians, period. A pure Libertarian has got to be as rare as the New Caledonian owlet-nightjar. "Many libertarians justify their political views using aspects of Objectivism" (Wiki) So I stand by my statement. "Have you read that book or The Fountainhead? Or seen the movies?" All of the above. And more than once. "They picture an America that essentially turns communist." Socialist. Like a country under Bernie Sanders. Or Hillary. And it's believable enough to make for good fiction reading.
They are. The Objectivist cult is a bunch of geezers, debating nothing that anyone cares about. Kind of a sad remnant of a movement that went gray decades back and is now just dying off. I don't see how the LP still manages to maintain its ballot access. I suspect that Dems work hard to keep them on the ballot to help elect Dems. The same way that Nader helped elect Dumbya in 2000 and Jill Stein helped elect Trump in 2016. Stein covered the margin of Trump's victory several times over in key states, Wisconsin and Michigan in particular. Needless to say, Stein is now as hated as Nader has been. And with good cause. 2016 did turn out to be the vaunted Year of the Woman. But it was the year of a woman stabbing another woman in the back so she couldn't become prez.
It's as dated and silly as an old Sinclair Lewis novel. Not to be taken seriously by anyone with any education.
And fortunately for America, no doubt ever will. Thank God for that …
Unfortunately for you and whitey, the libertarian Republicans are on quite a roll and making inroads. Even Republicans who don't call themselves libertarian Republicans often dip in to the rhetoric and policy ideas of that wing of the party. And among the young voters, the only Republicans they support at all are the libertarian Republicans.
Dream on ... That's all you libertarians have.
Generalized statement. Gross exaggeration. Unprovable! Dream on …
That's all you libertarians have. Well, libertarian Republicans have won a lot more elections than any candidates of the Libertarian Party. I know you don't like that but please don't set your panties on fire.
And what has it changed? NOTHING ...
Same old song, different verse. You libertarians pretend to have just discovered that libertarianism is making inroads to become some sort of radically new and ultra dynamic circle in politics. When actually, it’s all a desperate rehash that goes back for decades of unfilled dreams. The false notion that the libertarian ideas are capturing the political imagination of millions in this country is ridiculous. The libertarian movement is recognized for what it is….an idealistic pipe dream coming from too many bongs …
Some people would argue it goes back to the policies of Barry Goldwater or even to Senator Robert Taft in the early Fifties, particularly with regard to foreign policy. The modern libertarian Republicans do embrace the Old Right's ideas about foreign policy and internationalism, sound money, smaller government, etc. Politics is always a spectrum of policy ideas. So any political party will, over a number of years, debate and fight it out over various policy prescriptions. The only time this doesn't happen is in totalitarian countries where religion (Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.) or political philosophy (Communism) results in a dictator or an equivalent central committee (or both)
It's a shame that Barry Goldwater could not comprehend that, in the USA, black-white relations are a different thing from the rest of philosophy. In the USA, the problem is that the whole founding principle of the country, the whole life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness thing, was systematically, formally, legally and constitutionally denied to black people in various forms right up until he was running for President. He could not grasp that, in order to overcome that entrenched and vicious evil, which was of a different order, color and magnitude in America than, say, the socialist versus capitalist abstractions that were the rage of the European world, some very forceful measures had to be imposed from the top, by force, just as slavery and segregation had been. It was not ENOUGH to simply take away the legal constraints when the people in half the country were still going to stubbornly and firmly behave as though they were still there. A pattern of conduct, established over three centuries by violent force, could only be broken by coercive force. Goldwater could not see it. He would not see it. So he made a fatal charge at the ONE issue on which he had to bend and accept compromise on his own principles - because his principles would not work to address that one issue. So he launched a Don Quixote charge on the Civil Rights Act, and thereby denied himself any prospect of holding executive power, and denied the country the opportunity to go in the direction he would have taken it. He chose the wrong battlefield on which to fight and die. He made a stand on the wrong principle and, as a result, lost his war. This is all giving him the benefit of the doubt and thinking that he wasn't really just an inveterate racist for whom the notion of black equality was so hateful that it was worth burning down himself and his party to try to prevent it. If that was the case, then he was just a fucking fool and a complete loser, because his stand FAILED and everything he opposed was rapidly imposed in his own lifetime, and all he could do was the same as the KKK guys: twist their mouths in useless rage as they lost their country. I prefer to think of Goldwater as principled but too rigid to understand the importance of making exceptions for exceptional circumstances, as opposed to just another stupid bigot who had his teeth kicked in by reality. In any case, he DID have his teeth kicked in by reality, as did his party and followers, and on that singular feature on which he and they took their foolish stand, they lost utterly. Indeed, from the time of Lincoln to Goldwater, the black vote was solidly Republican. The blacks knew that the GOP was the party of Lincoln, and the Democrats were the party of slavery and Jim Crow. Goldwater's stupid stand reversed that in a fortnight, and the Republicans lost a key voting bloc. They haven't yet made any inroads to recover it. So whatever Goldwater's "principles" were, the net effect of his leadership was an utter, complete and permanent disaster for the Republican Party. It would be best for anybody who wants to be politically significant in America, who actually wants to WIN on his points, to not raise Barry Goldwater as a standard bearer. He was a disastrous Republican loser of a McGovernesque stature: UTTERLY destructive to his own cause.
That little bitch FDR won the black vote. You are so sure of your wrongness.
He could not grasp that, in order to overcome that entrenched and vicious evil, which was of a different order, color and magnitude in America than, say, the socialist versus capitalist abstractions that were the rage of the European world, some very forceful measures had to be imposed from the top, by force, just as slavery and segregation had been. It was not ENOUGH to simply take away the legal constraints when the people in half the country were still going to stubbornly and firmly behave as though they were still there. A pattern of conduct, established over three centuries by violent force, could only be broken by coercive force. Goldwater could not see it. He would not see it. So he made a fatal charge at the ONE issue on which he had to bend and accept compromise on his own principles - because his principles would not work to address that one issue. So he launched a Don Quixote charge on the Civil Rights Act, and thereby denied himself any prospect of holding executive power, and denied the country the opportunity to go in the direction he would have taken it. He chose the wrong battlefield on which to fight and die. He made a stand on the wrong principle and, as a result, lost his war. This is all giving him the benefit of the doubt and thinking that he wasn't really just an inveterate racist for whom the notion of black equality was so hateful that it was worth burning down himself and his party to try to prevent it. If that was the case, then he was just a fucking fool and a complete loser, because his stand FAILED and everything he opposed was rapidly imposed in his own lifetime, and all he could do was the same as the KKK guys: twist their mouths in useless rage as they lost their country. I prefer to think of Goldwater as principled but too rigid to understand the importance of making exceptions for exceptional circumstances, as opposed to just another stupid bigot who had his teeth kicked in by reality. In any case, he DID have his teeth kicked in by reality, as did his party and followers, and on that singular feature on which he and they took their foolish stand, they lost utterly. Indeed, from the time of Lincoln to Goldwater, the black vote was solidly Republican. The blacks knew that the GOP was the party of Lincoln, and the Democrats were the party of slavery and Jim Crow. Goldwater's stupid stand reversed that in a fortnight, and the Republicans lost a key voting bloc. They haven't yet made any inroads to recover it. So whatever Goldwater's "principles" were, the net effect of his leadership was an utter, complete and permanent disaster for the Republican Party. It would be best for anybody who wants to be politically significant in America, who actually wants to WIN on his points, to not raise Barry Goldwater as a standard bearer. He was a disastrous Republican loser of a McGovernesque stature: UTTERLY destructive to his own cause. blah blah blah. That is all you said a bunch of hogwash. You just like democrats because they are thieves and give to losers. Unchristian. Very catholic.
Oh, you mean the greatest President of the 20th Century?
Don't be stupid. Even pos carter was better then the commie piece of shit thief FDR. He had no faith in God. Just a thief dickhead.
FDR is in hell now with his satan worshiping cunt of a wife.
POS commie FDR wasn't the point. Your lack of knowldege and spouting off inaccuracies was. Your whole point was how Goldwater was a racist and caused a shift in black voters to democrats. It was complete bullshit without facts backing it up. Just the facts you made up that you are always sure of that in the real world are not true.
You have identified the club that the media complex at the time (which was the NYT, AP, UPI, and the 3 networks) used to bludgeon Goldwater. What you failed to mention in your long comment was Goldwater's longstanding support of civil rights nor his reasons for opposing the '64 bill. Understood that those reasons are academic, and even were at the time, because the media/military/industrial/banking complex had to either give Johnson the White House or have him assassinated too. The latter far too risky and the former nearly without risk as Johnson was a kept man by said complex.
Hey, hey. Trains are making a comeback. The book illustrates "the failures of governmental coercion" -- and that is a timeless subject. We see governmental coercion today in the form of regulations, taxes, and subsidies -- far, far greater than what existed in Ayn Rand's time. The book should be required reading.
It's what the blacks remember. And that matters.
Serious libertarians increasingly tend to dislike Rand, especially as a symbol of libertarianism. The books harp on a theme of how the work of talented architects or artists or engineers belongs to society, not to them personally. That their work could be seized and used by the government because "you didn't build that" (0bama did get close to Rand's thinking with that one). In the Rand books, creative types increasingly flee their work as the federal government becomes more totalitarian in enforcing its nationalization of intellectual property. And, because it is a fundamentally Soviet system (the only kind of country Ayn Rand really knew), she painted a Soviet America in her books. So, no, entertaining fiction they may be. Serious political thought? Far from it. And very dated to boot. The dialog is just painful to read. I watched the Fountainhead again last year and was struck by just how utterly unrealistic it was, how bizarre the characters really were. And when Gary Cooper raped his rich girlfriend (and she liked it)...yeow. Rand's books are a lot closer to sci-fi than to being serious political novels. Hence their popularity with adolescents.
You can't tell me what one is ... but you know one when you see one, right? Who do you support, young voter? I bet you put bumper stickers on your car after the election to show people just how smart you are.
I do. How did you know?
I've seen that a few times myself and read the book. I liked the Roark character. And when Gary Cooper raped his rich girlfriend...yeow. Pretty tame by today's standards. Let me guess. You didn't read it. The books harp on a theme of how the government believes the work of talented architects or artists or engineers belongs to society. And what happens as a result of that. "Hence their popularity with adolescents." Oh yeah. I see a lot of 13-year-olds carrying around Atlas Shrugged. Go to the beach and that's what they're all reading.
Of course. That's not my point. How are they aware of it, and what is the shape of that awareness? If the news complex supported him they would have ignored the vote or emphasized his votes for the '57 and '60 civil rights legislation and his speeches on the subject.
They carry around cellphones and tablets. Not books. Books are about as popular with them as dial telephones. Do you even know any teens today?
Just the one I'm dating.
Ewww. Why wouldn't I be surprised if that is actually true...
You shouldn't be. I'm quite the catch. Good-looking, very intelligent (but you knew that), humble.
I sent you something on that God's Economics thread.
ian asshole
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#5. To: misterwhite (#2)
Sorry, but Libertarians want to legalize all drugs. From https://www.lp.org/issues/war-on-drugs/:
#6. To: misterwhite (#2)
Sorry, but Libertarians want to legalize all drugs. From https://www.lp.org/issues/war-on-drugs/:
#7. To: Tooconservative (#5)
"Most libertarian Republicans (the vast majority of libertarians) ... yada, yada, yada"
#8. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
The War on Drugs DOES create organized crime, just like Prohibition did.
#9. To: misterwhite (#7)
So help me understand, what is the difference between a Libertarian Republican and a Republican?
#10. To: misterwhite (#8)
That said, I could support Libertarianism in a society consisting only of responsible adults -- like a "Galt's Gulch" world. It just might work.
#11. To: Tooconservative (#9)
It's pretty simple. Republicans are just assholes but libertarian Republicans are pretty cool.
#12. To: Tooconservative (#10)
"I don't know any libertarians that operate with a Galt's Gulch mentality"
#13. To: misterwhite (#12)
(Edited)
A pure Libertarian has got to be as rare as the New Caledonian owlet-nightjar.
#14. To: misterwhite (#12)
Socialist. Like a country under Bernie Sanders. Or Hillary. And it's believable enough to make for good fiction reading.
#15. To: Tooconservative (#5)
No LP candidate has ever been elected to Congress, as a governor or a president.
#16. To: Gatlin (#15)
And fortunately for America, no doubt ever will.
#17. To: Tooconservative (#16)
#18. To: Tooconservative (#16)
nd among the young voters, the only Republicans they support at all are the libertarian Republicans.
#19. To: Gatlin (#17)
Dream on ...
#20. To: Tooconservative (#19)
Well, libertarian Republicans have won a lot more elections than any candidates of the Libertarian Party.
#21. To: Gatlin (#20)
Long on the fringes of American politics, small-government conservatives were closer than ever to mainstream acceptance. Then two things happened: Donald Trump and Jihadi John.
I know that's bad news for you but please don't pee your diaper.
#22. To: Tooconservative (#21)
(Edited)
#23. To: Gatlin (#22)
When actually, it’s all a desperate rehash that goes back for decades of unfilled dreams.
#24. To: Tooconservative (#23)
#25. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
Indeed, from the time of Lincoln to Goldwater, the black vote was solidly Republican.
#26. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
t's a shame that Barry Goldwater could not comprehend that, in the USA, black-white relations are a different thing from the rest of philosophy. In the USA, the problem is that the whole founding principle of the country, the whole life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness thing, was systematically, formally, legally and constitutionally denied to black people in various forms right up until he was running for President.
#27. To: A K A Stone (#25)
That little bitch FDR won the black vote.
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#27)
That little bitch FDR won the black vote. Oh, you mean the greatest President of the 20th Century?
#29. To: Vicomte13 (#27)
#30. To: All (#29)
#31. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
#32. To: Tooconservative (#14)
(Edited)
It's as dated and silly as an old Sinclair Lewis novel.
#33. To: Anthem (#31)
You have identified the club that the media complex at the time (which was the NYT, AP, UPI, and the 3 networks) used to bludgeon Goldwater.
#34. To: misterwhite (#32)
(Edited)
The book should be required reading.
#35. To: Tooconservative (#16)
And among the young voters, the only Republicans they support at all are the libertarian Republicans.
That guy.
Him? Oh. Well then he's a libertarian Republican. Boy, they're popular.
#36. To: misterwhite (#35)
I bet you put bumper stickers on your car after the election to show people just how smart you are.
#37. To: Tooconservative (#34)
I watched the Fountainhead again last year and was struck by just how utterly unrealistic it was, how bizarre the characters really were.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#38. To: Tooconservative (#34)
The books harp on a theme of how the work of talented architects or artists or engineers belongs to society,
#39. To: Vicomte13 (#33)
It's what the blacks remember. And that matters.
#40. To: misterwhite (#38)
(Edited)
Oh yeah. I see a lot of 13-year-olds carrying around Atlas Shrugged. Go to the beach and that's what they're all reading.
#41. To: Tooconservative (#40)
Do you even know any teens today?
#42. To: misterwhite (#41)
#43. To: Tooconservative (#42)
"Why wouldn't I be surprised if that is actually true..."
#44. To: Anthem (#39)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]