Viagra For Rapist (rapist of Top Gun star & others received tax-payer funded viagra despite history)

NY Post ^ | June 28, 2006 | LAURA ITALIANO

[Froufrou]

You're right about all but the teenage part. It was only a supposition, though, nothing more. I don't imply that white males are without the violence required to do likewise.

[hardworking]

'Legalize all drugs' covers a whole lot of ground...

[1234]

...It was only a supposition, though, nothing more. ...

in this era of PC, we'll unlikely see pic of criminal, or statement as to ethnicity; facts are elusive.
am kinda surprised that her rape wasn't reported before(?)and now it is.

[Froufrou]

I was surprised too, since she's so well known. The last one I know of that was publicized was Fran Drescher, and I can't swear to it but I think it ultimately had an impact on the dissolution of her marriage to her childhood sweetheart.

[1234]

...last one(rape) I know of that was publicized was Fran Drescher...

isn't confidentiality/privacy available to victims as well as perps?! i guess not in court cases...only perps get help from media....

[Froufrou]

I think she (Fran) made it her intention to try to help other victims of violent crime.

[FredZarguna]

It doesn't matter in the slightest what his ethnicity is. Rapist is an equal opportunity evil.

Hate to burst your politically correct bubble, but sometimes, it does matter. For example, take a look here: The Duke Rape Case: The Truth About Interracial Rape And Violence. The fact that blacks rape whites at about twice the unadjusted rate that whites rape blacks is more remarkable when adjusted for population, which shows a black rapist is about 13 times more likely to rape a white woman than a white rapist is to rape a black woman. The figures for homosexual rapes of whites by blacks in prison are even higher. It's equally evil, but it's certainly not "equal opportunity."

It also matters, when say, the rapist is a Muslim.

[Froufrou]

Fred, I suspected what you've documented and I hate to admit I was too lazy to go on the record. You're a gentleman and I thank you.

[MEGoody]

Nomination for dumbest post of the day.

Why is that? I was just curious how they'd feel about this. Is it 'dumb' to wonder what someone's view is on something? If you really believe that to be the case, I'll bet your kids are as dumb as rocks (if you have any).

[MEGoody]

Most would probably believe that your question is inane

Perhaps, but I was wondering what they thought of this particular situation. Should the man have been denied a prescription for this particular drug given his behavioral background? I'm not sure where they'd fall on that issue.

By your post it sounds like your concern was not so much that the man was given a prescription, but that it was paid for by our tax dollars. Is that the case?

[FredZarguna]

As a white person who grew up in the minority in a black neighborhood in the 1960's--(we/they) called them "colored kids," in the 60's--I can tell you I have many black friends from the old neighborhood who were/are no happier about the prevalence of crime in their communities than white people are. The race industry has either ignored these statistics, attributed them to racism, or claimed they're caused by reporting problems. My dad, a social worker, often lamented that these and many other problems (like the disintegration of the black family) would never be solved, because they're never admitted.

People, even icons such as Bill Cosby, are savaged for even mentioning them. White people don't even approach the subject, because of some collective guilt. But as the grifters correctly say, "You can't con an honest man." You can only be victimized by the guilt if you have something to feel guilty for. I don't.

[dead]

By your post it sounds like your concern was not so much that the man was given a prescription, but that it was paid for by our tax dollars. Is that the case?

The idea that taxpayers are being forced to fund the purchase of a product that will enable a convicted criminal to continue to prey on them was what I found particularly galling.

As to whether he should be allowed to purchase the product on his own, I don’t believe men convicted repeated times of rape should still possess the equipment that the drug targets.

Assuming he does retain a penis, I think it’s a bad idea for him to be able to purchase the product, not based on the inherent evil of the product, but based on the specific crimes he committed. However, any enforcement of such a ban would probably have to violate too many privacy rights of law-abiding citizens to appeal to me.

Castration and/or incarceration would be the most direct methods to address his particular problem without any unnecessary burden on non-rapist citizens.

[Xenalyte]

Considering Viagra is completely legal, you won't hear anything about it from us Libertarians.

[Xenalyte]

Actually, we Libertarians would say NONE OF THAT. But don't let the truth get in the way of your polemics.

What we would say is that Viagra is legal, and I think even non-Libertarians would have to admit that.

[Xenalyte]

It's dumb to pose questions that posit a parallel where none exists.

[Froufrou]

I'm with you, 100%. And I'm a great admirer of Cosby's. Unfortunately, many people prefer to take the blame route out, and that's sad.

[Froufrou]

Hi Xena. Yeah, legal, but was it appropriate? I think not.

[FredZarguna]

Glad to be of assistance.

Here are the libertarian talking points on drugs:

• Drug use shouldn't be encouraged, but it's not the government's business to tell us whether or not we can grow, own, or carry a vegetable around if we please.
• The "Drug War" has done tremendous violence to the Constitution. There's no disputing this. The Asset Forfeiture laws are an affront to the 4th and 14th Amendments, and to the idea of Due Process generally.
• In the 1920's, we believed a Constitutional Amendment was required to ban the manufacture, sale, and importation of a mood altering substance, but the government had grown so intrusive by 1936 that the Congress believed it could do this under statutory authority, and by the 1990's, a single bureaucrat (named David Kessler) believed he could completely outlaw an entire class of substances (Tobacco, among several) on nothing more than his own personal authority. Sometimes there are slippery slopes; we've been on one since alcohol prohibition.
• The "Drug War" is a waste of resources: $40 billion / year to interdict and convict for substances which in many ways are far less dangerous than alcohol.
• Prohibition only makes gangsters rich and gives them access to people, for example, terrorists and children, and money they would not otherwise have. Our southern neighbor is about to go the way of Columbia in the 1980's. That's going to be a serious problem for us that wouldn't exist if drugs were decriminalized.
• Prohibition insures a diluted, impure product that unnecessarily burdens the health system.
• If adults want to kill themselves, we don't care (at least politically.)
• Crimes committed by people on drugs are no more a reason to ban drugs than crimes committed by people with guns are a reason to ban guns (L/libertarians are strong RKBA supporters.) People need to be held responsible for the things they do, whether with guns or when they're intoxicated. People committing real crimes should be dealt with: but it's the crime that matters, and the person who commits it, not the drug or the weapon.
• No drugs of any kind--and in fact no services of any kind except those specifically enumerated in the Constitution--should be paid for by taxpayers. As a matter of fact, some of those, like post offices and post roads, could be handled a lot better by somebody other than the government. Another story, for another day.
• There are medical uses for some drugs, which, contrary to lies told by government bureaucrats, are far more effective than the "acceptable" (read: nanny-state approved) alternatives. People dieing from cancer, for instance, should have access to the best pain management available.
• If you want to help drug addicted people, poor people, sick people, or criminals, that's fine; libertarians will not try to stop you. But please don't ask us for help, and above all, don't send men with guns from the government to force us to help. It isn't charity when you have no choice.
• If this offends your religious sensibilities or moral sense, tough. Nobody's forcing you to participate.
• Many libertarians I know (I am one) are Republicans, because the Libertarian party is nothing more than a bunch of kooks, stoners, and utopians who don't know anything more about getting or keeping political power than they do about staying clean and sober. I don't take drugs, drink, smoke, gamble, or pay for sex. I don't think these are smart things to do. But if you want to, bon voyage! The species will be improved by your passing and the government that those of us who are left will have to contend with will be a lot smaller and friendlier to liberty.

[Xenalyte]

I agree, but the question was not appropriateness. It was what Libertarians would say. As a Libertarian, I answered the question.

[Froufrou]

Refresh my memory of the differences...more earth conscious, your group?