Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/29/2002 12:23:30 PM EDT
[url]www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_507551.html[/url] Florida Governor Jeb Bush, brother of the US president, is asking for understanding after his daughter was arrested. Noelle Bush was released by police in Tallahassee after allegedly trying to obtain the sedative Xanax with a fraudulent prescription. The 24-year-old's arrest came as her uncle prepares for his State of the Union address, the most important presidential speech of the year. It comes after both President Bush's twin daughters were fined for underage drinking in Texas last summer. Jeb Bush issued a statement with his wife Columba after the arrest was reported in the Tallahassee Democrat newspaper. "Columba and I are deeply saddened over the incident which happened last night involving our daughter Noelle," he said. "Unfortunately substance abuse is an issue which confronts many families across the nation. We ask the public and the media to respect our daughter's privacy at this difficult time so we can help our daughter." Her arrest is the second time the family has been affected by drugs. In 1994 Mr Bush disclosed that his family was struggling with a drug problem involving one if his children, but refused to say which it was. Her younger brother, Jeb junior, 19, was arrested two days before the 2000 presidential campaign for having sex with a 17-year-old girl outside a shopping mall in Tallahassee. Story filed: 17:41 Tuesday 29th January 2002
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 12:29:20 PM EDT
Idiot! Just an idiot! Eric The(JustATotalIdiot!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 12:33:15 PM EDT
It goes to show that the Bushes are ordinary human beings. I wished we lived in a perfect world. I just hope none of my children will walk that route.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 12:35:26 PM EDT
Hell, I might be out looking to score some Xanax if I thought there was a possibility of Janet Reno taking my dad's job. Just the thought of Reno heading a whole state after seeing what she is capable of is enough to make you need some sedatives.....
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 12:38:21 PM EDT
I guess we should be "understanding" when it's the daughter of a famous person, but crucify them if it's some homeless crackhead. But then again, maybe there's a reason she needs to take tranquilizers all the time... wonder what that could be? Oh well, party on!
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 12:40:09 PM EDT
I wonder how the media will take this and twist to involve George W., Gore's loss of the election and how it wouldn't have happened to a democrat??? The spin on this ought to be interesting.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 12:41:06 PM EDT
[newbie] she should have know to use another sorce being that her dad is in the public eye. I say jail her for stupidity if nothing else.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 12:46:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2002 12:46:35 PM EDT by Ponyboy]
Originally Posted By DScott: I guess we should be "understanding" when it's the daughter of a famous person, but crucify them if it's some homeless crackhead. But then again, maybe there's a reason she needs to take tranquilizers all the time... wonder what that could be? Oh well, party on!
View Quote
Actually, I'm of the mindset that we should be "understanding" because people should be free to sit at home and 'veg out' on drugs if they want to. I don't care if someone wants to eat Xanax all day or smoke crack and rot their brain if that is what makes them happy. As long as they aren't infringing on someone else's rights then I'm all for it. Life, Liberty and the persuit of Happiness and all that other stuff. If drugs are what make you happy then I think your right to take them should Constitutionally protected.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 12:53:14 PM EDT
Well, in a perfect world, that'd be fine with me too. But it's not exactly like that, and those people are out driving their cars, running into things and other people or otherwise hurting others. You really gotta wonder how tweaked someone is to be screwing up like that when they have the whole force and attention of the American media on them... Altering prescriptions can be a felony, BTW. It shouldn't be excused.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 1:14:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott: Well, in a perfect world, that'd be fine with me too. But it's not exactly like that, and those people are out driving their cars, running into things and other people or otherwise hurting others. You really gotta wonder how tweaked someone is to be screwing up like that when they have the whole force and attention of the American media on them... Altering prescriptions can be a felony, BTW. It shouldn't be excused.
View Quote
Yeah, but you can say the same thing about alcohol which is completely legal. I say let 'em have whatever they want and if they are caught endangering the public by driving/operating machinery/whatever then have mandatory prison sentences, whether it be alcohol or Xanax or any other substance. If DWI was made to be a felony with automatic prison time, even on the first offense, and it was prosecuted evenly over everyone then there would be a lot less drunks out there on the road. The same thing could also be applied to drugs. Proactive enforcement laws are bullshit. I could stay up for prolonged periods of time and my reactions and senses could become impaired much like I had been drinking alcohol or doing drugs. So should staying up too long be against the law because I might happen to jump in a car an cause a wreck?
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 1:33:08 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 1:42:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy:
Originally Posted By DScott: I guess we should be "understanding" when it's the daughter of a famous person, but crucify them if it's some homeless crackhead. But then again, maybe there's a reason she needs to take tranquilizers all the time... wonder what that could be? Oh well, party on!
View Quote
Actually, I'm of the mindset that we should be "understanding" because people should be free to sit at home and 'veg out' on drugs if they want to. I don't care if someone wants to eat Xanax all day or smoke crack and rot their brain if that is what makes them happy. As long as they aren't infringing on someone else's rights then I'm all for it. Life, Liberty and the persuit of Happiness and all that other stuff. If drugs are what make you happy then I think your right to take them should Constitutionally protected.
View Quote
I hear that! If we moved more $$$$ from drug enforcement into anti-terror funding or tax cuts we would all be better off.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 1:54:14 PM EDT
It's reverse natural selection this war on drugs. Let them have at it and cleanse the gene pool.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 2:00:06 PM EDT
OH....WHAT is this world coming to!.....[stick]
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 2:19:20 PM EDT
I've always thought that drugs should be 'legalized' in the prison systems. Let them have all want, but they have to stay in prison to get it. If they kill themselves, oh well, but the others would probably be too high to care (or fight for prisoners' rights, etc.) If you really want to clean yourself up, then make the money available for recovery. Otherwise, stop wasting money on this so-called 'drug war'.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 2:25:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2002 2:29:17 PM EDT by BlackandGreen]
Originally Posted By MC_Man: I've always thought that drugs should be 'legalized' in the prison systems. Let them have all want, but they have to stay in prison to get it. If they kill themselves, oh well, but the others would probably be too high to care (or fight for prisoners' rights, etc.) If you really want to clean yourself up, then make the money available for recovery. Otherwise, stop wasting money on this so-called 'drug war'.
View Quote
This is exactly how some of the "old world" countries "handled" the prisoners.......seems like the good ole usa is too concerned about "human rights"........[stick]......(it`s ok....blame the vultures....ah lawyers I meant to say) ..........[dracula]
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 2:47:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2002 2:50:25 PM EDT by mejames]
She looks like she's on drugs. [b]Before[/b] - last year [img]http://news.24.com/Images/Photos/2002012921312529_noelle.jpg[/img] [b]After[/b] - mug shot [img]http://us.yimg.com/p/nm/20020129/mdf121552.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 2:48:10 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 2:57:31 PM EDT
Xanax is worth killing for. I hoodwinked my family doctor into giving me a prescription sedative many years ago. He prescribed Xanax. I knew that was a drug I needed to stay away from. But having said that the kid is an idiot.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 3:41:51 PM EDT
I wish it were so simple as to just let people do whatever they wished in the privacy of their own homes. The problem is they don't stay there. Alcohol is a good example: "Alcohol was involved in 15,936 traffic fatalities or 38.4 percent of last year's total fatalities, down from 16,189 or 38.6 in 1997." ([url]http://www.dot.gov/affairs/1999/nhtsa2399.htm[/url]) Hardly a minor problem, especially for the families of the innocents- too bad drinkers just don't stay with their cars in their garages and take only themselves out. Drugs (especially the legal ones, alcohol and tobacco) cost us all in lots of ways. Legalizing them even more wouldn't help people abuse them even less. It's just not human nature.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 4:57:52 PM EDT
DScott - the problem with the "involved in" is, like all govt. statistics that have become leftist political footballs, it is total BS. If anyone "involved" (or for that matter there are alcoholic containers found or ANY involved party has any alcohol whatsoever in their blood, legal or not) in their system, statistically it is categorized as "involved in". My problem with that is similar to my problem with the lying-ass gun controllers. Tell the truth and let the chips fall whether they may! Another example is the AMA and their dishonesty with the public concerning smoking (does C. Everette "Kook" ring a bell?). Smoking does not kill. OJ kills. Electricity kills. Deep water kills. Crushing forces kill. Smoking does not. It may contribute to ill health and an earlier death than might otherwise be expected, but it does not kill. I believe this type of intellectual dishonesty whether it involves drugs, alcohol or guns is ultimately a disservice to us all. There are far more dangerous drivers on the road than a mature, responsible adult who has had a couple of glasses of wine with dinner. However, the law abiding man, should he be pulled over for any reason, will be treated as a criminal who has ACTUALLY INJURED OR VIOLATED SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHTS. Sorry, but that is wrong. And if you want to meet some of the most radical, left-wing jerks in the world look into MADD. I know because I did. I know I've stirred a hornet's nest and I mean no disrespect to those who have lost a loved one to "drunk driver". But wrong is wrong.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 4:59:36 PM EDT
Drugs (especially the legal ones, alcohol and tobacco) cost us all in lots of ways.
View Quote
Don't forget the big daddy of legal drugs: sugar. Compare the death tolls from obesity and diabetes with the casualties from all the other drugs combined. And then there are all the expenses related to childbirth. Wow! Of course, the parents don't just keep their children at home; after a while, they turn them loose on the rest of us. That public education system costs a bundle...
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 7:12:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 10mmFan: DScott - the problem with the "involved in" is, like all govt. statistics that have become leftist political footballs, it is total BS. If anyone "involved" (or for that matter there are alcoholic containers found or ANY involved party has any alcohol whatsoever in their blood, legal or not) in their system, statistically it is categorized as "involved in". My problem with that is similar to my problem with the lying-ass gun controllers. Tell the truth and let the chips fall whether they may! Another example is the AMA and their dishonesty with the public concerning smoking (does C. Everette "Kook" ring a bell?). Smoking does not kill. OJ kills. Electricity kills. Deep water kills. Crushing forces kill. Smoking does not. It may contribute to ill health and an earlier death than might otherwise be expected, but it does not kill. I believe this type of intellectual dishonesty whether it involves drugs, alcohol or guns is ultimately a disservice to us all. There are far more dangerous drivers on the road than a mature, responsible adult who has had a couple of glasses of wine with dinner. However, the law abiding man, should he be pulled over for any reason, will be treated as a criminal who has ACTUALLY INJURED OR VIOLATED SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHTS. Sorry, but that is wrong. And if you want to meet some of the most radical, left-wing jerks in the world look into MADD. I know because I did. I know I've stirred a hornet's nest and I mean no disrespect to those who have lost a loved one to "drunk driver". But wrong is wrong.
View Quote
Wrong? What's "wrong" here? Granted, the stats are for total "alcohol related deaths", and when broken down it's *only* 8,688 people who died as a result of their own drinking, either taking who knows how many with them (who just happened to NOT be drinking). The responsible use of alcohol is legal, the irresponsible use is not. Sorry! Your other arguement is like say "guns don't kill people, it's the large holes that allow all that blood to escape that kill people!" Or, it's like saying, "cigarettes don't kill people, it's that heart shutting down when that metasticized lung cancer finally destroys the brain." These diseases are consequences of decisions to smoke, drink and/or do other drugs as much as choosing to drink and drive has consequences such as increased risk of fatal accidents. Argue the stats all you want, it doesn't change the reality of these risks.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 7:28:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Actually, I'm of the mindset that we should be "understanding" because people should be free to sit at home and 'veg out' on drugs if they want to. I don't care if someone wants to eat Xanax all day or smoke crack and rot their brain if that is what makes them happy. As long as they aren't infringing on someone else's rights then I'm all for it. Life, Liberty and the persuit of Happiness and all that other stuff. If drugs are what make you happy then I think your right to take them should Constitutionally protected.
View Quote
i agree, but if you leave your property in that condition, the 'Reno snipers' should take you out to protect the rest of us. nice picture of her - don't drugs make you look just so glamorous.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 7:42:04 PM EDT
DScott - I hope you realize that according to your logic merely carrying a gun is tantamount to committing a crime simply because you are carrying. Even though you DID NOT commit an actual crime (or injure anyone!) against a fellow citizen the fact that you carry and the government has deemed that a crime (think about it) renders you guilty of a criminal act. Is that what freedom is all about? You don't hurt anyone but simply because certain activists have determined that your actions are not to their liking you will be punished as if you actually did so. Punish people for what they do that injures someone else. Not what they do (or God forbid think) that has the potential to violate someone's rights. This is a very complicated issue. On the surface your argument appears logical and right. It is not. It is just a little more evidence that Americans refuse to accept the responsibility for thinking for themselves. And even further evidence that Americans will one day willingly give up their second amendment rights. And their freedom.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 7:47:49 PM EDT
My opposition to the "war on drugs" is derived from my belief that the government should not have the power to decide what is bad for me. Making drugs illegal sets the precedent that allows them to make other health related decisions. Hell, now they are going after "big fast food" because we have too many slobs. The war on drugs is big brother at it's best.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 9:38:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 10mmFan: DScott - I hope you realize that according to your logic merely carrying a gun is tantamount to committing a crime simply because you are carrying. Even though you DID NOT commit an actual crime (or injure anyone!) against a fellow citizen the fact that you carry and the government has deemed that a crime (think about it) renders you guilty of a criminal act. Is that what freedom is all about? You don't hurt anyone but simply because certain activists have determined that your actions are not to their liking you will be punished as if you actually did so. Punish people for what they do that injures someone else. Not what they do (or God forbid think) that has the potential to violate someone's rights. This is a very complicated issue. On the surface your argument appears logical and right. It is not. It is just a little more evidence that Americans refuse to accept the responsibility for thinking for themselves. And even further evidence that Americans will one day willingly give up their second amendment rights. And their freedom.
View Quote
So much to say about this, but I'll focus just on one part- to refuse to accept that there are not significant public health consequences to the use of drugs, alcohol and tobacco is to deny reality. Perhaps you don't use or abuse them, but many do, and the cost to all of us is considerable. You certainly acknowledge that in your comment above to those who may have lost a loved one to one of these drunk drivers. People do make choices and need to take responsibility for their actions, whether it is choosing to do drugs, drink and drive, smoke, or carry a loaded weapon. All those choices can affect other people's lives, and society has a right to say something about it.
Link Posted: 1/30/2002 5:36:13 AM EDT
Society not only has a right but a duty to say and do something once a crime against another person has been committed. In the case of the so-called DWI laws we are talking about a matter of degrees and NOT absolutes. Robbing a bank is an absolute. So is murder. DWI in MOST cases is not. Just because certain activist chose to force our government to pass laws making something illegal doesn't make it (the law) moral or proper. It just makes it the law. Study after study indicates that the leading causes of accidents is inattention (fiddling with a radio/CD player, lack of concentration) and sleepiness. I would add inexperience and lack of respect for other drivers. But in spite of the studies (the latest came out last week in CA) guess who the media is still targeting as the evildoers? Cell phone users! I can't drive one mile in north Fulton county (Atlanta) without three Jeff Bodines drafting on my ass but if I CAREFULLY make a phone call I have violated the law. My point is: We have a lot of problems to deal with on the roads, but as long as we allow our goals to be determined by male hating (MADD) political activist we will all pay the price in a higher fatality rate on the road than need be. And please remember that it is the habitual drunk that in many cases is driving without a license (and should be in jail) that causes the majority of the fatal wrecks.
Link Posted: 1/30/2002 6:30:31 AM EDT
I've gotten a ticket for doing a Jeff Bodine (driving too close)- that should make you feel better. [:)] OTOH, I see the inattention while driving that cell phone users display every day, and want to be able to shoot these people on sight. They are dangerous. The only study I could find shows they have accidents at the same rate as drunk drivers. Again, YOU may be careful, but many, many others are not. The alternative is no laws at all, which is silly, of course. Personally, I am in favor of the DWI laws because they set criteria for defining "impaired" that has fairly good science behind it. And those criteria are well publicized, with consequences clearly defined and applied consistently. What more could you ask for? Don't blame MADD, and don't blame me if you don't like these laws. Blame stupid people who drive drunk or drive HUA while talking on the phone.
Link Posted: 1/30/2002 1:55:46 PM EDT
Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people drive legally intoxicated every day with no ill consequences to anyone UNLESS they are caught. Far more fools drive carelessly, selfishly and irresponsibly and cause far more carnage on the highways. Punish the ever loving shit out of an intoxicated driver who CAUSES a wreck and/or injures someone else. That is all the disincentive free people need. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, there has been no crime. MADD is a bunch of NOW reject radical nuts.
Link Posted: 1/30/2002 2:37:30 PM EDT
The local media, hell the national media, jumps on every little incident involving high profile types. What makes me mad is that our local papers love this shit. They are strictly demo's probably have "issues" at home. The way they deal with their liberal family problems is to point out "others" to validate theirs. Total BS! How disrespectful can you get, showing a photo of one of our nations Governors daughter in a negitive way? Do you think the Bush family would have allowed that photo to be published? HELL NO! It is wrong to exploit a private issue for political gain. I guess this is what the demo's pride themselves on!
Link Posted: 1/30/2002 6:47:06 PM EDT
Yeah, right! Like if that was Chelsea Clinton, it would be ignored by the media and the right? Sure! [:D]
Top Top