Richard Paey on 60 Minutes

This Sunday 60 Minutes is expected to air a story about Richard Paey, who is serving a 25-year sentence in a Florida prison as a result of his quest for pain relief. My column on how Paey was convicted of drug trafficking without trafficking in drugs is here; John Tierney and Radley Balko also have written about the case. Paey's wife, Linda, spoke at the Cato Institute last September. The Pain Relief Network, which has been working tirelessly to publicize Paey's case, has various relevant links, including his appeal brief.

Comments

[J sub D]

Orwell was right. He just got the year (1984 vice 2001) wrong.

[amazingdrx]

How /why in HELL is "drug" limbaugh not charged with trafficking.

He had his housekeeper buy at least 300k worth of oxycontin.

[jf]

amazingdrx:

You are correct. Neither Limbaugh nor Paey should be charged.

[jf]

And by the way, I'm convinced: Unless the Republicans nominate a balls-to-the-wall states' rights guy, I'm either voting Democrat (because here in Ohio it may matter) or Libertarian (if the outcome is not in doubt).

[jf]

However, if joe continues to be nothing but a shill for liberal/"progressive"/Democrat positions on this site, I will vote Republican simply to spite him.

[h-dawg]

"or Libertarian (if the outcome is not in doubt)"

I don't understand the hubris of people who think that voting Libertarian is "throwing away my vote." Even if the Lib candidate is a complete wacko, he is never worse than the republicrat he is up against, and its not like your vote will EVER make a difference in the outcome of an election anyway. In case you think so, here's my warranty: If your favored candidate ever loses by your, one vote, I will pay your difference in what the winner and the also-ran would have billed you in taxes. How about that?

[joe]

jf, I argue the truth.

That the truth is so consistently on the liberal Democratic side should count as a reason to vote FOR the Democrats, not against them.

[D'sANDR'sCANblowME]

I'm gonna have to agree with h-dawg here...
The Libertarian Party candidate will always be better than our current choices (or lack thereof). The mere fact that "libertarians" on here still choose to vote R or D on here suggests a belief that merely holding out for a decent candidate among R's and D's will bring us closer to a freer society in general. Absolute fucking nonsense. How about this novel idea, ALL libertarians, of all stripes, vote in a block for the Libertarian Party candidate in 2008. Who gives a shit what major party gets into power for the next 4 yrs., don't we want to change the damn debate in this country once and for all? Are all you reasonoids that short-sighted that you can't see the bigger picture?

[Marbles]

D'sANDR's, the Libertarian Party throws away its chance to get in the debate by running flaky campaigns. I was embarrassed by the "Rosemary's Baby" commercial for Harry Browne in 2000. I could not believe the party thought that was an effective way to make a point, much less spent (wasted) money on it. The party has existed for, what, 30 years and hasn't gotten anywhere. We should quit kidding ourselves about this fact and ask ourselves why.

[Isaac Bartram]

The party has existed for, what, 30 years and hasn't gotten anywhere. We should quit kidding ourselves about this fact and ask ourselves why.

The answer's always been pretty obvious to me. People as a rule do not want to be free. They want free stuff that others are forced to pay for. And they want absolute safety and security. This is not possible in a free society. We need confiscation of some people's property and constant surveillance to make sure noone gets anything they're not "entitled to" or acts in some way that is "unsafe".

Of course, the fact that this is so does not mean that I wish to be enslaved along with them.

The fact that anyone thinks that LP campaigns are uniquely "flaky" tells me more about them than it does about the LP.

[Robert]

Writing what "people as a rule" want or don't want does not explain why there is more or less freedom from time to time and from place to place. Obviously some factors influence degree of freedom. Also obviously, the Libertarian Party in the USA is not one of those factors, excpet possibly slightly a factor against liberty.

[Marbles]

Isaac, that Galt's Gulch attitude of yours is part of the problem. If you campaign with the attitude that people are a bunch of corrupt slaves, you can't be surprised if they don't vote for you.

For the sake of argument, let's say that you're right and the *only* reason the LP gets nowhere is because most people are too unprincipled to vote for it. We, the principled people, still deserve a freedom-loving government. Why don't we figure out how to trick the unprincipled masses into voting for us so we can establish such a government?