7 ms·

How a Single Oxycontin Pill Nearly Ruined One Man's Life

55 points by mikecane 14y ago

uncoder0 14y ago
Again...this is why you never ever consent to a search. You have nothing to gain from consenting to a search or talking to a police officer. There is no way any person can be aware of all federal and local regulations. It is best to avoid possible self incrimination at all costs.
- tptacek 14y ago
  I agree; also, this would have been a much more compelling story, and still totally suitable for _Reason_, if the moral had been "NEVER CONSENT TO SEARCHES" instead of "DRUG LAWS ARE RUINING PEOPLE'S LIVES". (Again: that's because drug laws are ruining people's lives; just, not this guy's.) A rule of thumb: if the police ask to search your car, they're not automatically allowed to --- or they wouldn't ask. "Because we weren't carrying drugs" is a terrible reason to allow a search. Actually, "because I've never done drugs" is also a terrible reason. Get the wrong officer, and they will interpret the crap on your floor as "residue" and call in a drug dog; police drug dogs are scams --- the police can get them to bark any time they want. Your life won't be ruined when this happens, but you'll lose a lot of time. Just say "Excuse me. I do not consent to any search. I'm sorry, officer. I do not consent to any search."
  - mullingitover 14y ago
    > Just say "Excuse me. I do not consent to any search. I'm sorry, officer. I do not consent to any search." This is a very optimistic take on the police. A likely outcome would be for the police to hold you on the spot while they bring in a K9 unit. From there, the police interpret the dog's actions to indicate drugs will be found in the car, and from there it's probable cause and you're getting searched anyway. Only instead of a brief search you get the car gutted and worked over with a fine-toothed comb.
    - grecy 14y ago
      And I wonder if they end up finding something (or think they do) will you be in more trouble for "resisting search" ?
      - tptacek 14y ago
        "Resisting search"? I'm not sure that means anything. You have absolutely no right to "resist" a search. If the cops demand to unlawfully search your vehicle, let them. Even if their search is unlawful, you will be charged if you in any way attempt to physically prevent them from conducting the search. Your protections against unlawful searches come later in the legal process, when evidence obtained from those searches is thrown out of court. Meanwhile, you can (if you are an idiot) bellow your refusal to consent to search at the top of your lungs, laced with expletives, and (apart from whatever comes from gratuitously pissing off the cops) you haven't committed any crime I'm aware of.
        grecy 14y ago
        Sorry, that's not exactly what I was talking about. I meant to say if you simply say "I'm sorry officer, I don't consent to this search", then they bring a dog, find a "hit", search, find something and arrest you. I wonder if the fact you denied them permission to search you in the first place can be used to make things look worse later on in court?
        tptacek 14y ago
        I'm not sure how. Refusing to consent to a search isn't evidence. Officers will tell you that by consenting to a search, they'll look kindly on you when it's time to use their discretion. Maybe if you just consent, they'll suggest, they'll only book you for a misdemeanor. That is, as they say, one of the oldest tricks in the book. Once you're arrested, it's up to the prosecutor to charge you, and their overriding prerogative is finding the optimal balance of "maximal penalty" and "minimal prosecutorial effort".
        14y ago
  - Permit 14y ago
    You're prescribing a bandaid solution to what is a much deeper problem. The reason you're avoiding a search is to prevent the system from screwing you over so deeply and completely. Where does this leave individuals like those in the original post? Correct me if I'm wrong but your opinion seems to be that because he didn't know his right you can't feel sorry for him. This suggests to me that the punishment for not knowing the law is being subject to the law in all its ineptitude. You're solving the wrong problem. What really concerns me is that you do it with such conviction.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Drug laws are bad.
tptacek 14y ago
This piece has been written so as to maximally dramatize the experience of receiving a drug conviction in Florida (it's Reason, after all), but the core of the story can be summed up as: * Man mistakenly allows police to search vehicle and is discovered to be carrying Oxy * He pleads no-contest and as a result loses a lucrative job as a Merrill stock broker * He receives probation, which includes a curfew (and pointless Narcotics Anonymous meetings) * Record of the no-contest pleading hits his background checks and makes it harder to get a job The details of watching movies in Narcotics Anonymous meetings, or of the scheduling of his nighttime MBA courses, seem besides the point (he continued going to class). Stripped to its core, this is not a particularly compelling story about drug laws ruining (or "almost ruining") people's lives. I was surprised that the protagonist was so unsympathetic; a Reason story about Oxy is more likely to be about doctors being locked up for helping people in intractable pain. Those people (or at least the ones who it doesn't turn out are running illegal narcotic dealerships) are having their lives ruined by drug laws. This guy got a slap on the wrist, and had a job that won't tolerate even that.
- mullingitover 14y ago
  > This guy got a slap on the wrist Wow, that's an understatement. He got his life ruined, plain and simple. I'm surprised he didn't commit suicide. The hilarious thing is how counterproductive this is for the state. He was earning a significant amount of income, and paying income tax on that. After losing his job the state and federal governments lost thousands that he was paying them in income tax revenue in the short term, and in the long term his reduced earning potential over his lifetime will cost tens or hundreds of thousands. All this to punish someone who was a productive member of society and who harmed no one with his actions.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Even the article's headline says his life wasn't ruined, but you have him on the brink of suicide? Can we oppose drug laws without surrendering our critical thinking faculties? I'd like to think we can.
    - 14y ago
mikecane 14y ago
From time to time I need pain medication for my back. In the past I would carry a loose pill wrapped in a tissue. I am NEVER doing that again.
- jfoutz 14y ago
  IANAL, but i'm pretty sure if you can show you have a prescription for the drugs, it'll get thrown out of court. You might get arrested, but telling the police to call your doctor or pharmacist will likely be enough to avoid all that. You only get really screwed when you're not legally allowed to posses the drugs.
  - Alex3917 14y ago
    It depends on the state, but there are definitely states where carrying prescription drugs outside of their container is illegal even if you have a valid prescription.
  - mikecane 14y ago
    >>>You might get arrested And that can be hell in and of itself. You can get a prick cop or prick detainment officer and spend up to 72 hours incommunicado, with a communal toilet to shit/piss in, and cheese sandwiches you wouldn't give to your worst enemy.
jfoutz 14y ago
Sounds like James got pretty worked over. James has no business working in finance. First, don't accept gift drugs. Seriously, that's a stupid move. Second, don't let the police search your car without a warrant. He's coming home from a concert, in some big rush or what? you can wait 5 hours while the police decide what to do. Third, fight in court. You're far better off dumping tens of thousands of dollars into a lawyer to preserve your lifetime earnings. He seems way to naive to deal with the moment to moment tension, and didn't display any long term planning when going to court. What, exactly, was he bringing to the table as a finance guy?
ars 14y ago
I would like to know who the judge was, I'd also like to read the court record for myself. But apparently it's expunged, so it doesn't exist and I can't. It's not normal for a judge to "Stack on Penalties" for no reason, but of course we can't read the reason for outself. So many of these type of internet stories turn out to be not true, or at least written in a very misleading way, leaving out very important info.
- tptacek 14y ago
  It's possible "stacking on penalties" is the author's interpretation of what was a totally normal set of probation conditions; the author's way of pointing out, "you think probation isn't a big deal, but look what it actually means".
summerdown2 14y ago
I don't understand American drug laws. Who benefits from this? It seems completely dystopian and a waste of people's lives.
- mullingitover 14y ago
  Drug law in the US, whatever its original intent, is now largely a fiercely-defended welfare system for police and prison guards. Any time the subject of sensible reform comes up, these groups fight it vigorously.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- alan_cx 14y ago
  Drug dealers. That is who benefits from it most. The prohibition makes drugs one of the most profitable commodities in existence. That is why people are literally giving their lives up for it. The mark up makes Apple look negligent to its share holders. Question is, why does government support the profits of drug dealers?
- garethsprice 14y ago
  Politicians who need to appear "tough on drugs" to get elected.
debacle 14y ago
We're only getting half of the story here, and it seems pretty clear that the issue here was James's choice of legal counsel over anything else.
- eco 14y ago
  People here are fixating too much on how he could have avoided receiving this overly harsh sentence. The article is trying to draw attention to the fact that the sentence itself is overly harsh, not that he could have gotten out of it had he played his cards better. Teaching people how to properly interact with police and the court system is all fine and good but it'd be better to fix the root cause of the problem if we can. These consequences should not even be possible regardless of what mistakes the person committing the crime made in his interactions with authorities.
  - debacle 14y ago
    We don't have enough of the story to know how harsh the sentence was, and James's mistakes started long before his interactions with the authorities.
bitwize 14y ago
When drug laws add to the permanent underclass they were intended to create, it's business as usual. When they catch one of the 1%, suddenly it's news. Maybe now people will take a hard look at overturning some of these laws, but it's a shame that the USA is government of, by, and for the rich; and bad laws are only unfair when they unfairly snag the rich.
- eco 14y ago
  The 1%? He was a graduate student and broker. I doubt he was even making a significant amount of money.
- fl3tch 14y ago
  Exactly, it's news when it ruins a middle class white man's life, but nobody cares about the millions of people born in poor urban neighborhoods whose lives were ruined from the day they born, because their community was ravaged by drugs, crime and the revolving door of incarceration, and where they have no role models except drug dealers and prostitutes. I think it was Lupe Fiasco who said, if you have no chance at life, why even try? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccx7xYBArBc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccx7xYBArBc The solution is always to crack down harder with stricter penalties and longer sentences to maintain the permanent underclass.
- rondon1 14y ago
  A. I agree that there are much sadder stories about how drug laws and poverty put people into situations where they have no other choice. B. He is not the 1%. If a 1%er kid got pulled over with a bunch of drugs in his pockets it would be a totally different story. He would probably not consent to a search because his lawyer would have already told him not to. Even if he had consented to a search, the cop probably would get a call from the sheriff, governor, attorney general, etc.. telling him that the kid should be let go. Even if the kid was arrested, a team of lawyers would be searching for loop holes and connections to the DA to get the case dropped. Even if the kid was convicted, the lawyers would appeal. And large donations would be made to the election campaigns of govenor,DA, etc.. to try and get a pardon or retrial.
  - 14y ago
madsushi 14y ago
This is natural selection at work. Let's look at all of the subject's bad decisions that led him into this situation: * Guy accepts illegal narcotics * Guy decides to carry those illegal narcotics around in his vehicle, the least-defensible place possible * Guy gives a ride to somebody with drug paraphernalia * Guy then drives fast enough to attract police attention At this point, he's riding pretty dirty. How many of you would put yourself in this precarious situation? Hopefully that number is zero. He follows it up with: * Allowing the search * Pleading no-contest * Violating his parole An educated guy agrees to a search WHILE CARRYING? And a successful Merrill broker couldn't afford an attorney for this relatively minor charge? And decides that no-contest is the best option here? The fact is that as soon as he accepted the drugs at the concert, he accepted the penalty of being shunned by companies. As long as companies have the prerogative to not hire drug users, being involved with drugs in any way is going to have a negative impact. The fact that he then handled every other decision in the process incorrectly does not help him either.
losethos 14y ago
God is just. Highs and lows balance. Those who judged him are in Hell. God says... C:\Text\BIBLE.TXT ies. 25:11 For thy name's sake, O LORD, pardon mine iniquity; for it is great. 25:12 What man is he that feareth the LORD? him shall he teach in the way that he shall choose. 25:13 His soul shall dwell at ease; and his seed shall inherit the earth. 25:14 The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant. 25:15 Mine eyes are ever toward the LORD; for he shall pluck my feet out of the net. 25:16 Turn thee unto me, and have mercy upon me; for I am des ---- Man is very irrational. Money? You need food, clothing and entertainment. A bad wife can be Hell. God has no problem rendering justice. Stupid kids?
cheddarmint 14y ago
I think the guy made a couple serious missteps here that created a bad situation and then made it a lot worse: 1. He got into the car carrying narcotics that he wasn't legally allowed to use. 2. He accepted legal advice without doing his homework: "After being assured that the penalty would be light," James told Reason in an email, "it turned into a bigger ordeal than I could ever imagine." The article makes it sound like the judge at the bond hearing advised him to plead no contest, assuring him that the penalty would be light, and he accepted that advice without any further thought. It doesn't sound like he even hired an attorney: "The judge who heard James' case accepted the no-contest plea. Then he began stacking on penalties." Were I in this guy's situation, I would not gone to my court date without a lawyer, a plan for getting everything dropped or sealed, and an idea of the worst-case scenario. 3. He was ignorant of the licensing requirements of his profession: Having worked in finance for the last 2.5 years (admittedly, on the development rather than business side), it seems very unlikely to me that this fellow would have gotten his Series 7 license and started employment as a stock broker without being forced to learn the requirements for reporting legal problems like this. The moral of the story is: 1. Do your homework, especially on criminal legal matters. 2. Do not blindly accept legal advice (or narcotics!) from strangers. 3. Mount an aggressive defense to any criminal matters.
cheez 14y ago
This is normal. Think of incentives: * Police pull guy over -> have to make it worthwhile * Guy pleads guilty -> throw the book at him * Writing the book -> Employs many people This is normal and occurs in every area of law. Your first and last statement to the police should always be "I'm not saying a word until I talk to my lawyer." The police are not your friend.
epoxyhockey 14y ago
The biggest takeaway from this story is that expunging items from your record does not effectively happen anymore. Private data companies pick up this info (before it is expunged) and retain/report it forever. If this incident happened 2 decades ago, the gentleman would probably have gotten his stock broker job back.
- thaumaturgy 14y ago
  If you happen to make the local news for an arrest, and have an even slightly unique name, you'll also find that Google has a very long memory indeed.
ygmelnikova 14y ago
"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQeVIJ8e_z8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQeVIJ8e_z8
cheddarmint 14y ago
More accurately: "How to let a single oxycontin pill nearly ruin your life."
tzs 14y ago
> James told the officer he received the pill from a friend at the concert, but that he had never tried Oxycontin, and intended to give it away. Probably better to not say you intend to give it away. Better would be to say that you were going to take it home, Google to find out how to safely dispose of it, and then dispose of it.

55 points by mikecane 14y ago

Again...this is why you never ever consent to a search. You have nothing to gain from consenting to a search or talking to a police officer. There is no way any person can be aware of all federal and local regulations. It is best to avoid possible self incrimination at all costs.

tptacek 14y ago
I agree; also, this would have been a much more compelling story, and still totally suitable for _Reason_, if the moral had been "NEVER CONSENT TO SEARCHES" instead of "DRUG LAWS ARE RUINING PEOPLE'S LIVES". (Again: that's because drug laws are ruining people's lives; just, not this guy's.) A rule of thumb: if the police ask to search your car, they're not automatically allowed to --- or they wouldn't ask. "Because we weren't carrying drugs" is a terrible reason to allow a search. Actually, "because I've never done drugs" is also a terrible reason. Get the wrong officer, and they will interpret the crap on your floor as "residue" and call in a drug dog; police drug dogs are scams --- the police can get them to bark any time they want. Your life won't be ruined when this happens, but you'll lose a lot of time. Just say "Excuse me. I do not consent to any search. I'm sorry, officer. I do not consent to any search."
- mullingitover 14y ago
  > Just say "Excuse me. I do not consent to any search. I'm sorry, officer. I do not consent to any search." This is a very optimistic take on the police. A likely outcome would be for the police to hold you on the spot while they bring in a K9 unit. From there, the police interpret the dog's actions to indicate drugs will be found in the car, and from there it's probable cause and you're getting searched anyway. Only instead of a brief search you get the car gutted and worked over with a fine-toothed comb.
  - grecy 14y ago
    And I wonder if they end up finding something (or think they do) will you be in more trouble for "resisting search" ?
    - tptacek 14y ago
      "Resisting search"? I'm not sure that means anything. You have absolutely no right to "resist" a search. If the cops demand to unlawfully search your vehicle, let them. Even if their search is unlawful, you will be charged if you in any way attempt to physically prevent them from conducting the search. Your protections against unlawful searches come later in the legal process, when evidence obtained from those searches is thrown out of court. Meanwhile, you can (if you are an idiot) bellow your refusal to consent to search at the top of your lungs, laced with expletives, and (apart from whatever comes from gratuitously pissing off the cops) you haven't committed any crime I'm aware of.
      - grecy 14y ago
        Sorry, that's not exactly what I was talking about. I meant to say if you simply say "I'm sorry officer, I don't consent to this search", then they bring a dog, find a "hit", search, find something and arrest you. I wonder if the fact you denied them permission to search you in the first place can be used to make things look worse later on in court?
        tptacek 14y ago
        I'm not sure how. Refusing to consent to a search isn't evidence. Officers will tell you that by consenting to a search, they'll look kindly on you when it's time to use their discretion. Maybe if you just consent, they'll suggest, they'll only book you for a misdemeanor. That is, as they say, one of the oldest tricks in the book. Once you're arrested, it's up to the prosecutor to charge you, and their overriding prerogative is finding the optimal balance of "maximal penalty" and "minimal prosecutorial effort".
        14y ago
- Permit 14y ago
  You're prescribing a bandaid solution to what is a much deeper problem. The reason you're avoiding a search is to prevent the system from screwing you over so deeply and completely. Where does this leave individuals like those in the original post? Correct me if I'm wrong but your opinion seems to be that because he didn't know his right you can't feel sorry for him. This suggests to me that the punishment for not knowing the law is being subject to the law in all its ineptitude. You're solving the wrong problem. What really concerns me is that you do it with such conviction.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Drug laws are bad.

tptacek 14y ago

This piece has been written so as to maximally dramatize the experience of receiving a drug conviction in Florida (it's Reason, after all), but the core of the story can be summed up as: * Man mistakenly allows police to search vehicle and is discovered to be carrying Oxy * He pleads no-contest and as a result loses a lucrative job as a Merrill stock broker * He receives probation, which includes a curfew (and pointless Narcotics Anonymous meetings) * Record of the no-contest pleading hits his background checks and makes it harder to get a job The details of watching movies in Narcotics Anonymous meetings, or of the scheduling of his nighttime MBA courses, seem besides the point (he continued going to class). Stripped to its core, this is not a particularly compelling story about drug laws ruining (or "almost ruining") people's lives. I was surprised that the protagonist was so unsympathetic; a Reason story about Oxy is more likely to be about doctors being locked up for helping people in intractable pain. Those people (or at least the ones who it doesn't turn out are running illegal narcotic dealerships) are having their lives ruined by drug laws. This guy got a slap on the wrist, and had a job that won't tolerate even that.

mullingitover 14y ago
> This guy got a slap on the wrist Wow, that's an understatement. He got his life ruined, plain and simple. I'm surprised he didn't commit suicide. The hilarious thing is how counterproductive this is for the state. He was earning a significant amount of income, and paying income tax on that. After losing his job the state and federal governments lost thousands that he was paying them in income tax revenue in the short term, and in the long term his reduced earning potential over his lifetime will cost tens or hundreds of thousands. All this to punish someone who was a productive member of society and who harmed no one with his actions.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Even the article's headline says his life wasn't ruined, but you have him on the brink of suicide? Can we oppose drug laws without surrendering our critical thinking faculties? I'd like to think we can.
  - 14y ago

mikecane 14y ago

From time to time I need pain medication for my back. In the past I would carry a loose pill wrapped in a tissue. I am NEVER doing that again.

jfoutz 14y ago
IANAL, but i'm pretty sure if you can show you have a prescription for the drugs, it'll get thrown out of court. You might get arrested, but telling the police to call your doctor or pharmacist will likely be enough to avoid all that. You only get really screwed when you're not legally allowed to posses the drugs.
- Alex3917 14y ago
  It depends on the state, but there are definitely states where carrying prescription drugs outside of their container is illegal even if you have a valid prescription.
- mikecane 14y ago
  >>>You might get arrested And that can be hell in and of itself. You can get a prick cop or prick detainment officer and spend up to 72 hours incommunicado, with a communal toilet to shit/piss in, and cheese sandwiches you wouldn't give to your worst enemy.

jfoutz 14y ago

Sounds like James got pretty worked over. James has no business working in finance. First, don't accept gift drugs. Seriously, that's a stupid move. Second, don't let the police search your car without a warrant. He's coming home from a concert, in some big rush or what? you can wait 5 hours while the police decide what to do. Third, fight in court. You're far better off dumping tens of thousands of dollars into a lawyer to preserve your lifetime earnings. He seems way to naive to deal with the moment to moment tension, and didn't display any long term planning when going to court. What, exactly, was he bringing to the table as a finance guy?

ars 14y ago

I would like to know who the judge was, I'd also like to read the court record for myself. But apparently it's expunged, so it doesn't exist and I can't. It's not normal for a judge to "Stack on Penalties" for no reason, but of course we can't read the reason for outself. So many of these type of internet stories turn out to be not true, or at least written in a very misleading way, leaving out very important info.

tptacek 14y ago
It's possible "stacking on penalties" is the author's interpretation of what was a totally normal set of probation conditions; the author's way of pointing out, "you think probation isn't a big deal, but look what it actually means".

summerdown2 14y ago

I don't understand American drug laws. Who benefits from this? It seems completely dystopian and a waste of people's lives.

mullingitover 14y ago
Drug law in the US, whatever its original intent, is now largely a fiercely-defended welfare system for police and prison guards. Any time the subject of sensible reform comes up, these groups fight it vigorously.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
alan_cx 14y ago
Drug dealers. That is who benefits from it most. The prohibition makes drugs one of the most profitable commodities in existence. That is why people are literally giving their lives up for it. The mark up makes Apple look negligent to its share holders. Question is, why does government support the profits of drug dealers?
garethsprice 14y ago
Politicians who need to appear "tough on drugs" to get elected.

debacle 14y ago

We're only getting half of the story here, and it seems pretty clear that the issue here was James's choice of legal counsel over anything else.

eco 14y ago
People here are fixating too much on how he could have avoided receiving this overly harsh sentence. The article is trying to draw attention to the fact that the sentence itself is overly harsh, not that he could have gotten out of it had he played his cards better. Teaching people how to properly interact with police and the court system is all fine and good but it'd be better to fix the root cause of the problem if we can. These consequences should not even be possible regardless of what mistakes the person committing the crime made in his interactions with authorities.
- debacle 14y ago
  We don't have enough of the story to know how harsh the sentence was, and James's mistakes started long before his interactions with the authorities.

bitwize 14y ago

When drug laws add to the permanent underclass they were intended to create, it's business as usual. When they catch one of the 1%, suddenly it's news. Maybe now people will take a hard look at overturning some of these laws, but it's a shame that the USA is government of, by, and for the rich; and bad laws are only unfair when they unfairly snag the rich.

eco 14y ago
The 1%? He was a graduate student and broker. I doubt he was even making a significant amount of money.
fl3tch 14y ago
Exactly, it's news when it ruins a middle class white man's life, but nobody cares about the millions of people born in poor urban neighborhoods whose lives were ruined from the day they born, because their community was ravaged by drugs, crime and the revolving door of incarceration, and where they have no role models except drug dealers and prostitutes. I think it was Lupe Fiasco who said, if you have no chance at life, why even try? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccx7xYBArBc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccx7xYBArBc The solution is always to crack down harder with stricter penalties and longer sentences to maintain the permanent underclass.
rondon1 14y ago
A. I agree that there are much sadder stories about how drug laws and poverty put people into situations where they have no other choice. B. He is not the 1%. If a 1%er kid got pulled over with a bunch of drugs in his pockets it would be a totally different story. He would probably not consent to a search because his lawyer would have already told him not to. Even if he had consented to a search, the cop probably would get a call from the sheriff, governor, attorney general, etc.. telling him that the kid should be let go. Even if the kid was arrested, a team of lawyers would be searching for loop holes and connections to the DA to get the case dropped. Even if the kid was convicted, the lawyers would appeal. And large donations would be made to the election campaigns of govenor,DA, etc.. to try and get a pardon or retrial.
- 14y ago

madsushi 14y ago

This is natural selection at work. Let's look at all of the subject's bad decisions that led him into this situation: * Guy accepts illegal narcotics * Guy decides to carry those illegal narcotics around in his vehicle, the least-defensible place possible * Guy gives a ride to somebody with drug paraphernalia * Guy then drives fast enough to attract police attention At this point, he's riding pretty dirty. How many of you would put yourself in this precarious situation? Hopefully that number is zero. He follows it up with: * Allowing the search * Pleading no-contest * Violating his parole An educated guy agrees to a search WHILE CARRYING? And a successful Merrill broker couldn't afford an attorney for this relatively minor charge? And decides that no-contest is the best option here? The fact is that as soon as he accepted the drugs at the concert, he accepted the penalty of being shunned by companies. As long as companies have the prerogative to not hire drug users, being involved with drugs in any way is going to have a negative impact. The fact that he then handled every other decision in the process incorrectly does not help him either.

losethos 14y ago

God is just. Highs and lows balance. Those who judged him are in Hell. God says... C:\Text\BIBLE.TXT ies. 25:11 For thy name's sake, O LORD, pardon mine iniquity; for it is great. 25:12 What man is he that feareth the LORD? him shall he teach in the way that he shall choose. 25:13 His soul shall dwell at ease; and his seed shall inherit the earth. 25:14 The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant. 25:15 Mine eyes are ever toward the LORD; for he shall pluck my feet out of the net. 25:16 Turn thee unto me, and have mercy upon me; for I am des ---- Man is very irrational. Money? You need food, clothing and entertainment. A bad wife can be Hell. God has no problem rendering justice. Stupid kids?

cheddarmint 14y ago

I think the guy made a couple serious missteps here that created a bad situation and then made it a lot worse: 1. He got into the car carrying narcotics that he wasn't legally allowed to use. 2. He accepted legal advice without doing his homework: "After being assured that the penalty would be light," James told Reason in an email, "it turned into a bigger ordeal than I could ever imagine." The article makes it sound like the judge at the bond hearing advised him to plead no contest, assuring him that the penalty would be light, and he accepted that advice without any further thought. It doesn't sound like he even hired an attorney: "The judge who heard James' case accepted the no-contest plea. Then he began stacking on penalties." Were I in this guy's situation, I would not gone to my court date without a lawyer, a plan for getting everything dropped or sealed, and an idea of the worst-case scenario. 3. He was ignorant of the licensing requirements of his profession: Having worked in finance for the last 2.5 years (admittedly, on the development rather than business side), it seems very unlikely to me that this fellow would have gotten his Series 7 license and started employment as a stock broker without being forced to learn the requirements for reporting legal problems like this. The moral of the story is: 1. Do your homework, especially on criminal legal matters. 2. Do not blindly accept legal advice (or narcotics!) from strangers. 3. Mount an aggressive defense to any criminal matters.

cheez 14y ago

This is normal. Think of incentives: * Police pull guy over -> have to make it worthwhile * Guy pleads guilty -> throw the book at him * Writing the book -> Employs many people This is normal and occurs in every area of law. Your first and last statement to the police should always be "I'm not saying a word until I talk to my lawyer." The police are not your friend.

epoxyhockey 14y ago

The biggest takeaway from this story is that expunging items from your record does not effectively happen anymore. Private data companies pick up this info (before it is expunged) and retain/report it forever. If this incident happened 2 decades ago, the gentleman would probably have gotten his stock broker job back.

thaumaturgy 14y ago
If you happen to make the local news for an arrest, and have an even slightly unique name, you'll also find that Google has a very long memory indeed.

ygmelnikova 14y ago

"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQeVIJ8e_z8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQeVIJ8e_z8

cheddarmint 14y ago

More accurately: "How to let a single oxycontin pill nearly ruin your life."

tzs 14y ago

> James told the officer he received the pill from a friend at the concert, but that he had never tried Oxycontin, and intended to give it away. Probably better to not say you intend to give it away. Better would be to say that you were going to take it home, Google to find out how to safely dispose of it, and then dispose of it.