NationStates Jolt Archive

“With three child-porn convictions on his record, Norwell perv Mark Sullivan was caught downloading and printing more porn at the Hingham Public Library and apparently shopping for police gear, cops said. Hingham Police Lt. Michael Peraino said on Feb. 14 a library worker asked Sullivan — a registered level-three sex offender — if his computer was working properly, when he noticed a picture emerging from the printer. ‘A photo was being printed. A photo of a nude adolescent female between the age of 8 and 10,’ Peraino said. ‘So the employee went to take the picture out of the printer and Mr. Sullivan grabbed it out of his hand.’ The library director confronted Sullivan, 40, who claimed the picture was a pop-up that appeard on his screen. Sullivan remained at the library for an hour and a half longer where he looked up Web sites that sell police-style badges and uniforms, police said. Sullivan was jailed Tuesday on a probation violation charge, which could place him behind bars until 2021. He was also charged with possession of child pornography, and faces a possible 10-year jail term if convicted of a fourth offense.” — Boston Herald (US)

Is this guy stupid enough to think he can print out kiddy porn on a public library's shared printer and not get caught or is he just so compelled to look at kiddy porn that he doesn't care about being locked up again? Either way, to me the ten year prison term he's looking at doesn't seem nearly long enough. Who knows when his stupidity or compulsion will drive him to rape a kid?

Is this guy stupid enough to think he can print out kiddy porn on a public library's shared printer and not get caught or is he just so compelled to look at kiddy porn that he doesn't care about being locked up again? Either way, to me the ten year prison term he's looking at doesn't seem nearly long enough. Who knows when his stupidity or compulsion will drive him to rape a kid?

Well, it will take him at least 10 years to get near a kid now ;)

Is this guy stupid enough to think he can print out kiddy porn on a public library's shared printer and not get caught or is he just so compelled to look at kiddy porn that he doesn't care about being locked up again? Either way, to me the ten year prison term he's looking at doesn't seem nearly long enough. Who knows when his stupidity or compulsion will drive him to rape a kid?

He's obsessed!

Send him to juvie, that should learn him... and those punks being sent to juvie.

Is this guy stupid enough to think he can print out kiddy porn on a public library's shared printer and not get caught or is he just so compelled to look at kiddy porn that he doesn't care about being locked up again? Either way, to me the ten year prison term he's looking at doesn't seem nearly long enough. Who knows when his stupidity or compulsion will drive him to rape a kid?

We really need to develop methods of allowing paedophiles to finally get past their urges and eliminate them altogether. It's a mental problem caused by one thing or another and I think if we actually take the time to try to solve it rather than just toss them all in jail to rot forever we might be able to figure it out and prevent it from ever occurring again.

So...maybe we should start experimenting on some convicted child molesters, if they allow us, and see why they are attracted to children.

While we're at it, let's see if we can't figure out a way to get rid of rape fantasies as well, as those cause most child molestation cases.

Norwell perv Mark Sullivan:eek:

Well, it will take him at least 10 years to get near a kid now ;)

By which time she'll be 18 so it'll all be legal.

I kid. I kid. (no pun intended)

The dumbest part is not that he did it at a pubic library, but that after getting caught red handed he decided to stick around doing it for another hour or so until the cops rolled up.

This would be like getting caught breaking into a bank and sticking about for another hour to continue loading cash into your bags...

dumb dumb dumb.

Is the 10 year conviction to be served concurrent or consecutively with his 14 years for parole violation?

Is this guy stupid enough to think he can print out kiddy porn on a public library's shared printer and not get caught or is he just so compelled to look at kiddy porn that he doesn't care about being locked up again? Either way, to me the ten year prison term he's looking at doesn't seem nearly long enough. Who knows when his stupidity or compulsion will drive him to rape a kid?

Oh no! Not again!!!

*twitches* Totalitarianism! *goes hulk on everybody*

Shoot all sexual perverts on the spot!!!!!!!!!!:mp5:

Is this guy stupid enough to think he can print out kiddy porn on a public library's shared printer and not get caught or is he just so compelled to look at kiddy porn that he doesn't care about being locked up again? Either way, to me the ten year prison term he's looking at doesn't seem nearly long enough. Who knows when his stupidity or compulsion will drive him to rape a kid?

Yeah, I don't get what's with these short sentences.

Who knows when his stupidity or compulsion will drive him to rape a kid?
We don't know that will ever happen. Most people who view pornography don't become rapists.

We don't know that will ever happen. Most people who view pornography don't become rapists.

Most people who view pornography have sex. Any sex with a child is rape. Plus he's molested kids before.

Who knows when his stupidity or compulsion will drive him to rape a kid?

Shouldn't that be "if"?

have you ever looked at porn? Ever rape anyone?

I look at porn with adult women in it. Adult women can give consent. Kids can't.

Most people who view pornography have sex. Any sex with a child is rape. Plus he's molested kids before.

have you ever looked at porn? Ever rape anyone?

No child is capable, emotionally or legally, of consenting to being photographed for sexual purposes. Thus, every image of a sexually displayed child—be it a photograph, a tape or a DVD—records both the rape of the child and an act against humanity

http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/parade_021906.html

Well, hey, in ten years, the kids will be legal.

We really need to develop methods of allowing paedophiles to finally get past their urges and eliminate them altogether. It's a mental problem caused by one thing or another

Thats what they said about gays..... Sorry that wasn't nice, watching boston legal. Theres nothing wrong with being gay and everything wrong with being a paedophile.

Well, hey, in ten years, the kids will be legal.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....

Thats stupid, it will put unnecessary emotional trauma on the children thus making the next generation psychotic and unstable.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....

Thats stupid, it will put unnecessary emotional trauma on the children thus making the next generation psychotic and unstable.

...I meant, after he's in jail ten years, the kids he would be after now, like the one in the pic, would be legal.

Incidentally, it wasn't serious.

I look at porn with adult women in it. Adult women can give consent. Kids can't.

you didn't answer my question.

You view porn with a certain demographic in it. Have you, ever, attempted to have illegal sexual activities with the demographic present in the porn you watch?

Just a yes or no will help here, have you ever attempted to have illegal sexual intercourse with adult womn?

Send him to juvie, that should learn him... and those punks being sent to juvie.

Best method of punishment ever... if your a pedo... you get sent to a place with kids.

If your an idiotic 15 year old... you go so old men or women can watch you wanting to have sex with you..... simply genius!!!! XD

you didn't answer my question.

You view porn with a certain demographic in it. Have you, ever, attempted to have illegal sexual activities with the demographic present in the porn you watch?

Just a yes or no will help here, have you ever attempted to have illegal sexual intercourse with adult womn?
I didn't answer the question because the question is pointless. How do you make the leap from legal porn to rape?

My porn doesn't depict illegal sexual intercourse. It depicts legal acts. I have participated in legal adult sex. All child porn depicts illegal acts. A pedophile imitating what he sees in his porn is committing child rape.

have you ever looked at porn? Ever rape anyone?

I've looked at porn and had sex with women.

Similar to how if I looked at child porn, I would likely have had sex with children. Which in that case would be rape by definition.

What a buffoon. :p

To say home videos okay as they have no bad intention and as long they do not distrubute it alright. Some guy getting a nude kid picture of his own free will on a most likely an illegal website a different story, unless if they actually report those sites.

I've looked at porn and had sex with women.

Similar to how if I looked at child porn, I would likely have had sex with children. Which in that case would be rape by definition.Agree with you, though in the case of people who like kids it should be treated in some cases as a possible mind illness and should be commited to an insane asylum and then sent to a prision to get ass raped by a guy named Mary which should show them how forcieable sex really feels.

We really need to develop methods of allowing paedophiles to finally get past their urges and eliminate them altogether. It's a mental problem caused by one thing or another and I think if we actually take the time to try to solve it rather than just toss them all in jail to rot forever we might be able to figure it out and prevent it from ever occurring again.

So...maybe we should start experimenting on some convicted child molesters, if they allow us, and see why they are attracted to children.

While we're at it, let's see if we can't figure out a way to get rid of rape fantasies as well, as those cause most child molestation cases.

I like that idea. Do medical experiments on them, and if the experiments work, then they are given a full pardon.

Vic

adolescent female between the age of 8 and 10
Whaaaa?

I like that idea. Do medical experiments on them, and if the experiments work, then they are given a full pardon.

Vic

Experiments always work, and are always a success, so you'd be pardoning everyone.

photo of a nude adolescent female between the age of 8 and 10,’ Peraino said.

Does this guy know the definition of adolescent?

Oh brother :rolleyes: I can imagine it really is pointless now to try to convince you that pedophilia is nothing wrong, right? Having fantasies, liking something, etc. is NOT illegal! Now having sex with someone under the age of consent IS illegal! So it's not pedophilia you're after! It's child molestation! Repeat after me: CHILD MOLESTATION! :rolleyes: It's the same as having rape fantasies and actually DOING them!

Oh and one question... I always hear that sexually suggestive photos of minors are illegal. I always wondered who decides what's sexually suggestive. Is it a photo of my child having a bath? Me bathing my child? Or what? I never figured that out :confused:

The guy must have been really dumb to do that.

Well, it will take him at least 10 years to get near a kid now ;)

the way the justice system works, he prob will be back on the streets before we finish talking about this :mad:

:mp5:

Is this guy stupid enough to think he can print out kiddy porn on a public library's shared printer and not get caught or is he just so compelled to look at kiddy porn that he doesn't care about being locked up again? Either way, to me the ten year prison term he's looking at doesn't seem nearly long enough. Who knows when his stupidity or compulsion will drive him to rape a kid?

I would have taken him out back behind the library, strangled him, and stuffed his body in the dumpster.

Oh brother :rolleyes: I can imagine it really is pointless now to try to convince you that pedophilia is nothing wrong, right? Having fantasies, liking something, etc. is NOT illegal! Now having sex with someone under the age of consent IS illegal! So it's not pedophilia you're after! It's child molestation! Repeat after me: CHILD MOLESTATION! :rolleyes: It's the same as having rape fantasies and actually DOING them!

Oh and one question... I always hear that sexually suggestive photos of minors are illegal. I always wondered who decides what's sexually suggestive. Is it a photo of my child having a bath? Me bathing my child? Or what? I never figured that out :confused:

It's illegal to have sexually suggestive underage children because more likely than not, they did not consent to it because they do not fully understand what is going on, and thus can't consent to it properly. As for the definition of 'sexually suggestive', I take it to mean that any underage children that poses in a sexual manner or engaged in the acts of a sexual nature.

Oh and one question... I always hear that sexually suggestive photos of minors are illegal. I always wondered who decides what's sexually suggestive. Is it a photo of my child having a bath? Me bathing my child? Or what? I never figured that out :confused:

I believe the criteria for pornography (regular sort) is "I know it when I see it".

I suspect a similar criteria is applied to images/movies of children - you would have to convince a jury that a photo of you bathing your child was either:

a. Art.
b. Family photo recording your children as they grow up.
c. Medical Record.
d. Other legitmite record for photographing naked kids.

I suspect that it would be pretty easy to convince a jury that a picture of you bathing your infant child qualifies as (b). I suspect most police would realise this and not investigate you for it, and that even if they did the prosecuter would realise that any sane jury would probably be made up of people who would very quickly realise it is (b).

Now - say you were to then take your family photograph and sell it or distribute it on a website that a jury judges you knew to be a pedophile website then a jury might change their mind an suspect you're taking photos of your kids for the purpose of sexual gratification of either yourself or for others.

I believe the criteria for pornography (regular sort) is "I know it when I see it".

I suspect a similar criteria is applied to images/movies of children - you would have to convince a jury that a photo of you bathing your child was either:

a. Art.
b. Family photo recording your children as they grow up.
c. Medical Record.
d. Other legitmite record for photographing naked kids.

I suspect that it would be pretty easy to convince a jury that a picture of you bathing your infant child qualifies as (b). I suspect most police would realise this and not investigate you for it, and that even if they did the prosecuter would realise that any sane jury would probably be made up of people who would very quickly realise it is (b).

Now - say you were to then take your family photograph and sell it or distribute it on a website that a jury judges you knew to be a pedophile website then a jury might change their mind an suspect you're taking photos of your kids for the purpose of sexual gratification of either yourself or for others.Going to your art defination is very broad which can then, though off the topic for which it was stated, it can be arugued that things like animated or drawn images of underage kids are legal.

Going to your art defination is very broad which can then, though off the topic for which it was stated, it can be arugued that things like animated or drawn images of underage kids are legal.

'Art' photos of real nude/semi-nude children would be treading a very very very fine line. I think you would have one hell of a job convincing a jury. Claiming it is 'art' is not enough - a jury has to buy your story too, and I think in you're going to be cutting it pretty fine if you try it.

As to drawn images - I am not sure if those are illegal or not, maye it depends on state/country... If someone draws their imagination then I don't really see how that could (or should) be illegal though...

EDIT: In case anyone is wondering... I don't go in for this shit, just posting what I think someone would be facing if they tried it...

Is this guy stupid enough to think he can print out kiddy porn on a public library's shared printer and not get caught or is he just so compelled to look at kiddy porn that he doesn't care about being locked up again? Either way, to me the ten year prison term he's looking at doesn't seem nearly long enough. Who knows when his stupidity or compulsion will drive him to rape a kid?

Holy shit. Norwell, CT?

'Art' photos of real nude/semi-nude children would be treading a very very very fine line. I think you would have one hell of a job convincing a jury. Claiming it is 'art' is not enough - a jury has to buy your story too, and I think in you're going to be cutting it pretty fine if you try it.

As to drawn images - I am not sure if those are illegal or not, maye it depends on state/country... If someone draws their imagination then I don't really see how that could (or should) be illegal though...

EDIT: In case anyone is wondering... I don't go in for this shit, just posting what I think someone would be facing if they tried it...

I'm most certain drawn images of child porn aren't illegal...

I'm most certain drawn images of child porn aren't illegal...

Simulated kiddy porn isn't illegal, I don't think. Fair sure I heard a court case about that a few years back.

you didn't answer my question.

You view porn with a certain demographic in it. Have you, ever, attempted to have illegal sexual activities with the demographic present in the porn you watch?

Just a yes or no will help here, have you ever attempted to have illegal sexual intercourse with adult womn?

The question is really pointless because A) the act of looking at these photographs was illegal in and of itself so he is clearly willing to do things that are illegal and B) he has already acted on this proclivities. Comparing these actions to someone has never sexually broken the law is really like comparing apples to oranges.

As a survivor of child sexual abuse... A child cannot consent. A child doesn't understand. Anything involving a child and an adult who abuses their power to in any way show, inflict, perform any sex act is sexual abuse.

An adult taking nude photos of a child for their own intent and purposes is illegal. It doesn't matter if they do or don't distribute the pictures, it's illegal and incredibly harmful for the child.

It's not an issue to joke about, it's very serious, with unimaginable effects on the child.

As a survivor of child sexual abuse... A child cannot consent. A child doesn't understand. Anything involving a child and an adult who abuses their power to in any way show, inflict, perform any sex act is sexual abuse.

And what if the adult doesn't abuse his power to achieve this? And what if two children decide to experiment with each other and engage in the sex act themselves?

An adult taking nude photos of a child for their own intent and purposes is illegal. It doesn't matter if they do or don't distribute the pictures, it's illegal and incredibly harmful for the child.

You realize that family photographs fulfill your description, right?

It's not an issue to joke about, it's very serious, with unimaginable effects on the child.

This might sound incredibly perverse to you, but everything that's so general as child abuse can be an issue to joke about... It may even be desirable to do so in some cases as it may serve to ease the tension surrounding the subject...

Is this guy stupid enough to think he can print out kiddy porn on a public library's shared printer and not get caught or is he just so compelled to look at kiddy porn that he doesn't care about being locked up again? Either way, to me the ten year prison term he's looking at doesn't seem nearly long enough. Who knows when his stupidity or compulsion will drive him to rape a kid?

There shouldn't be prison sentances for porn. Even kiddy porn, on the viewing end. Making? Sure - that's an identifiable wrong. Not so for viewing.

So you think someone looking at naked children will eventually rape children? Then the justified legal action is to act on the harm, not something you think is a warning sign. Send him to jail if he tries raping someone. There is no other just way to do it.

There shouldn't be prison sentances for porn. Even kiddy porn, on the viewing end. Making? Sure - that's an identifiable wrong. Not so for viewing.

So you think someone looking at naked children will eventually rape children? Then the justified legal action is to act on the harm, not something you think is a warning sign. Send him to jail if he tries raping someone. There is no other just way to do it.

Those who look at child porn create a market for the production and distribution of child porn. That's why it's illegal. By looking at child porn you're giving an incentive to the producers of that porn to exploit and rape more kids.


Read the article found at the link below.
http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/parade_021906.html

Those who look at child porn create a market for the production and distribution of child porn. That's why it's illegal. By looking at child porn you're giving an incentive to the producers of that porn to exploit and rape more kids.


Read the article found at the link below.
http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/parade_021906.html

We don't agree on much, but we agree on that point. Supply is usually created by demand. If people didn't buy rag newspapers, they wouldn't stick around. Now, with kiddie porn, this is not 100% true, but certainly there are many that are producing the porn specifically because of the money involved in producing it. By creating that market, viewers create a motive for producers to produce.

We don't agree on much, but we agree on that point. Supply is usually created by demand. If people didn't buy rag newspapers, they wouldn't stick around. Now, with kiddie porn, this is not 100% true, but certainly there are many that are producing the porn specifically because of the money involved in producing it. By creating that market, viewers create a motive for producers to produce.

Well then. It follows from your reasoning that if we jail every addict for life (or shoot them), the market for illicit drugs will dry up.

I guess we've been doing the War on Drugs all wrong then. Jocabia to the rescue!

Well then. It follows from your reasoning that if we jail every addict for life (or shoot them), the market for illicit drugs will dry up.

I guess we've been doing the War on Drugs all wrong then. Jocabia to the rescue!
Eliminating all drug users would destroy the illegal drug trade. The difference is that you'd have to lock up tens of millions of additional people in the US alone, and if you legalize and regulate drugs you can limit the harm they do to only those willing to take them. I don't think all that many people watch kiddy porn, and kiddy porn always creates victims.

Well then. It follows from your reasoning that if we jail every addict for life (or shoot them), the market for illicit drugs will dry up.

I guess we've been doing the War on Drugs all wrong then. Jocabia to the rescue!

Actually, we have been doing the War on Drugs wrong. Locking up suppliers has only succeeded in making drugs more expensive. Locking up suppliers creates a vacuuum for suppliers. Locking up users creates no such vacuum. It actually makes less demand.

Meanwhile, drugs don't harm anyone but the user, so there is no excuse for making drugs illegal. It's like making salt illegal.

When I have to rape a marijuana plant in order to smoke it and violate its human rights, your comparison will be apt.

Meanwhile, drugs don't harm anyone but the user, so there is no excuse for making drugs illegal. It's like making salt illegal.

My sister-in-law (my wife's sister) and her husband became heroin/meth addicts about two years ago.

They did untold harm to their two daughters as a result of outright neglect and subsequent abandonment.

Don't harm anyone but the user?

Actually, we have been doing the War on Drugs wrong. Locking up suppliers has only succeeded in making drugs more expensive. Locking up suppliers creates a vacuuum for suppliers. Locking up users creates no such vacuum. It actually makes less demand.
It is worth noting that in areas/countries that the law is changed to criminalise punters rather than prostitutes the number of men kerb crawling nosedives. I'll see if I can find some figures.

Meanwhile, drugs don't harm anyone but the user, so there is no excuse for making drugs illegal. It's like making salt illegal.
A huge portion of crime - specifically muggings, fraud and burgulary - is carried out to fund drug habits.

My sister-in-law (my wife's sister) and her husband became heroin/meth addicts about two years ago.

They did untold harm to their two daughters as a result of outright neglect and subsequent abandonment.

Don't harm anyone but the user?

They did untold harm and became addicts for the same reason. They were irresponsible. They could easily do the same thing by becoming addicted to sex, to gambling (where legal), to lottery tickets (also gambling, but usually legal), to alcohol, to clubbing, to just about anything. They harmed those children, but the harm is already illegal. Making drugs illegal doesn't address anything new. It's like saying we have to make drugs illegal in order to prevent driving under the influence, but driving under the influence is illegal even if it's NyQuil which is entirely legal. Making multiple laws to address the same problem is ludicrous.

I know someone that was injured because their parents constantly used the word, "******". I guess we should outlaw free speech as well, too, no?

It is worth noting that in areas/countries that the law is changed to criminalise punters rather than prostitutes the number of men kerb crawling nosedives. I'll see if I can find some figures.

A huge portion of crime - specifically muggings, fraud and burgulary - is carried out to fund drug habits.

A drug habit that is so expensive specifically because it's illegal. Such problems didn't exist when drugs were legal. Similarly, crime skyrocketed when alcohol was outlawed. It became expensive and huge trades started for supplying it and people had to start coming up with much more money to get it. It's use also increased dramatically.

The rise in drug use almost exactly corresponds to the beginning of our "war" on it. It accurately reflects what we would expect to happen based on the lessons of Prohibition.

They did untold harm and became addicts for the same reason. They were irresponsible. They could easily do the same thing by becoming addicted to sex, to gambling (where legal), to lottery tickets (also gambling, but usually legal), to alcohol, to clubbing, to just about anything. They harmed those children, but the harm is already illegal. Making drugs illegal doesn't address anything new. It's like saying we have to make drugs illegal in order to prevent driving under the influence, but driving under the influence is illegal even if it's NyQuil which is entirely legal. Making multiple laws to address the same problem is ludicrous.

I know someone that was injured because their parents constantly used the word, "******". I guess we should outlaw free speech as well, too, no?

They were surprisingly responsible prior to taking heroin. The change was drastic and startling.

No, they weren't irresponsible at all beforehand. The drugs actually changed them.

They were surprisingly responsible prior to taking heroin. The change was drastic and startling.

No, they weren't irresponsible at all beforehand. The drugs actually changed them.

So responsible that they started taking illegal substances that just in possessing them alone could have lost them their children? I call BS. It sounds to me that they were hideously irresponsible and they could have not have taken heroine without being so. Unless they became addicted in a foreign country where it's legal. Did they? Or did they, before becoming addicted, put their family and lives at risk?

*wakes up and finds needle in his arm.* How did this get here? Certainly it's not my fault. I'm surprisingly responsible. I certainly couldn't have chosen to take this drug and behave in a wildly irresponsible manner.

Holy shit. Norwell, CT?

Probably Norwell Mass. The article came out of the Boston Herald, and the Library was in Hingham Ma.

I did laugh a bit when I saw they stuck the word perv in there. Typical Boston Herald "reporting"

Ever heard of Oxycontin? Get a serious injury, and maybe a physician will prescribe it to you.

Then you'll be an addict. And when you can't get Oxy anymore, you'll go find heroin.

And then the responsible Jocabia will be a heroin addict.

Using oxycontin as directed won't make you an addict. Hell, I've used Heroin before and never got addicted. You've got to be using regularly in doses high enough to get you high for at least a week or so.

So responsible that they started taking illegal substances that just in possessing them alone could have lost them their children? I call BS. It sounds to me that they were hideously irresponsible and they could have not have taken heroine without being so. Unless they became addicted in a foreign country where it's legal. Did they? Or did they, before becoming addicted, put their family and lives at risk?

*wakes up and finds needle in his arm.* How did this get here? Certainly it's not my fault. I'm surprisingly responsible. I certainly couldn't have chosen to take this drug and behave in a wildly irresponsible manner.

Ever heard of Oxycontin? Get a serious injury, and maybe a physician will prescribe it to you.

Then you'll be an addict. And when you can't get Oxy anymore, you'll go find heroin.

And then the responsible Jocabia will be a heroin addict.

We really need to develop methods of allowing paedophiles to finally get past their urges and eliminate them altogether. It's a mental problem caused by one thing or another and I think if we actually take the time to try to solve it rather than just toss them all in jail to rot forever we might be able to figure it out and prevent it from ever occurring again.

So...maybe we should start experimenting on some convicted child molesters, if they allow us, and see why they are attracted to children.

While we're at it, let's see if we can't figure out a way to get rid of rape fantasies as well, as those cause most child molestation cases.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. You can overcome a drug addiction, you can overcome any number of things that are impossible addictions, but a pedophile cannot overcome being a pedophile, at least in any complete manner that I would feel safe letting them out on the streets, and this isn't just coming from me, it's coming from one of the top FBI sex crime profilers out there (he worked with John Douglas, who actually started the whole FBI criminal profiling thing for the most part). So yeah...would be nice, but isn't going to happen.

A drug habit that is so expensive specifically because it's illegal. Such problems didn't exist when drugs were legal. Similarly, crime skyrocketed when alcohol was outlawed. It became expensive and huge trades started for supplying it and people had to start coming up with much more money to get it. It's use also increased dramatically.


Actually drug use is pretty cheap - so cheap in fact that in the UK a lot of teenagers find drugs to be cheaper than alcohol and tobacco for a night out.

Probably Norwell Mass. The article came out of the Boston Herald, and the Library was in Hingham Ma.

I did laugh a bit when I saw they stuck the word perv in there. Typical Boston Herald "reporting"

Holy shit.

Ever heard of Oxycontin? Get a serious injury, and maybe a physician will prescribe it to you.

Then you'll be an addict. And when you can't get Oxy anymore, you'll go find heroin.

And then the responsible Jocabia will be a heroin addict.

Addiction to a properly used substance is rare, by design. If it was normal to become addicted to painkillers, we would be much more careful with them. We're not, because it really isn't that common unless they are overused.

Meanwhile, I've used several different painkillers. I didn't like them. The "responsible" Jocabia will not likely be a heroin addict because it would require Jocabia to willingly flout the law and risk everything he has and everything he is. Jocabia is not going to do that. I won't say never, but it's really not very likely.

You're surprisingly responsible family members rejected the law and before even their first use of heroin were acting irresponsibly. Heroin didn't make them irresponsible. They couldn't have used it without become irresponsible first. In fact, even if one were to accept your EXCUSE, it would be a legal drug that ruined them.