By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
Chelan County resident Martin Hoyer will not be enjoying this holiday season. He might also want to consider a new year’s resolution of finding a new illicit drug.
Hoyer admitted to smoking meth for two consecutive days and began hallucinating, hearing voices through a vent to his neighbor’s apartment. He convinced himself that the neighbor and “A bunch of Mexicans and White Guys” were conspiring to rob him.
You can only imagine how quickly things devolved from there.
The neighbor informed police that Hoyer ran out to her front door and threatened to shoot her before returning to his apartment.
It was from there that he began to see “Mexicans in the trees” waiting to attack him. Two of his illusionary assailants went to a second neighbor’s downstairs apartment. Hoyer, being concerned for her welfare, stuffed a .45 pistol into his front waistband and charged down the stairs to “save her”.
As he attempted to rescue her by kicking in the door the pistol went off. The bullet ricocheted off his hip joint then lodged in his Scrotal area–a most humbling moment, yet worthy of a bonus for artistic impression.
Mr. Hoyer might be thankful to be alive but unfortunately Thanksgiving week proved less festive. Having a prior conviction for Robbery did not make for good tidings. A superior court judge sentenced him to thirty months in prison after accepting his guilty plea for Possession of a Controlled Substance and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm.
Hopefully 2019 will be a better year for him.
By Darren Smith
Source:
The Wenatchee World
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
Best of luck to you, Aridog
I am a libertarian and a librarian and I say read all you can but absorb what you must. I threw the tobacco addiction into the discussion because it kills the most people.
Here is Bob Marley:
Legalize Marijuana:
Lyrics to Legalize Marijuana Warning – The surgeon general warns
Cigarette smoking is dangerous… Dangerous
Hazard to your health
Does that mean anything to you?
Then legalize marijuana
Right here in Jamaica yeah
Dem say it cure glaucoma yeah
I’m an a de bush doctor yeah
So there’ll be no more
Smokin’ and feeling tense
When I see dem a com
I don’t have to jump no fence
Legalize marijuana
Down here in jamaica yeah
Only cure for asthma yeah
I man a de minister yeah
So there’ll be no more
Police brutality
No more disrespect for humanity
Legalize marijuana yeah
Down here in jamaica yeah
It can build up a failing economy yeah
Eliminate the slavish mentality
So there’ll be no more
Illegal humiliation
And no more police
Interrogation
Legalize marijuana
Down here in sweet jamaica
Only cure for glaucoma
I’m an a de bush doctor yeah
And there’ll be no more need
To smoke and hide
When you know you’re takin’
A legal ride
Legalize marijuana
Down here in Jamaica
It’s the only cure for glaucoma
I’m an a de minister…
Ari, My prayers are w/ you, my friend. You will beat this in large part because of your positive attitude and spirit. Check your email.
That said, and following on a comment a few days ago, it is confirmed that I have Lymphoma and begin Chemo process next week. I may just think about old Mary Jane during that spell…depending upon how I react to the chemicals…which if you read the info stuff they provide…sound a bit scary. Whatever, I plan to beat it as I did the previous two cancer bouts. If stuff goes south, just know I’ve enjoyed every moment of this life, perhaps save war, and regret not a moment. I’ve been blessed far more than I ever deserved. Time to see what’s next! 😀
Aridog – Dude, I wish you the best. A good attitude always helps. 🙂
Even in my erstwhile college dayz I never, ever, tried “homemade” drugs like Meth (or LSD)…I figured if you could make it in your toilet bowl, you just might not have scrubbed enough before hand. You could say, back then, I was a pioneer of “organic” stuff 🙂
Karen S: “I am on the fence about drugs. My grandmother told my father that Prohibition created the rise of a lot of organized crime. People are responsible for what they put into their mouths. ”
You are correct. As an libertarian, I hold everyone responsible for themselves just as much as I hold myself responsible for what I do in this life. If I take a drug, it’s my responsibility to take this drug with or without prior knowledge. It’s called using the brain. I know enough through the D.A.R.E. program that drugs are illegal, destroy lives, and damage the physiology of people who induce it. The police here considered it a failure but I was one of the shining examples that never took a drug after I completed the program. Many kids, unfortunately, knew those drugs and sought them out.
It’s all about the person and acknowledging they take responsibility for their own lives.
“I don’t know how to deal with addicts. I don’t agree with throwing them in jail for no other reason than using.”
I’m a porn addict and I’ve been using the Internet for many, many years since I was 12. Should I be thrown in jail then? I haven’t committed a felony, a misdemeanor, or something so bad it resulted in getting additional charges for what I did. Right now, I’m trying to become the “ex-porn addict”. That means I took full responsibility for what I did in the past. It means I am going ‘cold turkey’ myself.
Sometimes, you can’t just help the addict. You have to let the addicts hit bottom. You have to let the addicts receive their dosage of reality. Let them dwell, think, or anguish about it on their own. Some addicts are not going to recover, but those who really truly want to recover, whether out of frustration, a true desire, or pushing to get themselves out of it… Those are the addicts who can quit their addictions.
The only times I’ll agree with those being thrown in jail is *after* they commit a crime. That’s it. If there’s a crime truly committed by the addict, jail time is the best way. But since they’re using, they have to go to jail on possession of illegal drugs, not those that were deemed legal. Placing more draconian measures would only result in the people becoming more inequal, being jailed improperly for a crime they may or may not have committed.
Read up on debtors prisons. They exist but it’s illegal. If it’s illegal, why are the government still running it?
Barkin Dog: “I say outlaw all products which kill people and put the most emphasis on the drugs which kill the most people.”
Yeah, way to go, Barkin Dog. The Prohibition is around the corner. We may draft another Volstead Act 2015 and make sure that we can encourage the rise of Al Capone Pt. 2, Bugsy Moran Pt. 2, Dion O’Bannion Pt. 2, and the Northsider/Southsider feuds in 2015 Chicago. We’ll be sure to celebrate Valentine’s Day when more people are being murdered on that day and given roses upon death. Let’s reopen Alcatraz and make sure we get that Al Capone and the rest of the boys over there.
What I said above is history then. Today, if we ever remotely ban everything that’s ‘deemed illegal’, have you ever considered the possibility of psychology playing into it? There’s a fine balance between outlawing a drug or continuing to implement restrictions on drugs. Have you ever noticed that if the US of A banned alcohol right now, more people will start creating speakeasies, start drinking, encouraging more crime to rise? It’s the same with drugs. If it’s so illegal, ‘it has to be bought and tried!’ We have generations of people who really want to rebel against the government. We have generations of people who would really try anything illegal, even if it’s at risk to their lives.
The other possibility to ending drugs is to encourage ‘libertarian paternalism’. Do you know what that is? Libertarian Paternalism is Big Gov creating small restrictions that over time are implemented every few years to a decade finally creates the nail in the coffin for every drug out there that’s deemed illegal. What’s even great is that no one would even notice those incremental changes. On the whole, Big Gov would have to act on it slowly from time to time.
Let’s take another scenario. Social Security. “Third rails, do not touch or die” is the maxim for every politician seeking re-election. They implemented those changes over decades, making additions or subtractions to the program. They made sure Social Security offers ‘income’ to the elderly, the retired, and to those who are disabled in any way. What if you, Barkin Dog, decided, “Off with Social Security! Ban it! Make everyone work!” House and Senate majority votes overwhelmingly for you! Hooray! But… millions of people come to the Capitol Hill, “I demand Barkin Dog! We want Barkin Dog! We want Barkin Dog! He’s the one responsible for this! Off with his head! Off with his head!”
While that’s not a likely scenario, it can and still will happen. Government is at a crux: it holds all the paradoxes of politics. It also holds the paradoxes of what Americans are. Americans fear their government but enjoy the three entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. What a paradox. They enjoy voting but many Americans don’t run for office. Americans want small and limited government. Guess what? Our government has gotten bigger, adding in more people to help run federal, state, or local levels. When Americans cried out against the bank bailouts, the government proceeded to bail out the banks. Americans didn’t fight at all. Do you know what this means? To government, it means “Americans don’t know what they truly want. It’s in our best interest to decide what’s best for them.”
It’s true. Take a Federal Government class. You’d be surprised at how frustrating politics can be.
“Sterilization is a solution.”
Be real careful what you wish for. Eugenicists would jump for a chance like it, isolate those who are defective, mentally ill, retarded, deaf, dumb, mute, etc. and so on in order to breed a more perfect ‘supermen race’ to civilize the earth. If you have an illness you’d like the eugenicists to know, be sure to report yourself to their Processing Center. It’s another euphemism for “Death Center”.
Barkin dog: people snort Pepsi now? Is that a new street drug? I can’t keep up with all the ways people hurt themselves. You are correct that technically, tobacco products should fall under the FDA. And under their purvey, they would have to be deemed illegal, because it is carcinogenic with little to no medical use. (Except for perhaps a few medicinal uses for tobacco extracts without the carcinogens.) It is not outlawed because it has hundreds of years of cultural use.
I am on the fence about drugs. My grandmother told my father that Prohibition created the rise of a lot of organized crime. People are responsible for what they put into their mouths. On the other hand, there are drugs that are so addictive, they take hold of the user after only 1 try, or a few exposures. They become wracked with addiction, helpless in the throes, destroying themselves, their families, and engaging in crime to feed their addiction.
Addiction is a self inflicted illness, whether it’s alcoholism, smoking, prescription drug abuse, street drug abuse, or even over eating. I don’t view addiction itself as a crime, although it is self inflicted. But of course there are the crimes that occur as a result, such as this guy running around howling mad threatening to shoot people with his illegal gun. (Which apropos illustrates how criminals merely break the law to get firearms.)
I don’t know how to deal with addicts. I don’t agree with throwing them in jail for no other reason than using. What purpose does it serve? Forced rehab doesn’t work, because recovery takes the full cooperation of the addict, and often multiple tries even then. Does the right to put anything you want in your body mean the rest of us have to pay for it? I just don’t have an answer.
Karen – for the addict to seriously consider stopping, they have to hit bottom. Sending them to longer jail terms would help with the bottoming out. Forced rehab is not an answer.
Did he castrate himself?
Meth is one of the most toxic drugs. One must mix a toxic soup of household chemicals and other ingredients to produce a substance that no reasonable person would consider consuming. I cannot imagine what series of events must occur for such a brew to be considered tempting to try “for fun.”
Tobacco is a drug. It is legal. It kills more than any other product. You people chose your poisons. Many of you on the blog probably smoke or chew tobacco. Yet you will denigrate those who snort coke, pepsi or meth. Pot is having its way into legal use. I say outlaw all products which kill people and put the most emphasis on the drugs which kill the most people. For you smokers out there: why do your kids smoke. Is this a three generations of idiots are enough phenomena?
I think so. Sterilization is a solution. Same thing for Muslims. And Pedophile Priests. But there is nothing wrong with a Mormon with eight wives. Read Mark Twain’s description in his book Roughing It.
The judge who sentenced this guy is probably a tobacco smoker. Went in dumb, come out dumb too. Wake up America.
P.C.S. – sarcasm?
Otherwise – really?
One of the earliest “recorded” zero tolerances (in the west) was instituted by Draco, hence the Draconian label it received.
Allowing the slow runners to stray away from the herd is a natural solution.
One hopes that he cleans up and gets treatment for his addiction. Hope the scrotum recovers
Of all the drugs of abuse, including heroin, meth is the worst. Any cop or drug counselor will tell you that. I’m not saying heroin, cocaine, etc. aren’t bad, because the are very bad. I am just saying meth is the worst. I hope bam is able to understand what I just said.
Interesting
The science geek
http://www.thesciencegeek.org
it’s people such as this who give low-life petty-felon meth smokers a generally poor reputation.
and ain’t that a shame
Ouch. Nothing more. Just, ouch.
That was ZeroToleranceDog not me. He can not sign his name on the Dogalogue Machine yet.
My name is ZeroToleranceDog. I am new to the blog and do not know much about it. But I listened to BarkinDog bark into the Dogalogue Machine and decided to say my piece. We dont have very many foreign humans around here and no friggin muslims. But I lived in Morocco in a prior life and have no tolerance for muslims because they hang dogs by their hind feet while still alive in the meat markets and sell em for food. So in this case the guy was maybe crazy from the meth but maybe the neighbors deserved to go to jail too. Maybe the judge needs to do some time in jail. This was about gun rights and the right to bear arms. The guy took one in the balls and then the judge puts him in prison with a bunch of friggin whatevers.
Perhaps the defendant had zero tolerance for friggin Mexicans. What would his sentence have been if they were Syrian refugees who wore hood ornaments? You know, like that hoodie that ugly woman in the terrorist attack wore n the photo.
A zero tolerance policy imposes automatic punishment for infractions of a stated rule, with the intention of eliminating undesirable conduct.[1][2] Zero-tolerance policies forbid persons in positions of authority from exercising discretion or changing punishments to fit the circumstances subjectively; they are required to impose a pre-determined punishment regardless of individual culpability, extenuating circumstances, or history. This pre-determined punishment need not be severe, but it is always meted out.
Zero-tolerance policies are studied in criminology and are common in formal and informal policing systems around the world. The policies also appear in informal situations where there may be sexual harassment or Internet misuse in educational and workplace environments. In 2014, the mass incarceration in the US based upon minor offenses has resulted in an outcry on the use of zero tolerance in schools and communities. [3] [4]
Little evidence supports the claimed effectiveness of zero-tolerance policies.[5] One underlying problem is that there are a great many reasons why people hesitate to intervene, or to report behavior they find to be unacceptable or unlawful. Zero-tolerance policies address, at best, only a few of these reasons.[6]
— end of wikipedia
Both the defendant and the judge suffer from O-tol.