All In A Day's Work: No Comp For Crack Dealer

F

fruitfly

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Messages
8,071
Continually selling crack cocaine amounts to employment and thus is sufficient cause to terminate permanent total disability compensation, Ohio’s Supreme Court has ruled.

The high court’s decision December 21 in State ex rel. Lynch vs. Industrial Commission of Ohio upheld a March 1998 finding by Ohio’s Industrial Commission that Henry Lynch’s ongoing crack-cocaine enterprise constituted “sustained remunerative employment.”

The Industrial Commission terminated Lynch’s benefits, and an appeals court earlier this year upheld the termination of benefits.

Court records show that Lynch suffered an industrial accident injury in 1967. In 1997 he was indicted for possession, sale and distribution of crack that was earning him $300 to $500 per week, the court records state.

After pleading guilty, Lynch was incarcerated and Ohio’s Bureau of Workers’ Compensation moved to terminate his permanent total disability compensation. The case eventually reached the state Supreme Court, where Lynch argued, among other points, that his activities cannot be considered sustained employment because they are illegal.

The Ohio Supreme Court disagreed and found that Lynch “cannot use the illegality of his pursuits as a shield,” and he “exchanged labor for pay on a sustained basis.”

The ruling upheld an appeals court decision on the matter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All In A Day's Work: No Comp For Crack Dealer
Workforce.com
January 2, 2008

Link
 
How ridiculous is this shit going to get until we finally drop drug prohibition?
Seems everytime I turn around semantic and legal contortions are being done.
 
lol. Ohio's rocking the house lately... why can't I ever find any of this action?
so basically... the supreme court says that selling crack is a real job? fuck yeah. i'm totally dropping out of college.
 
Makes sense to me.

He's on disability because he can't make an income.

He's making an income.

Therefore, he's not entitled to disability.


Why should my tax dollars support somebody make an income? Sure getting caught is an occupational hazard - many jobs have occupational hazards, including physical injury and death.

If he's making $500 a week tax-free (or was making that much), clearly he's working and making money. It's that simple. The fact that it's illegal has no bearing whatsoever - disability is based on the idea that you can't make an income. If you make an income - well then, you're not disabled, so why should us workers who slog to work 40-50 hours a week, 5-6 days a week, have to support his crack-dealing ass?


The real tradgedy is that the court's time and $$ had to be spent on this chump - but that is the cost of democracy I suppose.

One less mouth off of the payroll. Good.
 
Can he say, "Okay, I'll stop selling crack" and then get his benefits back? Surely they can't say that he's able to continue his illegal activities and make a living that way?

I mean, if they found out that you were legally working, and then went through with this, they'd say "no, you're able to keep working, so you have to" but this is a little different.
 
TheMMT said:
He's on disability because he can't make an income.

He's making an income.

Therefore, he's not entitled to disability.


Why should my tax dollars support somebody make an income? Sure getting caught is an occupational hazard - many jobs have occupational hazards, including physical injury and death.

If he's making $500 a week tax-free (or was making that much), clearly he's working and making money. It's that simple. The fact that it's illegal has no bearing whatsoever - disability is based on the idea that you can't make an income. If you make an income - well then, you're not disabled, so why should us workers who slog to work 40-50 hours a week, 5-6 days a week, have to support his crack-dealing ass?


The real tradgedy is that the court's time and $$ had to be spent on this chump - but that is the cost of democracy I suppose.

One less mouth off of the payroll. Good.
Click to expand...


No, the real tragedy is that yo'ass is so ignorant. Sellin crack is a illegal act. You cant have it both ways. If its illegal, it aint legit in any way. it aint a job, it is a crime. If it is a crime, it aint a job. Thats the way the system works, and thas the way everything is seen in every branch of the system except disability apparently.

If youre on parole and the conditions of it is you must maintain employment, and based this ruling, sellin crack is considered employment, then that should be acceptable to claim as your job. But in reality you sold mad rocks this week and brought some money to your parole officer and said Look man, Im workin, i got money comin in,they would lock you up and laugh in your face. It is either a job or it aint.

This is just a pathetic scheme to fuck one more person out of a disability check. The courts, the cops, the laws all say that it aint a job by no means, and it aint considered legit employment , anywhere, so to turn that on somebody in a childish-ass burst of semantics is jus stupid. Obviously sittin in a chair baggin up rocks while your runners come in and out is easy to do if you are disabled. countin money dont take no physical exertion. The whole reason he is sellin crack is cuz he CANT GET A REAL JOB beCAUSE he is disabled so statin that he aint entitled to disability is ridiculous and everybody knows that shit. its a disgusting twisted abuse of the system and the people who ruled on that case should all get one or both legs amputated, or a severe back injury, then given a ounce of coke each which they have to convert into crack and sell before the week is over. Then they will see how great of a living it is.
 
To be honest, I don't really want my tax money going to crack dealers. I gave them WAY too much of my money in my younger years, and I don't want to give them another dollar!

I don't think the government should consider crack dealing actual employment. It is illegal, and it is NOT a real job. The money taken in is not taxed, and you don't fill out tax documents when you begin crack dealing.

There is a lot of money to be made selling drugs, but the risks and stresses are too high for me these days.

If anything, the crack dealers owe ME money... What about that time I bought fake crack? What about the TV I gave them that cost 50 times more than I got for it?

Imagine if the crack dealers had a union. What if they went on strike?
 
lacey k said:
No, the real tragedy is that yo'ass is so ignorant. Sellin crack is a illegal act. You cant have it both ways. If its illegal, it aint legit in any way. it aint a job, it is a crime. If it is a crime, it aint a job. Thats the way the system works, and thas the way everything is seen in every branch of the system except disability apparently.
Click to expand...
Reach in deep and pull your head out of your ass for a moment sweetie. What part of "sustained remunerative employment" don't you understand? We're not arguing whether or not he had a job - we're asking if his selling crack constituted "sustained remunerative employment" - which the supreme court determined, it did.
If youre on parole and the conditions of it is you must maintain employment, and based this ruling, sellin crack is considered employment, then that should be acceptable to claim as your job. But in reality you sold mad rocks this week and brought some money to your parole officer and said Look man, Im workin, i got money comin in,they would lock you up and laugh in your face. It is either a job or it aint.
Click to expand...
He's receiving renumeration in exchange for doing something. The idea of disability is that you're unable to support yourself and make money. If you can support yourself and make money, the way you're doing so IS IRRELEVANT - you don't quality for disability. The fact that you're making money illegally is moot - the issue isn't legality, it's ARE YOU ABLE TO LABOR AND RECEIVE RENUMERATION FOR THE LABOR.

Who knows, maybe you're more educated in law than those justices.

Maybe.

This is just a pathetic scheme to fuck one more person out of a disability check. The courts, the cops, the laws all say that it aint a job by no means, and it aint considered legit employment , anywhere, so to turn that on somebody in a childish-ass burst of semantics is jus stupid. Obviously sittin in a chair baggin up rocks while your runners come in and out is easy to do if you are disabled. countin money dont take no physical exertion.
Click to expand...
You're just not getting it. He's doing labor in return for renumeration.

It's just that simple.
The whole reason he is sellin crack is cuz he CANT GET A REAL JOB beCAUSE he is disabled so statin that he aint entitled to disability is ridiculous and everybody knows that shit.
Click to expand...
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 8)

I'm not even going to touch that statement - does everyone on disability turn to drug dealing because they "can't get a real job" ? Isn't that the POINT of disability - to help those who can no longer work?

Goodness!
its a disgusting twisted abuse of the system and the people who ruled on that case should all get one or both legs amputated, or a severe back injury, then given a ounce of coke each which they have to convert into crack and sell before the week is over. Then they will see how great of a living it is.
Click to expand...
The issue wasn't that he had a great living. I hope you can calm down, tone down the emotion, and see the issue cut and dry for what it is. He was recieving continued renumeration for labor, over time. Therefore, he doesn't quality for disability.

Nobody made him sell crack. He had disability. If he chose to do something (legal or otherwise) to make money, then clearly he no longer needs the disability.

Lets hear it for tax dollars saved!
 
Income due to illegal activities is not employment. If you don't pay taxes on your income, then you aren't legally employed. What's next, trying to tax illegal income?

As for the disability bit, there are plenty of people out there that get disability for crazier things.

You don't want to support drug dealers with gov't cheese? Legalize drugs and tax them.

To be honest, I don't really want my tax money going to crack dealers.
Click to expand...
Your money is supporting all drug dealers in the system. Be it in jail, a halfway house, on parole/probation, etc.
 
He's receiving renumeration in exchange for doing something. The idea of disability is that you're unable to support yourself and make money. If you can support yourself and make money, the way you're doing so IS IRRELEVANT - you don't quality for disability. The fact that you're making money illegally is moot - the issue isn't legality, it's ARE YOU ABLE TO LABOR AND RECEIVE RENUMERATION FOR THE LABOR.
Click to expand...

Last time i checked not a whole lot of labour went into selling crack. He could be just selling it out of his house so he wouldnt have to do anything but open the door and pick up his phone. That does not count as work to me.

Legallity does count because selling crack is illegal the last time i checked so the government can't tax his money. Therefore they should not be able to take away his disability either.

Who knows, maybe you're more educated in law than those justices.
Click to expand...

That certainly would not be hard by any standards. Judging by some of the stupid laws and sentences they come up with someone in grade school would be more educated in law or atleast common sense then some of these justices. Not that they even know the meaning of justice for the most part.

I hope you can calm down, tone down the emotion, and see the issue cut and dry for what it is.
Click to expand...

It's far from cut and dry if you think that your pretty ignorant. Selling crack is illegal and is not counted as a real job. There are no how to sell crack classes in university are there? If it's illegal it doesent count as real money in the eyes of the law because they can take that money away from you anytime they want if you get busted.

Nobody made him sell crack. He had disability. If he chose to do something (legal or otherwise) to make money, then clearly he no longer needs the disability.

Lets hear it for tax dollars saved!
Click to expand...

Your right nobody made him sell crack but they sure as hell will make him sell crack now since he has no other source of income.

As for the tax dollars saved where are you getting that from? If the cops raid his house now and bust him the legal fees for the prosecution and judges will probably be much more then he ever made off disability. Also he was probably putting more money into the economy by selling crack and being on disability and that goes towards tax dollars so your in fact losing tax dollars.

This is not even getting into the whole argument of how many billions of tax dollars are wasted by the government every year on drug prohibition.
 
All I have to state is this: on diasbility from 1967 , his wages then were probably what $15,000 a year? if he had a GOOD job. Disability does not know cost of living raises. Could you live on $7.50 an hour? This guy found a way to subsidize his governement income. AND what job could he do that would pay him the same or more now? a labor job? Clearly his disability kept him from labor (other than stuffing baggies and handing them to runners)
Sure it chaps me that tax money was paying him to deal crack..... but that was a whole lot less than we will pay to cover his in jail cost of living ($50,000+/year).
So when this guy gets out of jail then what? Pay a probation officer to watch over him, and a social worker to find him a job that can sustain a living without exertion?
I dunno........ it's an imperfect world, and an imperfect system. This guy found a way around it. Then got caught. Who is really paying for his crime? US. Aren't there bigger issues out there that we SHOULD be throwing our money at?

-PEACE.....
an old hippy
 
No one is correct, there is no answer, only opinion...

You could argue either side till you die and come to no conclusion. Both sides make valid arguements.

I just find it funny that hed try to use his illegal dealing to aid him, but in the end it screwed him over.
 
In New Zealand you can declare illegal income and pay tax on it, although why anyone would is beyond me. Drug dealers are legally required to pay tax but I've never heard of any dealers being prosecuted for tax evasion. The tax department did try to get prostitutes to pay tax on their illegal income before that was legalised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top