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

I'm going to have to agree with theMMT on this one.

It's not a matter of the legality of his income it's whether he was able to provide an income for himself, which he clearly could. For those who don't consider picking up a phone to be work those who work in call center's would have to disagree.

I'm not a lawyer, I don't have the statute in front of me, nor do I have legal experience nor a legal education.

As far as I know you're obligated to declare all income be it legal or not. While it may be stupid to declare illegal income failure to do so constitutes tax evasion (as far as I know). You're being taxed on what you take in, regardless of it's source. Just as income for the guy on disability is considered income no matter what it's source.

As for selling crack while on parole, I'm sure you could claim it as employment to your parole officer, though I think you'd find yourself back in prison fairly quickly due to admitted violations of your parole (possession of narcotics, sale of narcotics, etc...).
 
Wizekrak is correct. Tax codes do require you to pay taxes on any and all income- be it legal or illegal. That's why it's common for major cases to prosecute major drug cases for IRS tax violations as well as the CSA violations.

Eventually the Supreme Court said that Marijuana Tax Stamps had to be made available (state courts, it's not a national thing, some states don't make it available).

There's a way to include illegal income on all your tax forms- but not many people will actually do so- who the hell would??

Disability regulations and IRS laws make no distinction between legal income and illegal income. They really only care about having a source of income.

Which this guy obviously did.

However, like I said before, if you had a legal income stream that the Disability board just found out about, they'd make you continue to work there, if you quit you wouldn't go back on disability.

However, if you stopped selling crack, would they allow you back on or would you have to continue that, unable to get back on disability?

AFAIK, disability payments shouldn't be used as a method to punish previous crack dealers.
 
more prohibition rediculousness.


also, if you have to ability to sell crack, you probably could do telemarketing, or someother job that just requires you to talk on the fone. dunno if that matters or not but its something that came to mind.
 
You've got to be fucking kiddin me.

Just when you thought your own country was shitty, America comes and takes the cake.
 
Your money is supporting all drug dealers in the system. Be it in jail, a halfway house, on parole/probation, etc.
Click to expand...

yeah the guy is in jail right now so probably even more tax dollars are being spend than when he was just on disability.. and don't forget tax dollars are spent on continuing the drug war which keeps prices high, thus more profit for the crack dealers.


(C) Permanent total disability shall be compensated according to this section only when
at least one of the following applies to the claimant:
(1) The claimant has lost, or lost the use of both hands or both arms, or both feet
or both legs, or both eyes, or of any two thereof; however, the loss or loss of use
of one limb does not constitute the loss or loss of use of two body parts;

(2) The impairment resulting from the employee's injury or occupational disease
prevents the employee from engaging in sustained remunerative employment
utilizing the employment skills that the employee has or may reasonably be
expected to develop

http://www.bwc.state.oh.us/downloads/blankpdf/ORC4123.58.pdf
Click to expand...

being able to sell drugs isn't really an "employment skill" imo, and definitely not one it's reasonable for anyone to be expected to develop. sure, he is "engaging in sustained remunerative employment" but it's not using a skill which should be encouraged or even tacitly approved of


this ruling basically says the State would rather you be a criminal than have to pay you benefits.. cause if you're already on disability and are selling drugs to help make ends meet, it's not like things are going to get better once the disability goes away.
 
I believe the Ohio Supreme Court has made a judgment influenced by prejudice for the illegality of his activities, but it was a judgment made according to the provisions of the Ohio Revised Code Section 4123.58 and Ohio Administrative Code 4121-3-34.

If you read through some of this, you find that qualifying for such benefits is a shade of gray already. If injured at work, and you receive benefits based on your inability to work, then this includes even a sedentary work environment in which you sit in front of a PC making a profit on e-bay. Basically, if they find you doing anything that can be considered “sustained remunerative employment” (sustained profitable activity) they can terminate the benefits at their discretion. (See Ohio Administrative Code 4121-3-34 Section D paragraph (b) )

Quite honestly, if the guy has the medical ability and energy to sell crack, he does indeed have the ability to perform legitimate work, whether it be sedentary or not, and therefore should have the benefits terminated according to the guidlines of the benefits Code.

However, a problematic issue is what actually should constitute “sustained remunerative employment”. To the point, an illegal activity cannot, and/or should not, be considered a sustained and/or sustainable form of employment. If the courts recognize the selling of crack as a sustained profitable employment, then it brings to it a certain level of legitimicy and they should, without question, recognize it as a sustainable form of employment… in which it is clearly not under the current drug laws, because the laws forbid it. On the other hand, his activities do present an ability to sustain some type of legitimate employment. And considering that, he lost his disability fairly under the pre-existing Code.

As far as tax dollars go, it really makes no difference if tax payers support him in disability benefits or as an inmate.

Ham-milton said:
Wizekrak is correct. Tax codes do require you to pay taxes on any and all income- be it legal or illegal.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to single you out or anything, but on a slightly off-topic note; does everyone here realize that there is NO LAW requiring you to file income tax? Tax code state that they "require" you to, or you "must" file and pay income tax, but these are NOT laws. You are not required under any law to pay income taxes. If you doubt it... do your own search, and bring me a law that says so... I guarantee you won't find one.

Ham-milton said:
AFAIK, disability payments shouldn't be used as a method to punish previous crack dealers.
Click to expand...

I agree, but it's really not so suprising they have done this. After all, students convicted of drug offenses can have their school loans and scholarships revoked.
 
Last edited:
ok so this is wrong because our government is playing the drug issue at their own convenience. when its convenient for them to recognize it as legit income, they do, and when it isnt convenient, they dont. terrible double standards, but then, thats how everything around the drug issue is.

however i agree with the court decision. fucking leech. imo break his other "arm" or whatever.
 
lacey k is more popular on bluelight so she automatically 'wins' every argument. ever. you guys are so full of shit. TheMMT made more sense than lacey k's ghetto style posts (ebonics).

Edit: racist comments.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What it comes down to is that the sate doesn't want to be seen supporting active drug dealers with benefit money. Whether you thiink they should or not is up to you.
 
pinpoint said:
lacey k is more popular on bluelight so she automatically 'wins' every argument. ever. you guys are so full of shit. TheMMT made more sense than lacey k's ghetto style posts (ebonics).

Edit: racist comments.
Click to expand...

dudes kinda got a point.
 
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...

The reason you'd get violated in this scenario has much more to do with possesing and distributing narcotics than it would not having a legitimate job don't you think? While on parole you can't break the law, so breaking the law would get your parole revoked.

ok so this is wrong because our government is playing the drug issue at their own convenience. when its convenient for them to recognize it as legit income, they do, and when it isnt convenient, they dont. terrible double standards, but then, thats how everything around the drug issue is.
Click to expand...

The IRS will bust your ass for tax evasion if you fail to claim income derived from illicit sources won't they? I fail to see the double standard.

Something's illegality cannot be used as a shield for doing it. It's still an act, it's just an act that carries a penalty.
 
^^^I think The wood summed that shit up perfect.

ok so this is wrong because our government is playing the drug issue at their own convenience. when its convenient for them to recognize it as legit income, they do, and when it isnt convenient, they dont. terrible double standards, but then, thats how everything around the drug issue is..
Click to expand...
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

Still, if the man is making 15-25K a year selling rocks he probably is doing about the same as many people on disability would do if they were working a "legitimate" job.

I see your point in that the court is basically fucking him out of what would otherwise be a legitimate claim. But if the man is making enough to get buy, maybe we SHOULD be pissed he's trying to make disability too.

You're grammer blows, by the way :|
 
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...


Says who? At the moment I'm thinking you know jack about 'how the system works' and you just pulled that out of your ass.

Dictionary says that to be employed is to have a job and that a job is "A regular activity performed in exchange for payment, especially as one's trade, occupation, or profession."

If you can find me any legal definitions of a job that corroborate what you said I'd be very surprised and would love to read them.

phrozen said:
If you don't pay taxes on your income, then you aren't legally employed. What's next, trying to tax illegal income?
Click to expand...

No shit. You're not legally employed, you are illegally employed, which is still employment.

It's been done (marijuana tax stamps etc).
 
Last edited:
If sellin crack was truly recognized as a legit job, then it wouldnt be somethin you could get arrested for. If it can be taxed and considered employment in a disability claim, then it shouldnt be illegal. By taxing it or takin it into account, its validating it. Fine, so then let them make their dough off it since its their job. Oh but its illegal. OK , so then let it be one or the fuckin other, you feel me, Is it a legit job with taxable income that is considered employment, or is it illegal, and null and void in every light of what a "job" is. the way they have it, its on the fence, and that just fucks anybody that even gets near it. Shit is twisted. If you cant do it to get ahead in the eyes of the law, and you can only get shitted on for tryin it, then it should be out of bounds in every way. no mans land. Not the government gettin a piece of every fuckin pie that exists. Its like if someone sneaks in to disney world and gets kicked out, but before they go the security takes enough of their money to cover the price of the admission ticket.

Nudemonkei, if you wanna correct people on how they speak, better not make 2 mistakes in 2 words while correcting them. Its "Your grammar." :) But know what, I was actually real concerned about what you thought about how I speak. It was keepin me up at night , wondering, tossin and turnin, ..."WHAT DOES HE THINK OF ME?" So it was a relief to get your opinion on that. Thanks for puttin my racing mind to rest.
 
If sellin crack was truly recognized as a legit job, then it wouldnt be somethin you could get arrested for.
Click to expand...

That's right. It's not a legit job. But it's still a job, end of story.
I didn't read the rest.
 
Why do you choose to debate with people online if you dont wanna read what they post? from your post it sounded like you were coppin a lil bit of a attitude but it wasnt no thing I thought maybe i was jus readin it wrong. But nah, looks like that was on point. Ill make sure i rememember not to waste my time talkin to you in the future. Good looks on makin that clear before I made the same mistake again.
 
i still fail to see why he should get the money.

the disagreement doesnt make sense; lacey, you have a moral objection to the law. your arguments make sense, yet do not change the law and so theyre irrelevant. its not about whats fair, its about semantics.

MMK, you are simply stating the obvious, which is obviously right. he had renumerable income, and therefore isnt entitled to disability. period.

...whether or not thats fair, thats the problem...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top