Posted on 08/17/2005 11:44:14 AM PDT by BurbankKarl
Two college coeds used cocaine with a pair of convicted drug dealers and had fresh needle marks on their arms when they overdosed in a lower East Side apartment, sources said yesterday.
Police believe a bad batch of heroin may have contributed to the deaths of Mellie Carballo and Maria Pesantez, both 18 and with promising futures.
It was unclear who supplied the drugs, but heartbroken relatives of the victims blamed Roberto Martinez, 41, and Alfredo (Tito) Morales, 33, who were with the teens Friday when the students apparently overdosed.
"How is it possible that they are free?" asked distraught father Juan Carlos Pesantez outside the family's home in Jackson Heights, Queens. "With those [criminal] records? With two girls dead?"
Carballo, a second-semester student at Hunter College, and Pesantez, an NYU sophomore, were found about 6 p.m. Friday in an apartment at 484 E. Houston St. Carballo died 20 minutes later and Pesantez died Sunday.
The men admitted doing cocaine with the women, who met at St. Vincent Ferrer High School in Manhattan, a law enforcement source said.
Martinez, who placed a bouquet of red roses in front of the E. Houston St. apartment yesterday, told a different story to the Daily News. He said he came to the apartment, where Morales lives, after Morales called him in a panic.
"I saw [Pesantez] in the bedroom catching a seizure," Martinez said yesterday. "I tried to give her mouth-to-mouth and then I called 911."
Martinez said he met Carballo at a bar about a month ago and didn't meet Pesantez until Friday. He denied giving the women drugs, saying they brought drugs to Morales' apartment.
No one has been arrested and toxicology results are pending.
Morales was convicted in 1995 of possession of cocaine with intent to sell. Martinez, whose is on parole, has 13 narcotics arrests.
The coeds' friends told cops the women wanted to try heroin, a police source said. The friends also told police that Carballo, a former MTV intern, and Pesantez, a pianist and National Honor Society member, had done drugs before.
Relatives dispute that account.
"To my knowledge, she had never experimented with anything," said Celeste Carballo, 21, who shared a room with her sister at the family's West Side apartment.
College students Mellie Carballo (left) and Maria Pesantez, both 18, in an undated photo. The coeds died of suspected drug overdoses in a lower East Side apartment
Photos taken from memorial at http://www.lastnightsparty.com/mellie/index.html
How nice of them. Never did tell their customers, though, that it was addicting.
Hence, the current laws against it.
Neither do you...
Wrong again. Here's something else I said on the subject: "There's a substantial difference in the levels of use of the legal drug alcohol versus the legal drug tobacco; and there are even wider differences in the levels of use of the various illegal drugs ... so there's no reason to think that legal status explains any such differences. And the fact that street prices are stable or falling weighs against your claim that the law does anything to reduce drug use."
will you insist on having the last word?
I'll post until I have nothing further to communicate to lurkers.
The FDA should become a certification rather than regulatory body for all drugs (not just recreational drugs.) Vendors could apply to have their concoctions certified by the FDA to contain the contents and purity claimed on the label. Customers could buy anything, but would obviously prefer certified over non-certified offerings.
Please, the mechanism of legal supply is irrelevant. The reality is that America will enjoy all of the benifits of a safe recreational drug supply. We will have all of that tax revenue, too. Of course it will be more than drained away by the additional destruction unleashed on society by the change in stigma and increased use. But that's OK; we'll increase taxes again on those who continue to behave with restraint in order to expand governmet and take care of all the poor beseiged "freedom fighters". I'm sure it will be no more of an (minor) impact to society than the "sexual revolution". It's all good! More freedom please!
Never mind that with every passing year we erode away larger chunks of the responsibility that must acompany freedom in order to keep it.
OT lessons are clear. When God wants to disipline us he does no more than turn us over to ourselves. He knows that the bondage we place ourselves in, that we DEMAND in the name of freedom, is a horribly harsh lesson. Good of you to champion the cause. But then, perhaps you have not noticed you are on the wrong side of the fence.
No. Alcohol use has been rampant in western societies for centuries. MJ, cocaine, meth and heroin have been unknown or underground for that same period of time. When alcohol was criminalized, it was done in a society in which 75-85% of the adult population were drinkers. It's shortcomings were much more spectacular than the WOD. Imagine trying to criminalize heroin if 80% of the adult population were regular users. That's the right comparison.
You've simply restated your assumption, without addressing the fact that the evidence shows drug criminalization is failing in all the ways that alcohol criminalization failed.
So who whipped up the batch of crap these people are stuffing in their veins?
Some amatuer.
Once you put it in there, you can't take it out.
Somewhere along the line, these girls made some bad choices, and they have paid the price. Blame the dealers if you must, but unless this was the first time and someone burned them (or forced them to do the $hit) they chose to spike this crap.
Might be doing us a favor...
I don;t know anyone killed by 'riding' a motorcycle. Usually it is getting cut off or run over by some cager that kills them, but once in a while, wrecking one will do it--and I've been riding 30 years.
Yup.
Did you know this nation tried that? Did you hear how it turned out?
Why do you ask,
To see if you believe the principles you proclaim.
do you think it's your "right" to get stoned on my dime?
No.
Should we thank the gun grabbers for supporting or instituting policies that result in higher violent crime and murder rates especially for liberals? Might be doing us a favor, as you say.
These people are generally committing suicide slowly and dragging everyone in their families down with them. Their choice. I have a hard time being sympathetic.
And before the hyperbolic comparisons continue, no, I would not include tobacco smokers, overeaters, or other lesser problems, which do not necessarily result in crime or death. At least the latter groups are productive and pay their own way. No one is handing out free cigarettes or fast food at government expense.
As far as gun grabbing liberals getting other liberals killed because they cannot defend themselves, that violent crime and murder just might be inflicted by someone with a habit. Someone still has to do the crime.
How do you KNOW the details of "the life they were born into"? Were you personally there all eighteen years? You're a contradiction in terms.
You might want to read your own tagline
By Grace you've been saved. Thru Faith a gift of God. So no one can boast.
OBVIOUSLY, you can boast. It is grace I was born into and lived my life. I know that. You obviously were born perfect and would rise above all.
What a shame. In my day, when we used to sit around shooting up heroin in the dorm room, at least we didn't buy the bad kind.
Kids nowadays just don't know much about shooting up heroin.
Don't forget that drug warriors oppose needle exchange programs too. They want druggies to spread AIDS, hepatitis, etc. amonst themselves.
We pay for the crime they commit looking for enough to get a fix.
That's true, but prices are inflated because of the drug war too. Cocaine costs something like $35/oz to produce. Addicts would have to steal a lot less to support their habit, if they must steal. Then again, a lot of them might be able to obtain jobs if felony drug convictions weren't on their records, another product of the drug war.
These people are generally committing suicide slowly and dragging everyone in their families down with them. Their choice. I have a hard time being sympathetic.
The same could be said of liberal voters, especially, say, in Detroit, the subject of several threads in the last week or two.
And before the hyperbolic comparisons continue, no, I would not include tobacco smokers, overeaters, or other lesser problems, which do not necessarily result in crime or death.
It isn't hyperbolic - far more people die of smoking-related causes, or obesity-related problems, than from all illegal drugs combined, as far as deaths rates go. And as for crime rates, as taxes on tobacco continue to rise, and as more places ban smoking, smuggling and smoking-related crimes have been on the increase. If things keep going as they have been, there might soon be an all-out War On Tobacco waged much in the spirit of the present War On Drugs. You might then think of Thomas Paine's quote "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." First, they come for the druggies, then, they came for the smokers.
At least the latter groups are productive and pay their own way.
There are productive drug users too.
No one is handing out free cigarettes or fast food at government expense.
No one is handing out free drugs at government expense either.
As far as gun grabbing liberals getting other liberals killed because they cannot defend themselves, that violent crime and murder just might be inflicted by someone with a habit.
Careful there - I'll bet a lot of criminals are smokers, too. Be careful with that broad brush, you might paint yourself.
Someone still has to do the crime.
The crime of voting for unconstitutional gun laws, or people who support them? Some pay for this with their lives. Many, in fact. Many more than die from tainted drugs. Though not as many as die from smoking.
Actually, not true. Alcohol criminalization failed so spectacularly that a supermajority of Americans went thru the process of passing a constitutional amendment repealing prohibition a very short time after it was passed. Constitutional amendments are REALLY hard to pass. That gives you a sense of just how completely prohibition failed--almost everyone who lived thru it realized how terribly it had failed--in a time that was considerably less hip and tolerant than today.
No such consensus exists today about drugs--in fact, the consensus is to the contrary.
You might consider that different reactions of the public to the WOD and the WOA reflect a profound difference in the 'failure' rate of both. Certainly, your assertion ex cathedra that the failure of the WOD is the same in type and degree as the failure of the WOA is unsupported and gains nothing from repetition.
Finally, you might want to consider one profound success of the WOD. Despite the best efforts of the left and the stoners, and the frailities of human nature, MJ, meth, cocaine and heroin are still marginal drugs and on the fringes of society, used regularly by a small minority of stupid young people and a very small minority of really, really stupid adults. Unlike alcohol, 80% of the adult population are not twice a week speedball users.
Alcohol, OTOH, is a case study in what happens to drug use if it is legal over time. The result is regular use by large majorities of the adult population and almost a complete political inability to control its usage notwithstanding the terrible toll alcohol takes on our society.
Legalization of drugs is one of the unfinished agenda items from the 60's. Frankly, given the stream of disasters that have flowed from those 60's agenda items that were adopted, I would think that any sensible person would take a deep breath before turning society on its head yet again on a blind belief that it'll work out OK. The reality is, turning society on its head frequently does not work out well at all. Giving up your doobie tonight is not a big price to pay to avoid the risk of the reforms you propose.
What do you want to share the road with?
Who do you want flying the jumbo jet?
Who do you want driving your kid's school bus? Someone who might just have enough residual crap in their system to f*ck up and get people killed?
It isn't the addicts' felony drug convictions that keep them from having a lot of other jobs, either. It is that they are addicts. Period. Where performance counts, don't blame the law for people NOT getting a job. They made a choice. The law is no d@amned secret. Actions have consequences.
As a tobacco smoker, I pay higher taxes, higher insurance premiums, and I do pay for my health insurance. I am not asking anyone else to pay my way. Most tobacco smokers are not asking anyone else to pick up their tab, either. There are no free ashtray programs for me. NO free zippos, so let the druggies provide their own paraphenalia.
As for addicts having to steal a lot less if drugs were legal, I suppose just a little dogcrap in your soup is okay, as opposed to massive amounts of it. They are still stealing!
As for cigarette smuggling, that has been going on since trucks went up US 301 when I was a kid, taking $2 cartons of cigarettes from North Carolina (untaxed) to New York, where taxed cigarettes were selling for $7 a carton. Just the same mafia doing bidness.
I've had to deal with some f**ked up people in my time, and I'm not buying the legalize drugs song and dance one bit.
Whatever.
They dont want to answer those questions.
Fine. It's not only your right to have preferences about who you work with, it's even your employer's perogative to have company policies banning specific types of behaviors. This has nothing to do with prohibition - as you admit above, saying "legal or not."
What do you want to share the road with? Who do you want flying the jumbo jet? Who do you want driving your kid's school bus? Someone who might just have enough residual crap in their system to f*ck up and get people killed?
That's an awful lot of prohibitionist spaghetti to throw against the wall to see what sticks. Drunk driving and drunk piloting are already illegal, even though alcohol is legal. School bus drivers already have to - and maybe even should - take piss tests to prove they are safe to drive. Prohibiting certain substances has nothing to do with prohibiting some behaviors while under the influence of those substances, alcohol included. Arguing otherwise is as intellectually bankrupt and facially dishonest as the gun grabbers are, when they say gun bans are consistent with the Second Amendment, because you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater notwithstanding the First Amendment.
It isn't the addicts' felony drug convictions that keep them from having a lot of other jobs, either. It is that they are addicts. Period.
On the contrary, there are plenty of cases where someone's drug use was discovered, despite satisfactory job performance, that led to firing and inability to find similar jobs elsewhere.
Where performance counts, don't blame the law for people NOT getting a job.
Where performance counts, what difference does drug or alcohol use matter? If an employee meets or exceeds expectations, let them keep the job no matter what they smoke, drink, or toke on the weekends - and if an employee fails to meet expectations, don't keep them just because they're sober.
They made a choice. The law is no d@amned secret. Actions have consequences.
That is true, but it doesn't justify the laws.
As a tobacco smoker, I pay higher taxes, higher insurance premiums, and I do pay for my health insurance.
Believe it or not, I think you are being robbed, because I oppose those taxes, and I think smokers on average subsidize non-smokers. FWIW.
I am not asking anyone else to pay my way. Most tobacco smokers are not asking anyone else to pick up their tab, either.
And I am not asking you to.
There are no free ashtray programs for me. NO free zippos, so let the druggies provide their own paraphenalia.
Drug warriors even oppose charitable needle exchange programs, and of course they can't buy new needles outright because those aren't OTC items. At least you can buy ashtrays.
As for addicts having to steal a lot less if drugs were legal, I suppose just a little dogcrap in your soup is okay, as opposed to massive amounts of it. They are still stealing!
Yes they are, and I would jail them for that, but if you had to make the choice, would you want a little or a lot of dog crap in your soup? Are you telling me that you want a lot? In any case, how many police resources are out trying to bust drug users, when they could be trying to catch thieves instead? (And, how many thieves are released from prison, to make room for mandatory-minimum, nonviolent drug criminals?)
As for cigarette smuggling, that has been going on since trucks went up US 301 when I was a kid, taking $2 cartons of cigarettes from North Carolina (untaxed) to New York, where taxed cigarettes were selling for $7 a carton. Just the same mafia doing bidness.
Yes, and this is part of the reason I oppose those taxes, just as I oppose prohibition - do you really want to fund the mafia? The fact that such policies encourage black markets is a good reason to end them, not make them stronger - unless, of course, like eating soup with lots of dog crap in it, you want to enrich the mafia and other criminal elements even more by raising cigarette taxes even more. Let me add that I see tobacco increasingly being prohibited, and to the extent that smuggling will increase (which it will) and criminals become more bold (which they will), it will only increase public support for further restrictions on tobacco products. I will oppose those, just as I oppose the drug war, and for the same reasons, notwithstanding the fact that smoking is a lot more destructive to human life than presently illegal drugs are.
I've had to deal with some f**ked up people in my time, and I'm not buying the legalize drugs song and dance one bit.
I quote Paine again, if you wish to secure your own liberty, you must protect even your enemies from oppression, because if you fail this duty, you establish a precedent that will reach to yourself. There will quite likely come a day that, if you decide to continue smoking, you will wake up some morning at 3AM looking at the business end of a half dozen MP5s, wielded by Tobacco Warriors who became empowered to bust cigarette smokers on the coattails of your own arguments against drugs. And, FWIW again, I will oppose them just as I oppose drug warriors now. If that will be any consolation to you.
See my previous post.
Theres good heroin?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.