Lack of Information Regarding Adam Lanza's Medical History Did Not Stop CT Politicians From Reforming Mental Health Laws

(Photo courtesy of Veterans Today)

It has been more than six months since the shootings at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, CT.  In response to the event, Connecticut politicians have passed a controversial 139-page gun-control bill, SB-1160, that requires gun registration, doubles the penalties on firearms, requires a permit to acquire ammunition, reforms mental health laws, and much more.  Schools across the country even want to change building designs, and have increased security, because of the CT school shooting.  The problem is that the public has not been given any credible confirmations, or evidence, for any of the inconsistent information, that has been presented in regards to this case, to make a rational response to the event.

Any specific information that is involved with the case has not been released to the public, and probably never will, now that the state’s top prosecutor and the governor’s office are working in secret with General Assembly leaders on legislation designed to withhold records related to the police investigation of the incident, including victims' photos, tapes of 911 calls, and more.  Even an option to block any statement, made by any minor, was considered.

There have been several violent homicide cases in recent American history, like Sandy Hook, that have made the American people cringe in horror at the level of cruelty, and nearly all these cases had one common denominator; psychiatric drugs.  The website, SSRI Stories, documents numerous violent crimes, and their association with prescription drugs.

Though it seems that psychiatric drugs may play a role in many recent cases of mass murder, the medical history of accused Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza is another aspect of the investigation that has not been shared with the public.  The lack of information in regards to Lanza's possible past prescription drug history has not stopped legislators from reforming, and creating new, mental health laws, in response to the Newtown school shooting.  In an article titled, "Medical Examiner Snubs Official Request for Adam Lanza Toxicology Report", journalist Kelly Patricia O’Meara correctly states that legislators "seem hell-bent on legislating increased mental health services without first having all the necessary information to make thoughtful, fact-based decisions."

Connecticut State Senators Toni Boucher (Republican), and Bob Duff (Democrat), were both guests on News 12 Focus on Connecticut, with Tom Appleby (video above), to discuss various state issues, including the Sandy Hook investigation, and the legislation that was passed as a result of the event.

Based on the conduct of these two Senators in this interview, it now seems that Connecticut politicians, who voted in favor of SB-1160, are going into damage control over the public backlash that has occurred as a result of the passing of the bill.  Both Boucher, and Duff, had excuses for why, even though they may have not fully agreed, or understood, the bill, and both agree that the bill will not prevent another Sandy Hook, they still voted for it.

Raising Connecticut's Minimum Wage Will Not Help The Economy

The Connecticut Senate approved a hike to the minimum wage, last week. The Senate voted 21-to-15 on Thursday to increase the current wage of $8.25 an hour to $8.70 on Jan. 1, 2014. It would increase to $9 on Jan. 1, 2015.

I believe it is important to point out that raising the minimum wage, or even having a minimum wage, does not help the lower class.  If minimum wage laws actually worked the way these politicians pretend they do, then why wouldn't government just raise the minimum wage to $100/hour?  If every employer was forced to pay their employee $100/hour, then, by this logic, we could help the lower class come out of poverty.  But, of course, this logic is wrong.

It tends to be Democrats that push for the minimum wage, but you won't see the Republicans point out the absurdity of politicians trying to manipulate economics, because they benefit from having control of the economy, when they're in power.  

Potential Conflict of Interest: 33% of Connecticut State Senators are Lawyers

There are over two hundred million working adults in America, less than one percent of which are lawyers.

33% of Connecticut state senators are lawyers.

If elected-government officials really represent the general population, you would think that legislators would come from employment-backgrounds that are reflective of the general population.  In my opinion, a House, or Senate, filled with people of various occupations, like, maybe a grocery store manager, a barber, a construction worker, an optician, a couple reps from the health care field, an engineer, a pizza shop owner, a mechanic, etc., and other people from everyday working-class jobs, would be a proper representation of the people in my community.  One lawyer thrown into the bunch, if there are one hundred representatives, would be a generous representation of the number of lawyers, compared to the number of working adults in America.  So if in the Connecticut legislature, where there is a much higher ratio, one out of every three legislators in the state senate are lawyers (12 out of 36), are the people of Connecticut being properly represented?

Also, is it a conflict of interest when people who make their living directly off of the laws passed in the legislature, work in that legislature?  I believe so.

Lawyers, working within the legislature, have an incentive to keep the laws complicated, and complex, so that citizens will continue to need more and more "legal representation", as hundreds of new laws get presented every year in the state, and federal, government, making it harder for the average citizen to know the laws, and properly protect, and defend, himself against them, thus needing a lawyer.

If, for instance, a simple change in the drug laws were made, where marijuana would be legalized, or decriminalized, as the majority of Americans believe it should be, it may free many people from the unjust bondage of the state, but it would also lead to many lawyers being out of, or lacking, work.  As one professor of law, Ilya Somin, stated, "The War on Drugs is, among other things, a full-employment program for criminal lawyers."

Of course not only criminal lawyers benefit from changes in the law, as Ilya Somin explains,

"In civil law, we have a massive tort law suit system and hundreds of state and federal regulatory agencies that issue mindbogglingly complex regulations that require interpretation by experts if you want to avoid costly liability. And of course we also have an extremely complex tax system that requires many people to hire tax lawyers if they want to keep the IRS off their backs."

The potential personal financial return that a lawyer may directly receive from changes to the law, in my opinion, has become too much a conflict of interest to be tolerated.

There are too many laws, and too many lawyers.