Lootifer wrote:
Asserting leftist ideals being responsible here is both ignorant and somewhat insulting. You dont defraud $200m because you're high, you defraud $200m 'cause you're a c**t [in a right wing section of society that incentivises this kind of behavior]. You then go and spend your $200m on coke.
I couldn't stop thinking about this one over the last couple weeks, so if you would be so kind as to explain a little better, because I would like to know how we can be 180 degrees apart on something as simple as addiction, regardless of what it is. As you know I would call it a no brainer that addiction makes a person do things one might not normally do and take risks a person might not normally take. Sure, he probably still would have been defrauding investors if he did not have a drug problem, but having the drug problem caused him to defraud even further in his business activities
People who have addiction issues, I would opine, go a lot further in their risk (defrauding). Not to mention, being high all the time does not exactly make for a clear mind. No way was he thinking straight. And when you are already breaking the law doing drugs, it makes breaking the law in other areas all the more easy.
