LONG SENTENCES COSTLY SOLUTION TO DRUGS

It's not that we approve of drug abuse. We don't.

And we do take a very dim view of armed robbery. Really, we
do.

But a 62-year prison sentence for using a BB gun to stick up a
pharmacy for prescription painkillers?

It seems like a lot to us.

Seventh Circuit Judge Jeff Davis sentenced Terry Vicars, 32, to 62
years in the state penitentiary for robbing a Walgreen's pharmacy in
Rapid City on July 19. Vicars got away with more than 2,000 tablets
of morphine and OxyContin, both highly addictive drugs.

Vicars will have to serve at least 75 percent of his sentence before
being eligible for parole, which means he'll be in prison for the
next 46 years. Since he'd be at least 78, if and when he gets out,
that's effectively a life sentence.

Vicars had a criminal history that included convictions for receiving
stolen property, possession of drugs with intent to deliver and
criminal conspiracy.

Then there's the BB gun, masquerading as a deadly weapon in the
commission of a robbery.

All of that is a strong argument for increasing his prison
time.

The question is, how much?

In many jurisdictions, people who commit murder or manslaughter get
less prison time than 45 years. Certainly, drunk drivers who cause
death and destroy lives with a car get a mere fraction of that prison
time.

Vicars' weapon of choice was a gun which, as our mothers always told
us, "could put an eye out."

Obviously, he didn't go into Walgreen's with the intention, much less
the ability, to kill anyone.

What he did go in to that store with is an addiction to drugs. He'll
go to prison with one, too.

We taxpayers can either pay to keep drug addicts in prisons for the
rest of their lives, or we can choose to spend more of our state and
federal prison budgets to treat drug abuse not only as a crime, but
also as the health issue that it is.

While we think Vicars should spend some serious time behind bars,
we'd most like to see that time tied to treatment of his drug
addiction. Maybe, just maybe, if it was, he might become a
conributing member of society instead of a drain on it.

We aren't soft on crime, nor do we think the Walgreen's robber should
get a slap-on-the-wrist sort of prison sentence.

But 62 years?