Drugs make me gamble.
I need to gamble to pay for them..
On that note, drink makes me gamble too

THAT'S why I run so much! I have restless leg syndrome!

I'm going to fill you wise-guys in on a little something... but, first, I'm going to tell you that I've been the foremost critic of my mother, Christine Jaeger, in this gambling case, even surpassing the D.A. However, my sentiments don't diminish her case; so let me help you get the facts straight before you go running to the tables with a bottle of Mirapex in hand.

First of all, I imagine you read a copy of this story from the AP Wire, which has gross amounts of relevant information removed from the contents (perhaps for financial/advertising reasons?). To see the original story, before it was chopped up, go to the Oregonian's website.

Next, there is a detail that was omitted from the Oregonian that is very pertinent to critics of this case. When Jaeger was taking Mirapex, the companies (yes, plural) manufacturing, operating, licensing, and distributing the drug had not revealed the compulsive gambling side-effect. That didn't come until August of 2007. Big Pharma had known about these side-effects for a long time, but delayed informing consumers; much like how the cancer issue was handled by Big Tobacco and the schizophrenia side-effect was dealt with by Prozac. Well, the time of this information's release needs to be put in contrast with the fact that Jaeger's compulsive behavior began when she started taking Mirapex in 2000; gambling was a problem soon after, and had become a serious issue during the months of Jan.-Dec. of 2006. That's when the crimes were committed, and for the sole purpose of sitting in front of a slot machine. Checking those dates, you will see that the Jaeger had no reason to believe that Mirapex was causing her compulsion. Like so many Americans, she blindly believed what the "health-care professionals" told her. You can read more about the public announcement by the drug companies here.

Additionally, a fact that was omitted from the formal hearing, where Jaeger was sentenced to 120 days in the Clackamas County Restituion Center, to be held in custody (jail) of the Sheriff until a bed was available, five years of probation, and ordered to pay a sum of $233,000, was that Mirapex was originally designed to treat Parkinson's patients. This issue is significant because Parkinson's disease is caused by insufficient dopamine levels. So, what do you do when you don't have enough dopamine? You increase it, right? Well, that's how Big Pharma felt. Mirapex has been placed in the class of "Nonergot dopamine receptor agonist." Now, I don't expect people to be able to read clinical pharmacology, so, translating, that means that Mirapex will increase the availability of dopamine within the brain. Can you think of a couple other substances that increase dopamine levels? I'll name two that I'm sure gamblers are familiar with: cocaine and methamphetamines. If you understand the mood altering affects of these drugs, the compulsions they create, and how they tend to inhibit commonsense, you can figure out what kind of effect Mirapex can have on a person's behavior.
---a link noting Mirapex as a treatment for Parkinson's
---Mirapex's Clinical Pharmacology

Lastly, in addition, to Mirapex, Jaeger was taking Topamax for migraines. Topamax's "less serious side effects" include: slowed thinking, memory problems, trouble concentrating; problems with speech or balance; sleep problems (insomnia), (you can see more here). Well, I can attest to Jaeger's 12, 24, 36, and 48 hour trips to the casino that were spent (constantly) sitting in front of a slot machine. Now, I'm sure the "less-seriousness" of these side-effects makes you shrug your shoulders and label the issue a "stretch." Well, psychiatric professionals that are currently involved in research and case studies concerning the drug would prove you wrong. In fact, a professional witness did just that to the D.A. who took the same stance, and the prosecutor's argument began to diminish in front of the judge. The testimony provided by this authority revealed information about the two pharmaceuticals that could not be ignored by the court. Still, "pharmaceutical-induced stupidity" is not a plea, and it cannot exonerate a person from a crime; Jaeger was sentenced, and is repenting her actions.

On a side note, the D.A., despite his familiarity with the finer details in this case, remained poignant about "making an example" out of Jaeger as a deterrent for the community. After the defense noted that there can be no more cases like Jaeger's since the compulsive side-effects of Mirapex have been made public, the prosecutor's argument was quickly and incontestably proven to be based on fallacious reasoning.

I think Evan set the record for the longest comment ever. Lots of interesting points, but none of them excuse the crime. Period. The judge is simply fostering the "blameless" society we're becoming. If you do something wrong, you're not to blame. There's always a reason.

Well, she wasn't excused of the crime. A crime is an illegal action, and that was what occurred.

But, I have a scenario/analogy for you:

You're at the bar, and decide to order a drink. You get an AMF, and you know it's a pretty strong drink. You know that when you consume alcohol that you're going to have impaired thinking and abilities, but if you're paying attention to how much you're consuming, and know you're limits, you can keep it under control. But, after you turn your head to eye an attractive looking figure that just walked in the door, I slip a lil' something into your drink.
Now, you're already fully aware that this stuff is going to impair you're cognitive faculties, but you really have no idea what's in store for you tonight.
The last thing you remember is sitting down at the Video Poker machines 45 minutes later. In the course of your black out you've lost $3k, you made an ass out of yourself in your favorite bar by yelling at the bar tender needlessly and slobbering all over yourself, and you've got a black eye because you grabbed some girl's ass and her boyfriend laid you out. You wake up in the drunk tank at the county jail and they release you the next day.
"Shit!" you think to yourself, I'm going to have to be more careful next time. Later that night, you decide you're gonna skip your trip to the bar, and just stop in for a bite to eat at the local diner. I happen to be there again, and, although you decide not to drink, I slip the stuff in your food after you get up to go to the bathroom. The same kind of scene follows from the night before.
You're not really sure what's happening.
It doesn't matter what you do for the next year tho, because the same thing repeats itself night at after night. If you only knew why all of this was happening you could do something to stop it, but you don't... so you can't. Now, you're really in trouble...

Well, that scenario has some hyperbole compared to Jaeger's situation, but it is essentially the same. You would think you could trust your waiters and bartenders. She thought she could trust the doctors and the pharmacy. You never noticed me or thought I was to blame, and she never really noticed the drug manufacturers or thought she couldn't trust them. You went out a lot, and she took a lot of pills. You had no idea what was causing the problem, and neither did she. Now you're both in trouble. Wouldn't you like responsible party to be exposed and held accountable?... I think you would.

Sorry, Evan... but here's the HUGE flaw in this defense. The drugs side effects did not include an increased desire to embezzle. This wasn't a rash act. This was a planned theft. She didn't take the pills and then suddenly decide to write checks to herself. And then take pills and suddenly decide to cash those checks. And then take pills and suddenly decide to gamble that money. It's a bad defense. It removes the responsibility from the person who should be taking it. She's a thief. And the drugs didn't turn her into one.