Columnist Ruthe Deskin: ‘Shopaholism’ a fast track to success?

Ruthe Deskin

Thursday, June 7, 2001 | 8:21 a.m.

Ruthe Deskin is assistant to the publisher. Reach her at deskin@ lasvegassun.com.

The ruling of a federal district judge in Chicago in favor of a woman addicted to shopping presents all kinds of possibilities.

According to a story in Time magazine, Elizabeth Roach, 47, embezzled $241,061 from her former employer. Because she had repaid the money, she did not receive the expected jail sentence. Instead, the judge gave her five years' probation, six months of weekends confined to her home, six weeks in a Salvation Army work-release program and a $30,000 fine.

Her defense? She is a "shopaholic." She stole the money because she is addicted to buying. The judge decided that she suffered from "diminished mental capacity" and that her shopping sprees were attempts to "self-medicate" her depression.

How about that as an answer to an irate husband when the better half maxes out a credit card on "frivolous purchases"?

Prosecutors pointed out that defendants could now argue they stole because they couldn't help themselves, and hundreds would be expected to take the "shopaholic" defense.

Roach's buying included a $7,000 belt buckle and a $30,000 London jaunt. She lost her $l50,000-per-year job at the company she swindled. She now has a similar job that pays $175,000.

Who says crime doesn't pay?

The high cost of prescription drugs is not just a problem for seniors. Young adults, families and the elderly are all affected.

We have all heard the stories of seniors who must choose between life-saving medicines and other needs. Remember the devastating flood a few years back that destroyed residences in a mobile-home park? I recall the story of one lady who lost her uninsured home. She had a $400-a-month drug bill and had to choose between life-saving medicines or insurance.

The media is swamped with advertisements for drugs.

"Ask your doctor" is the common phrase of pharmaceutical companies as they tout relief for everything from allergies to impotence.

The average citizen does not have insurance for prescription drugs, and those who do usually find the co-pay almost prohibitive.

Consumers are trying to find ways to cut the costs. Many are doing more than just "asking the doctor if the drug is right for you." They are getting educated. Now they ask, "Is there a generic or an older brand-name which would be an effective substitute?"

Making the trip to Canada or Mexico, where many prescription drugs sell for half the price, is an alternative, but there is no guarantee that the prescriptions are properly filled.

One has to wonder why the same drugs are not available in the United States at the prices quoted in Canada and Mexico.

Drug companies blame rising costs on research. Could the cost of expensive advertising on television and in the print media also be a factor?

Both federal and state governments are looking at solutions, but few are holding much hope for easing prescription pains.

Ironic, isn't it?

Think of all the tests and examinations that are given for even the most menial of jobs, yet the Legislature passes a bill allowing dentists from out of state to practice without passing state exams.