Larry Inman Sheds Light on Opioids Treatment

In this Detroit News article, indicted local lawmaker Larry Inman talks about the treatment that he received for opioid addiction. Inman claims that he’s not guilty for asking for bribes because he had an opioid addiction. But his addiction is not so bad that he can’t be a good state rep, or so he says. He’s really in the sweet spot of addicted so no accountability, but not addicted so power/money/influence. Accountability and power/money/influence should always go hand in hand but let’s stay on topic.

Inman makes a comment that’s quoted in the article that I find pretty interesting.

Inman says, “I’m grateful to be alive, grateful that I met the forensic doctor, grateful that I got my head clear, and I’m clean and ready to go.

The forensic doctor.

Is he talking about meeting the expert witness that will ultimately testify on his behalf? They are called forensic doctors. Was that his opioid treatment —  preparing an expert defense for court? What was the treatment part of his treatment? Inpatient? Outpatient? How many treatment sessions? Consisting of what? What does he do today to maintain his sobriety? Does he go to meetings? Inman doesn’t talk about any more specifics of his treatment other than that he knows he’s “clean and ready to go” as if sobriety isn’t a struggle to maintain on a daily basis.

Did Inman really treat an opioid addiction, or did he line up an expert witness as part of a defense strategy? Maybe we’ll get to find out if/when the case goes to trial.

Please follow and like us:

1 thought on “Larry Inman Sheds Light on Opioids Treatment”

  1. There are supposed to be stickers on the bottle that warn against driving or operating other heavy machinery operation due to impairment, but they don’t warn against legislating. Nor do they warn against accepting bribes while under the influence.

    Does there need to be an “Inman sticker”? I think the blog operator needs to mock up and post a prototype. Don’t forget the fine print that says “This means you, Larry Inman”..

    I’ll bet there are a lot of politicians who would like to use a “Coke, Hookers and Booze” defense for their actions. Who knew it was an option? Cooke to the rescue.

    This really doesn’t seem much different than the alcoholic who chooses to drive drunk. Though they may be entirely blotto at the time they decide to drive drunk, they are still held fully accountable for their actions.

    If there are loopholes in the law, they must be closed.

    On the tangent of uneven justice, recall when Cooney vigorously prosecuted a woman who had nanogram levels of pot metabolite in her blood, from use many days or even weeks prior. The levels were near the limit of detection and would not impair her in any way. If she’d had a medical pot card, there would have been no basis for prosecution, etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *