Slashdot Mirror


The Germs' Drummer Arrested For Carrying Soap

dwrugh writes "The drummer for the seminal punk band The Germs, Don Bolles, was arrested in Orange County because a field-test kit indicated his bottle of Dr. Bronner's soap contained GHB, the date-rape drug. (Here is an interview with Bolles.) Using the same test kit, available on the web for $20 for a pack of 10, according to Bolles' attorney on NBC this morning, other soaps tested positive for GHB. But of course since it's just soap, when you test it in a real crime lab it comes back negative. Makes you wonder what other common household products also test positive, and how many others have been arrested based on faulty test kits who didn't have the resources to defend themselves."

384 comments

  1. Lexicon Devil by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Germs. Heh. Haven't listened to them since high school. You can only play G.I. (their only good album) so many times until the lead singer's grating voice just becomes completely unbearable. Great music though.

    On a tangent only marginally related to the topic ... does anyone else find today's breed to pseudo-punk-acting bands just too funny for words? I don't follow modern music too much but have seen some music videos here and there and it cracks me up how all these new bands play this completely cheesepuff light rock ballad crap and have faux-hawks and punk-ish clothing and slam around like they're belting out hardcore. It's just so silly to see a bunch of guys jumping around acting like they're so tough and like the music is so raw all the while playing Justin Timberlake-esque fluff. I just couldn't do that with a straight face, I wonder how they manage it.

    The Germs were the REAL DEAL, the lead singer would spread peanut butter on his naked chest while cutting himself with a broken bottle on stage. They didn't just looked the part, they sounded the part too, with some of the rawest late-70's-hardcore-punk around.

    Now to the topic at hand - so what. Not every test is 100% reliable. False positives exist. This is a headline story for what reason exactly?

    And for the obligitary Slashdot tongue-in-cheek comment: I don't see how having GHB in soap is helping anyone. If you've already convinced your date to take a shower with you the GHB is kind of redundant ...

    1. Re:Lexicon Devil by mochan_s · · Score: 5, Funny

      ... does anyone else find today's breed to pseudo-punk-acting bands just too funny for words?

      It's called getting old.

    2. Re:Lexicon Devil by X43B · · Score: 4, Funny

      "does anyone else find today's breed to pseudo-punk-acting bands just too funny for words? .....
      The Germs were the REAL DEAL, the lead singer would spread peanut butter on his naked chest while cutting himself with a broken bottle on stage."

      Yeah spreading peanut butter on your naked body while cutting yourself makes you really anti-establishment. :) I bet no one was laughing at that.

    3. Re:Lexicon Devil by errxn · · Score: 1

      ... does anyone else find today's breed to pseudo-punk-acting bands just too funny for words? If by "funny," you mean "pathetic," then yes.
      --
      In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
    4. Re:Lexicon Devil by symes · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Completely agree with your sentiments on 'real' versus 'pseudo' punk. Punk, as I remember it, was partly a reaction against mainstream... mainstream music ("All that phoney beatlemania has bitten the dust", The Clash), authority, etc.. These days, being a bit anti is the new mainstream so modern punk, if it sticks to the founding philosophy, is, by definition, mainstream. Or something like that.

      Now to the topic at hand - so what. Not every test is 100% reliable. False positives exist. This is a headline story for what reason exactly? There's going to be some varience here - some tests are better than others. I guess the problem is where you have sloppy tests in the wrong hands being used ineffectively to adversley affect someone's life.
    5. Re: Lexicon Devil by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah spreading peanut butter on your naked body while cutting yourself makes you really anti-establishment. You'll find the Establishment all to happy to sell you as much peanut butter as you want to buy.
      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re:Lexicon Devil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darby Crash was only about ten years too late. Iggy Pop did all that a lot earlier.

    7. Re:Lexicon Devil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elitist pig.

    8. Re:Lexicon Devil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wouldn't say the germs are the real deal anymore, since their old drummer got caught with soap.

      But seriously, there are real, awesome punk bands out there now... but of course you have to look for them.

      And some old-ish bands never broke up, like Raw Power and Gauze.

    9. Re:Lexicon Devil by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was 14 when I hitchhiked from Chicago to Cleveland to see Iggy and the Stooges at the Agora Ballroom. He smeared himself with peanut butter and rolled around on stage in the broken glass from all the beer bottles that were thrown at him, then jumped into the audience covered in blood and Skippy's, screaming the chorus from Search and Destroy ("I am the world's forgotten boy, the one who searches to destroy..."). It was the greatest rock-n-roll show I've ever seen, and that includes Hendrix, The Who, The Clash, you name 'em.

      It was one of the formative experiences of my life. I'm fuzzy on the details, but I think I may have eaten human flesh that night. The only shows that ever came close to that were Pere Ubu, King Sunni Ade, Rockpile, James Brown five nights in a row at the Chicago Theatre and The Cramps down in the basement at Mother's. I've tried to pass on these tales to my daughter from the time she was a toddler, hoping that they wouldn't fade into the mists of legend. When she was 7 she knew all the words from Fun House, and I've got an old video of her singing "I got a right" at age 8. Now at 19, poised and ladylike, she's a delicate flower, but if she ever were to meet Justin Timberlake, she'd kick his ass for him just for being a poseur. I'm so proud.

      Punk rock was mostly bogus, but Iggy was the Real.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:Lexicon Devil by symbolic · · Score: 1

      Or getting wise.

    11. Re: Lexicon Devil by Deagol · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just don't buy the shit with E. coli -- nasty results when placed on open wounds.

    12. Re:Lexicon Devil by Yoooder · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just because trends and styles change doesn't mean they always change in the right direction. The way I see it is that a few years ago there were metrosexuals, pop-punk bands, and emo bands. They realized that individually they were weak, but together they could hold their own (with the exception of the emo's, they're still looking all sad in the corner.

    13. Re:Lexicon Devil by ottothecow · · Score: 1

      Anyone have a torrent of that album? It would be great to hear it again.

      --
      Bottles.
    14. Re:Lexicon Devil by TroopaCabra · · Score: 0

      I somehow doubt it is just 'getting old'. It's more marketing now. Cookie cutter pop bands with their image created for them. ...the kids just love it and buy it right up.

    15. Re:Lexicon Devil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... does anyone else find today's breed to pseudo-punk-acting bands just too funny for words?

      For the most part, yes. However, if you want to stretch the definition of "today" to mean "ten years ago", AFI put out some absolutely astounding shit--check out Black Sails in the Sunset, The Art of Drowning,All Hallows (EP, not a full album) and some of their pre-Black Sails stuff (A Single Second, A Winter's Tale and a few other songs, most of which can be found on their self-titled compilation album.)
       
      It's not "pure" punk; in the case of The Art of Drowning it might not even be punk at all (in the classic sense of the word), but when you hear the drums, the blistering vocals, the tempo-shredding bridges and thunderous WHOA OOOOOH OH! (yes, it looks stupid in text) gothic-chorus refrains, you won't care. It's as if someone took the best of grunge and post-grunge sound, fused it back into punk and gave the whole thing a gothic flair. Yes, gothic... I tend to describe it as "emo that doesn't suck", which the kind of oxymoron that makes your head want to implode yet it's somehow true. It's as if someone took the *idea* of angsty "emotional punk" and, instead of turning out watery diarrhea that has more in common with Britney Spears than real punk, they turned instead to grunge for their darker inspiration and they still never lost an ounce of their punk intensity (well, Art of Drowning wasn't as punk but the drums and tempos still a power that goes way beyond grunge or thrash.)

      Note that none of this applies to Sing the Sorrow or Winter Underground--they've lost their punk edge *entirely* and what's left can be charitably called "pretty decent."

      I never got into the punk *scene* itself, so I guess I don't have a real overarching point here other than "check out AFI". To me, it represents a lost opportunity, the direction punk COULD have evolved towards. Instead, we have emo/pseudo-emo and bands like AFI and Green Day that have abandoned punk entirely. It's just sad...

    16. Re:Lexicon Devil by heinousjay · · Score: 3, Funny

      Exactly. The only people in the history of the world to have minds of their own are your generation. This 'your' of course refers to every reader individually, since everyone seems to have it in their head that their taste is somehow objectively better. I don't get it, but then again, I only fake being arrogant on Slashdot. If I were arrogant in real life, I might have a deeper understanding of the mindset.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    17. Re:Lexicon Devil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how many times RP have played "State Oppression" over the years. They probably should have broken up long ago, there wasn't really anywhere to go after "Screams from the Gutter" except down.

    18. Re:Lexicon Devil by plate+of+felt · · Score: 1

      the lead singer would spread peanut butter on his naked chest while cutting himself with a broken bottle on stage

      As punk as that may be, I think he was copying Iggy Pop.

    19. Re:Lexicon Devil by mr_mischief · · Score: 2, Funny

      I bet it wasn't antibacterial soap, though.

    20. Re:Lexicon Devil by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      "the lead singer would spread peanut butter on his naked chest while cutting himself with a broken bottle on stage"

      Wasn't Iggy Pop doing that like 5 years earlier?

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    21. Re:Lexicon Devil by Petra_von_Kant · · Score: 1
      Thank heavens there's another parent that has inculcated their child with an understanding of "proper" music. Sounds like our daughters at least will carry it all a little further than the current generation of pussies are doing.


      Was listening to Iggy's Lust for Life when I clicked on this story, just after Can your Pussy do The Dog ?..... great days



      "You've got a chart filling a whole wall with interlocking pathways
      and reactions to shock and the researcher says "If I can just control
      this one molecule/enzyme/compound I'll stop the whole negative
      physiologic cascade of post haemorrhagic shock." Yeah, right."

    22. Re:Lexicon Devil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes because there certainly wasn't anything like that in say the '60s.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkees

    23. Re:Lexicon Devil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a beautiful comment. Cheers mate!

    24. Re:Lexicon Devil by pilybaby · · Score: 1

      "You wanna know what I think Alternative music is? Jocks, with punk rock haircuts." - MJK

    25. Re: Lexicon Devil by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 1

      Best comment ever on Slashdot.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    26. Re: Lexicon Devil by krnpimpsta · · Score: 1

      Stewie: Estaaaaablishment, Estaaaablishment...

      --

      New webcomic updated on Sundays: HERE

    27. Re:Lexicon Devil by bitingduck · · Score: 1

      Punk rock was mostly bogus, but Iggy was the Real. And even did some stage diving for his 60th birthday.
    28. Re:Lexicon Devil by operagost · · Score: 1

      I'm certain Iggy used Nutella.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    29. Re:Lexicon Devil by pkbarbiedoll · · Score: 1

      Sure - it's usually on http://punktorrents.com/

    30. Re:Lexicon Devil by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I went to see him with the Stooges last week when he came through Chicago. It appears that past a certain boundary condition, the rock-n-roll lifestyle really can keep you young. I think some research should be done.

      If it doesn't kill you first.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    31. Re:Lexicon Devil by namekuseijin · · Score: 1

      "the lead singer would spread peanut butter on his naked chest while cutting himself with a broken bottle on stage."

      does he also make music eventually?

      gawsh, people just love stupidity...

      --
      I don't feel like it...
    32. Re:Lexicon Devil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell me, how deep was that snow through which you walked uphill to school every day?

    33. Re:Lexicon Devil by ottothecow · · Score: 1

      too bad their signups are closed :(

      --
      Bottles.
    34. Re:Lexicon Devil by tsdw · · Score: 1

      The Cramps down in the basement at Mother's. Oh yeah I remember those shows ..you are talking about High street at OSU right? I was mainly into the more 'mainstream' punk/new age at mean mr mustards, but I'd go to Mothers sometimes .. good times

    35. Re:Lexicon Devil by TroopaCabra · · Score: 0

      So do you disagree that there is way too much cookie cutter music out there? That was my point. Not being arrogant, but IMO- Radio isn't getting any better. Green day is not punk. Boy bands are not really bands since none of them play instruments and I doubt many of them today write their own music. What about the HEAVY radio stations? Can I not get a majority vote on this one? COOKIE CUTTER all the way from city to city. It IS a different ballgame for the current generation. Why? This is just my opinion, but I think the 1996 Telecom Act made it harder for independent broadcasters to compete. The act allowed broadcast companies to own an increased number of stations within each market. "Modern Rock" is now owned by a handfull of large companies. The end result IMO is cookie cutter products. I don't care if people like the products, but call it what it is at least.

  2. its Official... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Slashdot has turned into Fark....

    1. Re:its Official... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually manufacture GHB in my garden shed and sell it on the black market and im really getting a kick out of all these replies.

    2. Re:its Official... by Chmcginn · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      That will only be particularly true when mods get the power to delete GNAA posts instead of just modding them down.

      --
      Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  3. Best. Headline. Ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Best. Headline. Ever...

    1. Re:Best. Headline. Ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Don't forget Botnet On Botnet Action.

    2. Re:Best. Headline. Ever. by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      When I first read it I thought they were talking about S.O.A.P. (*&^$*&$% snakes on a *&@%^&% plane)

      But this is funnier.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    3. Re:Best. Headline. Ever. by cgenman · · Score: 1

      I would have been suspicious too.

      A drummer? With soap? Something was up.

  4. It sounds like... by GregPK · · Score: 3, Funny

    A very slippery situation. :)

    1. Re:It sounds like... by thewiz · · Score: 4, Funny

      No need to worry; it'll all come out OK in the wash.

      --
      If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
    2. Re:It sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soap ? a rape drug ? That would explain this strange thing I do in my shower...

  5. Gives a whole new meaning to... by geekinaseat · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dropping the soap

  6. Why is this on Slashdot... in IT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is a borderline Slashdot story anyway, but why is it in the IT section where it clearly does not belong? Science? Maybe. IT? No.

    1. Re:Why is this on Slashdot... in IT? by larry+bagina · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      especially since slashdot readers aren't exactly known for their cleanliness.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  7. Careful... by reset_button · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Don't drop the soap!

  8. It's not a matter of resources... by Bert+the+Turtle · · Score: 1, Informative

    As the original poster says, the sample is sent off to a proper lab for testing. Cheapo field test kits don't go to court, so the original poster's comment about people having resources to defend themselves is inaccurate.

    1. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by badfish99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, TFA says that Bolles spent 3 days in jail, presumably waiting for the results of a test.

      I've been stopped for a broken tail light in my country, and the police certainly did not use this as an excuse for searching my car. Is it usual in your country for people to be imprisoned for so long on so little evidence, after so minor a motoring offence?

    2. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by Nutria · · Score: 1
      I've been stopped for a broken tail light in my country, and the police certainly did not use this as an excuse for searching my car. Is it usual in your country for people to be imprisoned for so long on so little evidence, after so minor a motoring offence?

      You missed the part of the article which mentions that the trooper noticed the Bolles trying to hide a wooden box.

      That's a Suspicious Action which people do when they're trying to hide something illegal. If he'd have kept his cool, and not tried to hide his box full of pot, the trooper probably wouldn't have had a reason to search the car.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    3. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually yes, the police use any pretext to search your car and person. It usually goes like this:

      Officer: Do you have any illegal drugs or weapons in the car?
      Citizen: No.

      Officer: Then you don't mind me searching your vehicle then?
      Citizen: Well actually I do mind.


      At this point, the police will either 1)make up probable cause or 2) just bring in a drug dog, who, by the way, will *always* indicate (which means that the dog allegedly smells something). Inexplicably, SCOTUS does not consider a drug dog to be an unreasonable search. Go figure.

      Either way, they will then search you and your car. Since they're already pissed because you insisted upon your having your rights observed, there's a good chance that they will plant something on you. If you're lucky, they won't, but I wouldn't count on it.

    4. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by DCheesi · · Score: 1

      It depends. "Soccer moms" and cute girls will get a warning and a smile; other "normal" people will get a ticket; but "suspicious" looking individuals (like rock musicians) will get the full treatment, and most don't know their rights well enough to avoid a search. And if they really want you, they can always lie and make up an excuse to search...

    5. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In Lake County, Colorado, USA, we had a guy many people nicknamed, "Officer Tail-Light". Every week the local paper would have 10+ column inches dedicated to Officer Tail-Light and his stops, which all started with a stop for a broken tail-light and ended up with busts for DUI, drug possession, or being criminally stupid. He was so successful, the entire local LEA culture adopted his methods. (In spite of the fact that he was later busted for running a used car business without a retail license.)

    6. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by grassy_knoll · · Score: 5, Funny

      However, TFA says that Bolles spent 3 days in jail, presumably waiting for the results of a test.

      I've been stopped for a broken tail light in my country, and the police certainly did not use this as an excuse for searching my car. Is it usual in your country for people to be imprisoned for so long on so little evidence, after so minor a motoring offence?


      To be fair to the police, he was acting suspiciously.

      police: "A drummer.... with soap? S'yah right! Must be drugs, you dirty hippy!"

      [badum-ching]

    7. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Inexplicably, SCOTUS does not consider a drug dog to be an unreasonable search. Go figure.

      The USSC (SCOTUS) considers the article 1, section 8 enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce ["among the several states"] to be the foundation of a rationale to regulate intrastate commerce. It considers the highly public listing of citizens as criminals to "not be punishment." It approves ex post facto laws without blinking an eye. It punts regularly on the government's blatant favoring of religion by law (fed and state.) It allows wiretapping without a warrant (and don't get me started on FISA.) It allows breaking into your home without notice. It allows theft of your home and property for any purpose whatsoever. It has had absolutely no problem turning consensual, personal, victimless choices into crimes.

      Clearly, the USSC is long past being a useful institution, made up of shills for special interest groups (one of which is the government itself, of course.) It has zero problems pronouncing that black is white and night is day. This should not be a surprise, however, as the number of unauthorized government actions - meaning, absolutely unconstitutional - has skyrocketed in the past half century or so across the entire government structure, judicial, executive, and legislative. The USSC is just one part of an entirely corrupt and out of control government.

      Remember to vote so you can pretend you have an effect on all this. That's what they want you to do. That, and complain. It vents the steam safely, as opposed to finding pissed off constituents at their doors. That is why freedom of speech is the least eroded right and will always remain so.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    8. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Oh, really? Are you SURE the sample is sent off to a lab?

      I knew an inmate at Leavenworth who was contesting his conviction for several reasons - a search warrant with a "judge's" signature in the handwriting of the arresting officer was one reason. Another reason was the search warrant was based on confiscated material which was allegedly sent to a lab and identified as drugs.

      Only the inmate contacted the lab - and the lab never heard of that case and said so in writing.

      The inmate had a cheapo lawyer - which is about not having the resources to hire a good one. So he had to do the field work from prison that his lawyer should have done.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    9. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, yes. These are how things are done in America now, especially in LA and Orange County.

    10. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by spiritraveller · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, it is true. America is a police state. Freedom and equal protection are just ideas here. We have them on paper, but no one really believes in it.

      Here in Georgia we have a guy sitting in prison because when he was 17 he received consensual oral sex from a 15 year old classmate.

      His sentence? Ten years. No parole.

      It was the minimum sentence allowed for "aggravated child molestation." Aggravated, because oral sex is "sodomy."

    11. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Several years ago, in Pittsburgh, a local college student was carrying a couple of pounds of powdered vitamins on an airplane. I have no idea why he was doing something so stupid, but when he was searched, they found approx 1 kilogram of a white powdery substance. The field test was positive for cocaine, so the guy was locked up. It took several months before they had a proper lab test done and verified that indeed it was vitamins and dropped the charges but not before the guy had to pay bail, attorney's feet and get his face plastered all over the news

      The wheels of justice grind slowly.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    12. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 5, Funny

      At this point, the police will either 1)make up probable cause or 2) just bring in a drug dog

      I'd just *loooooove* for them to try and search my car with a drug dog. I suspect the combination of four different kinds of leaking oil (engine, gearbox, diff and hydraulic), engine cleaner, brake cleaner, carb cleaner, hydraulic system flush, hydraulic system solvent cleaner *and* my rigger boots in a bag in the boot would probably send it over the edge. Hydrocarbon olfactory nightmare.

      If you ever see a retired police dog with a nervous twitch and a fondness for Jefferson Airplane, you know it's happened.

    13. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe you're paranoid, maybe your experiences are different than mine, but I have had occasion to refuse a "consent search" on several occasions.

      Out of the 5 or 6 times it's happened to me, the P.O. let it drop at that. In the last case, he said he could get a warrant if we didn't consent, and in that case, he had probable cause regardless.

      I don't doubt that there are bad cops out there, but you imply that they all are, and that's demonstrably false.

      But then again, this is /. where we're all anti-establishment just for anti-establishment's sake. Don't let facts sway you though.

    14. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by Puff+Daddy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Umm... they didn't find any pot, remember? Unless the officer, after seeing the box being hidden, chose not to search it, it most certainly did not contain any marijuana. Seems to me that "box full of pot" you're talking about is more a "person full of shit" talking out their ass.

    15. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by krotkruton · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ok, you're right that all of that is possible, but I really don't think it is the norm. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but iI really don't think that every other (50%) person who refuses to allow for a search of a car then has the car searched anyway by some abuse of power. What tends to happen (at least from people I know in the situation) is that the officers ask if they can search the vehicle, and then the normally rights-minded individual in the car allows it for some reason. I had a friend whose whole family did some drugs and loved to drink. His dad was also a lawyer and told him that he should never allow the police to search his car under any circumstances. He then told all of us the same thing, and we told everyone that we knew to be careful as well. Then one day the kid gets pulled over, and for some stupid reason lets the cops search his car, at which point they find some seeds on the floor.

      Another thing people tend to do is get scared when the cops say that you will be delayed as they need more time to process the information if you fail to allow a search or that now a dog will be called in. The problem here is that most people don't know that in many cases, you don't need to wait around. If the officer does not allow you to leave, then it's an unwarrented detention. You are not obligated to wait around for a drug dog to show up to sniff your car. Ask the officer, "Am I free to leave?" The answer is usually yes, whehter or not the cop lies to you, but I really think most will be honest with you if you ask the right questions. The problem is that they aren't obligated to be honest with you if you don't know which questions to ask. My lawyer friends have always told me that if I'm pulled over, be polite, but only crack your window enough to slip out your license and registration and don't say anything. You aren't obligated to speak to the officer at all. If he continues to ask questions, just repeat the phrase, "Am I free to leave?". Of course, repeating that phrase over and over might conflict with the "be polite" idea, so you have to use some judgement there.

      Inexplicably, SCOTUS does not consider a drug dog to be an unreasonable search.
      As for SCOTUS's opinion on this, I think they're closer to saying that a drug dog is not a search at all, so it can't be labelled as reasonable or unreasonable and they don't need probable cause. Of course, I didn't read that much about it so I could be misunderstanding the decision.

    16. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by Raptoer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The likely rationale behind the drug dog not being an unreasonable search is that the dog sniffs the air around your car, which is not your property. That and you cannot assume that drug dogs will always indicate a positive.

    17. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by karmatic · · Score: 1

      I _never_ consent to a search (not that I ever have anything illegal - it's the principle of the thing). I do tend to have weapons in the car (or on my person), but I declare them to the officer beforehand, and have never had that used as a justification for a search.

      I have had two illegal searches of my car - the first time, the officer said he saw me hide something and was very nervous. I ended up handcuffed in the back of the squad car while he searched my car. Nothing was found.

      I had a drug dog "alert" once, and had that used as grounds for a search. Nothing was found (it was a bogus reason).

      The most "fun" one was when I got pulled over late at night in Arizona (around 2AM). I turned on the dome light, hands on the steering wheel. When the officer came over, I cracked the window, and handed him my license and registration when asked. I was asked to step out, and to take a "field sobriety test", which I declined (these can't do anything but hurt you in court). I was detained (not free to go) until they got the drug dog, and went around the car several times. When the drug dog didn't alert, I was brought down to the station and given the choice of blowing into the breath analyzer (Intoxilyzer? infrared spectroscopy, IIRC), or having a search warrant drawn up for my blood. Given Arizona's "Implied Consent" law, I would have lost my license for refusing anyway.

      I blow straight 0s, and they let me go about 4AM. I get back, and my car's stereo was stolen.

    18. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by DavidTC · · Score: 4, Informative

      The real fun part of that story is that if he'd just had intercourse with her, he'd have been committing a misdemeanor and received a small fine. (Parental notification, really, being the point of that 'punishment'. Hey, parents, your 15 year old is having sex with this 17 year old. You might want to deal with that.) The age of consent here is 16, but if you're within 3 years of the same age and everyone's over, I think, 13, it's just a misdemeanor, subject to at most a year in jail, and that almost never happens. (And he's already served more than that.) And it's deliberately from being a 'sex offender' offense.

      Except, and apparently no one realized this, they made the age 16 for sex, but forgot to do the same thing to the 'sodomy' laws, because everyone had been operating as if those laws were dead letter. The courts have held that you cannot legislate the private behavior of adults, but, quite obviously, you can of kids, and those parts weren't dead letter. The sodomy section doesn't include any exception for three years age difference. And because apparently someone doesn't know what 'sodomy' is, oral sex is included in there. (Although it wouldn't be much better if it was just actual sodomy.)

      The Georgia Congress just fixed the law this, after this kid was found guilty, but didn't bother getting around to passing a 'And people arrested under the old law get should an adjustment of their sentence' statement. From what I understand, it wouldn't even have to be a law, just a statement that, on appeal, the courts should consider the new law. (Obviously, it can only do this if it's shortening the sentence.)

      There have been some damn stupid op-ed in the newspapers about it, too, people yammering about child molesters and stuff, because approximately 40% of the people in this state are meth- or religion-addled morons. Oh, don't get me wrong, the stupids aren't opposed to the new law, which has already passed, just opposed to retroactively shorting people's unjust sentences for some reason. Sometimes people in this state are complete fucking imbeciles. And with this paragraph, I ruin all chances of running for local office.

      And it is, literally, this one 17-year old guy, where some 15 year-old apparently got drunk at a party and decided to give him a blowjob. While the crime has obviously happened a lot, no one even realized the law could applied this way until it was, and the outcry fixed the law..

      If the legislature doesn't get off their ass and get Genarlow Wilson out of jail, people are doing to start trying to get the governor to pardon him.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    19. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      What the fuck are you people doing? I've been pulled over all of 4 times in my life- all of which were for legitimate traffic violations (2 speedings, 1 missing a no left turn sign at 3 am, 1 expired plate). Never been searched, never had the cop even hint they want to search me. Haven't had them do anything other than explain the situation and hand me the ticket. I don't believe for a second that you aren't doing something suspicious.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    20. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You missed the part of the article which mentions that the trooper noticed the Bolles trying to hide a wooden box."

      And you missed the part that nothing was found in the wooden box and he was innocent on that charge which *you* are now alleging. Oh, and you missed the part where an innocent person spent 3 days in jail.

      But let's play it your way. The wood box. Was moved. Okay...and did the nice police officer who searched *soap* also search the wooden box? What was in the wood box? Oh, that's right--nothing.

      btw, is "hide a wooden box" really "put away a wooden box"? Police have a way of re- and mis- construing events so that they can conduct their "work".

      Reminds me of an officer I had an experience with who was a complete dick, lied, then wanted me to sign the citation. I was the driver, in my vehicle. He was standing outside it, traffic stop style. I found it odd that he wouldn't hand me the ticket, keeping the pad over his right hip and never handing me the pen, waving it over the ticket about 3 feet out of the car window. I'm over six feet tall with an armspan matching and I can't even reach that far, much less sign a little box that way. I mentioned him to hand me the pen, he refused. This went on for a couple exchanges where I asked him to hand me the pen and ticket, getting no where.

      I mentioned this all to a lawyer, who turned around and said it was a good thing I didn't sign the ticket--it's called baiting. iow, reaching outside the vehicle->assault. Or if I unhook my seatbelt to reach--riding without a seat belt. Reaching for his right hip->going for gun. Or, in my case, never refusing to sign the ticket, getting the ticket noted as such anyways and it thrown in my face->magistrates locally look poorly on refusing to sign tickets for some reason. Note most people are right handed and in the US you drive on the left side, showing you the near impossibility of signing anything in that situation.

      "That's a Suspicious Action which people do when they're trying to hide something illegal."

      Thank you for admitting you're brainwashed. When did hiding something indicate illegal behavior? Maybe he was hiding his porno stash or his cash. Regardless, and again, this is clearly a typical "story" from police--how do you tell "moved box to typical location under seat" versus "hiding box." Reminds me of another time where an officer said I "looked guilty" because my hand shook when I opened the glove compartment to pull my reg and license papers (I was simply nervous).

      Let's say you're correct, and that all people hide stuff and ALL that stuff they hide is illegal. Then search the box. Oops, nope, they didn't search just the box, finding nothing, but tested SOAP. Limited suspicion isn't supposed to lead to everything being tested.

      "If he'd have kept his cool, and not tried to hide his box full of pot, the trooper probably wouldn't have had a reason to search the car."

      Yeah, because moving a box lands you 3 days in jail on a trumped up bullshit lie.

      The car shouldn't have searched in the first place. You also seem to have missed the entire issue here--this is misconstruing again by the police by choosing tests which have numerous false positives, leading to jailing of innocent individuals.

      No wonder our country is in the shits with people like you backing OUR rights.

    21. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by ktappe · · Score: 2

      people are doing to start trying to get the governor to pardon him.
      In Georgia, the governor does not have pardon power: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genarlow_Wilson#Legal _case.
      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    22. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      If he'd have kept his cool, and not tried to hide his box full of pot, the trooper probably wouldn't have had a reason to search the car.

      There was no "box full of pot". It's quite possible - likely, even - that the "suspicious action" is a complete fabrication on the art of the cop in question.

      According to TFA, "The officer got permission to search the vehicle". Never, never, never, never give your consent to a search. Don't do it. Ever. When you consent you give up your Fourth Amendment rights.

      Cops lie. They will tell you that things will go easier if you consent. It's bullshit.

      Instead, be calm, be nice, but flex your rights.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    23. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by metamatic · · Score: 1

      What the fuck are you people doing?

      Maybe they're black?

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    24. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      I don't believe for a second that you aren't doing something suspicious.

      Depending on where you are, "doing something suspicious" may include:

      • driving while Black
      • driving while Hispanic
      • driving while Asian
      • driving while having an hairstyle atypical to people in the area
      • driving while wearing clothing atypical to people in the area
      • driving with certain bumper stickers on your car
      • driving to certain polticial, artistic, spiritual, or social events
      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    25. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by MrLizardo · · Score: 1

      I can't believe you missed, "Driving a car that's not nice enough for the area, at the 'wrong' time of night." My friend had a really great one though: "Getting rear-ended by a white woman while being Asian and Hispanic." The real problem was the cops in that area never had anything better to do than harass people.

      --
      ^I'm with stupid.^
    26. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by Angry+Black+Man · · Score: 1

      Its called obstruction of justice followed by search incident to arrest.

      What it means is this: you refuse a search from a police officer. He arrests you for obstuction of a law enforcement officer. Note that this, by law, is an action which impedes on the investigation of a police officer. It can be justified by almost ANYTHING. Here in georgia it was used when a guy tried to take a picture of the police on a public street. It can refer to you being an asshole to the cop (most common), but not outside your rights. Basically, if a cop wants to arrest you for something but you havent really done anything wrong, he can find a way to allege obstruction of justice.

      Once you are arrested, a cop can search you and your car via search incident to arrest. If they find something, well great that obstruction charge just gets lost and you are a criminal cause they found something. If they dont find anything, you go to jail, go to court, get the charges dropped, and its all just a huge pain in the ass. Unless you live in fulton county (atlanta), in which case you go to jail, go to court, get the case dropped, then go back to jail and sit there for 3 days because fulton county is so badly understaffed.

      --
      the byproduct of years of oppression by the white man
    27. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by Angry+Black+Man · · Score: 1

      Dont forget another big one: driving while white through an all black neighborhood. In fact, this is a big one since cops assume that there is no reason for a white person to be in black neighborhoods other than to buy drugs.

      Here they will pull you over, put you in the backseat of their car with cuffs (although this does not mean you are arrested), and search your car without saying a word. I believe that certain areas are designated high drug areas which means that just by being in them there is probable cause for search. Either way, if they search your car and find something and it doesnt matter whether it was legal or not. Leave that up to the lawyers. If they search your car and dont find anything, well you shouldnt have been driving through that part of town anyway.

      --
      the byproduct of years of oppression by the white man
    28. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by holistah · · Score: 1

      Either way, if they search your car and find something and it doesnt matter whether it was legal or not. Leave that up to the lawyers. If they search your car and dont find anything, well you shouldnt have been driving through that part of town anyway.

      That's exactly right, and the thing that bothers me the most. They do whatever the hell they want, legal or not, with no reprecussions when it is not legal. The attitude is if they caught someone, good for them, if it turns out they harassed an innocent person, oh well.

    29. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by holistah · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's extremely common, and very often used as a dragnet.

    30. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by krotkruton · · Score: 1

      Yes, as I said before, I agree that that can happen. I'm also sure it has happened before and will happen again, but that doesn't make it the norm. While you may very well be hasseled (or in some cases, even "arrested") for refusing a search, that doesn't mean you will be convicted of anything or that the search will hold up in court. If the officer isn't acting in accordance with the law yet you do everything correctly, your chances of the search being dropped are pretty good. However, you're right that it can happen, and anybody can get screwed. Personally, I keep a mini tape recorder in my car in case something like this ever happens to me. And it's not that I'm a generally paranoid person, I don't think I will ever be in a situation where I would need that tape recorder, but that doesn't mean it can't happen to me.

    31. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by krotkruton · · Score: 1

      At first I thought you were joking, but there really wasn't anything funny. Claiming that because you've been pulled over 4 times and haven't been hassled must mean that everyone who gets hassled is doing something suspicious is just as stupid as the people who claim that every cop will hassle anyone they pull over just to get a ticket because that's what they've seen. It's known as a hasty generalization.

      As for what I was doing when the cops asked to search my car, I don't think I was doing anything suspicious. I live in a rural area outside of Chicago where the police don't have a lot to do. I'm not saying that they're lazy or anything (some are, some aren't just like every other job), but there really isn't much for cops to do but set up speed traps and catch drunk drivers. When the cops have that kind of mentality, they tend to go for anything they can find.
      I was pulled over twice out of state, once I got a speeding ticket and the other time a warning, neither time was I asked if they could search my car, but that's probably because both times I was on my way back from school and my car was packed. I have been pulled over 4 times in Illinois. I got one speeding ticket around 4 AM and was hassled a bit because I looked drunk at that time of night, but managed to convince the cop that I was just tired, which was the truth. Other than that, I was pulled over twice in high school. Once was because I had drove down a street a couple times which is somehow considered suspicious. We were just riding around trying to think of something to do. The cop asked to search my car, and I refused. After trying to convince me that I had to let him do it and failing, he gave up and let me go. The other time I was leaving a bowling alley to go to a party, and a cop started to follow me. The cop followed me for about 3 or 4 miles before pulling me over because the air freshener hanging from my rear view mirror was an obstruction of vision or something like that. She asked to search my car, and I refused, at which point she said she didn't care because she thought we were two kids who she saw taking some beer out of the back of a jeep but after seeing us up close, she knew we weren't the same kids so she was going to let us go, as if she didn't have to let us go anyway because she had no reason to detain us.

      Like the other guy said, there are a lot of ways to be "suspicious", and being young is one of them. Also, everytime I was pulled over for some reason other than speeding was when I was driving an old beat up car instead of something nicer that would blend in.

    32. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. Cops don't just hassle normal people. There's something more to the story than what a lot of these "victims" are claiming. - Posting Anon for Obvious Reasons

    33. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 1

      Personally, I keep a mini tape recorder in my car in case something like this ever happens to me.

      Yeah, well your mini tape recorder will probably get broken when you get pushed (oops, I mean fall) down the police station stairs.

    34. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What the fuck are you people doing?

      Since you ask, the last time that I got pulled over was with my wife while we were riding our road bikes on the country roads near where we live.

      They are very lightly traveled roads (probably 10 or so cars will pass us during a two-hour ride), so we were riding side-by-side when a large unrestrained dog who has been aggressive with us in the past began barking at us. Although state law permits bikes or motorcycles to be ridden side-by-side, we usually switch to single file when a car approaches from behind, but with our attention focused on the dog, we didn't see the two cars coming up behind us (one regular car followed by a county sheriff). Once we did see them (at most 30 seconds), we moved over and let them pass.

      The sheriff, all red-faced, pulled along side of us and shouted "you have pull off the road when cars come up behind you!" This is totally false; bicycles have the same right to the road as any other legal vehicle so I said, "That's not my understanding of the law."

      Well, since I had the nerve to disagree with his scholarly interpretation of the law, I was in for some general harassment.

      He starts going on about how we were impeding him while he's on official businessthe and how the law doesn't allow us to ride side-by-side and I keep saying that that's not my understanding of the law. He says that he doesn't know the exact statute but, if I give him my name and phone number, he will call me with it. I say that I'm not comfortable with giving him that information.

      By this time, another car has come up behind and the sheriff's car is blocking the oncoming lane, so I say, "in any event, I done talking to you, and besides, it looks like you're blocking traffic." Of course, this enrages him and he says something to the effect of "oh, so you think that you're funny?" I say, "what if I do, this isn't the Soviet Union."

      At this point, he he pulls up in front of us and gets out and I say, "am I under arrest, or am I free to go?" He says that he is detaining me to give me a ticket, demands my ID and proceeds to his trunk to get out his State Revised Code book to find something to charge me with. We sit there for fifteen minutes and he can't find anything, so he calls into HQ to see if they can figure something out.

      Listening to the police radio I could tell that they ran my ID and saw that it was clean. Then they realized that my wife is a prominent professional in town and I was a business owner. I assume that the person at HQ must have realized that they had a little problem on their hands and told the deputy that he better unfuck the situation. So he gets back out of the car and comes back with a whole different attitude saying that "it appears that we (meaning he and I) were both wrong." By that I guess that he meant that he was wrong about the law and I was wrong for insisting on having my rights.

      In any event, he let us go, but I couldn't help but wonder if it would have turned out so well if my wife and I weren't both 40-something, white, middle-class, with squeaky-clean records.

      I don't believe for a second that you aren't doing something suspicious.

      That attitude of yours is exactly how the police get away with this shit. After all if someone gets arrested they must be guilty, right? If someone gets pulled over, there must be a good reason, right? Or maybe it's possible that the police might detain two perfectly law-abiding people doing absolutely nothing illegal, demand to "see their papers" and try to find something to charge them with. And why? Because they had the temerity to insist upon their rights and to "talk back."

    35. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 1

      The likely rationale behind the drug dog not being an unreasonable search is that the dog sniffs the air around your car, which is not your property.

      I'm sure that when they wrote the Fourth Amendment, the Founding Fathers envisioned citizens being held until a dog can be brought to the area to sniff around your car to smell something that isn't detectable to the human police officers. Sorry, that's just bullshit. By that reasoning, they could search your house under the same pretext. At that point, all you need is a "cooperative" drug dog to manufacture probable cause and the police can search anyone anywhere.

      That and you cannot assume that drug dogs will always indicate a positive.

      But you can assume that the police will *say* that the dog indicated. What do you think happens if the dog indicates and the cops find nothing? Do you think that these stats are officially kept anywhere? No, they aren't. Actually, what is put in the report is that the dog found "lingering odors of contraband formerly in the vehicle." What are you going to do, depose the dog? In other words, there are no wrong answers.

    36. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Ah ha!

      I'd been wondering why he hadn't done so already, and why no one seemed to be pressuring him to do so yet.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    37. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by harl · · Score: 1

      What do you think happens if the dog indicates and the cops find nothing? Do you think that these stats are officially kept anywhere? No, they aren't. This is completely wrong. Do a search on it. Cases are starting to be thrown out due to defense lawyers getting the search ruled illegal due to poor dog records.[1]

      [1]http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b02d39965ba .htm

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
    38. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck are you people doing?
      Maybe they're black?


      Or have long hair. Or an older car. Or worse, white with a black passenger - in the eyes of the police, interracial friendships == drug abuse.

      I used to het hasssled all the time, then I got a haircut and a car manufactured in this century. Now I never get pulled over - except once last winter when my headlight was burned out. And then they let me go, after apologizing. And I know I was over .08 at the time!

    39. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I recall his van was pretty beat up. That's an excuse in Newport Beach. If you think that's bad try next door in Huntington Beach where Police will stop planting unloaded weapons, fake drugs and other props in unsuspecting civilians' cars as a way to help train officers to search vehicles, Chief Ken Small said Monday.

    40. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Clearly, the USSC is long past being a useful institution... The USSC is just one part of an entirely corrupt and out of control government.

      The sad thing is that your entire post is true, except the part about it not being useful, solely by virtue of being the least corrupt and out of control branch of government. It even occasionally stops some of the worst abuses of the other two branches of government with no outside prompting. It's kinda strange that this is mostly due to the Justices being unelected appointments for life. Yay democracy?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    41. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by umeboshi · · Score: 1

      Here they will pull you over, put you in the backseat of their car with cuffs (although this does not mean you are arrested) Actually you are arrested and the fact is being ignored by both you and the officer.
    42. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by Kelz · · Score: 1

      And even if he did, why would he want to be labeled as someone who pardoned a child molester by the same people who probably support these laws.

    43. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      I used to have long hair, and an older car (with a huge dent in it)... Got pulled over all the time (15 times in 5 years). Never got searched...

      Then I graduated, got a hair cut, and a newer (still used) car, been pulled over once since (still no search).

      If the profiling I experienced was that bad as a white male, I can't imagine what black people go through...

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    44. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 1

      What is completely wrong? In this case, drug dog statistics were *not* kept by Knox County, TN--they were culled from incident reports filed by the dog's PO handler and matched against convictions. Currently, only Florida requires that drug dog track records be kept (as a result of Florida v. Matheson).

      Good luck working this defense if you're poor because there's no way your public defender is going to subpoena all of those records and go through them. No, you'll have to hire a serious lawyer with a serious staff and it will result in some serious billable hours, so it's going to cost you some serious jack to stay out of jail.

    45. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck working this defense if you're poor because there's no way your public defender is going to subpoena all of those records and go through them. No, you'll have to hire a serious lawyer with a serious staff and it will result in some serious billable hours, so it's going to cost you some serious jack to stay out of jail. Yes that accurately describes just about any case in the USA legal system. If you're poor you're guilty. If you're middle class you're aquitted. If you're upper class you are rarely charged.
    46. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 1

      Yes that accurately describes just about any case in the USA legal system. If you're poor you're guilty. If you're middle class you're aquitted. If you're upper class you are rarely charged.

      That is unless some powerful politician or someone else with more suction than you can profit from you being fucked by the system.

      But at least if you're rich you have a shot--if they would have been poor, they would have been totally screwed.

    47. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Do you know something else? I don't know anymore than the article, but it DOES say:

      "and three misdemeanor marijuana possession and court order violation charges." in addition to the date rape drug charge.

      ~shrug~ I can't say if that' accurate or not though..

    48. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      If he plays his cards right, he could he swinging his way the massive in-favor-of-getting-blowjobs vote.

    49. Re:It's not a matter of resources... by karmatic · · Score: 1

      Driving around the country, in a vehicle with Arizona plates, and 100% tinting in the back (AZ legal).

      In some states (Montana, Wyoming, etc.) they pull me over to issue me speeding tickets (whether or not I'm actually speeding doesn't really matter). Fortunately, I've got a GPS tracking system in my car - it's really easy to prove I wasn't.

      In other states (CA, UT, etc.) - it seems that they are looking for drug runners (AZ plates, after all). I'm a 22 year old hispanic male, with a large truck, tinted windows, and AZ plates - pulling me over (even for a made up excuse) gives them a chance to look at me and inside the truck.

  9. Do your job "editors" by MaelstromX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Editors, I wish you'd take five seconds to review what you are putting up. TFA is from April 11 (that's eleven days ago), and since then he has been released. A discussion of the faultiness of field testing methods might be in order but you need to properly set the stage for said discussion, otherwise it gets derailed when people get alarmed about the fact that somebody is sitting in jail right now for a mistake and then somebody (in this case me) has to come and point out that the whole thing has actually been resolved.

    1. Re:Do your job "editors" by eli+pabst · · Score: 1
      It says he was release on bail about 1/2 way down the article:

      He was released on $2,500 bond, but not before an Internet plea went out for help in raising money to post bond
    2. Re:Do your job "editors" by fermion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, according the parent, it is perfectly acceptable to put someone in jail on faulty evidence. I like this thinking. We can use all our resources arresting and holding persons with no intent of committing a crime, while allowing alleged terrorist to walk free. After all the most important thing to make people feel like the government is protecting them, not provided verifiable protection.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    3. Re:Do your job "editors" by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      The matter has not been resolved. It will happen again and again until we demand that they put a stop to it. These people are using every pretense in the book to harass people and extort money and rob them of their time. It will be resolved when the practice is abolished and not a moment before. The abuse will continue.

      --
      What?
    4. Re:Do your job "editors" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the cops should only be able to arrest people after they're convicted?

      John

    5. Re:Do your job "editors" by MaelstromX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sorry, while this story is upsetting, I'm not really outraged when somebody is falsely arrested, as long as they are not falsely convicted, and as long as the basis for the arrest was honest and without any malice or impropriety. I certainly would like to see the number of innocent people arrested minimized, and in that sense maybe we can learn something about how field testing methods can be less than reliable, and maybe in certain cases their findings should have to be corroborated before they can be used to arrest somebody. I was just kind of annoyed that the detail of "this person's situation has been totally resolved" was not included in the writeup.

      By the way, it looks like this all fell down on him because he consented to a search of his vehicle. Take note, Slashdotters: you will never benefit by forfeiting your 4th amendment right to not be searched without a warrant, and the fact that you're not knowingly breaking any laws shouldn't make you feel like there's no way you can get arrested. Clearly, we've seen this is not the case.

    6. Re:Do your job "editors" by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      After all the most important thing to make people feel like the government is protecting them, not provided verifiable protection.

      Well, since the government can't protect you, but voters demand they do so anyway, they really have no choice but to pretend. Being honest with voters is a sure way to lose elections.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    7. Re:Do your job "editors" by jimicus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry, while this story is upsetting, I'm not really outraged when somebody is falsely arrested, as long as they are not falsely convicted, and as long as the basis for the arrest was honest and without any malice or impropriety. I certainly would like to see the number of innocent people arrested minimized, and in that sense maybe we can learn something about how field testing methods can be less than reliable, and maybe in certain cases their findings should have to be corroborated before they can be used to arrest somebody. I was just kind of annoyed that the detail of "this person's situation has been totally resolved" was not included in the writeup.

      Technically, you're correct. But mud sticks.

      What if he wasn't a drummer with a band? What if he was an IT geek with a day job in a "respectable" office like a large percentage of /. readership? Would our collective employers be pleased to know that someone they employed had just been arrested on suspicion of carrying a date-rape drug?

      In many parts of the world, my guess is you'd come home from your short involuntary stint in prison to find yourself out of work with little hope of a reference or of redress. The police "acted properly" by arresting you when they thought you'd committed a crime, and released you when it became apparent you hadn't. Not their fault your employer dropped you like a hot potato.

      What it does do is highlight that some of these tests need to be drastically improved.

    8. Re:Do your job "editors" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Released on bond" is not the same as "cleared of all charges".

    9. Re:Do your job "editors" by Bodrius · · Score: 1

      Sure, the drug test was faulty evidence...

      But you have to admit: a drummer in a punk band, carrying soap, might qualify as 'suspicious activity' to a jury of their peers.
      The guy was lucky he was cleared so quickly. If he had been a Linux developer, he'd have an even harded time explaining himself. :-)

      --
      Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
    10. Re:Do your job "editors" by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Nope. But they had better have compelling evidence to detain anyone. If a cop is allowed to bust down my door with guns blazing* on bad information, then I want to keep my right to shoot back.

      *because what this is, is a bad bust. Pretty clear cut. Screw 'em. They shouldn't use inadequately tested equipment.

      --
      What?
    11. Re:Do your job "editors" by Starburnt · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Except for two things:

      1) The story only claims that he was arrested, which is still correct, and is not inconsistent with being released.
      2) "This person's situation has been totally resolved" is categorically false. Spending three days in jail for no reason doesn't get resolved when the victim is released, just as an assault isn't resolved because the perp stops attacking someone.

    12. Re:Do your job "editors" by Puff+Daddy · · Score: 1

      Have you ever spent 3 days in jail? I haven't, but I can tell you that it would be more than a little upsetting. Also, I bet you've never been asked if a cop can search. Refusing it means you're wasting at least a half hour where the cop will ask you every question he can think of or he arrests you anyway for whatever reason he can come up with. Consenting means ten minutes of search. If I don't have anything illegal in my car I'm gonna consent. The system is extremely broken. This arrest is one of many symptoms.

    13. Re:Do your job "editors" by SirSlud · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Re-read the writeup. Its pretty clear that it was a wrongful arrest, and that the charges didn't (or at the least, were not going to) stick. As for consent: I disagree, although its more an issue of whether you think that forcing their hand to get a warrant is more likely to cause them to want to stick you with something you didn't do. I have a hard time believing that wrongful convictions are not sometimes the result in non-cooperative suspects. If they had a warrant, you have no choice, but in your scenario, you're still just as likely to win the 'wrong place, wrong time' lottery since presumably the reason for wrongful arrest and possibly conviction was not known to you to begin with.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    14. Re:Do your job "editors" by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      But this is a field test with known false positive results... If it's in a commercial product like soap it would seem like authorities would know which items have chemicals that give false positives. At some point we have to stop allowing the "head in the sand" approach to this testing and force the officers to personally answer for things like this. It's REASONABLE to expect an officer to know the results of the test, or it should be criminally negligent to allow them to lock people up based on those results. Stuff like this is "legal" harassment by "due process" and should be dealt with by the law. It's two parts... first the cops are given poor training and outright lies about what the tests really do... they often have little to no training in actual chemistry... they administer the test per the instructions and are lied to about the actual effectiveness... The other part is the culture of "assumption of guilt" which has more to do with laziness and trying to "stretch" the fish they got when it's just not legal... they don't know when to let the case go. It's a sign we have too many police, trying to enforce too many laws... and "normal" police don't even deal with the actual crimes that are big... internet fraud, financial, id theft... they're nothing but stupid street goons.

    15. Re:Do your job "editors" by sunderland56 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not really outraged when somebody is falsely arrested

      You mean, you're not really outraged when someone else is falsely arrested.

      If you were falsely arrested, I bet you'd be extremely outraged.

    16. Re:Do your job "editors" by Desert+Raven · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sorry,

      Speaking as an ex-cop, never, EVER, *EVER* consent to a search.

      Doesn't matter if you might get hassled while the cop tries to find a reason to search, you also have the right to keep your mouth shut. Unlike a warrant-based search, which must state *specifically* what they are looking for, and thus limits them to the places where such items can be found, consent searches allow *anything*. And, once you consent, you can't take it back, since a smart cop will isolate you while they perform the search.

      Frankly, you may not know what is in your car/home, etc. All you need is for one of your idiot friends to have left something behind you didn't know about.

      A cop who asks for consent is fishing. If a cop has probable cause, he won't ask, he'll get the warrant, or search immediately if allowed (exigent circumstances, probationers, etc). The more they try to convince you, the more sure you can be that they don't have anywhere near enough evidence for a warrant.

      Folks think that if they consent to a search, the cop will feel better about them. Of all the folks I searched with consent, the *best* I felt toward them was mild contempt for voluntarily surrendering their constitutional rights. The rest? Well, frankly, I still get a real belly-laugh over the folks I arrested for drugs, illegal weapons, stolen merchandise, etc because they were dumb enough to give me consent to search.

    17. Re:Do your job "editors" by zerocool^ · · Score: 4, Interesting


      As to the warrentless searching of a car... In the US at least, this is all a moot point if you're a teenager. Despite that a lot of teenagers I know, especially ones who are in their final year of high school and are taking "US Government", probably know as much about the law as many cops, being a teenager is proof of guilt.

      Case in point: I have a friend who has never in his life smoked a cigarette, done a drug, and the only alcohol he's consumed is when he visited an exchange student in Estonia (appearantly, said exchange student's uncle's thought it was funny to make the American toast the old Soviet Republic and drink Vodka). He is now 27.

      When he was 16, he drove a wee little nissan, had long hair, and was in a punk band. He got pulled over on suspicion of being a teenager (as best he could tell, they never did tell him), and they asked to search his car. He said "No way, I know my rights, if you don't have a warrant, you can't search". Know what the cops told him? The fact that he didn't want his car searched was enough suspicion to get probable cause to secure a warrent, and that he'd have to sit on the road side with the cops for 45 minutes while they made out a warrent and got it authorized before he could leave.

      Welcome to the land of if you're young, you're fucked.

      --
      sig?
    18. Re:Do your job "editors" by zerocool^ · · Score: 1

      uncle's

      I hate myself. Apostrophe Accident.

      --
      sig?
    19. Re:Do your job "editors" by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      But you have to admit: a drummer in a punk band, carrying soap, might qualify as 'suspicious activity' to a jury of their peers.

            How does someone use the date rape drug when it's in soap? And what if they shower with it?

    20. Re:Do your job "editors" by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      All you need is for one of your idiot friends to have left something behind you didn't know about.

      This is exactly what happened to my little brother. He got pulled over, let the cops search his car, and they found his friend's marijuana pipe with trace amounts in it.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    21. Re:Do your job "editors" by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      So? What's the worst that could happen to him? He loses his job?

      He loses his job. Can't make house payments anymore. Loses house. Wife leaves him, takes the kids. He ends up living in his car. No big deal.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    22. Re:Do your job "editors" by RSquaredW · · Score: 2

      Apparently he didn't know his rights quite well enough - refusing to consent to a voluntary search is not grounds for a warrant; he should have asked the police officer if he was being arrested, and if not whether the officer had any further questions. If the officer had nothing else to talk about, then he was free to go and should have asserted that fact. The police will hassle you about it, but there really is nothing they can do at that point absent actual probable cause.

      IANAL, but wikibooks backs me up on this one: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/US_Criminal_Law/Searc hes_without_a_warrant
      (U.S. v. Fuentes)

      --
      In accordance with E.O. 12958, this post is marked Unclassified.
    23. Re:Do your job "editors" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not really outraged when somebody is falsely arrested

      You will be when it's you who is falsely arrested and imprisoned! Even sitting in jail for one night is no damned fun. Since you hold the opinion that jail is no big deal unless you're convicted (and I was never even charged the night I spent in jail) I pray that God will let you see the error of your ways, hopefully by His having a policeman arrest and imprison you falsely, asshole.

      Believe me, spend one fucking night in there and you'll change your incredibly ignorant opinion.

      -mcgrew

  10. Soap by Snatch422 · · Score: 1

    So does this mean in Fight Club when they used soap for explosives that the extraction process may have yielded some GHB as well. I wonder what they would have done with that. Wow, soap is just useful for all kinds of things (explosives, smuggling, GHB, cleaning yourself in the shower). Maybe one day we will look back on these hundreds of years of history as the soap era.

    1. Re:Soap by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, but one of the easiest ways of synthesizing GHB is with GBL, which is used as an industrial cleaner. If you've ever taken any significant quantities of GHB in concentrated form, you'll get that sickly feeling in your stomach whenever you pass someone cleaning off graffiti, etc.

      So no doubt the test being used reacts to both GHB and GBL.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
  11. huh? by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's this "soap" thing you're talking about?

    --
    This guy's the limit!
    1. Re: huh? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny

      What's this "soap" thing you're talking about? It's a paste the alchemist will give you to counter the 'Turn Girls' spell.
      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Only on slashdot does this get modded insightful

    3. Re:huh? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Only on /. could that comment get modded "insightful".

    4. Re:huh? by Skinnybrown · · Score: 1

      Only on Slashdot could the GP get modded insightful, and the parent modded funny.

  12. Dr. Bonner's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you sure its not pronounced "Dr. Boner's?"
    I mean, isn't that what GHB is used for

  13. Soap and germs just don't mix by Tatisimo · · Score: 3, Funny

    That must be great publicity. This incident will give that brand a reputation as a true, non-failing, anti-Germ soap.

    --
    Give Kashyyyk back to the Wookies
  14. We'll get to see more like this by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Field kits have to be cheap. You need a fair lot of them. And they're prone to false positives because governments usually want to err on the wrong side (i.e. it's better to have innocent people jailed than having a guilty one run free).

    As long as the labs still use more reliable testing methods, it can at least be cleaned up later. I just hope this doesn't change at least.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:We'll get to see more like this by geoff+lane · · Score: 5, Insightful
      GHB is rare. The use of GHB is rare. Suppose the test kits are 99% accurate. In 1000 tests, there will be 10 false positives. In 1000 people there is probably zero actually carrying GHB. So when some cops jump to a conclusion based on the supposed effectiveness of the test, they are almost always going to be wrong.

      It seems that the test kits are a lot less reliable than 99% in some environments which makes them useless.

      In situations where the event is rare, the failure mode of the test will dominate the effectiveness of the action taken.

      The same faulty thinking is common in anti-terrorism procedures. Actual terrorists are rare and almost every action taken to detect or prevent terrorist acts has a very high false positive rate that makes it useless for the purpose.

    2. Re:We'll get to see more like this by hankwang · · Score: 1

      Suppose the test kits are 99% accurate. In 1000 tests, there will be 10 false positives.

      I understand what you're trying to say here, but I don't think it is meaningful to talk of a false-positive rate for this type of test. It would make sense for a test that specifically tests for the presence of a compound in blood or some other well-defined substance. But how would you define it for a test that is supposed to be used on any material? If the police only uses it for testing soap, the FP rate would be 50%. For testing on bottled water the FP rate would probably be 0.00%.

    3. Re:We'll get to see more like this by venicebeach · · Score: 1

      When you tune your bias towards having fewer false positives you almost necessarily have more misses.

      With drugs I agree that false positives may be more harmful than misses. However in the case of anti-terrorism it is desirable to have false positives at the expense of having fewer misses, because a miss is fatal.

    4. Re:We'll get to see more like this by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With drugs I agree that false positives may be more harmful than misses. However in the case of anti-terrorism it is desirable to have false positives at the expense of having fewer misses, because a miss is fatal.


      my what an interesting double standard.. innocent until proven guilty.. except in places of potential loss of life.. so if i accuse you of murder and youre wrongfully imprisoned it will be perfectly ok as long as i'm getting the murderers the other 99% of the time? enough of the "freedom for security" crap. freedom has a price, and the minute you start locking up innocents because of your fear of terrorism the terrorists have won.

      as for danger explain to me how drugs (especially date rape drugs) are not deadlier than terrorism. There is no guarantee a bomb will kill you, and many of the "methodical" type serial killers will incapacitate their intended target in some way to prevent messes.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    5. Re:We'll get to see more like this by g2devi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > In 1000 tests, there will be 10 false positives.

      This isn't necessarily bad. You just need to use the right tool for the right job.

      Imagine, you have three tests.
      Test 1 is cheap and quick, but gives 1% false positives (almost no false negatives).
      Test 2 is moderately priced and a bit bit slower, but gives .1% false positives (almost no false negatives).
      Test 3 is pricey and gives a turn-around time of 1 day, but gives .0001% false positives (almost no false negatives).

      You're in charge of security. You care about letting innocent people free just as much as you care about punishing the guilty and you care about customer service, finances, and efficiency of processes. What do you do?

      Your post seems to indicate that you'd use Test 3 or have no test at all, but one case is just throwing your hands up in the air and giving up while the other is just drowning your process in expensive bureaucracy, but neither are optimal strategies. A more optimal strategy is to use the following approach.

      Use test 1.
      If you pass, go on your merry way.
      If you fail, you're not necessarily guilty of anything (this must be in the training manual) but you need more further testing, so use test 2.
      If you pass, go on your merry way.
      If you fail, you're not necessarily guilty of anything (this must be in the training manual) but you need more further testing, so use test 3.
      If you pass, go on your merry way.
      If you fail, you're not necessarily guilty of anything but let the police handle it to be sure.

      Of course, if there are less than a .0001% chance that someone is actually guilty of anything, you really need to think about if you need to be screening at all because even this more efficient use of testing costs quite a bit of money and customer inconvenience. That money, time, and customer inconvenience could be better spend on other areas that help improve safety.

    6. Re:We'll get to see more like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, this isnt the case.

      GHB is largely unavaliable these days, so most people ingest whats actually 1,4-Butanediol, which is an industrial cleaning chemical. Funny that a soap might contain an industrial cleaning chemical isnt it... really really wierd...

    7. Re:We'll get to see more like this by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      ...it's better to have innocent people jailed than having a guilty one run free

      There's an old, dead Greek guy who I suspect would really take offense at that sentiment: "It is better that a hundred guilty men should go free than that a single righteous man should be persecuted unjustly." -- Plato

      Personally, I think Plato's got a point.
      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    8. Re:We'll get to see more like this by fishbowl · · Score: 3, Insightful


      >You're in charge of security. You care about letting innocent people free just as much as you care about punishing the guilty and you
      >care about customer service, finances, and efficiency of processes. What do you do?

      I hire people who are intelligent enough to realize that a substance saturated into Dr. Bronners' Soap is not going to be a very useful tool for assault. I also hire people who are responsible enough not to accuse someone of a crime (apparently the thoughtcrime of sexual assault, if you get down to it in this case).
      Having failed to hire intelligent and responsible people, I expect to lose MY job, and possibly go to jail for the mistake. So this particular mistake does not get made on my watch.

      The difference, I expect, is that the higher authorities have NOT stepped up and assertively accepted full responsibility for this error, the County has NOT made an offer of substantial compensation to the victim for the wrongful treatment, and the people who made this mistake remain in a position to make another one.

      A false arrest should be so costly to the government that does it, that the taxpayers would never allow it to happen (or could never afford to let it happen twice.)

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    9. Re:We'll get to see more like this by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Sounds like chemical weapon detection paper; it'll false positive on quite a few chemicals.

      For example, it's pretty much guarenteed to change color to indicate a nerve agent in the presence of any pesticide, or even the bug repellent DEET.

      Of course, most pesticides are a form of nerve agent; they're just effective against bugs instead of mammals.

      There are better test systems, but they're orders of magnitude more expensive, require more maintenance and skill to operate, and are slower than the paper.

      So they put the paper all over and if any show positive they use the better detector to verify.

      Sounds like it might be a good idea to let the officers know that the test tends to false positive on soap. So testing that shampoo bottle is a waste of time, as long as it actually contains shampoo.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    10. Re:We'll get to see more like this by Sanguis+Mortuum · · Score: 1

      The recreational use (i.e. not for date rape) of GHB isnt that rare, certainly not in some clubbing scenes...

    11. Re:We'll get to see more like this by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      Actual terrorists are rare and almost every action taken to detect or prevent terrorist acts has a very high false positive rate that makes it useless for the purpose.

      Depends on what your purpose is.

      The goal of the military-industrial(-congressional) complex is simply to get bigger. What better excuse than "we need more resources to reduce the number of false positives"?

      - RG>
      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    12. Re:We'll get to see more like this by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      I hire people who are intelligent enough to realize that a substance saturated into Dr. Bronners' Soap is not going to be a very useful tool for assault.

      No shit. Testing anything but powder or pill for drugs is flat out idiotic.

      And, incidentally, I'd like to point to 'appeared to be trying to hide or conceal a wooden box'. Not as an actual justification for anything, but to expose that cops will say anything to justify their 'suspicions'. (Read: Prejudices.) He rather obviously wasn't trying to hid anything, yet here we have a cop, in a sworn report, that says he was.

      Which is more likely, that he nonsensically tried to hid a wooden box (Which, reading the article, isn't even where the soap was.), or that the cops lied?

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    13. Re:We'll get to see more like this by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      but in practice they are not being rational and doing what you say. If the test can have false positives, especially in a product that could not be ingested or used to drug a person with, then it's downright negligent not to have the next level test available, or a person to call about the results available on short notice. Taking 3 days, bail and then doing more tests far away is silly and sloppy.

      I agree that the point of screening is to quickly identify a threat.. but that comes with reason when you get a positive result... how many people are going to put an expensive and rare date rape drug into shampoo? It would probably be ruined at that point anyway. The reasonableness of the result and the suspect need to be taken into account... in this case they weren't. In your security case, if the person looked normal, you'd simply confiscate the material tested, search the person over and then send them on their way. This whole thing that the "line turned blue" so we have to investigate till the end of the case is wasteful and dangerous to citizens. Just like the "no-fly" list that doesn't have ACTUAL TERRORISTS on it because we might scare them into not flying??? So we harass normal citizens by the dozens.

    14. Re:We'll get to see more like this by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The problem is, I wouldn't deem it impossible that a false positive is fatal, too. Or at the very least very, very problematic for the person being considered a terrorist wrongly.

      The question is (not only in this case) whether more people are threatened by terrorism or by the anti-terrorist measures.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:We'll get to see more like this by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I do agree. Unfortunately it seems that today's society lends more from the "philosophy" of Sparta rather than that of Athens.

      Aw heck, it has more of the Roman Empire than the Greek polithy democracies.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re:We'll get to see more like this by asninn · · Score: 1

      [...] governments usually want to err on the wrong side (i.e. it's better to have innocent people jailed than having a guilty one run free).

      That line perfectly sums up what's wrong with the world today.

      --
      butter the donkey
    17. Re:We'll get to see more like this by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The scary part is that it seems a lot of people agree with that philosophy.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:We'll get to see more like this by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Depends on what your purpose is.

      The goal of the military-industrial(-congressional) complex is simply to get bigger. What better excuse than "we need more resources to reduce the number of false positives"?


      Unfortunately, that's pretty much equivalent to saying "we need more resources, because we've been arresting innocent people left and right, searching for something that's next to non-existent". It's not going to make you very popular. It also just asks for the question, "then why are you _wasting_ manpower looking for something virtually nonexistant?"

      You'll want to put it more like, "good Lord, look at all these junkies everywhere! We've been arresting them left and right, and we're still not getting to the bottom of it! Plus, our labs are so crappy, they let all those dangerous drug dealers go right after we've arrested them! We need better labs! We need more manpower! We need to get rid of the search and seizure limits! We need to be allowed to torture them into confessing! We need to get rid of lawyers! These fucking lawyers come get them out as fast as we catch them, on some 'it was just soap' bullshit! Yeah, right, soap my ass..."

      It serves the same goal of getting bigger, but in a more productive way.

      Actually, it helps if you don't even think of it as some sentient hive that tries to get bigger. It's just police officer X who thinks he'd get a promotion if he had more junkies busted and/or more subordinates to manage, marketroid Y who'd get a bonus if he sells more snake oil, etc. The effect is the same globally, it wants to grow, but it affects the behaviour quite a bit. You don't want to look like the guy who arrested innocents left and right, but as the guy who worked hard to make the community a better place and was just thwarted by those evil lawyers and those dumb limits on police power.

      In the end, it's only natural. If someone's job performance and security is measured in problems to solve and in actually solving them, they'll try to maximize that. I see it daily in other domains too. So some will do just that. Others have just grown old and bitter and filter it all through the goggles of the worst people they dealt with: surely everyone else is a hardened criminal. Others are simply sociopaths and love abusing their power over others, stopping just short of the line where it would terminally bite them in the ass. Or not even there. Etc.

      And it's damn tempting to see all those safeguards and presumptions of innocents, as just a bunch of crap that gets in the way of your getting the job done and getting a promotion.

      In the end, that's why those safeguards are needed. Without them, the incentive is there to abuse the system, and there's no shortage of people who'll take that incentive.

      See the Soviet police for example. They had very few unsolved cases. They'd just arrest the first suspect, or in some cases an innocent, and beat him up until he confessed. There you go, another case solved.

      And yes, some are good cops anyway. Unfortunately there again, we need the safeguards to even be able to tell who is one and who isn't. Otherwise, in a parody of that economic wisdom, the bad cops push the good cops off the market. The bad ones are those who get all those cases solved fast, the good ones are those without half as many results. Unless the bad cops are stopped from faking it, they _will_ push the good cops out.
      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    19. Re:We'll get to see more like this by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      Agreed on your point that testing a bar of soap in the first place was highly suspect. The probability the cop knew it gave false positives seems far higher than the probability that the cop thought the bar of soap was not soap at all, but drugs cunningly disguised as soap.

    20. Re:We'll get to see more like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lawful means one learns by mistakes and injustices. This now means reasonable doubt can easily be proven (one wishes - and incompetence punished.
      Tell that to the Kennedy that prevented from boarding plane - why a bunch of d***less pen pushers fail to take responsibility, and act.
      I am not sure which, but peanut butter and Vegemite causes a false explosive positive. Fake, or cheap store perfumes are loaded with illegal drug pre-cursors. Apples contain cyanide. A pool water test kit should give interesting results , dishwasher powder/tablets, as well as perhaps a first aid kit.

      This is not funny, because not one cop had remembered 'Chemistry', as it used to be taught. This is good, because one can now fool the sub-standard test kits with ease by adding a bit of Coca Cola perhaps, or an underarm deodorant. Whats is the name of the company that makes these strips, and has the purchasing department stopped buying defective product?

    21. Re:We'll get to see more like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A false arrest should be so costly to the government that does it, that the taxpayers would never allow it to happen (or could never afford to let it happen twice)."

      I don't think that will work - the government then just won't admit that the arrest was false and put him in jail anyway, even if they know he is innocent.

      This isn't simply conjecture, but it's exactly what seems to have been done in this and similar cases: they just make something up he is supposed to have done.

      Also, a false arrest already is costly, as they have to pay for him being imprisoned.

    22. Re:We'll get to see more like this by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      I hire people who are intelligent enough to realize that a substance saturated into Dr. Bronners' Soap is not going to be a very useful tool for assault.

      Maybe the substance isn't intended to be used while saturated into the soap. Maybe it's only put into the soap to disguise it during transport, and then later it's distilled out of the soap somehow and used in its pure form for date rape.

      Yes, there are law enforcement specialists who have extensive knowledge of the tricks of the drug trade, but I wouldn't expect every highway patrol officer to know enough to make that kind of judgment call. All I expect of highway patrol officers is to enforce the law evenly, treat all people with respect, and conform to policies established by their superiors.

    23. Re:We'll get to see more like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would certainly hope that the officers are trained on the limitations of their field tests.

      The chemical composition of cleaners is such that depending on the manufacturer, it'll react to a lot of stuff. That's how it gets dirt off of things. Unless you know otherwise, most field tests won't be accurate when run on highly reactive substances. It is equally likely that it'll break down the test substance and give a false negative for other things.

    24. Re:We'll get to see more like this by senatorpjt · · Score: 1

      Well, GHB is soap, sort of. It's not surprising that soap tests positive, or even that the rate of false positives when testing soap would be 100%.

    25. Re:We'll get to see more like this by Kirth+Gersen · · Score: 1

      a very high false positive rate that makes it useless for the purpose

      The high error rate makes it useless for its *ostensible* purpose, but the fact that it is retained lets one guess what the *actual* purpose is.
    26. Re:We'll get to see more like this by venicebeach · · Score: 1

      so if i accuse you of murder and youre wrongfully imprisoned it will be perfectly ok as long as i'm getting the murderers the other 99% of the time?
      It's not OK, but it is a necessary consequence of any detection system. We do in fact wrongfully imprison people all the time in our quest for justice, because no system can perfectly distinguish between a murderer and a nonmurderer. The mistakes are mistakes, and they need to be rectified, for sure, but the point is there are going to be mistakes. Given that fact, you have to make a choice as to which kind of mistake you would rather have, false positives or misses. That is my point.

      You can argue which is of greater consequence, a miss or a false alarm. But you can't ignore that there is such a tradeoff.
  15. It's sort of like poppy seed bagels by jameseyjamesey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When I was in high school, I would have poppy seed bagels for breakfast every morning. When I turned 16 and started applying for jobs, I failed a few drug test even though I had never done any illegal drug. It caused a lot of stress in my family and was quite embarrassing. Even though my parents believed me, I could always sense it nagged them in the back of their minds. A few months ago I saw an episode of myth busters which proved having just one poppy seed bagel can cause you to fail a drug test. I downloaded the show and sent the DVD to my parents to clear my name.

    1. Re:It's sort of like poppy seed bagels by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A few months ago I saw an episode of myth busters which proved having just one poppy seed bagel can cause you to fail a drug test. I downloaded the show and sent the DVD to my parents to clear my name.

      Ok, so you cleared your name of being a drug user only to incriminate yourself as a copyright infringer... a crime far worse in todays legal framework.

      A word of advice; once they catch up to you:

      Don't drop the soap!

    2. Re:It's sort of like poppy seed bagels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Various hayfever and anti-allergen medicines have a similar effect.

    3. Re:It's sort of like poppy seed bagels by no_pets · · Score: 5, Funny

      So, bring poppy seed bagels to the next interview to share with other prospective employees. :-)

      --
      "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
    4. Re:It's sort of like poppy seed bagels by cianduffy · · Score: 1

      You had to do drug tests when going for jobs, and whilst in high school at that? Isn't that, like, a complete invasion of privacy? Generally the average job a 16 year old does here wouldn't actually care if you turned up baked, and about the only jobs that require drug tests are the military. That said, Ireland still works off the basis of innocent until proven guilty - although not if the Law Reform Commission get their way (PDF link). Personally I'd refuse to work for any company that required a drug test, despite the fact that I've not taken anything that would cause one to fail.

    5. Re:It's sort of like poppy seed bagels by telso · · Score: 1

      You obviously didn't spend your childhood watching Seinfeld.

    6. Re:It's sort of like poppy seed bagels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the "Ireland still works off the basis of innocent until proven guilty," I'm guessing you don't live in the US. Unfortunately, drug tests are not considered an invasion of privacy, and almost any professional job will require that you take one when you begin the job, and you'll also be required to take random, surprise tests after that, usually on about a yearly basis. It's not as common among unskilled jobs, but still not unheard of. If you refuse to take one, good luck getting a job at any place that pays more than minimum wage.

    7. Re:It's sort of like poppy seed bagels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the time frame between eating your last poppy bagel and passing the drug test?

    8. Re:It's sort of like poppy seed bagels by espressojim · · Score: 1

      I work in the US, I haven't had to take a drug test since I went professional 10 years ago. I've worked both in industry and academia as a scientist and programmer. My impression is that they could care less, as long as I keep producing results.

    9. Re:It's sort of like poppy seed bagels by Tokerat · · Score: 1

      Don't drop the soap!
      Don't you mean the GHB?
      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    10. Re:It's sort of like poppy seed bagels by prelelat · · Score: 1

      I can tell your joking, and to go way off topic, I don't know why this activity would be so bad. People seem to think so but when you've watched it and recorded it and lent it to someone, its fair use. But when you watch something download it and send it to someone its then copywright infringement.

      Back on topic, I wonder why there are trace amounts of a date-rape drug in soap to begin with. Unfortunatly I don't know much about it but what makes that drug and does it have to be in soap? Anyways I'm glad to see hes out and bringing awareness to it. If I was caught with date rape drugs my wife would probably disown me.

    11. Re:It's sort of like poppy seed bagels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're full of shit, J. Poppy seeds have been mentioned on nearly every drug test info packet for at least the last 20 years as something that can cause a false-positive. My dad received notices from the pilot's union on foods to avoid at the annual employee drug test when he worked for Republic and NWA in the mid-to-late 80s, and I remember him reading the long list of foods (including poppy seed muffins) and OTC medications he wasn't supposed to touch in the 7 days preceding any test. It's in the screening org's best interests to warn you in advance--they get paid whether you pass or fail, but doling out false positives tends to leave them in a legally actionable position.

      Also, drug tested at 16? "Stress in your family"? First, it's not like your employer administers the test--I've never heard of a screen that wasn't done by a 3rd party, and the results (including the list of substances screened for) are nearly always shared in detail with the subject. Second, when you got the results back and it clearly showed a positive result for *opiates*, NOBODY in your family correlated it to your supposedly daily *poppy* seed bagel ritual? Please, you were probably puffin the chiba and hid the tests from your parents. The resulting mental complex you developed from the shame of being dumb enough to get caught and the guilt over hiding the truth from your parents is simply spilling over into your /. posts. Seek counseling.

    12. Re:It's sort of like poppy seed bagels by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 1

      almost any professional job will require that you take one when you begin the job, and you'll also be required to take random, surprise tests after that, usually on about a yearly basis.

      Bullshit. I've worked plenty of jobs in the US, and I've never taken a drug test. I did turn down some job opportunities because they required drug testing, but the number of those was rather small, and frankly, none of them were very attractive anyway.

      It's not as common among unskilled jobs, but still not unheard of.

      From what I've seen, the skill level has nothing to do with it. The main two patterns that I did notice:

      1. It's much more common at government agencies and large corporations;
      2. If an organization does do it, then the top managers are usually exempt.

    13. Re:It's sort of like poppy seed bagels by cianduffy · · Score: 1

      Already on in excess of 40,000 dollars (was lower than but hey, the greenback keeps sliding) in a professional job, and I've never had one and never can be made take one.

      What happened to the "Land of the free"?

    14. Re:It's sort of like poppy seed bagels by senatorpjt · · Score: 1

      There probably isn't any GHB in the soap - which would make sense, if the more accurate test gave a negative. However, GHB is very similar chemically to soap. A soap is essentially a fatty acid salt, and GHB is a fatty acid salt with a terminal -OH. So, a soap product containing any sort of alcohol, or particularly any soap made from hydroxyl-terminated acids has all the same functionality as GHB, and will likely give a false positive, although I'm not familiar with how this particular test operates.

    15. Re:It's sort of like poppy seed bagels by pthisis · · Score: 1

      GHB isn't really a date-rape drug, it's one of the more popular club drugs these days. It's nasty stuff, but it's mostly used recreationally. I'd never heard it called a date-rape drug before, but it certainly could be used for such a purpose (as could alcohol or pretty much any sedative).

      "Date-rape drug" usually connotes rohypnol, which is rarely used recreationally (and when it is, it's usually more to take the edge off your uppers or help out your heroin high than for anything "fun" it does itself). Though even that has rising recreational use, I guess for some people even ketamine leaves them too aware of their surroundings.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
  16. Chicks dig soap by Joebert · · Score: 2, Funny

    This explains why my nympho girlfriend has 5 billion bottles of soap in her bathroom.

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    1. Re:Chicks dig soap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ohh.. so that's how you keep the funny smell off them.. i always thought my little pony smelt weird.. where can i buy a my nympho girlfriend anyway? i'm sick of ponies!!

    2. Re:Chicks dig soap by Joebert · · Score: 1

      Off topic ?
      Damn, I thought you guys were joking about the whole girl situation around here, it seems I was wrong.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    3. Re:Chicks dig soap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This explains why my nympho girlfriend has 5 billion bottles of soap in her bathroom. There is no girlfriend. Enjoy your 5 billion bottles of soap.
  17. Soap laced with GHB by sokoban · · Score: 4, Funny

    I guess that's for the times when Axe brand shower gel and body spray aren't enough.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
    1. Re:Soap laced with GHB by Timesprout · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No its for when alcohol fails. Anecdotal evidence from a Doctor friend conincided with a recent study conducted here that most women claiming their drinks had been spiked with date rape drugs found that the vast majority were in fact just seriously drunk.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    2. Re:Soap laced with GHB by KokorHekkus · · Score: 4, Informative

      I recall reading about that study and did a search. A BBC News article can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6152646.stm

    3. Re:Soap laced with GHB by EonBlueTooL · · Score: 1

      For all we know GHB is the secret ingredient to axe. You've seen their commercials.

    4. Re:Soap laced with GHB by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      You've seen their commercials.
      yeah, i have, and ever since learning their intended effectiveness i've been at the return aisle with defective cans of the stuff. they must be very fragile to have such a high product failure rate.
      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  18. Dr. Bonner? by fuo · · Score: 1

    Someone named Dr. Bonner makes soap that contains a date-rape drug? Hilarious I thought, until i read the article.

    The officer got permission to search the vehicle and a field test on a bottle of Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap showed positive for GHB, Sailor said.
    1. Re:Dr. Bonner? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      No kidding. Might as well carry Mary Jane soap, Lucy Sky diamonds, and Crack Rock brand candy. Travel in the post 9/11 world is bad enough without labels with Fruedian slips all over them.

    2. Re:Dr. Bonner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until you learned how to spell?

  19. Jibber Jabber from the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The punk group was formed in Los Angeles in the late 1970s and is credited with popularizing mohawks.

    Whoa, whoa, WHOA! B.A. Baracus popularized mohawks, FOOL! That and welding.

  20. It's Funny? Laugh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess I missed the joke here. Was it the part about rape or the part about being falsely accused that was supposed to make me chuckle?

  21. IT'S MURDA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think he was arrested for the attempted murder of his bandmates instead. I mean, he was carrying soap right?

  22. RE: your sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you add this one too?

  23. no.. it really was GHB by plasmacutter · · Score: 3, Funny

    the mainstream media just can't comprehend the fact that he "really" loves his soap ^_~.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  24. Not exactly shocking for Orange County by kc8jhs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This isn't exactly shocking for a county where our local Government, won't issue ID cards for those who have been prescribed medical marijuana. This county loves to be the uptight puritan neighbor to Los Angeles. The state says its okay, but the county is claiming that since the federal government says no, they can't risk getting sued. States rights? Ha. This county is known for its unbelievable government and law enforcement. Recently an inmate was killed in the county jail after the staff told other inmates that he was a suspected child predator. The Sheriffs department insists they did no wrong in this, and there pat answer is more or less, "Who cares, he was a child predator?" and "You can't listen to criminals to tell you the truth, they're people who do things that are wrong anyway." All local press fails to point out that he was never even convicted.

    I don't mind a conservative government, and all, but here it's like being conservative just for the sake of being conservative, instead of any real reason behind the decisions of the local government. Law enforcement in Orange county seems to me, to serve mostly to harass the public, in hopes of catching some illegal immigrants along the way.

    So yeah, this really isn't surprising.

    P.S. In OC, if it had been a 30 y/o MILF in an SUV, she could have had the soap, had it tested positive for GHB, heck she probably could have had pure GHB and pot in the car, and still been able to drive off.

    1. Re:Not exactly shocking for Orange County by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is sad but true. The OC pigs love to selectively enforce the law. If you're a hottie or got a lot of money you can get away with nearly anything, especially if you are also white.

    2. Re:Not exactly shocking for Orange County by rhizome · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Sheriffs department insists they did no wrong in this, and there pat answer is more or less, "Who cares, he was a child predator?"

      I guess now even the Sherriff is exercising Bill O'Reilly logic by ignoring the concept of presumed innocence, since the guy had not been convicted.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    3. Re:Not exactly shocking for Orange County by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 1

      Your biases, stereotypes, and generalizations are showing.

      This isn't exactly shocking for a county where our local Government...won't issue ID cards for those who have been prescribed medical marijuana...The state says its okay, but the county is claiming that since the federal government says no, they can't risk getting sued. States rights? Ha.

      The "Local Government" you're referring to is the County Board of Supervisors - while yes, they are a "county government", they're not really much in the way of lawmakers - almost all laws residents of OC (and all California locations) are subject to are federal, state, and city. Last time I checked, the state is still subject to federal marijuana laws, regardless of what you, I, or any local government feels.

      This county loves to be the uptight puritan neighbor to Los Angeles....This county is known for its unbelievable government and law enforcement.

      Which governments are you talking about? In addition to the county supervisors, there are 34 city governments too, with politicians from all over the spectrum (relatively for the US, anyway). The "Uptight neighbor" stereotypes and the assumption that some sort of magical wall exists at the county line are laughable.

      Recently an inmate was killed in the county jail after the staff told other inmates that he was a suspected child predator. The Sheriffs department insists they did no wrong in this, and there pat answer is more or less, "Who cares, he was a child predator?" and "You can't listen to criminals to tell you the truth, they're people who do things that are wrong anyway." All local press fails to point out that he was never even convicted.

      All the local press? The OC Register, the LA Times, the OC Weekly, the SD Union Tribune and all the other smaller metro area papers? Every one? Amazing! Do a search for the man's name (John Derek Chamberlain) in those papers - they all note that he was a suspect. Believe me, as a staffer for the paper that's written the most about him, we (and all the papers) tend to be pretty careful in that regard. Your statement is flat-out wrong.

      I don't mind a conservative government, and all, but here it's like being conservative just for the sake of being conservative, instead of any real reason behind the decisions of the local government. Law enforcement in Orange county seems to me, to serve mostly to harass the public, in hopes of catching some illegal immigrants along the way.

      Which law enforcement are you talking about? Most cities in OC have their own police force - specific to the city. The rest are serviced by the OC Sheriff, about as close to a county law enforcement as we get. And having lived here 25+ years, it seems to me that cops here are pretty standard. The sheriff dept. has had its own issues, but that's been mostly management, not the cops on the street. I'm sure "all cops just serve to harass the public" is something you throw around to sound good.

      P.S. In OC, if it had been a 30 y/o MILF in an SUV, she could have had the soap, had it tested positive for GHB, heck she probably could have had pure GHB and pot in the car, and still been able to drive off.

      You watch WAY too much TV, dude. Lay off the Fox.

  25. Wait... by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't the soap make them The Germless?

    1. Re:Wait... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      No ... "The Sterile".

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Wait... by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Wouldn't the soap make them The Germless?

      No. Soaps just select out the weak germs. That's why hospitals are sources for extremely hardy strains of germs. So the soap just makes the remaining germs grow stronger, and not have to compete for resources with weaker germs. Evolution, baby, running full speed at a hospital near you.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:Wait... by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      They even have a word for it 'nosocomial' ;)

    4. Re:Wait... by JustOK · · Score: 3, Informative

      Regular soap only makes the germs fall off. See http://chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/aa081301 a.htm. Its the anti-septic types of soap that are dangerous.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    5. Re:Wait... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Informative

      The lye in ordinary soap dissolves a layer of your skin, and all the various microbes simply wash away with it. Soap does kill some organism, of course, but it's not an antiseptic as such.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:Wait... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      From my understanding, it also tends to mess up cell walls, thus making it actually effective enough in killing microbes that 'anti-bacterial' soap isn't really an improvement over the standard stuff.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    7. Re:Wait... by proverbialcow · · Score: 1

      Wait, so you're saying The Germs are actually The Clash, then? That's a little weird, even for /. =P

      --
      The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
  26. Huh? by professorfalcon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But of course since it's just soap, when you test it in a real crime lab it comes back negative. ... how many others have been arrested based on faulty test kits who didn't have the resources to defend themselves.

    You mean how many couldn't defend themselves before the lab cleared them?

  27. acronyms... by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    whenever i use an acronym, unless its RIAA or MPAA, i try to define what the acronym is either directly or through context.
    or maybe i've been under a rock.. but what is a MILF?

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    1. Re:acronyms... by Kandenshi · · Score: 1
    2. Re:acronyms... by Nutria · · Score: 2, Funny
      or maybe i've been under a rock.. but what is a MILF?

      It would have been faster to Google for "MILF" than to write that comment in /.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    3. Re:acronyms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:acronyms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      but then you wouldn't get ANYTHING done.

    5. Re:acronyms... by nacturation · · Score: 1

      It would have been faster to Google for "MILF" than to write that comment in /. The proper response is:

      1. Go to http://www.google.com/
      2. Type in "MILF"
      3. Click "I'm Feeling Lucky"
      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    6. Re:acronyms... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      It would have been faster to Google for "MILF" than to write that comment in /.
      Yeah, but if he googled it himself, he would have gotten fired for browsing for NSFW sites.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    7. Re:acronyms... by Cervantes · · Score: 1

      It would have been faster to Google for "MILF" than to write that comment in . Why does this remind me of the old Starcraft forum days, when we'd occasionally shout "Hey, push Alt+F2 to enable stereo sound, Alt+F3 to switch to low-cpu mode, or Alt+F4 to run faster!" and watch a whole string of people disconnect.

      I just can't put my finger on it... oh, hang on, my boss wants to talk to me...
      --
      If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
  28. IT topic? by antdude · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How is this story related to IT? "IT: The Germs' Drummer Arrested For Carrying Soap" ... Did I miss something?

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:IT topic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not, it just makes people feel good around here that the government is doing one more thing wrong and make themselves feel in charge when having endless arguments.

      Seriously though there was an article on Russia having to make happy news; around here on Slashdot it is usually 'what is the U.S. doing wrong againt today and what corporation is connected'

      Old news anyways on front of L.A. Times and since he was a typical L.A. punk he was most likely running his mouth off at the police; although the officer should probably suffer punishment or put him on desk duty temporarily.

    2. Re:IT topic? by uncle_riley · · Score: 1

      True, soap and IT never go hand in hand.

    3. Re:IT topic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this story related to IT? "IT: The Germs' Drummer Arrested For Carrying Soap" ... Did I miss something?

      The kids here use a lot of mary jane, ghb and other drugs so they want to read about them.

    4. Re:IT topic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      SOAP = Simple Object Access Protocol

      I prefer CORBA personally, but there's no accounting for taste.

    5. Re:IT topic? by gsslay · · Score: 1
      Beats me. Elements of story;


      - drugs
      - drug legislation
      - bad law enforcement
      - punk band I've never heard of
      - humour???

      Nope. Absolutely nothing IT. Guess slashdot is branching out...

  29. The Germs? by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1, Funny

    Who are they, are they opening for Anthrax? This must be Department of Homeland Security's worst nightmare.

    1. Re:The Germs? by basic0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Put Biohazard on that bill and the US would be at security level "red" faster than you could stomp on a distortion pedal.

  30. Bronner, not Bonner by ktakki · · Score: 4, Informative
    The late E. H. Bronner was a rather eccentric man, but he made damn good soap. Each bottle of Dr. Bronner's soap would be covered with tiny text extolling the virtues of the product along with "healthy Hunza food" and somewhat off-beat religious proclamations.

    Absolute cleanliness is Godliness! Who else but God gave man Love that can spark mere dust to life! Poetry, uniting All-One! All brave! All life! Who else but God! "Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!

    Basically, Dr. Bronner's is the Time Cube of soaps.

    k.
    --
    "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
    1. Re:Bronner, not Bonner by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1, Interesting

      " "Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One! "

      Compare with Deut 6:4

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  31. Dude, you don't have a girlfriend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And definitely not a nympho girlfriend!

    Just who the fuck did you think you were going to fool, besides yourself?

    1. Re:Dude, you don't have a girlfriend. by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, it does sometimes happen, sometimes even to slashdotters.

      *smug grin* :D

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  32. Bleh... by FunWithKnives · · Score: 1

    Mainstream media is laughable, really. Maybe the little gem at the end is why the story was posted in the "It's Funny. Laugh" department:

    The punk group was formed in Los Angeles in the late 1970s and is credited with popularizing mohawks.

    I've been in the punk scene for ten years now, ever since I was a Wee Little Dissident, and I've never, ever heard this. It's actually rather stupid, when you consider that The Germs were a U.S. band, and the prevailing opinion is that the mohawk as a counterculture hairstyle originated and spread in England in the mid-seventies. Yet another case of the media looking for some sort of "shock" value to "spice up" a story. And in this case, the story is already pretty fucked up anyway, so it was pointless.

    --
    "We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
    1. Re:Bleh... by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If we're going to give anyone credit for popularizing the Mohawk, let's give it to the Iroquoi. I mean, after all... a punk rock band? Hardly.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re:Bleh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Kid... if you've been in the "in the punk scene for ten years now", then you're too young to know. As for the 'historically accurate' punk scene these days, real punk doesn't give a damn about history. You're trekkies doing cosplay. Have fun, but it's no different than Elvis impersonators. It's not punk.

      But since you're educated, let's talk about English:

      The punk group was formed in Los Angeles in the late 1970s and is credited with popularizing mohawks.

      Credited with popularizing does not mean originated. Nor does it even mean "world-wide", as this is a local story for the LA Times. They're just saying the band's early success influenced that particular fashion in Cali.

      So just slow down a little, 'kay? You could have picked up on that.

      And the hawk has a centuries-old history in white counterculture. It's fairly interesting and definitely not completely documented yet, so keep your eyes open for it.

      [Anybody happen know if the first brit punk scene originated the spikey hawk? I haven't noticed an earlier one of that yet.]
    3. Re:Bleh... by glenstar · · Score: 1
      Young man, please return directly to the womb.


      A little rich kid, what do you know
      You had everything don't you think it don't show
      A-hiding in the closet just a-facing the wall
      Too Much Too Soon - do you recall?

      If you don't know who sang that, or to what "Too Much Too Soon" refers, please return to your listening of Dookie.

    4. Re:Bleh... by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      I thought it was 'last of the mohekans" or however you spell it.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    5. Re:Bleh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prevailing opinion about the more recent origin of the Mohawk as social statement would seem to be wrong. In the '50s, before the invention of the word "counterculture", the Mohawk haircut was a proven way to annoy such folks as think that hair should be cut to some customary/standard fashion.

    6. Re:Bleh... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    7. Re:Bleh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The punk group was formed in Los Angeles in the late 1970s and is credited with popularizing mohawks.

      Actually true. Darby came back from England in 1980 with a 15 inch Mohawk, the first one I'd ever seen here in California.

  33. Dr. Bonner Soaps by value_added · · Score: 1

    A bit off topic, but if anyone hasn't yet tried any of the Dr. Bonner soaps, they really should give them a try. I grew up in a household where handmade soaps (for washing clothes, personal use, etc.) were the norm. As a kid, I thought my parents were weird and chalked it up to being poor. It wasn't until years later that I discovered we were using what others bought as over-priced specialty products from from specialty stores, that's after they became fashionable. It's difficult to describe how good the Dr. Bonner line is, so you'll have to take my word for it. That, and the fact that rich yuppies, eco-terrorists and generally strange but very smart people insist on regularly buying the stuff.

    As for Don Bolles, well, we used to live in the same neighbourhood. I'd describe him as someone whose name you wouldn't expect to see in the same sentence as the word soap.

    1. Re:Dr. Bonner Soaps by trav242 · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'll second that. The liquid Peppermint soap is the best, but really, all of the products in the Dr. Bronner line work extremely well for everything from showers to dishes; it's even safe to take camping. The coolest thing about it: leave one of the large bottles next to the toilet -- people visiting your house will, for some strange reason, have an overwhelming urge to read the 400+ lines of the bizarre text written all over the bottle.

      Crazy.

      Now, given what the test found in the soap, I know these insane ramblings for what they really are: Religious-cultist pickup-lines...

  34. Test kit limitations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why they'd test the soap for anything is just plain stupid. Several different soaps, bleaches, and other common household items are used in the military to simulate chemical contamination because they will cause the test kits to go positive.

    Any police getting fooled like that, or even bother to test soap is either an idiot, hasn't even the most basic training in using the kit properly, or is trying to frame someone. (Possibly to get a more expansive search warrant. Assuming they still need one...)

    Doesn't matter if this happened a couple weeks ago and the guy has been released. Kind of like getting arrested for being black in a Benz, and later released with no charges. That #### isn't supposed to happen in the first place and is a major issue. (To put it politely)

    1. Re:Test kit limitations by Ogive17 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Soap gets tested because it's quite easy to disguise a dangerous substance as soap.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    2. Re:Test kit limitations by RealGrouchy · · Score: 0

      Soap gets tested because it's quite easy to disguise a dangerous substance as soap.

      I was going to say the same thing (and make the comparison of hiding heroin in a crate of coffee grounds to throw off the drug dogs), but the fact is that if you know that something is going to come back positive, whether or not it contains anything dangerous, then there's no real point to testing it (except to support a charge of DWB).

      It will always test positive, therefore it's a good place to hide drugs, therefore they should test it, but it will always test positive. It's a catch-22 for the police.

      - RG>
      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    3. Re:Test kit limitations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >It will always test positive, therefore it's a good place to hide drugs, therefore they should test it, but it will always test positive. It's a catch-22 for the police.

      If only there was a chemical that's in almost all soaps one could test for, proving it isn't soap, and therefore not soap, and as such, worth testing! If only... :)

      (Yes, I know Dr. Bonner's doesn't have that in it. 90% of the soaps at your local pharmacy [dare I say 99%?] do. And those that don't could mention on the bottle that it will fail a standard soap test, letting the customer know the issues they might have. Or they could also test for glycerine as well before testing for drugs.)

    4. Re:Test kit limitations by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      If only [wikipedia.org] there was a chemical that's in almost all soaps one could test for, proving it isn't soap, and therefore not soap, and as such, worth testing! If only... :)

      Just because it looks like soap and contains dangerous material doesn't mean it doesn't contain soap.

      - RG>
      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
  35. Soap with a Manifesto by Bo'Bob'O · · Score: 1

    Have you ever seen a bottle of Dr. Bonner's soap? I can see how someone might confuse someone carrying it with some sort of religious fundamentalist. ;)

  36. all-one! all-one! all-one! by dpiven · · Score: 1

    Put enough GHB in Dr. Bronner's and eventually the fine print on the label starts to make sense. (I was going to link to their site, but you really have to score a bottle of the stuff and devote about 20-30 minutes to reading all the fine print.)

  37. Soap == Napalm by mangu · · Score: 2, Informative
    Basically, soap is the result of treating oils with a strong alkali.


    If you mix coconut oil (palmitic acid) with caustic soda, you get what in German is known as "natrium palmitat", or NaPalm for short.


    Mix that with gasoline and you get something that burns very hot and sticks to the skin. Nasty!

    1. Re:Soap == Napalm by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      If you mix coconut oil (palmitic acid) with caustic soda, you get what in German is known as "natrium palmitat", or NaPalm for short.

      If one were so inclined.
      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    2. Re:Soap == Napalm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you mix coconut oil (palmitic acid) with caustic soda, you get what in German is known as "natrium palmitat", or NaPalm for short.

      Ummm, napalm was originally a mix of coprecipitated aluminum salts of naphthenic and palmitic acids.

      Modern napalm is composed primarily of benzene and polystyrene, but the name remains in common use.

    3. Re:Soap == Napalm by X-rated+Ouroboros · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Coconut oil isn't a good source of palmitic acid. Palm oil, obviously, is the best source. Most animal tallow/lard is high in palmitic acid. Other good vegetable sources are coffee bean or avacado nut oil.

      --
      Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions
    4. Re:Soap == Napalm by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      So, what's your hobby?

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
  38. Unfortunately, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, yes, it is common for the police to pretend to have an excuse to search people's cars, and for them to be imprisoned with little or no credible evidence, for such minor offenses. As the ability of law enforcement to wildly overreach increases, so will such incidents.

  39. Drug Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats nothing, did you know that something like 4 out of 5 bills in US circulation are contaminated with cocaine? Police know this and love to have the drugs dogs sniff your money when you have a large sum on you and then confiscate it as "suspected" drug money, after which point you never see it again.

  40. Or missing the mark... by msimm · · Score: 1, Informative

    Ehem. The Germs are todays breed? The only thing I find more disturbing then the fact that there still are punk-acting bands is the fact that so many people assume they'd know the difference.

    The Germs are old.

    --
    Quack, quack.
    1. Re:Or missing the mark... by Zwaxy · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think you've completely missed the point of what was being said:

      The Germs. Heh. Haven't listened to them since high school. [...]
      On a tangent [...] does anyone else find today's breed to pseudo-punk-acting bands just too funny for words?


      See? He's not saying The Germs are 'today's breed'. He's acknowledging that they're old, then talking about today's breed "on a tangent".

    2. Re:Or missing the mark... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn to read, you fucking idiot.

  41. GHB is not THC by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1, Troll
    The Slashdot write-up implies that Dr. Bonner's Soap is known to test positive for GHB, but that's not what the actual referenced article says at all.

    The company, which is used to law enforcement issues because one ingredient is hemp oil -- and field tests sometimes show positive for THC -- hired Margolin, The Times reported.
    Further, the "soap" was in a wooden ("stash") box that Bonner attempted to conceal. Is one's "stash" box normally where one keeps "soap"? Just askin...
    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:GHB is not THC by ray-auch · · Score: 2, Funny

      Look, the guy is in a vaguely (in)famous punk band (now re-formed).

      Of course he is going to hide the fact that he has soap in his luggage.

      What has happened now is exactly what he would have feared. A drug bust would have been par for the course, in tune with the image... but now he is all over the media for being busted with _soap_. Gonna need some serious PR to rebuild his image after that.

    2. Re:GHB is not THC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where'd you get this "stash" shit? Out of your ass? Just askin...

    3. Re:GHB is not THC by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      It's only a stash box if you keep your stash in it. Otherwise it's just a box.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:GHB is not THC by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      If it's "just a box", why would you hide it from the cops?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    5. Re:GHB is not THC by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      "Put away" isn't necessarily "hide"; that could just be the cop's interpretation. I have no idea, really. Since the box was searched and no pot was found in it, thus making it assuredly "just a box", your question is academic not pertinent.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  42. Pop punk by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    It's called "pop punk" (which should be an oxymoron, but isn't). It's basically pop music with a very thin veneer of pretend-punk thrown in.

    1. Re:Pop punk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there's "Emo" which is far worse than pop punk. Yeah, I want to hear guys in their 20's and 30's whining about their parents and high school...

    2. Re:Pop punk by ethicalBob · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, it's called music (from beethoven to beatles to the circle jerks) - it's all composed of notes, rhythm, chords, etc. And you either like that particular sound (or individual group, or piece) or not - Genres are for those who only feel comfortable dealing with convenient labels, usually to site a close-minded preference "my genre is better than yours"...

      No real punkers call themselves punk - it's the attitude, not the music.

      --
      Politics will sooner or later make fools of everybody... - Dick Armey
    3. Re:Pop punk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actual emo is stuff like Rites of Spring, Saetia, and /maybe/ groups like Alkaline Trio or the Weakerthans.

      Emo is supposed to be the maturation of punk style into an art form to express the full human experience (and not just a platform to speak out against the Establishment, inequality, racism, etc., like real punk was/is).

      Of course, there are plenty of watered-down, craptacular bands that cater to the high-school teenage depression market. The*Ataris are perhaps the better of the selection out there, as they actually can write some decent music, but things just get worse from there.

      More people need to hear some fucking bands like Dead Kennedys, Bad Religion, Dillinger Four, and Anti-Flag.

      And while we're on the subject, all the kids calling themselves straight edge who have no idea of the history behind Minor Threat are helping to miscommunicate their original message. (read this, and maybe this)

      Music is supposed to be glorious and amazing---not limping and ugly.

      Spreading knowledge through anger since '98
      -- doughnut hole

    4. Re:Pop punk by The+PS3+Will+Fail · · Score: 1
      Great reply! Most people are all too interested in telling others what is crap and why what they listen to is so much better than everyone else; rather than just enjoying whatever fucking music they happen to like.

      Live and let live; to each their own; all that.

    5. Re:Pop punk by kchrist · · Score: 1

      The punk scene followed the rise of punk music, so I don't understand how you could say it's not about music. Sure, there was fashion and politics and lifestyle and "attitude", but all that varied from person to person. Music was the one thing everyone had in common.

      But then, any real punk* would know this.

      * see also

    6. Re:Pop punk by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1
      So all music is good music. True in the subjective sense, meaningless in any conversational sense. Britney Spears == The Beatles, Ashlee Simpson == Mozart.

      Regardless, music is categorized into genres and it always will be by everyone but you and about 30 other contrarians.

    7. Re:Pop punk by demon+driver · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it's called music (from beethoven to beatles to the circle jerks) No, there's more to it than that. Punk, thereby distinguishing itself from other genres, sounds and styles, was a lot more than just music, it was a significant (and by all means necessary) era in cultural history, carrying specific, clear and radical attitudes and messages towards authority, society and lifestyle, as well as to preceding musical genres which were failing to do so.

      Truthfulness to cultural history actually requires one to refer to nowadays' pseudo punk by language clearly distinguishing it from the original.
    8. Re:Pop punk by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, because of course, there was no "Pop Punk" back in the late 70's/early 80's--with the exception of The Police, Billy Idol, the Go-Gos, Blondie, and about a million other fucking bands.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    9. Re:Pop punk by ethicalBob · · Score: 1

      No. I never said it wasn't about music - it was MOSTLY about the music (although I was pretty political) - My point was no one ever called the music "punk".

      For those of us who lived the scene - NO one called the music (or the scene) "punk" - it was just rocking out, going hardcore, going to shows, (et al, or more accurately, "whatever"...). The whole idea of the scene was avoiding convention. (albeit as the suburban kids joined the scene, the "fashion" started to take on more form and commonality)

      "Punk" was a label applied from the outside, by those who weren't in the life - we never cared if something had "punk" cred - it wasn't about being cliquish - it was the opposite. Now people use it to decry things they they think aren't "cool" or they feel aren't anti-establishment enough - that is a convention by outsiders who want to be "in".

      Being "punk" is like being cool. You either are or you aren't - in most cases is that it doesn't matter if you are perceived as punk/cool - you just are/were, and the sad thing is that most people don't realize that's a distinction that can only be applied by/to yourself - it's not about applying a label, it's about believing in your own way of living, and saying f*ck what everyone else expects.

      From a sociological standpoint, it is useful to look at the movement, in hindsight and label it as punk as a cultural reference of a time and feeling in a certain segment of the culture - particularly amongst those of us you would have called "disaffected youths". But to use it to bash the credibility of modern bands is just plain silly. During that time bands like Blondie, The Ramones(etc) were all accused of the same B.S. (being "pop" punk)- and compared to DK or the Jerks they were considered 'candy' bands - today people see Blondie as seminal in New Wave, and the Ramones as a punk/rock staple.

      The Scotsman fallacy doesn't apply here, as my generalization is actually accurate. It would have been more astute of you to accuse me of an argumentum ad verecundiam...

      But then again, you don't really have a valid point there, either; as I was there, and you clearly weren't.

      --
      Politics will sooner or later make fools of everybody... - Dick Armey
    10. Re:Pop punk by ethicalBob · · Score: 1

      Well, yes and no... My point was that music is just music - it can still be bad music.

      Labeling it only satisfies a temporary cultural need, and is largely useless to anyone except the like-minded during any given period.

      Lets take The Beatles for an example:

      When they first arrived, they were considered "Mod" or "British Pop" - by hardcore bible thumpers, they were considered "Devil music". Later, Top-forty, then Rock & Roll, and now "Classic" Rock, and you will find most of their music on "Easy Listening" stations. Today, you will find people that could argue that they fit into any of those categories (although not too many think that the beatles are demonic nowadays) ;-)

      Led Zeppelin and Iron Butterfly (in their prime) were Heavy Metal/Acid Rock.

      RATT and Poison were considered Heavy Metal in the early 80s.

      Van Halen - classified as Heavy Metal.

      - tell a 16 yr. old who's into Slayer that ANY of those are Heavy metal, and He'll laugh his ass off at you.

      I mean, one would HOPE that no one would equate Britney Spears as being better than Dvorak, but I wouldn't want to test that theory on a 14 yr old girl - It's subjective.

      --
      Politics will sooner or later make fools of everybody... - Dick Armey
    11. Re:Pop punk by kchrist · · Score: 1

      But then again, you don't really have a valid point there, either; as I was there, and you clearly weren't.

      Ok, you've got me there (looks at the Crass tattoo that's adorned my arm since the '80s...)

      This is a stupid argument. In any case, the people in the scene I was part of did call themselves and each other punks, but we also weren't too hung up on labels that we didn't see the absurdity of it. A sense of humor is vital in that type of scene.

      my generalization is actually accurate

      In the scene you ran with, maybe, but certainly not everywhere. It's a big world.
  43. A known Airline Hijacker in Miami by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Venezuela filed an extradition request, he is a known convicted Airliner hijacker from 1976 whose escaped trial. The guys lawyer claimed he would be tortured if extradited, the US represents Venezuela under the extradition treaty and they did not even send a lawyer as they're required to do under the US-Venezuela treaty.

    Basically they're pissed at Venezuela so they'd rather let a hijacker go free than extradite him to Venezuela for trial.

    So they judge heard only one side, and blocked the extradition. Once he clears these immigration charges, the guy walks free throughout the US.

    Welcome to Bushworld. Tough on terrorism.... not.

  44. How did it go from a broken taillight ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... to testing a bottle of soap for drugs?

  45. Did he get raped in jail? by Trespass · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    That would be pretty ironic I guess.

  46. It is less about accuracy... by Bert+the+Turtle · · Score: 0

    ...and more about appropriate use. No test is ever going to be 100%, and certainly not el cheapo on the street tests. So the important point is WHEN the tests are used. The cops need to have a good reason to suspect a certain substance is present. If they go round testing every bottle or tub they find on anyone they ever search, they will collect HUNDREDS of false positives. If, on the other hand, they only apply the tests to appropriate materials (I wonder if soap is an appropriate GHB delivery system?) and in situations where they have a reason to suspect an illegal substance (like a stoned suspect puffing on a spliff, or a needle-tracked junkie with a syringe in one hand) then the number of false positives will be low, and the police won't be accused of testing people willy-nilly.

    1. Re:It is less about accuracy... by Sancho · · Score: 1

      I agree in general, but for the sake of argument, couldn't GHB possibly be transported in a soap bottle? Even transported in actual soap, and then extracted later?

    2. Re:It is less about accuracy... by Bert+the+Turtle · · Score: 0

      Yes, probably. But unless there is reasonable suspicion you shouldn't test for it. I mean, do we really need the cops spending every waking moment testing bottles of shampoo and bars of soap?

    3. Re:It is less about accuracy... by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Funny

      further.. its kind of hard to introduce that into drinks.. "why does my beer taste like soap?" "relax baby it's miller clean"

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    4. Re:It is less about accuracy... by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      Actually, since glycerine can be used as a base to produce GHB, the answer is in some way "yes". Let's put everyone to jail!

  47. Resolved?! by SuperBanana · · Score: 3, Insightful

    otherwise it gets derailed when people get alarmed about the fact that somebody is sitting in jail right now for a mistake and then somebody (in this case me) has to come and point out that the whole thing has actually been resolved.

    #1, I'm alarmed about the fact that he was arrested, period.

    #2, I'm alarmed that these false positives have been happening for a while, and #3, that it is still presented as valid evidence in criminal cases despite knowledge that it has a high false positive rate. Follow-up tests should be automatic, not a matter of the defendant having money to pay for it.

    How did the cop even get to the point of being able to search the car? Oh, cute. The old "broken taillight" routine:

    Bolles, 51, was arrested on April 4 after being pulled over for having a broken brake light

    The officer got permission to search the vehicle and a field test on a bottle of Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap showed positive for GHB, Sailor said.

    Never, never, NEVER agree to a search of your vehicle. Say, "I'm sorry, officer, I do not consent to a search", and if he says he's going to get a search warrant, LET HIM TRY. It's a scare tactic; if they had a legitimate, constitutional right to search you and your car, they already would have done so- and they certainly wouldn't need your permission.

    Similarly, if you ARE stupid enough to allow a search (or they have a valid reason to search) and find something, SHUT UP. Don't say anything except, "I wish to speak to, and be represented by, an attorney." I don't care HOW much the cop says he'll "go easy" or who he'll "talk to". IT IS A LIE.

    1. Re:Resolved?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check my reply above. Great video by the way, I have seen it before and recommend it.

      MX

    2. Re:Resolved?! by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      In texas, you only need a justice of the peace to issue a search warrant (at his/her discretion). Strangely enough, the Justice of the Peace's home phone number is on the dash of every police car in texas. Not strangely enough, when a JoP is awakened in the middle of the night by a cop saying a driver wouldn't consent to a vehicle search, they usually award a search warrant.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
  48. Cheap drug test kits... by Landshark17 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I went to high school with a guy who complained one day about how his dad had given him a drug test from a kit that he'd bought at the local Rite Aid. According to the kit, the guy tested positive for marijuana, LSD, heroin and cocaine use.

    The guy protested furiously, as he had only used marijauna and cocaine, with the occasional Aderol.

    --
    This sig is false.
  49. Funny Topic? by pentalive · · Score: 1

    And why is someone (who ever it is) getting locked up for three days on a false positive test "funny"??

  50. Wait... by kbox · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... When did people in punk bands start washing?

  51. All-One! by tverbeek · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Don't Drink Soap! Dilute! Dilute! or Wet Skin Well! OK!"

    In other words, when used as directed, Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap cannot be effective as a date-rape drug.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    1. Re:All-One! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Now it just needs: It is a violation of federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. Like someone drinking it if you're put a date rape drug in it.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  52. Old news.... by MarkAD88 · · Score: 1

    Congratulations, this story is about a week old if not older. I heard them interview the guy on I think KROQ radio station in Southern California just after it happened.

    Anything else you want to report? I don't know.... maybe like Anna Nicole Smith has died or perhaps the fact that JFK was assasinated?

    1. Re:Old news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JFK is dead???

  53. We'll get to see more posts like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Actual terrorists are rare..."

    Except in afghanistan.

    "...and almost every action taken to detect or prevent terrorist acts has a very high false positive rate that makes it useless for the purpose."

    Like dogs sniffing for drugs or explosives.

  54. hmm.... by Animaether · · Score: 0
    hold on a sec...

    Ok, so you cleared your name of being a drug user

    Says who?

    Okay, okay.. so poppy seeds not an officially listed narcotic/opiate or whatever you'd call them in the U.S. .. but obviously they have some of the same characteristics as the full deal - just in far lesser concentrations?

    Could it be that eating poppy seed products be doing drugs, in some form? I know this sounds ridiculous just on the face of it, but does anybody know the origin of using poppy seeds in food products? I've scraped the poppy seeds off a bun once and ate them.. they didn't have any specific taste that I could tell - quite unlike the relatively strong tastes of, say, sesame seeds, sunflower pits, almond shavings, etc. So assuming I don't have some poppy seed-taste deficiency, and they really are rather bland, why are they in/on food products and why do some of us choose to eat them. Moreover, why do those who choose to eat them choose to eat them relatively frequently? (like GP, who apparently had poppy seed bagels for breakfast every morning - as opposed to plain, sesame seed, etc. for variety)

    Has there been research done into this subject? Honestly curious.
    1. Re:hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe the opiates-test isn't just detecting the active compound, but rather co-occurring chemicals, in order to boost expected sensitivity.

      Kind of how AIDS tests react to antibodies and not the virus itself.

    2. Re:hmm.... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Poppy seeds sometimes do contain a very very very small amount of opioid alkaloids, but would require, in essense, a room full of them to produce a dose of morphine. Opium and opium derivatives come come from (ironically) the seed pods mostly, and the rest of the plant has enough that it's worthwhile to just process the whole thing.

      It is trivial to demonstrate that seeds do not have usable amounts of opium in them: Sterile (They irradiate them) poppy seeds are not regulated in any way whatsoever, you can purchase them by the ton, yet it is easier to smuggle in heroin than to make it from them. Considering the amount of trouble it takes to make meth, I think we can assume if it was reasonable to turn poppy seeds into heroin or any sort of drug at all, drug dealers would be doing so.

      This isn't unique to opium, of course. Any fruit more than a few hours old contains traces of alcohol in it. And with fruits, it's actually worthwhile to make alcohol out of them, yet they don't seem to have any problem selling fruit to minors.

      Drug tests are designed to work, for opium, for a long period of time afterwards. Your body doesn't bother cleaning out the last traces of the opioid alkaloids after you shoot up with heroin, and it doesn't bother cleaning out the traces that poppy seeds put in you.

      If drug tests attempted to test for past alcohol use, instead of currently being under the influence, they'd twig for all sorts of random things, like fruit. Quite a lot of people, right now, would blow 0.001 BAC (1/80th the legal level for driving) on a breathilizer, and can't recall the last drink they had, or don't even drink at all. There are stories of non-drinkers that constantly blow 0.01, high enough to register on the test. 'Alcohol' is just a organic chemical.

      And, yes, poppy seed bagels do, indeed, have a taste. Or, at least, a texture. And a lot of people have a favorite kind of bagel...I quite enjoyed poppy seed bagels for a whole year, until I switched to blueberry.

      I don't know why the GP took quite that low to realize why he was failing drug tests, though...I thought everyone knew poppy seed bagels could make you do it. Even if I didn't believe that to start with (And, really, it depends on the person and how their body works. Some people can have one three days earlier and fail, and some people can have one two hours before and pass.), after I failed my first drug test, because I don't use drugs, the first question I'd ask myself is 'Why did I fail that test?' and poppy seed bagels would spring to mind. I'm not entirely sure I believe this guy's story.

      The drug test for heroin is idiotic anyway. Heroin abuse would be damned noticeable at any job. It's not like cocaine, where people can behave almost normally until they start tweaking out or start having anger control issues. And if they're just using opiates without abusing them(1), then their work will probably be fine.

      1) Yes, you can use (some) drugs without abusing them quite easily. Soldiers used to get addicted to morphine and take a set dose for their entire damn life with no problem at all.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    3. Re:hmm.... by nacturation · · Score: 1

      I've scraped the poppy seeds off a bun once and ate them.. they didn't have any specific taste that I could tell - quite unlike the relatively strong tastes of, say, sesame seeds, sunflower pits, almond shavings, etc. So assuming I don't have some poppy seed-taste deficiency, and they really are rather bland, why are they in/on food products and why do some of us choose to eat them. The taste (or more accurately: smell, since it's your nose that picks it up not the tongue) is subtle, but definitely there. If your poppy seeds were a year old then perhaps the taste was gone, but I can most definitely notice the flavor.
      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    4. Re:hmm.... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      The taste (or more accurately: smell, since it's your nose that picks it up not the tongue) is subtle, but definitely there. If your poppy seeds were a year old then perhaps the taste was gone, but I can most definitely notice the flavor.



      Yep. It's even more pronounced when you have things like poppy seed cake, which is basically mostly poppy seeds and sugar.

    5. Re:hmm.... by macshit · · Score: 1

      The taste (or more accurately: smell, since it's your nose that picks it up not the tongue) is subtle, but definitely there. If your poppy seeds were a year old then perhaps the taste was gone, but I can most definitely notice the flavor.

      Yeah, I find the taste pretty strong actually -- and they also have a really nice texture that you really don't get with anything else (common).

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    6. Re:hmm.... by terrymr · · Score: 1

      Breath tests are pretty useless for testing for alcohol anyway. A little research reveals that they can't distinguish between alochol and any of a hundred other checmicals that may appear in your breath for completely innocent reasons. They're a good field guide to who needs to be blood tested and not much else.

      Any drug testing lab should have had a test subject complete a questionaire detailing any foods they have eaten which may lead to low level false positive results. The lower the level of something you are looking for the more likely it is that the test will give spurious results. The fact that companies continue to employ these labs just proves the lack of education out there on the subject.

    7. Re:hmm.... by Animaether · · Score: 1

      Seems you and at least one other responded mentioned texture.. hadn't thought of that, to be honest, and I suppose there is something to be said for that (went out and got some poppy seed covered buns just to check if I was going nuts.. but nope, still no particular taste to me)

      Nor have I tried a poppy seed cake (couldn't find any around here either) where somebody said flavor was stronger.

      I'm still curious as to what caused people to put poppy seeds on/in products in the first place tho'.. hmm.

  55. Editors... that's funny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you kidding me? 10 days is about right for the editors. Plus, I think you're being generous by referring to them as editors. To put it frankly, I think you need to use quotes to indiate "editors" as nothing more than they were bigger brown-nosers at some point, and they happened to be in the right place at the right time. It CERTAINLY doesn't mean that the "editors" are timely, intelligent, or even dilligent. Frankly, I've not gotten any indication that they even give a fuck. If someone did, I suspect that they'd wade through whatever backlog of CRAP and post stuff in a timely basis. Instead, we're living with what these morons have been doing for a LONG, LONG time.

    And I think we're all generous when we refer to them as editors: They remind me of back when I was in Junior High school. I was in the photography club. We were approached by the school "newspaper" where we had a clueless dumbfuck who was given the title "editor". While it was apparent he had a grasp of the english language, his chief skills were butt-kissing the librarian and vice principal, and NOT paying attention to what's current and appropriate.

    That clueless brown-noser (like today's /. editors) couldn't find good copy if you wrapped it around a fish and slapped him in the face with it.
    The "editors" at /. have never been editors... they are simply morons with privilege. Much like today's politicians, they can't do anything right. If you expect more from them, you really need to go out and experience the real world. The "editors" are notorious for dupes, and dupes of dupes. And they are about as timely as the US Patent Office. Seriously, if you bumped into an editor on the street, told them their underwear were on fire, they'd look!

    I used to frequent the "old" /. which was better in the sense that the regulars and a few editors would routinely beat up the "bad" editors within the first few posts of an article. Now, it takes at least 1/2 a day to get any kind of acknowledgement (if any), and the editors don't care about correcting the problem(s).
    That's why I've relegated /. to an RSS feed that I check once every 3 days.
    I guess the one nice thing is that with the immense time delay between when a story is submitted and actually posted, the editors are at least consistent.

  56. Date Rape Drug by burris · · Score: 1

    Date rape drug? Like alcohol??

  57. All hail Wikipedia!! by mangu · · Score: 0
    napalm was originally a mix of coprecipitated aluminum salts of naphthenic and palmitic acids.


    It just happens that my dad, who graduated from school as a chemical engineer in 1939 and had a job at Dow Chemical in 1944, told me differently...

    1. Re:All hail Wikipedia!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It just so happens that this type of credential dropping is completely sycophantic and irritating. Did it occur to you that Sticky Shit That Burns Well tm may have been revised over the years and had multiple synths?

      I had a cop try to tell me one time that a college professor's word was worth more than mine when the professor accused me of something. "Are you telling me that COLLEGE PROFESSOR lied."
      Ohhh! Impressive! That's atleast like a +5 unrelated to credibility job title.

      How about the boeing employee who lectured me about cellphones on an airplane after taking a 30 second call. "I work for Boeing and I'll have you know they do care!" Really? What do you do? Mop floors? I'm a fucking RF hobbiest you pretentious asshole. Judging from your lack of specificity on your job title I'm guessing that makes me more fucking qualified to talk about communications devices. I know well enough to know a 30 second call from a CDMA device while the airplane is fucking taxiing isn't going to cause any problems they haven't had before with no incident. Call me a fucking gambling man!

  58. This will help. by pavon · · Score: 1

    The soap was made out of hemp-oil so that will help him get back on their good (or is it bad) side.

  59. im no scientist... by drfrog · · Score: 1

    but isnt GHB derived from glycerine?

    arent most soaps?

    --
    back in the day we didnt have no old school
  60. Toothpaste does by Mad-cat · · Score: 1

    Certain toothpastes and many oral care products field test positive for cocaine.
    It's just something to watch for.

    No cop with an ounce of common sense arrests solely on a field test. The substance has to actually make sense to be the substance in question.

    Of course, without seeing the full arrest report...who could say? You have to wonder why the soap was tested in the first place.

    1. Re:Toothpaste does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      >No cop with an ounce of common sense arrests solely on a field test.

      If in charge, I would make one simple change to that status quo.

      No cop who makes an arrest like the one reported ever works in government, let alone law enforcement, again in his entire life. And don't whine to me about having families to support and having to forfeit their pension plans and all that.

  61. Why why WHY why why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I have a broken tail-light, testing a bottle of soap in my car for a date-rape drug is pretty f*cking insulting.

  62. Ok, so it all worked out by Dan+Stephans+II · · Score: 1, Funny
    But the cops test his soap for a date rape drug? Did they bother to stop for a second and consider the likeliness of application? "Oh, honey, why don't you take a drink of this soap, it's delicious."

    My favorite part of the interview (second link):

    There's a lot of buzz about that movie. Have you seen it? Not yet. I got to watch the kid who plays me, and that was awful. He's nothing like me, and it was the worst thing ever, for a while. For a while? So he got better? No. But worse things have happened to me since then.

    1. Re:Ok, so it all worked out by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      But the cops test his soap for a date rape drug? Did they bother to stop for a second and consider the likeliness of application? "Oh, honey, why don't you take a drink of this soap, it's delicious."

      That's what I was thinking. If you can get your date to eat a bar of soap, I can't imagine you need GHB.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  63. I first read that as GBH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thought he killed one of the members of the punk band GBH and turned them into soap

  64. Date Rape Drug? by vandan · · Score: 1

    Yeah like MJ causes reefer madness and nicotine is good for your lungs. Spin.

    I have no doubt that some people have used GHB to assist them in raping people. But let's not brand the drug based on what an incredibly small minority of people do with it. If we were to do that, then surely alcohol would be the No 1 'date rape drug'.

  65. Bagels by KitsuneSoftware · · Score: 1

    Bagels test positive for opiates. Well, they do if they're covered in poppy seeds.

  66. They won't need a drug dog..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... They'll just simply arrest you on the spot for driving a toxic waste dump on a public road.

    1. Re:They won't need a drug dog..... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      See, this is the thing that concerns me about the US. It looks like you can be arrested and jailed for just about anything, whether it's particularly illegal or not - look at the article, where the guy is arrested for *having a broken tail light*. In the UK, the most the police can do - no matter how much they might *want* to do more - is give you a form to get stamped by a garage when you get the bulb replaced (although generally if you just take the car to the police station with the bulb fixed and say you did it yourself, that's fine too).

      In the UK you generally have to have committed some kind of crime and left some form of tangible evidence before you can be arrested for anything.

    2. Re:They won't need a drug dog..... by operagost · · Score: 1

      He wasn't arrested for the brake light, but for the aforementioned false positive on the soap. The sentence you're probably referring to is poorly written. You can't be arrested for vehicle safety violations.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  67. Actually, that's quick mythbusting by smchris · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Back in my day, kids, it was widely reported that LSD caused chromosome damage. But then all sorts of commonly ingested substances cause chromosome damage in test tubes. As is usually the case in these things, that rebuttal came out some time later and was not widely reported so most people middle-aged and up probably still believe LSD causes chromosome damage.

    If NBC was useful in letting someone demonstrate a logical fallacy surrounding soap, that worked out pretty well.

  68. Re:Punk music by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Music" is still around in 2007? Jesus, move onto a new form of entertainment alreadfy.

  69. Screening tests. by sjames · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The test in question is a screening test. That is, a test that is designed to quickly eliminate the possability of a substance so you don't have to perform the more expensive and time consuming confirmation test. So, a negative result means the substance is not present, positive means it MIGHT be. If the police and/or courts don't understand that, they shouldn't be using the test at all.

    Unfortunatly, apparently the test is marketed for use much as the police used it in this case.

    The other problem in this case is that Bronner's is obviously soap. Just how did they imagine that GHB would even be (ab-)useful after mixing it into soap? What would have even lead them to believe the bottle contained GHB in the first place?

  70. Not resolved at all by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

    Resolved? We still haven't gotten to the bottom of why Dr. Bronner is putting date rape drugs in his soap. Why did he try to frame a musician for date rape before then turning around to assist in his legal defense once the thing blew wide open? This whole thing smacks of a coverup. I want to know what else this Dr. Bronner has been up to.

    1. Re:Not resolved at all by Syberghost · · Score: 1

      Resolved? We still haven't gotten to the bottom of why Dr. Bronner is putting date rape drugs in his soap. Why did he try to frame a musician for date rape before then turning around to assist in his legal defense once the thing blew wide open? This whole thing smacks of a coverup. I want to know what else this Dr. Bronner has been up to.

      He makes all his products using hemp. I think it's obvious what he's been up to.

    2. Re:Not resolved at all by mink · · Score: 1

      From beyond the grave even.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  71. Re:Punk music by Skroggtar · · Score: 1

    Noise is emerging as a genre of tomorrow. Punk will be allowed to die soon.

  72. Resolved? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Issue resolved? It wasn't your butt that was falsely accused and had to sit in jail overnight for it.

    For many people the accusation could really effect your public characater. True, for the person in question it would be pretty hard to damage it any, but for most of us it would, especially since it is now on your record forever and in the papers..

    You go thru that rather terrible experience then come back and dismiss it as 'resolved' a couple of days later.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  73. I'm behind this 100% by serutan · · Score: 1

    Because if punk rockers use soap, the terrists have won.

  74. If I haven't done anything wrong, then by Catbeller · · Score: 1

    The answer to the eternal apologist's question:

    "If you haven't done anything wrong, why do you care if they search your bags/test your urine/watch what you read/monitor your movements/listen to your phone conversations?"

    Because people are fuckups, and you don't let fuckups police your life for no damned good reason.

  75. Looking for a reason to arrest. by Skreech · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cops look for a reason to arrest. If they "just know" that some civilian is guilty of "something," then obviously they can make a field test return a positive result with soap to give them more time to search or whatever. There's probably a short list of somewhat common materials people may have with them that tests positive on some specific test.

    It's along the same lines as pulling someone over and asking the driver ten different times the basic question "Is it okay to search your car?" In progressively more confusing and convoluted ways because all the driver has to do is slip up once. Then the cop can get on with his job of figuring out what you're guilty of.

    It's like developing a field test for explosives and then being able to arrest someone because their gasoline tank tested positive for highly flammable material.

    1. Re:Looking for a reason to arrest. by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      all the driver has to do is slip up once

      How will the officer be able to prove that he "slipped up?" If an officer starts to search your car after a "slip-up" on your part, just continue to tell the officer "You do not have my permission to search my vehicle." If there are other people around, say it loudly, so that they will be able to hear you (and corroborate your "I didn't give him permission" story).

  76. Glad I wasn't stopped after a root canal by billstewart · · Score: 1

    A few years back I was coming home from the dentist, and realized that getting stopped would be a really really bad thing. My voice would have been all slurry because my mouth wazh shtill numb frub da novocaine, so they'd want to test me, novocaine's a cocaine relative, the codeine I'd had earlier in the day is an opiate, I'd had some sudafed to keep my breathing clear while they worked on me, so they'd test that as amphetamines, and ibuprofen causes false positives on the standard cheap marijuana tests. Hadn't had any alcohol that day, and they can't really test for nitrous (and it had worn off before I left the dentist), but otherwise I'd have had a perfect score unless they also test for weird stuff like mescaline or something...

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Glad I wasn't stopped after a root canal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yikes! The dentist told me I'm in his top 5 for difficulty in anesthetizing (as you'll see below), yet for my root canal all I had was two shots of Novocaine (one in the gum, one in the tooth [or I assume it's there, kind of hard to see when people jam needles in your mouth, and hard to feel when you're already frozen]). I did get the Tylenol-3 just in case, but never did need it (saved it for migraines instead). Even when the temporary filling fell out I didn't feel anything!

      One interesting thing did come of the root canal, though: It turns out that the bottom left side of my mouth can't be frozen, likely due to a botched job with an earlier dentist that left me frozen for 3 months from a nicked nerve (thank God that fixed itself, mostly). Yes, they tried, with the legal maximum dosage (about 4 1/2 needles). The root canal wasn't anywhere near as incredibly painful as I had expected--I went in expecting it to hurt like HELL, worse than my previous cavities in that sensitive region.

      Turns out that side of my mouth hurts the same as getting a root canal done. And so, the dentist now understands. :) Fortunately, he's a decent guy, and puts up with the wincing. He did say the root canal went easier than he's used to.

    2. Re:Glad I wasn't stopped after a root canal by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      They let you have novocaine and nitrous while you were on codeine? And let you have sudafed at the same time?

      I don't know where you go to the dentist, but most anesthesiologists are really opposed to giving you any drugs when you are already on stimulants and depressants, regardless of their legality.

      Incidentally, almost all 'non-drowsy' allergy and cough medicine has stimulants in it, too. That's how it's 'non-drowsy', they depress your system to make you stop coughing, but then add stimulants back to keep you awake! No thank you, I'll take normal cough medicine and just drink caffeine or something.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    3. Re:Glad I wasn't stopped after a root canal by TheLink · · Score: 1

      AFAIK those popular "cough medicine"s have been proven to not work.

      --
    4. Re:Glad I wasn't stopped after a root canal by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      I don't know what you're talking about, they can work just fine.

      They'll only work if your cough is caused by minor irritation of the throat, though. They work by depressing the nerves in your throat. If you're coughing for some other reason, or have major irritation of the throat, they won't stop you coughing, although they can, at least, make it feel better.

      Just like any medicine, people should actually learn the active ingredients and learn which ones work for them at which times, and purchase medicine based on the actual active ingredient instead of randomly purchasing something that claims to be exactly what they need but does exactly the same thing as medicine they already have on the shelf.

      Like most of the stuff that treats 'sinus and headache' is, literally, sinus medicine with Tylonol added.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  77. Re:Punk music by XnavxeMiyyep · · Score: 0

    "Entertainment" is still around in 2007? Jesus, move onto a new form of action already.

    --
    I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
  78. Dr. Bonner- Interesting man to talk to by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Man, after reading his story on wikipedia and straight dope I'm sorry to have learned that he's died.

    It sounds like he would have been really interesting to talk to.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  79. Really! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's got to be the biggest pile of bullshit ever modded up on Slashdot! Jesus, what a steaming pile of crap!

  80. Yes another misleading Slashdot headline by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    He was not arrested for carrying soap. He was arrested on suspicion of possession of a banned substance.

    Slashdot morons..

    1. Re:Yes another misleading Slashdot headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it was the soap he was arrested for, and the soap was perfectly normal soap. So yes, he was arrested for having soap.

    2. Re:Yes another misleading Slashdot headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He had a bar of soap, which tested positive for a banned subsrtance. Ergo he was arrested for having the soap. QED.

      Unless you want to argue that the substance somehow seperated from the soap (osmosis?) spontaneously.

      Learn to comprehend.

  81. False Positives and Full testing by DynaSoar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Makes you wonder what other common household products also test positive; and how many others have been arrested based on faulty test kits who didn't have the resources to defend themselves."

    Drug urinanalysis tests are notorious for false positives as well as true positives for common food stuffs which do carry the drug(s), but in minute quantities. I recall an entire class of substance abuse counselors in training being given surprise urinalysis so they'd know how it feels. They all tested positive, in testing and restesting. The culprit was poppy seed muffins supplied by the organization presenting the class. This was figured out by the instructor. Had it not been, or had this been one or more individuals really being tested for whatever reason, the samples would have been retained and passed to a lab for mass spectrometry. This test is many orders of magnitude more accurate. It absolutely identifies molecules present. It does not indicate the source. They'd have been considered positives, which is guilt by fairly irrefutible evidence, but not considered false positives due to circumstantial evidence. How many? I have no idea, in general. I do know that I, and those I worked with in substance abuse treatment, did inquire into possible sources, knowing of the above. All that I supervised admitted using, after giving bad excuses. I knew of the possible other sources -- they didn't. But then I worked for a facility which was owned by a medical corporation. They had potential liability and so expected us to be careful like this. Testing done by law enforcement and similar organizations are not considered as liable, as they themselves cannot be held as accountable. They can and do jail based on initial testing, even probable false positives and obvious ridiculous positives (how was he going to get the supposed intended victim to ingest enough soap?). However, they can be held accountable, especially in the press. Sad as the case is, this is probably the best chance the individual has for getting just due. With popular knowledge and support, any case would go more his way, and law enforement tends to go Tango Uniform when faced with the prospect. He could get damages if he pressed it. I hope his roasts the bastards.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  82. Re:Word of the Day: Switcheur by Miseph · · Score: 1

    "real Mac user: ...the round pegs in the square holes..."

    Nope, just square.

    --
    Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  83. by the time.. by nanosquid · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that by the time you apply the GBH in soap, it seems to be a little too late to be worrying about date rape drugs...

  84. A sad act of simple self-destructive angst by timothy · · Score: 1

    After all, surely even a punk rock drummer knows that soap *kills* Germs!

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  85. date rape drug? by hxnwix · · Score: 1

    Ummm... wtf? What intoxicant ISN'T a date rape drug?

    Dopamine makes you want. Anything that potentiates dopamine, barring more complex interactions, DIRECTLY increases a person's sexual desire. Note: ritalin is a dopaminergic reuptake inhibitor. Adderall is that, and more, causing the brain to release more dopamine into the synaptic gap.

    Alcohol reduces inhibitions... I think we're all familiar with how this one works.

    Do we classify these as date rape drugs? For fuck's sake, of course not.

    But would you want to argue against such egregious, destructive and obvious error? Not if you wanted to be elected - it's too easy to rip on the poor fools naive enough to think of public utility. Which brings me to my point - one that, unfortunately, someone far more sinister than I stated succinctly:

    "What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler

  86. Pesticides effect mammals, too by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

    Actually, many pesticides are at least somewhat effective nerve agents against mammals in high enough concentrations. Certain people can be extremely effected by certain pesticides over and above average reactions, too. Many of them are toxic in other ways instead of or in addition to being nerve agents in people. In the U.S., the EPA makes no suggestion that pesticides are not toxic to humans. They rate them by how toxic they are and how quickly they break down. They then clear some of them for use in certain concentrations with certain labels and certain restrictions on who can use some of them. Pesticides are known to be a danger to the nervous, endocrine, and reproductive systems. The health benefits of having higher yields and therefore cheaper prices on foods -- especially fruits and vegetables -- is often thought to outweigh the risks. This may be true when properly designed pesticides are properly used and your food is properly cleaned before you eat it. As with most things in life, though, there are trade-offs.

    I, for one, have been in the emergency room for a number of hours before with what the doctors called giant hives due to exposure to pesticides. Giant hives are just like regular hives, only my hives were 2-3 inches wide, 4-8 inches long, and up to a quarter of an inch raised from the normal surface of the skin. They itch like hell, are pretty painful, they're very discolored, and they can last for days or weeks. They're caused by a number of things, but mine were caused by pesticide exposure. The doctors were monitoring to make sure my throat didn't close since I had such a strong reaction in the skin.

    Lots of people are even saying that lower IQ scores, more asthma, and other health problems among children are due the amount of pesticides used in schools. ADD, Asperger's, and many of the issues that have been increasingly diagnosed are neurological in nature. Those rates may or may not have something to do with pesticides. The truth is, no one really knows what the levels of pesticides in U.S. schools is doing to kids. The EPA has guidelines to reduce exposure due to suspicion that it can't be good to have children inundated with the stuff. The state of Washington a few years ago pass a law stating that parents must be notified when there children's schools would be using pesticides. The state of New York has a nice writeup on a study it did in which it states that 87% of schools in NY used pesticides, that no pesticide be considered completely safe, and lists the more usual effects of several common pesticides and herbicides.

    1. Re:Pesticides effect mammals, too by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Effective in the 'Is this a lethal agent' and 'Do I need to be in MOPP 4?' sense.

      If yes, it's a chemical weapon. If it's supposed to prevent malaria by killing all the mosquitos, than it isn't a CW.

      Whether it's long term safe for developing children isn't what the paper's for.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:Pesticides effect mammals, too by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Most pesticides are not weapons grade agents that will quickly kill most people. That is right. However, some still have a pronounced effect on mammals including humans. I just don't want people to take the statement that they are not effective to mean that they are completely safe. Some legal ones in the US are even required to be applied by licensed professionals wearing protective clothing.

      As for the field tests, there's a reason there are more accurate tests back at the lab. However, there's also a good reason that more than just a test like this should be needed for reason to arrest and hold someone. It really doesn't bother me that a nerve agent in a pesticide triggers a field test for nerve agents or that a field test for a drug triggers on some soaps. What bothers me is that the officers didn't know about the false positives or ignored the likelihood of false positives in order to get the arrest. Even though the search was consensual, they didn't reasonable suspicion that his soap was a date rape kit based on just a test that's meant to be extra sensitive.

      A hunter shouldn't be arrested for GSR just after a hunting trip without some reason to believe he did something illegal. A farmer, pest control tech, or homeowner shouldn't be arrested for appropriate amounts of pesticides. A rock musician shouldn't be arrested for having soap. Hell, too much potassium can kill a person rather quickly. I don't want to go to jail for carrying around a multivitamin that contains it in much too small a quantity to do that. I bet if they tested for potassium in a pill meant to deliver it, though, that they could find it.

    3. Re:Pesticides effect mammals, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For what its worth, in the military we would use RAID to generate a nerve agent "positive" on M8/M9.

  87. Re:Punk music by Zwaxy · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Punks Not Dead" - but the apostrophe is on its last leg's

  88. Yeah but by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

    where are you going to find 12 drummers smart enough to follow a criminal trial?

    --
    "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  89. Re:Punk music by EugeneK · · Score: 1

    "Action" is still around in 2007? Jesus, move onto the next, uh...concept already.

  90. Fight Club Soap?! by Terminus32 · · Score: 0

    Link up the Meth, PCP & Absinthe, go down well with breakfast!

    --
    http://nathanlindsell.blogspot.com/
  91. Basic grammar by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    "and how many others have been arrested based on faulty test kits who didn't have the resources to defend themselves."

    I don't see how a test kit could successfully raise money or represent itself in court (AFAIK, they can't talk). That's just ludicrous.

  92. Re:It's Funny? Laugh? by tbone1 · · Score: 1
    I guess I missed the joke here. Was it the part about rape or the part about being falsely accused that was supposed to make me chuckle?

    No, the joke is that a drummer was actually carrying soap.

    --

    The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
  93. Re:Punk music by CRCulver · · Score: 1

    Noise? The Detroit noise scene peaked, what, a decade ago? Even if Warren Defever's crowd still keeps it alive, that's very much a genre of yesterday.

  94. poor mans napalm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or, for a quick and easy "sticky but flammable" substance, mix Diesel and Styrofoam.

  95. Deserved it. by NeverNow · · Score: 0

    Punk rockers shouldn't use soap, anyway.

  96. Re:Punk music by xENoLocO · · Score: 1

    Give the RIAA another 5 years... they're working hard on the case already.

    --
    "The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
  97. The LABEL for this soap is drug-like enough. by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    Have you ever read the label of a bottle of Dr. Bronner's Soap? I used to have to stare at one every day I took a shower because someone where I was living left a bottle of it in the shower and there was nothing else to occupy my mind. Staring at a bottle of Dr. Bronner soap for several minutes every day will drive you insane.

    Wikipedia article on Bronner with a couple of excerpts from the label.

    You used to be able to download PDFs of the labels at their website, but it looks like I now can't show you the face of madness I had to stare into every morning. You can buy them at Whole Foods, Trader Joes, and other "natural" product stores if your ever interested in weirding yourself out.

    Heck, I don't blame the cops for drug testing a bottle of this soap after seeing it. I mean it's got the word HEMP in big bold letters and the rambling of a madman on it.

    (Besides, what's your point? Unlike a punk band member, what's so suspicious about an IT professional having a bottle of soa--.... Ah. Never mind.)

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  98. "Maguire Seven" convicted based on similar tests by deemaglee · · Score: 2, Informative

    The "Maguire Seven" were wrongly convicted as members of the IRA running a bomb-making factory out of their home. The evidence pointed to the fact that a chemical found in explosives was found on the dish-washing gloves of one of the convicted. It later turned out that this chemical was common in household cleaning agents. A movie was made about this case, primarily about the "Guildford Four", but the "Maguire Seven" are related to this case being of the same family. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Name_of_the_Fa ther After they were convicted of murder and received the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment, the judge expressed regret that the Four had not been charged with treason, which then still had a mandatory death penalty. On February 9, 2005, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair issued an apology to the families of the eleven people imprisoned for the bombings, and those related to them who were still alive, by saying, in part: 'I am very sorry that they were subject to such an ordeal and injustice (...) they deserve to be completely and publicly exonerated.' The movie is very good and well worth a watch if you're interested in recent Irish history, miscarriage of justice.

  99. Re:Word of the Day: Switcheur by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

    For god sakes it's a computer, not a lifestyle. Real "Mac users" aren't changing the world, they are just plunking away at the keyboard like the rest of the world.

    since you seem to like the dictionary try this one-
    Main Entry: condescend
    Pronunciation: "kän-di-'send
    Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French condescendre, from Late Latin condescendere, from Latin com- + descendere to descend
    1 a : to descend to a less formal or dignified level
    2 : to assume an air of superiority

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  100. Date rape by do_kev · · Score: 1

    I found it interesting and potentially misleading that it was worded: "contained GHB, the date rape drug." Calling GHB a date rape drug implies that it is going to be used to date rape somebody, when in actuality, it is only a date rape drug when taken in very high doses or combined with alcohol. Many people actually take GHB recreationally, and do not possess it with any intention of raping somebody.

  101. POLICE WARNING: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Police are warning all men who frequent clubs, parties and local pubs to be alert and stay cautious when offered a drink from any woman. Many females use a date rape drug on the market called ...Beer. The drug is found in liquid form and available anywhere. It comes in bottles, cans, from taps and in large "kegs".

    Beer is used by female sexual predators at parties and bars to persuade their male victims to go home and have sex with them. A woman needs only to get a guy to consume a few units of Beer and then simply ask him home for no strings attached sex. Men are rendered helpless against this approach.

    After several Beers, men will often succumb to the desires to perform sexual acts on horrific looking women whom they would never normally be attracted.

    After drinking Beer, men often awaken with only hazy memories of exactly what happened to them the night before, often with just a vague feeling that "something bad" occurred.

    At other times these unfortunate men are swindled out of their life's savings, in a familiar scam known as a "relationship". In extreme cases, the female may even be shrewed enough to entrap the unsuspecting male into a longer term form of servitude and punishment referred to as "marriage". Men are much more susceptible to this scam after Beer is administered and sex is offered by the predatory females. Please! Forward this warning to every male you know.

    If you fall victim to this beer and the women administering it..... There are male support groups where you can discuss the details of your shocking encounter with similarly affected like-minded guys. For the support group nearest you, just look up "Golf Courses" in the phone book.

  102. Dr Bronner's Soap has GHB? by Khyber · · Score: 1

    I would have thought it'd have THC or CBD or CBN because Dr. Bronner's is made from hemp and olive oils.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  103. Thats my plan... by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    When the wife(to be)'s not looking, switch out the baby einstein cd with london calling.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  104. On the flip side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I once tested real GHB with a date rape test kit (not the same kit, but still claimed to test for GHB) and it came back negative. Ironic, I think.

  105. lie detector false positives by camg188 · · Score: 1

    I don't know about the field tests, but I can tell you to never, ever take a "lie detector" test. They don't actually detect lies. They detect an emotional response that the tester will interpret as a lie or the truth. If I'm accused of something, I want evidence to based on something more concrete than an interpretation. I know first hand they return false positives. From what I have read, a polygraph test is more reliable as a "truth detector". That is, a result of "no deception detected" is more often correct than the result of "deception detected".

  106. Obligatory by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

    Well it's good that no musician was arrested.

    [Other drummer jokes]

    --
    That is all.
  107. DILUTE! DILUTE! OK! by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

    My favorite part of the bottle is the lemon-juice-and-soap-as-birth-control part.

    --
    Man, you really need that seminar!
    1. Re:DILUTE! DILUTE! OK! by mink · · Score: 1

      I think that has vanished from recent (last few years at least) versions of the label. At least for the tea tree oil version I get.

      I like the soap but I only use it to bathe with, never bothered to try any of the other stuff.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  108. All The Poor People Who Cant Fight by ShrapnelFace · · Score: 1

    I'm tired of this kind of rhetoric. It's an illogical arguement because the innocent always find the means to defend themselves unless there is some reason to fear in guilt. Let's just remember that MOST people dont exude an alias that says "I'm a junkie who is probable to be in possession of illegal substances."

    You are who they are, in that you are who you associate with. This is a classic example of past history + current company creating a situation where it was determined to be prudent to search this person.

    In all cases such as these, an officer would not field test a soap unless there was other indicators of suspicion. Remember, we dont have the full context of the situation unless we are there. A verbal or written testimony often leaves out those suspicion indicators such as "the guy was twitching and wouldnt look me in the eye when I asked him what was in the bottle".

    Of course I'm going to go down in flames for this commentary, but the reality is that irregardless of political correctness, profiling is a common component in ALL cases of criminality. I.E, why a red Ferrari will be pulled over more often than that sputtering Honda for going 8 over the speed limit. Why the idiots with red and green bandana's in their pockets hanging out of the pants hanging off the back of their asses are always getting lined up on the wall.

  109. I tried to use ruffies once... by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

    Yup. I tried to use ruffies once to get with a chick. I guess you are supposed to put them in HER drink, not yours :-( Man did I have a headache the next day!

    --
    Libertas in infinitum
  110. torrents by pkbarbiedoll · · Score: 1

    Have you looked at mainstream torrent sites? like torrentspy or torrentportal? I would be surprised if it weren't readily avialable.. I'm at work so i can't help you look right now.

  111. Of Course He Was Suspicious by FrankNputer · · Score: 1

    A Drummer. With soap.

    You can't blame the cops for wondering what he was going to do with it...

  112. Re: non-drowsy allergy meds by billstewart · · Score: 1
    That's not really true - while it's fairly popular to make multi-symptom cold medicines, with Sudafed, antihistamine, tylenol/aspirin, expectorant, and dextromethorphan, those aren't the ones that get advertised as non-drowsy. Sudafed and its relatives get sold by themselves as non-drowsy, and as you say they're stimulant. The other main non-drowsy allergy meds are things like Claritin, which is an anti-histamine that doesn't make you drowsy, and while they also formulate it with a stimulant decongestant, they advertise both of them as non-drowsy. Allegra's pretty much the same way, available by prescription either straight or with decongestant; I find it's a bit more effective for me most of the time.


    Dextromethorphan cough suppressant doesn't make most people drowsy in the doses normally taken for cough suppression. It's also often packaged with an expectorant or decongestant or Tylenol. On the other hand, it's also taken in large doses as a recreational dissociative (see Erowid for commentary), which can be really dangerous if you're consuming formulations that mix in other drugs.


    As far as dentists using novocaine and nitrous when you've taken other drugs, novocaine's very localized, and dental patients are very commonly taking codeine or stronger relatives.
    Nitrous is pretty self-regulating when administered with normal dental apparatus - if you're getting too much, you breathe through your mouth to get more air, or if you want more, you breathe more though your nose, and if you pass out, you'll have your mouth open. My normal trip to the dentist is followed by a trip to Peet's or Starbucks and enough time for the nitrous to finish wearing off before I go home, but I didn't bother mentioning caffeine among the drugs I'd taken that trip :-)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  113. Re: non-drowsy allergy meds by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    That's not really true - while it's fairly popular to make multi-symptom cold medicines, with Sudafed, antihistamine, tylenol/aspirin, expectorant, and dextromethorphan, those aren't the ones that get advertised as non-drowsy. Sudafed and its relatives get sold by themselves as non-drowsy, and as you say they're stimulant. The other main non-drowsy allergy meds are things like Claritin, which is an anti-histamine that doesn't make you drowsy, and while they also formulate it with a stimulant decongestant, they advertise both of them as non-drowsy. Allegra's pretty much the same way, available by prescription either straight or with decongestant; I find it's a bit more effective for me most of the time.

    Yeah, I should have clarified: The non-drowsy stuff you can get without a prescription is just stimulants put back in to keep you awake. The prescription stuff, however...some of that stuff doesn't work the same way, and thus isn't inherently a depressant. I don't really know a lot about the prescription stuff...I just try to be knowledgeable about the drugs I select myself, and assume, when the doctor selects them, he knows what he's doing.

    Dextromethorphan cough suppressant doesn't make most people drowsy in the doses normally taken for cough suppression. It's also often packaged with an expectorant or decongestant or Tylenol.

    Dextromethorphan, otherwise known as Robitussin, will not normally make people 'drowsy' using standard doses. It does make some people, me included, slightly disoriented. Whereas 'drowsy' allergy medicine has no effect on me.

    And while it may be 'often packaged' with stuff, I wouldn't really know, because I deliberately don't buy 'multiple medication' stuff. I can add my own damn medicine together, thank you very much. People should grab the contents of their medicine cabinet, look up each 'active ingredient' on Wikipedia, and learn, roughly, what they do, and start purchasing allergy and cough and headache medicine based on the actual active ingredient instead of the fancy label. Buy the stuff with only one active ingredient, and when you go to the medicine cabinet you can add allergy+headache or cough supressant+allergy or whatever you actually need at the moment.

    And this also will allow you learn exactly which ones work for you, and which don't.

    As far as dentists using novocaine and nitrous when you've taken other drugs, novocaine's very localized, and dental patients are very commonly taking codeine or stronger relatives.

    I know they sometimes give you multiple drugs, I was just surprised they'd give you a drug while you were under another drug they hadn't given you.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  114. Re: non-drowsy allergy meds by billstewart · · Score: 1
    > The non-drowsy stuff you can get without a prescription is just


    Claritin used to be prescription, but it's now OTC, and it's come down from a buck a pill to something more reasonable. Try it; you might like it. It's not as heavy-duty as benadryl or my old standard clorpheniramine, but it's not bad for a once-a-day pill. There's also clemastine fumarate (aka Tavist), which is a not-very-drowsy antihistamine that's usually an 8-12 hour dose; I get a little spacy on it but not usually enough to bother me, and YMMV. Both used to be available either plain or with sudafed before the meth wars; I suepect they've probably also come out with a phenylephrine version. (Sigh - usually PE doesn't work as well for me as Sudafed.)

    I normally prefer to buy single-ingredient pills and mix my dosages myself, just as you do, but sometimes there are convenient enough combinations.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  115. Re: non-drowsy allergy meds by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    Claritin used to be prescription, but it's now OTC, and it's come down from a buck a pill to something more reasonable.

    I didn't know that, thanks. I'll try it.

    Tavist is what I normally use when I know in advance I'll be out in pollen all day. It doesn't seem to bother me at all.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?