Study Links Storm Botnet's Growth To Illegal Drugs

talkinsecurity writes "Researchers at IronPort today published a study which claims to have found the 'smoking gun' that links the rapid growth of the Storm botnet to spammers that sell prescription drugs illegally over the Internet. The study shows that more than 80 percent of Storm-generated spam is advertising online pharmacy brands, and further investigation showed that spam templates, credit card processing, product fulfillment and customer support are all being provided by a 'Russian criminal organization' that operates in conjunction with Storm. This criminal organization recruits botnet spamming partners to advertise their illegal pharmacy Websites, which receive a 40 percent commission on sales orders. IronPort went as far as to do pharmacological testing on the products, and found that two-thirds of the drugs contained the wrong dosage of the active ingredient, and the rest were placebos."

Comments

It's True

[eldavojohn]

Study Links Storm Botnet's Growth To Illegal Drugs When I'm hepped up on goofballs I will install anything on my computer. "MsBlastWorm32BotNetMegaD.exe" attachment from my bro out in Cali? Let's fire 'er up!

And you don't even want to see my home directory when I'm freebasing Wormwood. Let's just say it's a good thing it's on a totally separate hard drive when I'm riding the green worm.

Re:It's True

[TheGratefulNet]

what a horrible headline.

we have enough problems with people confusing hackers with crackers (etc); we have the ever-present 'war on drugs' (that will NEVER end; see the book '1984' and its view on why a continual war on 'something' is always good for the gov.).

but this is NOT about 'illegal drugs'; its about the LEGAL ones that do many of the same things the 'illegal ones' do but have congress supporting them. the problem is, the 'legal drugs' are outrageously priced (compared to the true selling price that the rest of the world tends to get) and so OF COURSE people on limited income (that's most of us, btw) can't afford the artificially high (heh) drug prices.

THAT is the problem to solve. make drugs affordable and there will be NO MORE 'online pharms'.

but why *solve* the root-cause problem? its not the american way anymore (sadly) ;(

at any rate, this is not about 'illegal drugs'. what they are selling may or may not be quality; but the compounds you are buying are NOT illegal!

for once, lets tie spam to the LEGAL otc drugs. tell it how it is - that by the large-scale addiction we create on so-called legal drugs, we have forced people to go around the very expensive system and find other ways to get their 'legal fix'.

you have to look at the magnitude of how evil the 2 sides are. arguably if the health care system was WORKING, we wouldn't have a market for 'affordable' prescription drugs.

fix the real problem and the ancillary one will fix itself.

Re:It's True

[Red Flayer]

Meh, the title says it all:

Study Links Storm Botnet's Growth To Illegal Drugs

It is obvious that Storm Botnet has been implicated in the Balco scandal. Expect Congressional hearings any day to determine if Storm's use of 'the clear' and 'the cream' has resulted in the extraordinary growth of Storm Botnet, and the resultant increase in HRs, RBIs, and TDs.

Re:It's True

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, most everything we get prescribed we could grow illegally or legally at home, but THEY don't want you to know. With the opium poppy, lemon mold, and handful of other plants you would have most prescription drugs covered. Many of the newer patented drugs come from plants as well.
But the governments all over the world have made cultivation of those life-saving plants illegal and they exterminate the poor plants even in countries where they are native to.
The only explanation is that all countries get a lot of money from drug dealers. Either that or the people governing us are complete retards.

Re:It's True

[beadfulthings]

Too bad I don't have points to mod you up. Instead, I offer this recent story from the Baltimore Sun about a trial that's going on right now. These folks started out with a legitimate professional pharmacy delivering prescriptions to local nursing homes and assisted-living facilities. The online drugs marked proved to be too lucrative, the drug of choice was hydrocodone. They're also in trouble over a lot of subsidiary issues like tax evasion. The genuine irony of this piece is behind the scenes. I recalled reading the article but not the exact date, so I used the Sun's search box with "internet drugs trial." The results came back just fine--along with a paid advert for "Canadian Online Pharmacy."

The people to be pitied in all this aren't the ones abusing pain meds. It's the middle-aged suddenly unemployed guy who takes meds for hypertension or the elderly person who's in the notorious "hole" in the middle of the Medicare drug benefit or the financially struggling young couple with a child who needs some lifesaving drug or other. Or, perhaps, the employed person whose health care benefit has shriveled to nothing.

Re:It's True

[QRDeNameland]

While I am in total agreement with your sentiment, I would point out one small nit:

what they are selling may or may not be quality;

The last sentence of the summary would seem to suggest that what they sell is *not* quality. So a more accurate description would be "illegally counterfeit or substandard pharmaceuticals". Of course, that probably isn't as effective at pushing the buttons of soccer moms as "illegal drugs".

Re:It's True

[pieisgood]

Drug prices are expensive because it costs nearly 1 billion dollars to create one new drug. Each pharmaceutical must spend a billion dollars to push out ONE drug. This is why AIDS medications and others are so expensive. There are so little with this disease that it's hard to make 1 billion dollars back in the scope of the patent. Health care has nothing to do with how expensive drugs are, the FDA actually does. They require such stringent research on medications (this includes years of human trials) that it's literally impossible to create a new cheap drug.

Re:It's True

[tsm_sf]

There are so little with this disease who can afford the treatment that it's hard to make 1 billion dollars back in the scope of the patent. Fixed that for you. Don't forget Africa.

Re:It's True

[Buran]

And yet, if you live in Canada or elsewhere you get the same drug for far less. We're being ripped off by drug makers that game our crappy health care system. But thanks for trying.

Re:It's True

[limaxray]

It's good to see someone understands why drugs cost what they do. While a billion dollars per drug may be a bit on the high side, it is not an exaggeration as bringing drugs to market in the US is INSANELY expensive. FDA requires very strict processes that take years to approve a new drug.

This is further compounded by the fact that the amount of time a company has to earn a return on their investment is limited by the life of their patent. Once a patent expires, the drug goes generic and the company that originally produced it will never be able to compete with all the generic companies that do nothing more than synthesize low cost drugs. Furthermore, the life time of the patent includes the FDA approval process, so it's not unheard of for a drug to only have a few years remaining on its patent by the time it is approved.

Finally, one needs to understand that for every popular allergy or ED medication that brings in big bucks, there are a number of not so common drugs that barely bring in anything. In fact, most major pharma companies produce a number of drugs that treat some disease that is so rare that they actually lose money on them. But hey, it's cool, hip, and trendy these days to ignore how things work and just blame everything on the evil elite few.

Re:It's True

[bishiraver]

Yet we've spent 500 billion dollars in Iraq. Just imagine, that could have been 500 billion dollors in government grants to pharmaceutical research! It could have been saving people instead of killing millions! It could have fed the continent of africa for x amount of years.. yadayadayada.

Re:It's True

[TheGratefulNet]

if they didn't spend so damned much on ADVERTISING the drugs, they would have more than enough to price them at what the world ALREADY pays.

this is an unnecessary cost and its also about bilking americans more .... because they can! there is no valid reason for the diff in prices between regions. the same amount of 'safety testing' (yeah, right, if you call it that) is done here and there and all over. this BS about 'american stuff is better and safer' is just that - BS.

Re:It's True

[pieisgood]

That's because Canada ought right denies longer patents for pharmaceutical companies. If you really had the time to sit down and examine where the most useful drugs are produced you'd realize that generics don't actually do any drug research and are just parasites on the carcass of dead patents of real pharmaceutical companies. Phizer has done more good than any generic company when it released Lipitor (the most prescribed pill IN THE WORLD). Also, the fact of the matter is that you are being raped by your insurance company not the pharmaceuticals.

Re:It's True

[limaxray]

Sweet, you managed to bring Iraq into the discussion. Now someone needs to figure out how to link in the iPhone and we'll be all set! :)

In any case, that 500 billion dollars is 500 billion dollars that we don't have. Not only should it probably have not been spent in Iraq, it shouldn't have been spent on anything. Having the Fed fire up their Xerox machine to run off some Benjamins is not the solution to solving any of the world's problems.

But hey, if you want to feel better about it, think of it as a 500 billion dollar investment into controlling the worlds overpopulation problem.

Re:It's True

[bishiraver]

Sorry, I forgot to note /facetious!

Re:It's True

[pieisgood]

Uh no, that billion dollar mark is what it takes to actually get the drug to the public. That figure does not include advertising or any other costs.

Re:It's True

[Buran]

Actually, my insurance company is protecting me from the unconscionable prices charged on these drugs. And, if you come here with any regularity you know how broken the patent system is. Generic drugs protect those of us (like me) who cannot spend hundreds of dollars per month on drugs needed to treat basic conditions.

Lower the prices in the US and raise them in other countries that can share more of the burden -- and fix the broken patent system.

Sometimes, "parasites" give the host some sort of benefit. That's symbiosis.

Generics lower costs for insurance companies, patients, and society at large (for instance, government programs pay for insurance for some, hence we all pay for those medications through our taxes).

They're not parasites. They're symbionts.

Re:It's True

[jriding]

But isn't it great when the same FDA that makes them do all that testing are allowed to buy stock in the company making the drugs (can you say insider trading???) then approve them. Then as some of the "side effects" come into play they just past the black label on them saying Major warning your lungs etc might fail..

I am waiting for the lawsuit where someone sues the FDA individuals who approved the drug but also had stock in the company making that same drug. (conflict of interest)

Re:It's True

[Khashishi]

It's against the law, so it's illegal.

Re:It's True

[badasscat]

The only explanation is that all countries get a lot of money from drug dealers. Either that or the people governing us are complete retards.

Or maybe governments just don't think it's a very good idea for people to be homebrewing dangerous narcotics. Yes, it *is* possible to overdose on morphine, which is derived from the poppy plant. Continuous use even of smaller doses can cause all sorts of problems, some of which are not particularly pleasant to even talk about, much less experience (as I know first-hand). A doctor still needs to prescribe the correct dosage and manage its use and *somebody* needs to actually ensure that the correct dose is being dispensed.

You could say "well, then let doctors grow the plants and refine the medicine, at least cut out the middle man" - but I doubt most doctors would be all that interested. For one thing, it puts liability for any drug-related problems onto them. Right now, if somebody dispenses the wrong dosage - if a pill that's labeled 60mg actually contains 600mg, for example - that's not the doctor's fault. Do you think doctors would be interested in *making* it their fault?

No matter how you think about it, if you don't want a whole bunch of dead people lying around along with a whole bunch of corresponding new lawsuits against doctors who are just trying to care for their patients winding their way through the courts, then some outside entity needs to actually be refining and dispensing these drugs. In our system, that's the pharmaceutical company and the pharmacist. These are specialized jobs; they're not something just anyone can or should do.

If I take the wrong dosage of my medication (Inderal LA), my brain doesn't get enough blood, my heart eventually stops and I die. Do you think I want to be refining my own Inderal? Hell no. And honestly, nobody else should be doing so either, however libertarian your views are. If such a practice became widespread, the result would be absolute chaos in the health care system and a whole lot of unnecessary and fully preventable deaths.

This is not to say there aren't serious problems with our system for dispensing prescription drugs to those who need them. But the existence of specialists who actually know what they're doing and highly precise machines designed for the specific purpose of refining drugs are not among those problems.

Re:It's True

[shimmyshimpson]

It's not like the poor old drug companies are scrimping and saving and borrowing like crazy to fund their drug researches and then have to charge like wounded bulls to make a piddling little profit. Do you have any idea how many drugs are actually researched by publically funded programs such as Universities? 1: let university develop drug 2: pay Uni piddling sum for the rights (actually, just pay a small fee to blanket cover anything the eggheads develop) 3: crank up production 4: Charge amzing amounts for the finished product 5: PROFIT http://www.wanttoknow.info/truthaboutdrugcompanies See how easy it is ? So YOUR taxes are funding YOUR Universities to develop drugs that the PHARMA COMPANIES get for a song to sell back to YOU for excessive amounts. Brilliant system, no?

Re:It's True

[Miseph]

Jeez stop being so elitist. Everybody knows that "experts" are just a sham created by the liberal/conservative elite to oppress us and make us all feel inferior. Just because somebody has decades of experience and many years of formal education on a subject doesn't make their opinion on it any better or more valid than the ones you or I pull out of our asses based on absolutely nothing.

Well, at least that's what Wikipedia says.

Re:It's True

[Anonymous brave dude]

If by lemon mold you mean penicillin, you are incorrect. Naturally occurring Penicillium notatum has an incredibly low yield and it took much work and genetic modification before production of usable amounts of penicillin could be created.

Re:It's True

[marxmarv]

Doesn't matter if it's counted in the billion or not. How do advertising-heavy, information-light media budgets, Viagra wall clocks, Celebrex pens, and (I am not kidding) Plavix telephone sanitizers make the pill any better? Then why am I paying for them again?

Re:It's True

[Magada]

Oh feh. I've Karma to burn anyway. Here's your iPhone connection: lots of the drugs being pushed through the FDA are just like the iPhone: me-too products with tons of features no-one really needs that are put there just for marketing purposes. How many types of hypertension meds are there on the US market? How many light painkillers? All were pushed out, at enormous expense, because it's that huge of a market and one that responds to fashion just like the cellphone market.

Re:It's True

[pieisgood]

Advertising doesn't help the pill become better. You're asking a question your already know the answer to. But advertising is a must. Not to mention they already spend 3 times more on research and development than they do on advertising (which includes everything from those television ads to personal doctors visits). Do you even have any idea how AWESOME Viagra is? Have you used it? Do you even know the story behind Viagra. Phizer didn't set out thinking "we're making a pill for people who can't get boners". They were actually developing a medicine to treat Hypertension. It just so happens that the chemical works on the heart tissue which is somehow similar to the penile tissue. On top of that, Phizer already creates a drug for hypertension that uses the same active ingredient as Viagra. Haven't heard of that pill have you? Plavix is important for people with heart disease. An anti-platelet coagulate is very effective at reducing future strokes/heart attacks. Advertising is important, but that budget in no way competes with pharmaceuticals R&D budget. No way in hell.

Water is wet

[betterunixthanunix]

No, really, computers are useful for business purposes, and illegal drug purveyors are running a business. Did people really think that computers would only ever be used for legal businesses? It is like an article that says, "New report on drug dealers using drinking water to prevent death by dehydration!"

But they were blue!?!?!

[jeiler]

Does that mean the V1@GR@ I got from that nice on-line pharmacy was fake? O.O

Re:But they were blue!?!?!

[tristian_was_here]

Did you get a stiff neck with that stuff?

Re:But they were blue!?!?!

[jonaskoelker]

Remember, jeiler: all I'm offering you is the truth...

Re:But they were blue!?!?!

[gad_zuki!]

Actually a lot of it isnt. Its a knock-off brand but with the active ingredient. There was recently an advisory for people who buy herbal viagra that it contains the same active ingredient as the real stuff and they are at risk if they have heart issues. So ironically, not only is the fake stuff sometimes real, so is the herbal stuff.

Re:But they were blue!?!?!

[ozbird]

Didn't you learn anything from The Matrix? Take the red pill, not the blue pill.

Re:But they were blue!?!?!

[MWoody]

Yes, Dumbo, the feather was just a normal feather. All along, it was YOU who was making your penis fly!

There will always be suckers

[jgarra23]

I used to care about people getting scammed. Now I just think they're getting what they deserve.

Too bad that's a blanket statement as I'm sure there is an unfortunate minority who aren't trying to get a fix and genuinely have a need...

Re:There will always be suckers

[Silver Sloth]

Too bad that's a blanket statement as I'm sure there is an unfortunate minority who aren't trying to get a fix and genuinely have a need... It's hard to imagine a legitimate scenario where someone would be forced to use spammers to provide their meds. As for the internet stock scams, or the Nigerian scam, only the greedy will apply.

All in all, I don't think you needed the disclaimer.

Re:There will always be suckers

[jgarra23]

It's hard to imagine a legitimate scenario where someone would be forced to use spammers to provide their meds. As for the internet stock scams, or the Nigerian scam, only the greedy will apply.

All in all, I don't think you needed the disclaimer.


Normally I would agree with you :)

When I was in college I broke my wrist falling on some ice while doing laundry around 4am (long story, you know college...) anyway, i went to the hospital in all my dirty clothing & they refused to give me any pain medication for fear I was some hippie junkie (no kidding) just looking for a fix. Luckily my dad was head of ultrasound there & as soon as he showed up their attitude did a 180. I didn't even want the drugs, I'm allergic to opiates but the principle of the whole thing... The pain was pretty intense, who could I turn to for pain management when the hospital thought I was just some bum because I was in dirty clothes had I not had some "pull" there?

It was a pretty scary thought and still haunts me to this day.

Re:There will always be suckers

[wattrlz]

The problem with that statement is these people's ignorance is causing repercussions for everybody. If some poor soul can't afford six bucks a pop for V1@GR@ and, against all logic, turns to an unsolicited email for help, that's all profit for the spammer and significant profit for the drug shipper. What incentive does this give either of them to use more legitimate means of business? So, they continue to spam, or spam more, and we suffer. Oh, some guy got a counterfeit erectile-dysfunction medication boo-hoo. The rest of us end up having to deal with the continuous deleterious effects of spam. Maybe you can hide behind a decent spam filter running an up-to-date GNU OS and think it doesn't effect you, but you know the truth: unintentional DoS from the sheer volume of spam out there, compromised systems making headaches for IT personnel the world over, and the sheer irritation when one or several dozen cleverly-crafted ads might make it through your filter. It's not worth it. Patronage of spamming institutions should be a crime.

Re:There will always be suckers

[wattrlz]

It's even harder to imagine a legitimate business that would have to resort to spammers to sell their meds.

Re:There will always be suckers

[postbigbang]

There are also a lot of individuals with various developmental and psychological issues, including lack of intelligence, that will fall for the price and then not get what they thought they were paying for.

At $5-10 pill for ED drugs, a huge percentage off seems like a good thing to the clue-challenged. Like it or not, they need protection, too. That's what safety considerations are all about.

The very fact that the Storm bots exist is a travesty. Shame on OS makers. Shame.

Re:There will always be suckers

[bryce4president]

I'm allergic to opiates (long story, you know college...) There, fixed that for you.

Re:There will always be suckers

[jgarra23]

I'm allergic to opiates (long story, you know college...)
There, fixed that for you.


Heheh, you fooled me- for a moment I thought I wrote it that way!!!

Re:There will always be suckers

[Miamicanes]

> but you know the truth: unintentional DoS from the sheer volume of spam out there,

Oh god, don't remind me. Up until about 3 years ago, I ran my own mail server (DSL, fixed IP, old PC). One of the things I did was enable SASL authentication for SMTP (which requires logging in with a username and password before outgoing mail will be accepted for relay). Within a matter of months, spammers around the world figured out that I had a live SMTP server running on port 25. SASL AUTH or not, more and more spammers kept hammering away trying (unsuccessfully) to relay. My router's NAT table started to periodically overflow (crashing the router's firmware), and the endless incoming requests effectively were like a constant denial of service attack.

In retrospect, I could have probably gotten away with changing the SMTP server to a different port, but I was so fed up with the experience I ended up leasing a dedicated server for $30/month... partly, because once I knew what to look for, I noticed that I was ALSO getting hit by a staggering number of incoming http requests for various exploit-related URIs. The exploits themselves didn't bother me (I was running Tomcat as a standalone server), but on more than a few occasions I was getting hit with more than a hundred bogus http requests per minute.

Once I had my ISP change my IP address to a new one, my throughput more or less tripled, because I was no longer being DOS'ed 24/7 by bots, spammers, and worms. I pity anyone who has to maintain a live web/mail server today. ~10 years ago (when I used to wear both admin and developer hats at work) keeping a Linux server running was no big deal, and any halfway intelligent developer could do a decent part-time job of it. It was analogous to private security guards trying to keep kids from skateboarding in downtown parking garages. Now, it's more like trying to safeguard a business from looting during a riot.

Re:There will always be suckers

[limaxray]

This isn't too uncommon, but it is pretty understandable. The DEA and other law enforcement agencies have thrown a number of doctors in jail for 'over prescribing' pain killers. Sure there are a number of instances where doctors do abuse their prescription writing powers, but even doctors who treat patients with legitimate chronic pain have been locked up.

This has created a bit of a fear to prescribe such drugs, and now you'll find a lot of doctors reluctant to give these drugs even if they are the best option. It really is sad when what is or is not considered 'over prescribing' is decided by a bunch of cops and lawyers instead of doctors.

Link provided goes to big Flash page

[Animats]

The link provided leads to an all-Flash page. Suspicious.

Re:Link provided goes to big Flash page

[Reziac]

It's a redirect from InformationWeek, a perfectly legit publication, to http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=156139&WT.svl=news1_1

Admittedly it's annoying; in fact the first attempt to go there crashed my browser.

Only one solution then

[pembo13]

legalize all drugs

Re:Only one solution then

[SimonGhent]

legalize all drugs

Including counterfeits of branded ones? These guys aren't selling weed and poppers.

Smart idea.

Re:Only one solution then

[betterunixthanunix]

These guys aren't necessarily selling counterfeits. It could very well be the actual drug, obtained in an illicit manner (prescription farming).

Re:Only one solution then

[magarity]

Get off the drugs long enough to read even the summary - it isn't about illegal drugs as in cocaine, it's about illegal drugs as in pirated copies. Unlike pirated movies or music where if the copy isn't up to quality it just affects your viewing pleasure, low quality or outright fake illegal copies of prescription medication can get people killed.

Re:Only one solution then

[Goaway]

So the actual ones sometimes don't contain any dosage at all?

Re:Only one solution then

[dedazo]

I didn't know Viagra was illegal.

[please insert your jokes below]

Re:Only one solution then

[damn_registrars]

legalize all drugs
If you consider the drugs that spammers have been trying to sell me recently, I don't think many people would agree with your idea.

I know I, for one, would rather not have people in public that are doped up on morphine/vicodin/valium. And of course when you consider these same offers are also scalping at least 8 different varieties of erectile dysfunction drugs ...

Granted, certain people swear consistently that I must be a Nazi because I support leaving the marijuana laws alone. So of course you are entitled to your own opinion in the matter.

Re:Only one solution then

[Anonymous Coward]

I know I, for one, would rather not have people in public that are doped up on morphine/vicodin/valium.

And why is this? I worked for many months on med-high (recreational) doses codeine (an opiate) and diazepam, and I probably worked better on them than I do now I'm off of them.

Does other people getting "high" bother you? Have you ever taken any of the drugs that you've mentioned?

Re:Only one solution then

[Anonymous Coward]

The most common practice is to sell expired medications with new packaging. Counterfeit medications are not as common as the costs associated with producing "good enough" facsimiles of the real medication are higher than illegally obtaining medications marked for destruction.

Re:Only one solution then

[Hatta]

There wouldn't be any market for counterfeit drugs if legitimate copies were available at a price that was not inflated by patents.

Re:Only one solution then

[Hatta]

I know I, for one, would rather not have people in public that are doped up on morphine/vicodin/valium.

Tough. People already use drugs, they will always use drugs. Chances are you know an opiate addict and don't even know it.

And yes, advocating the imprisonment of people for something as benign as cannabis is very nazi-ish. I smoke pot every day. I also work full time, pay my bills, and generally contribute positively to society. I don't hurt people, I don't steal, etc. If you would assault and kidnap (arrest and imprison) me just for kicking back with a bowl after work, then *you* are the dangerous one.

Re:Only one solution then

[Anonymous Coward]

[please insert your jokes below] That's what she said.

Re:Only one solution then

[Hatta]

It is if you don't have a prescription.

Re:Only one solution then

[sm62704]

There is one class of drugs I would like to remain illegal, and that's antibiotics. It's bad enough that ill informed mommies take junior to the doctor when he has a virus and demands an antibiotic (doc, give 'em placebo).

But if you make antibiotics over-the-counter it won't be long before none of them work. Even needing a prescription for such drugs there are already way too many sntibiotic-resistant bacteria.

You should have the right to fuck your life up any way you want, but you damned sure shouldn't have the right to fuck mine up by making antibiotics useless. Legalizing them would do just that.

Re:Only one solution then

[damn_registrars]

Have you ever taken any of the drugs that you've mentioned?
I have taken vicodin. I woke up in a cold sweat trying to find my bed.

I've taken codeine as well. Have you never had a migraine?

Re:Only one solution then

[damn_registrars]

If you would assault and kidnap (arrest and imprison) me just for kicking back with a bowl after work, then *you* are the dangerous one.
When did I say arrest and imprison? How many people do you know who have been arrested just for using marijuana in a responsible manner?

There are plenty of people who claim that cops go around kicking in doors and beating the hell out of people just for smoking pot in their homes. But yet there is almost no evidence of that happening to recreational users.

The way that the laws are enforced for drugs are essentially the same as the way they are enforced for alcohol. Whether you chose to get drunk, stoned, or otherwise influenced by a substance, if you do it at home, your realistic chance of being arrested is zero. On the other hand, if you chose to do it at home, and then proceed out in public where your choices pose a potential danger to society, then your chances of being arrested climb dramatically.

Which is why I support leaving the laws alone.

Re:Only one solution then

[penix1]

The antibiotics you should be worried about are the ones in your food supply. That plus the growth hormones is why so many kids are so sick so young in the first place.

Re:Only one solution then

[Hatta]

When did I say arrest and imprison? How many people do you know who have been arrested just for using marijuana in a responsible manner?


You said leaving the current laws alone. If I were to take a joint with me to the park and enjoy it during a picnic, I'd stand a very good chance of being assaulted by a police officer. Hell, if I were to enjoy a joint in my own damn backyard during a BBQ, I'd stand a very good chance of being assaulted.

There are plenty of people who claim that cops go around kicking in doors and beating the hell out of people just for smoking pot in their homes. But yet there is almost no evidence of that happening to recreational users.

No, I don't claim that at all. But they do randomly search cars for no reason. They do flyovers with a helicopter and infrared cameras to catch people growing. They do send police into concerts looking for pot smokers. Pot smokers are persecuted in this country, and they don't care if you're responsible or not.

The way that the laws are enforced for drugs are essentially the same as the way they are enforced for alcohol.

Have you noticed that you can go out to just about any restaurant and have yourself a cocktail? Try doing that with cannabis.

Whether you chose to get drunk, stoned, or otherwise influenced by a substance, if you do it at home, your realistic chance of being arrested is zero.

This is where you get a little twisted. You are relying on selective enforcement of the law to provide justice. The law itself should be just. Punish people who actually hurt people, not people who you think might hurt someone.

What you are saying here is contrary to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". It's worse even than "guilty until proven innocent". What you are saying here is that people who possess pot should be punished for a crime that hasn't been committed, and probably never will be committed. It's nothing less than advocating Pre-crime.

Does that not sound just a little bit Nazi to you?

On the other hand, if you chose to do it at home, and then proceed out in public where your choices pose a potential danger to society, then your chances of being arrested climb dramatically.

Except that proceeding out into public with a little herb poses negligible danger to anyone.

Re:Only one solution then

[piojo]

There wouldn't be any market for counterfeit drugs if legitimate copies were available at a price that was not inflated by patents. I dislike patents in a lot of cases, but a drug costs a lot to produce. The people that do the R&D are highly educated and trained, so they will want to get paid a lot. Imagine the experiments needed to ensure that a drug works (or find out what exactly it does), and more experiments to find out whether it's safe and what its side effects are. I am not an authoritative source, but I have heard that getting FDA approval for a drug often (always?) takes years. Coming up with new drugs in a safe and legal manner is expensive. Patents allow companies to recoup the investments they made on R&D and subsidize more R&D.

It's too bad that drug companies set prices so high, but it's probably an inevitable result of most people having medical insurance.

Re:Only one solution then

[damn_registrars]

You said leaving the current laws alone. If I were to take a joint with me to the park and enjoy it during a picnic, I'd stand a very good chance of being assaulted by a police officer. Hell, if I were to enjoy a joint in my own damn backyard during a BBQ, I'd stand a very good chance of being assaulted.
I can't drink alcohol in public parks - maybe they're different where you live. And where is your backyard relative to public property? Does your backyard butt up against an alleyway or park? Or perhaps some other public property?

No, I don't claim that at all.
I didn't say you claimed it. I said people claim it. You are likely human, but I did not say that all humans claim it. I didn't even say that all pot smokers claim it, for that matter.

But they do randomly search cars for no reason.
That depends on your jurisdiction. I was stopped by a NY state trooper for talking on my cell phone and informed that there is no right to privacy inside a car in NY state. Just because they are searching doesn't mean they are looking specifically for pot.

They do send police into concerts looking for pot smokers.
Do you really believe that is the only human behavior they are looking for? There is a lot more than just pot smoking that happens at concerts. If it happens that they only catch pot smoking, then that's all they caught.

Pot smokers are persecuted in this country, and they don't care if you're responsible or not.
Persecuted? That is an interesting application of the term. Persecution is more often applied to people who are held to unjust laws that harm them based on something beyond their own control. I'm not aware of anyone who was forced to smoke pot. And after all, if pot propaganda pushers want us to believe that it is entirely non-addictive, then obviously people who currently smoke it are doing it entirely of their own free will.

Have you noticed that you can go out to just about any restaurant and have yourself a cocktail
But the restaurant takes the liability for you getting home safely if you have too much to drink. There is no mechanism for a restaurant to take on the liability of someone's actions when influenced by pot.

And either way, it is private property. I haven't seen a city hall anywhere in this country that serves alcohol.

Punish people who actually hurt people, not people who you think might hurt someone.
So then would you favor repealing drunk in public statutes? Because they are punishment for people who could hurt someone.

What you are saying here is that people who possess pot should be punished for a crime that hasn't been committed, and probably never will be committed.
I would like you to please show where I said that. I never said anything to support your conclusion of that. I said enforcement should be the same as for alcohol, which is applied to people that are intoxicated. Please read what I say rather than what you want to see me saying.

Except that proceeding out into public with a little herb poses negligible danger to anyone. Again, I commented on the use, not the possession.

Re:Only one solution then

[Hatta]

Most drug research is paid for by the public in the form of subsidies, or university researchers. What isn't paid by the government is still paid for by the public, in the price of the pill. So why don't we just agree that the public should pay for drug research, and do it up front. Then everyone can benefit from the fruits of our research.

Patents aren't the only way for us to fund research. They might be the most profitable for the pharmaceutical companies, but that doesn't mean it's the best for society. Pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing than R&D anyway, so removing the profit motive would free up all that money to go towards research.

Re:Only one solution then

[Hatta]

I can't drink alcohol in public parks - maybe they're different where you live. And where is your backyard relative to public property? Does your backyard butt up against an alleyway or park? Or perhaps some other public property?

Yes, alcohol is allowed in most public parks around here. Do you really think people use those grills without beer?

And as for my backyard, it does back against the botanical gardens here, but I'm more concerned about my neighbors. Some dumb old lady sees me sitting back there, freaks out, calls the cops, and I go to jail. It happens.

I didn't say you claimed it.

Then why bring it up?

That depends on your jurisdiction. I was stopped by a NY state trooper for talking on my cell phone and informed that there is no right to privacy inside a car in NY state. Just because they are searching doesn't mean they are looking specifically for pot. ...

Do you really believe that is the only human behavior they are looking for? There is a lot more than just pot smoking that happens at concerts. If it happens that they only catch pot smoking, then that's all they caught.

Doesn't matter if they're specifically looking for pot or not. If they find it, I go to jail. That's wrong.

Persecuted? That is an interesting application of the term. Persecution is more often applied to people who are held to unjust laws that harm them based on something beyond their own control.

Right, because people who choose to have sex with members of the same sex are never persecuted. People who choose to worship the wrong god, or choose to advocate a political position are never persecuted?

Really, there's little difference between a pot smoker being arrested for doing what gives him pleasure, and a homosexual getting beaten up for doing what gives him pleasure. Except that the former is worse, since it's enforced by the state.

And after all, if pot propaganda pushers want us to believe that it is entirely non-addictive, then obviously people who currently smoke it are doing it entirely of their own free will.

FWIW, I won't argue that THC can be addictive. I will point out that it's much less addictive than caffeine, the withdrawl symptoms are nothing more than a little insomnia and grumpyness for a few days. And that's for a gram a day or more smoker.

But the restaurant takes the liability for you getting home safely if you have too much to drink. There is no mechanism for a restaurant to take on the liability of someone's actions when influenced by pot.

So, maybe there should be? Perhaps you should think more about how we could regulate pot, instead of continuing to fail at prohibiting it.

So then would you favor repealing drunk in public statutes? Because they are punishment for people who could hurt someone.

Yes, absolutely. If someone is disturbing the peace, charge them with that. If someone is drunk and minding his own business, then leave him alone.

I would like you to please show where I said that. I never said anything to support your conclusion of that.

Ok:On the other hand, if you chose to do it at home, and then proceed out in public where your choices pose a potential danger to society, then your chances of being arrested climb dramatically.

There, "potential danger". Arresting someone for being a "potential danger" amounts to precrime. Arresting someone for being a probable danger is OK, but the burden of proof is on you to show that a stoned person is a probable danger. I'd like to see you try to prove that.

I said enforcement should be the same as for alcohol, which is applied to people that are intoxicated.

You said that the ma

Re:Only one solution then

[JamesP]

I second this

Antibiotics are given to livestock for growth purposes in a very uncontrolled fashion.

(Even then, it's probably a not good idea making antibiotics OTC, but again, anti-bacterial soap and all that jazz are good for building resistant bacteria as well)

Re:Only one solution then

[damn_registrars]

Yes, alcohol is allowed in most public parks around here. Do you really think people use those grills without beer?

Those are two different statements. Just because people do drink in parks near you doesn't mean that they are allowed to do so. I don't know where you live. I do know that in the places I have lived thus far, alcohol has been banned in public parks. Which of course doesn't mean that 100% of the patrons obey that, but it was banned nonetheless.

Some dumb old lady sees me

It doesn't sound like you have very good relationships with your neighbors. I would suggest you try working on that and perhaps the problem won't be as significant.

me sitting back there, freaks out, calls the cops, and I go to jail. It happens.

But has it happened? Has the neighbor you don't like actually called the cops on you? Have you actually served jail time? Or are you just speculating this situation because you don't get along with your neighbor?

Doesn't matter if they're specifically looking for pot or not. If they find it, I go to jail. That's wrong.

The cop who stopped me asked if I had knives, guns, or grenades. If I had grenades and he found those, would that be wrong? After all, the officer did have just cause to pull me over.

Really, there's little difference between a pot smoker being arrested for doing what gives him pleasure, and a homosexual getting beaten up for doing what gives him pleasure. Except that the former is worse, since it's enforced by the state.

That is an interesting comparison - comparing a biological urge (sex) to a psychological one (drug use). You have already told us you smoke pot. I'm going to guess you didn't just start spontaneously, and you probably know others who smoke as well. How many of them have been arrested just for smoking pot or having pot on their person? That is, how many of them weren't doing something in public that attracted attention?

Where I did my undergraduate, there was a student who was known for walking around campus with a 3 foot glass bong. He was never arrested for having the bong (which he carried in plain sight).

I will point out that it's much less addictive than caffeine

Are you considering only the physical addiction to smoking pot? Really you should be concerned with the psychological addiction to being under the influence.

I quit caffeine years ago, it was not very difficult, even for someone like me who used to drink nearly a gallon of soda in a day. Conversely, I know someone who refuses to socialize without smoking a joint. He just went on the pot equivalent of a week-long bender last week and never spoke to anyone. He is psychologically addicted to the state of being under the influence of weed.

continuing to fail at prohibiting it.

If we are failing at prohibiting it, then why are you so angry? I am content with the laws as they are. You seem to be quite irate over them.

If someone is disturbing the peace, charge them with that. If someone is drunk and minding his own business, then leave him alone.

How do you know which drunk person in public will cross that line and which one won't?

There, "potential danger". Arresting someone for being a "potential danger" amounts to precrime.

First, that still doesn't support your conclusion of what I said. You are trying to implicate me as wanting to arrest anyone who has pot. I never said that. It is pretty easy to determine who is under the influence of pot, alcohol, or other substances. And if they choose to be in public while under the influence, they are choosing to be oblivious to the risks of their decisions to the public.

the burden o

Re:Only one solution then

[piojo]

Yes, because the government uses money so efficiently. I'm sure that if medical research were nationalized, surely the greatest minds in the United States would flock to become government employees. Except, what happens when a war-mongering, power hungry president slashes their funding so that he can spend it on an offensive war, or something?

Re:Only one solution then

[MiniMike]

[please insert your jokes below]

Is this a setup for one of those 'enlargement' ads?

Re:Only one solution then

[Buran]

Antibiotics are already illegal without a prescription. What needs to be done isn't to make them illegal -- they do still have uses when used properly -- doctors need to be trained on when to prescribe. Antibiotics do nothing against viruses -- if a doctor is prescribing an antibiotic for a viral infection, he or she needs to be retrained, or even to find another sort of job/practice -- there's no excuse for not knowing something that basic, and no excuse for ignoring the fact if they do know it, because like you say, using antibiotics needlessly leads to things like MRSA.

Re:Only one solution then

[Hatta]

Those are two different statements. Just because people do drink in parks near you doesn't mean that they are allowed to do so.

This is increasingly off topic. Suffice it to say that in Iowa, alcohol is allowed in most parks.

It doesn't sound like you have very good relationships with your neighbors. I would suggest you try working on that and perhaps the problem won't be as significant.

If someone is an anti-pot bigot, there's not much I can do about that. Besides, my relationship with my neighbors has nothing to do with the legal status of Cannabis.

The cop who stopped me asked if I had knives, guns, or grenades. If I had grenades and he found those, would that be wrong? After all, the officer did have just cause to pull me over.

I don't even know what you're trying to argue here. Sending someone to jail for marijuana is simply not justifiable, no matter how it was found.

You have already told us you smoke pot. I'm going to guess you didn't just start spontaneously, and you probably know others who smoke as well. How many of them have been arrested just for smoking pot or having pot on their person? That is, how many of them weren't doing something in public that attracted attention?

I don't personally know anyone, but it happens. Are you going to deny that people like Johnathan Magbie exist? People go to jail for possession.

Are you considering only the physical addiction to smoking pot? Really you should be concerned with the psychological addiction to being under the influence.

You can get "psychologically addicted" to anything, food, sex, the internet. Should people go to jail for doing that too?

I quit caffeine years ago, it was not very difficult, even for someone like me who used to drink nearly a gallon of soda in a day.

I drink about 32 oz of coffee a day I guess. But I'm sure it would be easier to quit smoking pot. I do it every once in a while for a couple of weeks, it helps keep tolerance down. Coffee on the other hand, I haven't missed a day since high school.

Conversely, I know someone who refuses to socialize without smoking a joint. He just went on the pot equivalent of a week-long bender last week and never spoke to anyone. He is psychologically addicted to the state of being under the influence of weed.

And you'd send him to jail for it! No wonder he didn't want to talk to you.

If we are failing at prohibiting it, then why are you so angry? I am content with the laws as they are. You seem to be quite irate over them.

Failing doesn't stop them from hurting millions of people along the way. You'd be irate too if you were persecuted by your own government.

How do you know which drunk person in public will cross that line and which one won't?

You don't. So what? Jail them all and who cares who's innocent?

First, that still doesn't support your conclusion of what I said. You are trying to implicate me as wanting to arrest anyone who has pot. I never said that.

You said you wanted the current marijuana laws were ok the way they are. Current marijuana laws prohibit the possession of marijuana. What other conclusion am I to draw?

It is pretty easy to determine who is under the influence of pot, alcohol, or other substances.

But it's not really. At least for Cananbis.

And if they choose to be in public while under the influence, they are choosing to be oblivious to the risks of their decisions to the public.

I admit, I'm oblivious to the risks involved with me being in public while stoned. I really think they're negligible. If you could demonstrate any risk I pose to the public while sto

Re:Only one solution then

[damn_registrars]

If someone is an anti-pot bigot,

Wow, this seems familiar. People calling me names because I won't agree with their propaganda. But anyways...

Besides, my relationship with my neighbors has nothing to do with the legal status of Cannabis.

I would be inclined to believe that your neighbors wouldn't care if you were smoking up in your yard if you had a positive relationship with them. You've already shown that you dislike your neighbors - what then is in it for them to be accommodating towards you?

But you've also said that you haven't actually been busted for it anyways, so really this stems from your own paranoia of your neighbors. Or your paranoia of the law.

I don't even know what you're trying to argue here. Sending someone to jail for marijuana is simply not justifiable, no matter how it was found.

We were discussing law enforcement finding contraband material while conducting a legitimate search. But if you're opposed to that, then so be it.

I don't personally know anyone, but it happens. Are you going to deny that people like Johnathan Magbie [november.org] exist? People go to jail for possession.

You don't know anyone who has been busted only for possession, but yet you read a story from a group with an agenda against the drug laws, and you believe it whole-heartedly. And you base your paranoia and anger on that?

Why should we believe that a group with an obvious agenda is being honest in their reporting?

You can get "psychologically addicted" to anything, food, sex, the internet. Should people go to jail for doing that too?

Have you never heard of a psychological dependency? Is this a new term for you?

But to answer your question, most jurisdictions would indeed throw you in jail if you were having sex in public - that is generally considered public indecency.

Failing doesn't stop them from hurting millions of people along the way. You'd be irate too if you were persecuted by your own government.

You haven't backed up this accusation of "persecution". You have already said that you smoke often and you have never been arrested. You also said that you don't know anyone who has ever been busted for possession. Tell us again how this is persecution? How is this different from alcohol laws?

And you'd send him to jail for it! No wonder he didn't want to talk to you.

Your statement is 100% wrong. You came to that conclusion based on how you wanted to read what I have written, rather than what I have actually said. He has been on private property the entire time, not interacting with anyone.

But thanks for playing. Feel free to continue with your agenda, as we already know you will.

Face it, you don't know what a sober person will do in public. Any one at any time could assault you. But if you actually try to find out, instead of just appealing to ignorance [fallacyfiles.org], you'll find that marijuana does not make people aggressive.

Did you read what I wrote? I'm guessing the answer is no. Because if you did, you would have seen that I never suggested an aggressive behavior. But thank you for another agenda-laden link.

If your main concern is just public intoxication, would you agree to the statement "I support legalizing the possession of marijuana for home use, but continuing the prohibition of public intoxication."

Frankly, I don't see how that would be different than how the system currently works. How many times have you purchased pot or had it on your person? You don't have to share that number, just tell us what fraction of those times ended with you being arrested for possession. We already know the answer to that is zero.

Why bother changing the laws that are on t

Re:Only one solution then

[Oktober Sunset]

Oh my!
According to your logic, it's ok that Iran has the death penalty for gay people because it doesn't catch most of them, it's ok that Sudan stones women to death for having sex outside marriage, because it doesn't catch most of them.
If you are going to make a stupid argument, stand by it to it's stupid conclusion or shut your mouth. Answer all of what is put to you, not just the bits you can do easily, should people be arrested for obsessively eating chocolate?, for obsessively going on the internet?

having an unenforced law on the books and saying that is ok is dangerous, it gives the government a reason to arrest people they don't like at any time. Would you feel the same if coffee was illegal? knowing that if sheriff takes a dislike to you he could come round to your house at any time and find your coffee stash? Knowing that if you ever join a protest movement, the police could put you away for coffee possession?

You don't seem to understand why selective persecution is a bad thing, it's because they can at any time and for any reason change their mind, if they want to make a scapegoat for some social problem, they can just round up the drug users, if your neighbour doesn't like you for whatever reason, they could be prejudiced in some other way, they can call the cops to haul you away for smoking weed, there's dozens of reasons why they could suddenly change their mind and come and arrest you.

Oh and if people walking a bit funny down hte side walk is such a big inconvenience(I've been drunk as fuck sometimes, but I've never bumped into someone on hte way home on a busy street) are you going to ban dyspraxic people from going out on their own? what about fat people on their mobility scooters, their food addiction has made them interfere with my ability to walk down the street.

Fact is, you can't think of any reason why being stoned has a negative impact on others on it's own, sitting in the street, walking down the middle of the road, they are things people can do sober and you can be stoned off your face and do none of them at all. If someone blocks the pavement, arrest them for blocking the pavement, it is just as blocked if they are stoned or not.

Have some consistency and logic in your arguments, and stop going back on what you said whenever you are proved wrong.

have the courage of your convictions and say you think weed is evil and makes people into raping, robbing sociopaths, its what you have hinted at through all your posts, so why not just say it?

Re:Only one solution then

[Non-Huffable Kitten]

If you would assault and kidnap (arrest and imprison) me just for kicking back with a bowl after work, then *you* are the dangerous one. :)

'LSD causes sociopathy and paranoid delusions in individuals who have never even taken it.'

Re:Only one solution then

[damn_registrars]

According to your logic, it's ok that Iran has the death penalty for gay people because it doesn't catch most of them, it's ok that Sudan stones women to death for having sex outside marriage, because it doesn't catch most of them.
That is not even remotely close to what I've said. Holding someone overnight for being intoxicated in public is nowhere near the same as executing someone for what they've done in private.

If you are going to make a stupid argument, stand by it to it's stupid conclusion
I'm glad to see that you aren't going to reduce yourself to name calling, either.

knowing that if sheriff takes a dislike to you he could come round to your house at any time and find your coffee stash
I will extend the same challenge to you that I extended to the previous commenter - show an example of this happening. Nobody has been able to show an example of this actually occurring. Every example has come from obviously biased sources, and has then been propagated by paranoid individuals.

You don't seem to understand why selective persecution is a bad thing
You don't seem to understand that this whole "persecution" argument is crap. Nobody in this conversation has yet provided an example of actual persecution. If these laws are so evil, and so many people are being pulled off the street for nothing other than possession, it shouldn't be hard for any of you to show an example of it happening.

If this is all about persecution, then please, show me examples of persecution from these terrible laws.

Have some consistency and logic in your arguments
Kindly settle down, take a deep breath, and read what I wrote instead of what you want it to say. I have been consistent. It is just the spin that you, hatta, and others have put on my statements that has been inconsistent.

have the courage of your convictions and say you think weed is evil and makes people into raping, robbing sociopaths, its what you have hinted at through all your posts, so why not just say it?
Kindly demonstrate where I hinted at that. I will then show that you are taking my words and twisting them at your own convenience. I never made any such allegation, in any post I have ever made here.

Please, do us all a favor. Read what you are replying to for what it says, not what you want it to say.

Re:Only one solution then

[Hatta]

If someone is an anti-pot bigot,

Wow, this seems familiar. People calling me names because I won't agree with their propaganda. But anyways...

That wasn't directed at you. Do you have problems with reading comprehension?

I would be inclined to believe that your neighbors wouldn't care if you were smoking up in your yard if you had a positive relationship with them. You've already shown that you dislike your neighbors - what then is in it for them to be accommodating towards you?

I'm not willing to risk my freedom on the good graces of someone I hardly know. I don't know my neighbors, I don't really care to. I just want to be left alone, both by them and the government. Is that too much to ask?

We were discussing law enforcement finding contraband material while conducting a legitimate search. But if you're opposed to that, then so be it.

Actually we were discussing whether Cannabis should be contraband at all. That's what I'm opposed to.

You don't know anyone who has been busted only for possession, but yet you read a story from a group with an agenda against the drug laws, and you believe it whole-heartedly. And you base your paranoia and anger on that?

Why should we believe that a group with an obvious agenda is being honest in their reporting?

Are you denying that the case of Johnathan Magbie is factual? I don't know anyone personally, because I'm very careful, and I don't know that many pot smokers anyway. But you really have to be stupid (yes this time I'm calling you stupid) if you don't believe people go to jail for marijuana possession. And you have to be evil if you're ok with that.

Our nation is at war with drug users. There is a large amount of money that goes into enforcing those laws, and many people go to jail. If you simply want to ignore that fact, there's no help for you.

Have you never heard of a psychological dependency? Is this a new term for you?

Have *you* not heard of psychological dependency? If you did, you'd know that you can become psychologically dependent on anything. So what if Cannabis is psychologically addictive? Many things are psychologically addictive and perfectly legal. If you value consistency in the law (and you should) you can't just prohibit something because it could cause psychological dependency, there'd be almost nothing left legal.

You haven't backed up this accusation of "persecution". You have already said that you smoke often and you have never been arrested. You also said that you don't know anyone who has ever been busted for possession. Tell us again how this is persecution? How is this different from alcohol laws?

Again, if you are going to deny the simple fact that people go to jail for possession of Cannabis every day, there's simply no hope for you. The fact that I have not been arrested, or know those who have, only speaks to the extreme care I take to ensure that no one (IRL) knows I smoke. I wouldn't have to take such steps if I weren't persecuted.

Your statement is 100% wrong. You came to that conclusion based on how you wanted to read what I have written, rather than what I have actually said. He has been on private property the entire time, not interacting with anyone.

Again, since you advocate leaving the marijuana laws the way they are, and current laws prohibit possession of marijuana(whether at home or anywhere else), the only logical conclusion is that you want people who possess marijuana to go to jail. What other conclusion am I to draw?

Did you read what I wrote? I'm guessing the answer is no. Because if you did, you would have seen that I never suggested an aggressive behavior. But thank you for another agenda-laden link.

Ok, then what were you suggesting? I'll stand by my point, a stoned person is no greater dan

Re:Only one solution then

[damn_registrars]

That wasn't directed at you.

If the comment of being a bigot wasn't directed at me, then why was it included at all? Being as it was included in your reply to me, why should I not expect that you were directing it at me?

I don't know my neighbors, I don't really care to.

Then put up a privacy fence. Or move to someplace where you aren't so close to your neighbors. Or smoke pot indoors where they can't see you.

You've chosen to not be friends with your neighbors.

Are you denying that the case of Johnathan Magbie is factual?

I am denying that your source is trustworthy to represent the full facts of the case. You offered only a link to a website hosted by a group with an obvious agenda.

It is about as trustworthy as a link to a story about Obama posted by Newsmax.com.

But you really have to be stupid (yes this time I'm calling you stupid) if you don't believe people go to jail for marijuana possession.

I'm not surprised that you are again resorting to name calling. But I'll let it slide (again).

I've asked you to show an example of someone who was busted only for possession. You have yet to come up with one. I never denied that people have been busted for possession, I said that people are not busted solely for possession. Police don't just go around beating people up and kicking down doors simply because of suspicion of possession. People who get busted for possession have already done something else to arise suspicion. You are still welcomed to show an example to the contrary, but you have thus far failed to do so.

Have *you* not heard of psychological dependency?

You are the one who placed it in quotations after I used it. Your response treated it as if you thought I made up the term entirely.

you can't just prohibit something because it could cause psychological dependency

Bravo on twisting two different arguments into one and coming to a completely bogus conclusion. I didn't say I support the current laws because of addiction problems. If you would read what I wrote (try it some time, for the both of us) you'll see that I support the laws from a public safety standpoint. Just like the alcohol laws.

Again, if you are going to deny the simple fact that people go to jail for possession of Cannabis every day, there's simply no hope for you.

I didn't deny that people do get charged for possession. I denied that people get charged only for possession. You have yet to demonstrate anything to the contrary. Can you find even one verifiable case where someone was stopped, searched, and jailed, only for possession?

the only logical conclusion is that you want people who possess marijuana to go to jail. What other conclusion am I to draw?

The logical conclusion would be to read the part where I wrote that I am fine with the current enforcement of the drug laws, and how in reality their enforcement is the same as the alcohol laws. Perhaps if I repeat myself enough on this, you'll actually read what I write instead of what you want to see written.

I'll stand by my point, a stoned person is no greater danger to anyone around them than a sober person.

If a stoned person is that safe, and that remarkably similar to a sober person, then what is the purpose of getting stoned in the first place?

Why would you take a psycho-active drug, unless you want the psycho-active properties of said drug?

And what agenda is fallacyfiles.org laden with? They're anti-fallacy, that's hardly an agenda anyone can disagree with.

Their agenda is to overturn laws that they disagree with, and their willing to distort or omit the truth in order to accomplish th

Re:Only one solution then

[Hatta]

If the comment of being a bigot wasn't directed at me, then why was it included at all? Being as it was included in your reply to me, why should I not expect that you were directing it at me?

Because we were talking about a hypothetical situation involving my neighbors. You really do have a problem with reading comprehension.

People who get busted for possession have already done something else to arise suspicion.

So what? If they've done something wrong, jail them for that and ignore the pot. Punishing someone for having or using Cannabis is never ok. Not ever.

I didn't say I support the current laws because of addiction problems.

Ok, fair enough.

If you would read what I wrote (try it some time, for the both of us) you'll see that I support the laws from a public safety standpoint.

And you've yet to demonstrate any threat to the public safety because of marijuana use.

Perhaps if I repeat myself enough on this, you'll actually read what I write instead of what you want to see written.

Here's the thing, logic allows us to determine what statements necessarily follow from other statements. If you say "All men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man", it necessarily follows that you believe that Socrates is mortal. Likewise, if you say "I support leaving marijuana laws the way they are" and current marijuana law prescribes imprisonment for marijuana possession, it necessarily follows that you support that.

But I have a feeling you're not too good at this logic thing.

I'll stand by my point, a stoned person is no greater danger to anyone around them than a sober person.

If a stoned person is that safe, and that remarkably similar to a sober person, then what is the purpose of getting stoned in the first place?

Why would you take a psycho-active drug, unless you want the psycho-active properties of said drug?

Because it feels good, because it makes them happy. Just because a drug has psychoactive effects doesn't mean it affects their behavior in a way that makes them dangerous.

Their agenda is to overturn laws that they disagree with, and their willing to distort or omit the truth in order to accomplish that goal

Really? What part of fallacyfiles.org leads you to believe this?

I presume you are confusing arrest with assault.

Arrest is just state sponsored assault (and kidnapping). If I were to slap cuffs on you and take you to a cell, I'd be charged with both. The only difference with arrest is that the perpetrator wears a uniform.

Perhaps you should actually be targeting those laws, and DUI laws while your at it. After all, not all drunk drivers will cause motor vehicle accidents.

Except that with DUI, there is a significant demonstrable risk of danger to the general public. There is no such risk involved with Cannabis. If you disagree, I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate any such risk.

But my biggest question for you - which I suspect you won't answer - is where does your sense of entitlement come from? You seem to feel that your own personal enjoyment outstrips everyone else's rights to public space. Does it not matter how many people you are interfering with?

I've already said this once, but as a member of the public I have a right to use the public space as long as I don't interfere with anyone else's use of it. Being stoned in no way interferes with anyone else's use of the public space.

If you are taking up a sidewalk, and forcing people to walk out into a busy street to get around you, are they not important? What if you are sexually harassing a woman in public while you are too stoned to realize she doesn't welcome you? Are her rights not relevant?

If I'm loitering or sexually harrassing someone, then I should be punished for that! What does that have to do with marijuana possession or use?

Re:Only one solution then

[damn_registrars]

You really do have a problem with reading comprehension.
Wow, that is an amazing example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Considering that you have hardly bothered to read anything that I have written here, I don't know how you could possibly be so arrogant as to say that.

If they've done something wrong, jail them for that and ignore the pot. Punishing someone for having or using Cannabis is never ok. Not ever.
That is your own opinion, which is counter to the opinion of the state. You don't seem to be accomplishing anything to change the mind of the state - I advise you either get active in politics or move to a country that has no laws against pot.

And you've yet to demonstrate any threat to the public safety because of marijuana use.
I already listed several plausible scenarios that could arise from pot use. But you chose not to read them. They are still back there, if you'd like to look at them again.

Likewise, if you say "I support leaving marijuana laws the way they are" and current marijuana law prescribes imprisonment for marijuana possession, it necessarily follows that you support that.
You are simply wrong on that one. Again, please go back and read what I said. I said I could care less about possession. Furthermore I said I feel it is a waste of time and resources to change the law or the enforcement thereof, because of the way that the laws are enforced in reality. Feel free to respond by showing your propaganda-laden misinterpretation of laws, enforcement, or reality.

But I have a feeling you're not too good at this logic thing.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but that does not make it fact.

Arrest is just state sponsored assault (and kidnapping). If I were to slap cuffs on you and take you to a cell, I'd be charged with both. The only difference with arrest is that the perpetrator wears a uniform.
So should we disband all police forces and forbid arrest? Should we not care about any law enforcement anymore because you feel that arrest is the same as assault and kidnapping?

Have you ever been present at an arrest of any kind, or are you just taking police brutality cases from the media and using that to pass judgment against law enforcement?

There is no such risk involved with Cannabis. If you disagree, I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate any such risk.
I've already addressed this, you have already ignored it. There's no point in continuing to argue it because you appear to believe that pot is safer than milk.

I've already said this once, but as a member of the public I have a right to use the public space as long as I don't interfere with anyone else's use of it. Being stoned in no way interferes with anyone else's use of the public space.
I'm not sure how you can support that statement. Particularly when you are under the influence and your own conception of reasonable use at the time likely is not the same as that of those around you that are not under the influence.

Previously, you wanted to compare pot usage to sex addiction. If they are comparable, then why can't my wife and I go have sex in the middle of the city park?

If your drug usage is so great that we should all be subjected to it, then if I'm having great sex with my wife, why shouldn't everyone else be subjected to that as well? If I think that being drunk is great, then why shouldn't everyone be subjected to me when I am drunk?

In other words, where do you get your sense of entitlement from? Why is it that your way of getting off is inherently so much better for everyone else that you should be able to do it in public?

Re:Only one solution then

[Oktober Sunset]

You advocated the current law, which means significant jail time for possession of weed, whether smoked in public, private or never at all. That is what the law says, it doesn't say a night in the cells if stoned in public, like I said stand by your arguments.

Oh look, Black people are more likely to be charged when found with drugs than white people! my my, what do we call this? Racist persecution. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/sep/18/drugsandalcohol.ukcrime http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-05.htm

You don't know if either one may sexually harass someone else. Raping,

You don't know what either one may try to do to get money. Robbing,

And if they choose to be in public while under the influence, they are choosing to be oblivious to the risks of their decisions to the public. Sociopaths. if you don't believe it, why say it?

Re:Only one solution then

[damn_registrars]

You advocated the current law, which means significant jail time for possession of weed, whether smoked in public, private or never at all.
First, define what you mean by "significant jail time".

Then, find one good example of someone who has been busted for possession, and possession only. That was what we started by discussing here. Find someone who did nothing else to attract attention of police, and was busted only for possession.

it doesn't say a night in the cells if stoned in public, like I said stand by your arguments.
If you are such an expert on the law, tell us what people serve for possession only. Of course, you'll have to find someone who was busted for possession only in order to find that example. I'll be waiting, but I doubt you'll find an example before this thread is closed.

Oh look, Black people are more likely to be charged when found with drugs than white people! my my, what do we call this? Racist persecution. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/sep/18/drugsandalcohol.ukcrime [guardian.co.uk] http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-05.htm [hrw.org]
First of all, the first link you gave was for the UK. I won't pretend to be knowledgeable on UK drug laws. You can feel free to do so if you wish.

However, as for the second - did you actually read the portion of that article titled "origins of racially disproportionate arrests"? You'll find that actually a lot of the drug arrests - for marijuana as well as other drugs - comes down to where police enforcement is most prevalent. Police enforcement is generally more concentrated in higher density, lower income neighborhoods. You can't really say that the laws themselves are targeting minorities because of the way police departments assign their officers.

If you want to accuse the police departments of racism, there is plenty of evidence against a number of large agencies for that. But your argument of the laws themselves being racist is pretty flaky.

sexually harass Raping
Interesting that I said harassment and you inserted rape. Un-welcomed advances can be prosecuted, even if they don't lead to rape. But if you don't want to differentiate between the two, I can't force you to.

try to do to get money Robbing
Why are you trying so hard to put words into my mouth? I suppose its because that has been the basis of your argument the whole time. However, I never said anything about robbery. Haven't you ever lived in a city with panhandling laws?

But clearly I can't do anything to get you to actually read what I write for what I write. You will continue to take what I write, apply your own beliefs to it, and then regurgitate it to somehow (very weakly) buttress your claim of "persecution". And you're welcomed to do that. You don't have to agree with me, nor do you have to agree with the law. You are free to do as you wish in defiance of the law or the wishes of society, at your own risk.

As I've said before, I would prefer you take those risks in private so that those of us who chose not to partake in recreational drugs won't be subjected to the effects of you on drugs. If I chose to wander drunk down Main Street - on foot, bicycle, horseback, in a car, or other such means - I can expect there is a good chance I will be arrested for drunk in public. Why is it that people who chose to smoke pot should be not subjected to the same?

That is all that I asked for, and all that I have supported. Everything else you have accused me of thus far has been based on your own interpretation of what I have said.

Re:Only one solution then

[Hatta]

If they've done something wrong, jail them for that and ignore the pot. Punishing someone for having or using Cannabis is never ok. Not ever.

That is your own opinion, which is counter to the opinion of the state.

It's the only opinion that's compatible with any sensible interpretation of justice. All men are created equal. That means all men have the same rights. From that it follows that my rights stop where your rights stop, i.e. no one has the right to interfere with the rights of others. Now, if I smoke pot, that doesn't interfere with anyone elses rights at all. But prohibiting me from smoking pot interferes with my rights, by definition.

If that's not good enough for you, consider the concept that the punishment should fit the crime. It's even in the bible, an eye for an eye as it were. Since no one is hurt when I smoke pot, I should not be hurt by others for doing so.

And you've yet to demonstrate any threat to the public safety because of marijuana use.

I already listed several plausible scenarios that could arise from pot use. But you chose not to read them. They are still back there, if you'd like to look at them again.

Ok, I admit, I haven't read ANY plausible threats to the public in any of your posts. If you could point them out to me again I'd appreciate it.

Is this the passage you're talking about:

You don't know what a stoned person will do in public anymore than you know what a drunk person will do in public. Sure, the behaviors may be different, but they still can pose a danger to others. You don't know if either one may step out into traffic. You don't know if either one may sexually harass someone else. You don't know what either one may try to do to get money.

Because I not only read it, I responded to it. But if that response was inadequate, I'll try again. The problem here is that these aren't plausible. There's no evidence that smoking pot makes anyone more likely to jaywalk, sexually harass, or rob. And even if someone were to smoke pot and jawalk, harass, or rob someone, there are already laws against that.

So should we disband all police forces and forbid arrest? Should we not care about any law enforcement anymore because you feel that arrest is the same as assault and kidnapping?

No hardly. Sometimes you have to pick between the lesser of two evils. A safe and human arrest, while unfortunate, is often necessary to prevent greater harm to others. Smoking Cannabis does not pose a threat to others, so an arrest is completely unjustifiable.

Have you ever been present at an arrest of any kind, or are you just taking police brutality cases from the media and using that to pass judgment against law enforcement?

It doesn't have to be brutal to be assault.

I've already addressed this, you have already ignored it. There's no point in continuing to argue it because you appear to believe that pot is safer than milk.

Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.
DEA Judge Francis Young

Sounds pretty safe to me. Certainly not any more dangerous than caffeine, nicotine or alcohol. If you want to ignore the fact that the illegal drug Cannabis is safer than most legal drugs; if you want to ignore the fact that thousands of people are in jail because of that insanity, then you are complicit in that injustice.

I've already said this once, but as a member of the public I have a right to use the public space as long as I don't interfere with anyone else's use of it. Being stoned in no way interferes with anyone else's use of the public space.

I'm not sure how you can support that statement. Particula

Re:Only one solution then

[sm62704]

I'm not advocating making antibiotic illegal to prescribe, I'm advocating removing all restrictions against adults buying and using OTHER drugs. The laws regarding antibiotics should stay the same IMO.

Highly accurate assesment:

[Recovering Hater]

Botnets are run by illegal Russian "pharmacists"?

NO $H!T

Re:Highly accurate assesment:

[valderost]

If you'd been reading your spam, you'd know they're called "chemists" now, and they sell "pilules".

Two drug stories in one day?

[sm62704]

You guys have GOT to stop reading my journal! Next thing you know slahdot will be have stories about hookers...

Re:Two drug stories in one day?

[eldavojohn]

You guys have GOT to stop reading my journal! Next thing you know slahdot will be have stories about hookers... ... or blackjack. In fact, forget the slahdot!

Re:Two drug stories in one day?

[gstoddart]

You guys have GOT to stop reading my journal! Next thing you know slahdot will be have stories about hookers...

I, for one, welcome our new hooker-story submitting editors. :-P

Cheers

Re:Two drug stories in one day?

[pitchpipe]

See, this just proves that Wired caused the rise in the Storm botnet.

Re:Two drug stories in one day?

[mongoose(!no)]

CowboyNeal, get out of my head.

Just come up with some fake terrorist links

[jonwil]

Someone should do what was done in the lead-up to the Iraq war (where Bush/Blair/Howard deliberatly made it seem like Saddam was a lot more of a threat than he really was) and come up with some evidence linking all this crap to terrorists. Then the US will have no choice but to do something about it :)

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[Artifakt]

Plus it gives plenty of other useful info. We don't just find out that the business behind Storm is selling illegal drugs, but that there are some good reasons why these particular mail order sales are illegal - i.e. major variations in the dose and 1/3 of them containing no dose at all. Since plenty of people here on /. think the U.S.'s policy on mail order drugs is there just to prop up U.S. company's monopoly status, they obviously could use the information that there are some real problem cases that the law is attempting to address.

Education Beyond Your Intelligence

[Nom du Keyboard]

It's possible to be educated beyond your intelligence, which leaves you a clueless elite. Obviously just because some people are educated on how to get their personal computer onto the Internet, they clearly don't navigate the hazards out there very well.

First its illegal scrips

[davidwr]

Next year it will be hard drugs and after that...

K1DD13 PR0N!

We must nip this in the bud now before its too late.

Thinkofthechildrenwhoarealreadydopedupbehindtheirparentsbacks!

Wait...

[MWoody]

"...two-thirds of the drugs contained the wrong dosage of the active ingredient, and the rest were placebos."

Wait, so 2/3 were the wrong dosage and 1/3 were placebos? None were correct?

Speaking of which...

[Sigma 7]

I was placing orders on these sites in question. Should I continue doing so?

As far as I know, the server accepts orders as long as the client-side Javascript doesn't make an objection - I could easily use randomly generated contact information for filling these forms or otherwise turn off Javascript to create an order with blank billing information. Of course, they've blocked TOR with a spurious "Invalid Server Configuration" error message, thus I actually have to use a direct connection from multiple points.

Anyone surprised?

[damn_registrars]

Of course when the botnet spammers are profiting off the spamvertised sales of drugs, the botnet will grow. The money from said sales likely goes back into storm botnet development.

If the same study had been done several years ago (before broadband at home became so common) the results would have been the same, with pirated software substituted where drugs are now. We can also thank the idiotic health care system in the US for this - some people are willing to try almost anything to save money on office visits and prescription costs.

And based on the spam I've seen lately, we may soon see replica watches, knock-off purses, and wannabe designer shoes rising through the ranks of profitability for spammers.

one quick easy solution

[owlnation]

Vote for universal health care...

You'll eliminate 95% of this spam immediately.

Re:one quick easy solution

[JK_the_Slacker]

Not likely. Spam is not about filling a need in the market, it's about greed. An "easy" way to make money. As an advertising model, spam itself doesn't stop being profitable just because the advertised product stops being profitable. Should the illegal pharmacists stop funding the spam, someone else will start. Way to miss the issue, friend.

Re:one quick easy solution

[cdrguru]

Why? Do you honestly believe that some kind of "universal health care" would overnight make people not want drugs they don't need and shouldn't have? If anything, there would be more money available for people to buy drugs through various black-market channels.

It might cut down on the drug purchases where the patient really has a prescription and is just looking for something cheaper. Might. Problem is, unless everything was free, the illegal sites dispensing crap would still be cheaper.

Re:one quick easy solution

[justinlee37]

This is true if we continue to control drugs, but if we just lifted the prohibition entirely and let people pop whatever pills they wanted to, there could be no "illegal sites dispensing crap." There would simply be quality companies and poor companies, and the poor companies would get boycotted into bankruptcy.

Re:placebos

[dreamchaser]

From TFA:

However, IronPort-sponsored pharmacological testing revealed that two thirds of the shipments contained the active ingredient but were not the correct dosage, while the others were placebos. As a result, consumers take a significant risk of ingesting an uncontrolled substance from overseas distributors, the researchers say.

So as you can see it was all done privately without the FDA.

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[fermion]

Unregulated drugs are the issue. You don't know what you are going to get. This goes for vitamins, fitness drugs, or illegal drugs. In fact one of the issues of the past 20 years of so is the cutting of the expected illegal drug with substances that have no effect or are more fatal. Yet people still happily pay huge amounts of money for these things, even though they are probably not even real. For instance, vitamins are regularly shown to be far below dosage, yet nothing can be done about it.

When we are talking about the more regulated drugs, produced by the more regulated drug manufacturer that could actually be sued for everything then things become much more relaible. I would expect to Wal Mart in Canada and get the same product as a Wal Mart in the US. If I were buying unregulated vitamins, I would expect them to be equally ineffective to what I buy in the US. If I were buying Vicodin, I would expect to be equally effective. I don't expect Abott has one formulation for the US and another for Canada.

Which is to say junk is junk no matter where you buy it, while quality product has requires a auditable chain. That is not a prada bag you bought out the trunk of the car, and it is likely sucrose one gets from the spammer mail order service, if you are lucky. Neither has anything to do with ordering name brand prescriptions from reputable houses.

Fake. Not placebo.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Placebo is the term for the sugar pill given to patients undergoing clinical trial. It is a specific form of fake drug. What these criminals are peddling is not just plain fake drug, not something guaranteed to cause no harm. So this should not be called a placebo.

What next?

[v(*_*)vvvv]

Study links Katrina to Columbian drug cartels!

Info re. cited "Canadian Pharmacy" site

[drew30319]

The "Canadian Pharmacy" in question appears to be this one according to spamtrackers:

http://spamtrackers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Canadian_Pharmacy

Lots of good info including sponsoring registrars & nameserver info at the spamtrackers site for the adventurous souls out there.

So shop at Walmart

[DnemoniX]

Just a heads up, but there are now roughly 416 generic prescription drugs available to you for only $4 at Walmart and several other chains are joining this trend. Several are also available in 90 day supplies for $10. This pricing is available to anyone regardless of having insurance or not. $4 that is it. The list of meds now also includes birth control and some breast cancer medications. So your theory on why people circumvent the system is seriously flawed.

The real draw to these online pharmacies are the drugs like Viagra and Cialis which are not available in a generic formula. What drives these sales is not the cost it is the embarrassment. Men do not want to go ask the family doctor for E.D. meds they would rather risk going online, picking some up in Mexico or going without. Interestingly enough their Dentist buddy or their vet could just as easily write them a script for any of the above legally.

Against coersive medical monopolies

[GreedyCapitalist]

If the government artificially limit the supply of medical products, the market would ensure much better quality control and eliminate the need for this kind of underground "marketing." When was the last time you read about botnet being used to sell cheese or shoes? It's government coercion that funds these kinds of "criminal organizations."

Re:Against coersive medical monopolies

[GreedyCapitalist]

Oops, meant to say "If the government *did not* artificially limit"

WOD = Spam?

[dazedNconfuzed]

If there were _not_ a "War on Drugs", would we see far less spam?

Re:WOD = Spam?

[Antique Geekmeister]

No. There's not a 'War on Viagra', nor a 'War on Mangosteen Juice' nor a 'War on Porn', and they'd easily expand their advertising to fill any gaps left by making the sale of fraudulent medications legal.

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[RAMMS EIN]

``Since plenty of people here on /. think the U.S.'s policy on mail order drugs is there just to prop up U.S. company's monopoly status, they obviously could use the information that there are some real problem cases that the law is attempting to address.''

Or could it be that, because the law makes selling drugs by mail order illegal, only outlaws sell drugs by mail order...and since they're already breaking the law anyway, why not sell cheap junk to maximize profits?

Re:You did it wrong

[jgarra23]

Why didn't you show them your student ID and proof of insurance?

Perfectly good question & I'll be happy to answer.

I was in so much pain and it was a long walk from the laundromat to my apartment at 4am in the morning when it was ~ -5 degrees out and the sidewalks and roads were COVERED with ice. My wrist was swelling alarmingly fast and the hospital was closer so I went there first. Being a pauper @ the time all I had on me was a bunch of laundry quarters and forgot my wallet at home.

The spam links to sites actually selling stuff?

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

So there are actually sites out there where you can buy these drugs mentioned in the spam? From what I've seen, the spam is all just gibberish and doesn't actually go to any drug selling web site. Not that I click on many of those though...

Storm botnet?

[penguin_dance]

Oooo, Storm botnet? Sounds nasty. Shouldn't you be taking penicillin for that?

[g]

They are illegal

[phorm]

Selling placebos as the real thing, or drugs that may contain the real thing (but in doses that are dangerous) is still illegal.

While the actual pills may not contain a substance that is "illegal", the manner in which they are presented is. Kinda like how alcohol is legal, but it can only be sold under certain conditions (and not to minors, etc).

Re:They are illegal

[mpe]

Selling placebos as the real thing, or drugs that may contain the real thing (but in doses that are dangerous) is still illegal.

Yet there dosn't appear to be much law enforcement effort going into dealing with this. Even though there must be quite a trail of evidence involved.

Re:They are illegal

[cdrguru]

When the trail leads from an IP address to a country that doesn't care to enforce some laws to some hapless goof that is buying stuff online where do you go? The IP address isn't anywhere - there are laws in place to protect the privacy of that information. The country that doesn't care gets some revenue since the shipments are coming from there.

I guess it all comes down on the hapless goof buying the stuff. Sure, let's put him in prison.

Unless you are an idiot or a braggart, committing crime on the Internet is perfectly safe.

Re:They are illegal

[jonbryce]

You follow the money, and you follow the parcels of drugs coming into the country.

Math?!

[ak3ldama]

IronPort went as far as to do pharmacological testing on the products, and found that two-thirds of the drugs contained the wrong dosage of the active ingredient, and the rest were placebos.

I thought that Russians were good at math!

Re:Math?!

[New_Age_Reform_Act]

they don't do good math. they do good meth.

Caveat Emptor...

[BoRegardless]

Applies not only to anyone using a personal computer, but to companies, ICANN & others who "oversee" the Internet structure who should have been creating new structures to prevent these sort of things proliferating. It is not just drugs but a never-ending blast of promos. It is not like we haven't seen this coming for years. Where are the responsible ISPs, who should literally shut off any personal computer that is sending spam? Doing that alone, and dialing out China, Russia and others on email programs would severely limit the ability of these nogoods to do their work. Microsoft is part of the blame here. I still have a friend who's HP computer at home is buzzing with activity from a Bot (3 kids in the family), sometimes taking 70-80% of his CPU cycles. He knows he is infected. Why won't he reinstall the OS? He doesn't know how, and figures he would be in for days of work, and if he can't do it, he will just have to fork out for a new desktop. Intertia, fear, loathing, and no fear of retribution for running a bot compromised CPU are behind his activities. All the same things ICANN, Microsoft, ISPs, and others seem to have in abundance. Sheesh.

Prescription and danger

[DrYak]

There's also the problem when the doctor refuses to write a prescription for obvious reasons of addiction.

The addict may be shopping around for several physician in order to have enough prescriptions from all of them for his habit but spacing enough time between consultation at each one not to raise suspicions.

This strategy could work, but is tedious and costly. Getting those drugs on-line simplifies the process and cuts the doctor's cost out of the equation.

Interestingly enough their Dentist buddy or their vet could just as easily write them a script for any of the above legally. What ? In the USA vets and dentist have the right to prescribe ED meds ?!?!?

Re:Prescription and danger

[DnemoniX]

Yes vets and your dentist can both prescribe any medication they want, they are all medical doctors, just of different flavors so to speak. My soon to be wife is a pharmacist, she says she fills prescriptions for pets all the time. There are several medications that are used for both humans and animals. Even more surprising is that your dentist could perform cosmetic surgery after a weekend seminar. Try to google the key works "dentist cosmetic surgery". One of the top results says "Find Doctors and Dentists for Breast Augmentation".

Whew!

[andreMA]

What a relief... it's pharmaceuticals, so I can go on buying my marijuana, cocaine, heroin and LSD over the interwebs. I'd hate to support hackers.

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[sm62704]

After smoking pot off and on since 1971 with no ill effects whatever, I'm not very damned likely to believe anything the government says about ANY drug.

Like the illegality itself, everything the government does concerning drugs is counterproductive.

Re:o rly?

[limaxray]

I wonder if the popularity of this distributor is an indicator of problems with the legal drug industry? If these drugs were more available and affordable (i.e., fewer patent-enforced limitations on supply artificially driving the prices up), maybe people wouldn't be turning to criminal organizations to buy them.

First, without those patent limitations, no one would be willing to invest the hundreds of millions of dollars that it costs to bring a drug to market in the US. If you want to suggest anything, it'd be to lengthen patent life so companies have more time earn a decent ROI and thus can lower their prices. Personally I don't think this is what needs to be done. If anything, allow consumers to purchase drugs that haven't undergone the strict FDA approval process, thus making the drugs cheaper (albeit less safe)

Next, I strongly disagree with the whole premise that people illegally buy drugs online to save money. No, I don't think that's it. I think it's because they want their painkillers or ED meds to abuse but can't get a legit prescription. I think this way because these are the only drugs these companies sell and they certainly aren't much, if at all, cheaper than buying the same drugs legitimately.

Something is not right

[dbcad7]

So if I am to believe this article.. Iron Port, a division of Cisco that provides anti virus and malware software .. took it upon themselves to order drugs online, and then paid to have them tested to determine that these drugs had the wrong dosages and were placebos.

Come on.. what kind of software security company does this ?? ... perhaps one being paid off by pharmaceutical companies to do exactly that.. highly suspect.

Re:Something is not right

[insecuritiez]

Come on.. what kind of software security company does this ??
Very few which is why IronPort has a better grasp on what is really going on than a lot of others. In order for the anti-malware industry to be effective it needs to understand the economics behind the malware industry. Spam continues to be effective because people continue to purchase products advertised in spam. Among other things, determining the authenticity of the drugs being sold helps to gauge if pharmaceutical business is all first-time customers or repeat customers.

Re:Something is not right

[Jekler]

I agree with you that the claims by Iron Port are highly suspect. They determined online pharmacies have a 100% error rate? I know people who have ordered from online pharmacies, chemically tested their drugs, and got exactly what they ordered. Obviously I can only speak of the handful of incidents I'm aware of, so maybe the people I know just got real lucky.

If online pharmacies screwed people 100% of the time, nobody at all would buy from them, because in a game like that the big money is in repeat orders. It wouldn't make any economic sense to score some petty cash with a bunch of first time orders when you can milk the same cow 100 times.

I'm not advocating the use of these pharmacies, I just don't think Iron Port's report is credible. To believe them means that online pharmacies never ship the correct order, and anything which makes an "always" or "never" claim raises red flags and requires close scrutiny.

Re:Something is not right

[dbcad7]

What other products and services do they purchase and test ?

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[msimm]

A) don't confuse a monopoly issue with common crime B) if you've never ordered drugs online I expect the read was eye-opening, but as someone who has let me give you a tiny bit of perspective: people who break the law can't always be trusted; but you already knew that.

My god...

[thewesterly]

Placebo is the term for the sugar pill given to patients undergoing clinical trial. It is a specific form of fake drug. What these criminals are peddling is not just plain fake drug, not something guaranteed to cause no harm. So this should not be called a placebo. Even the *placebos* are fake? Is nothing sacred?!

Aw, shucks...

[grimmfarmer]

When I first saw this headline, I thought the implication was that Storm was growing so quickly due to its use of performance-enhancing drugs. I was all ready to blame superstar baseball players for setting a poor example...

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[dedazo]

they came in waves man! waves, I tell you!

Actual quote from an Army buddy that was convinced spiders were coming out of his closet to eat him. He was a crack addict, among other things.

I don't need the government to tell me drugs are bad, I know they are. Your experience with pot is atypical, or maybe pot is an atypical drug, but not all drugs are the same. And they are all, in some level, bad.

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[giorgiofr]

Well first of all you've destroyed your lungs by smoking that (quasi-unfiltered) stuff. Secondly, I have first-hand experience of people who've fried their brains taking drugs. Even dedicated pot smokers can suffer consequences, even though it's possibly the least damaging drug of all. Now I am personally in favor of people freely buying whatever they want (drugs, weapons, whatever), but it's just stupid to pretend that drugs have no effects on you.

Spam still lives?

[spydabyte]

I know I get spam frequently (I keep it as a counter to how recently I've checked my mail-every hour or so) but gmail, yahoo, hotmail, and my uni account all have the default filters and I never happen upon a spam message in my inbox.

I don't know about you guys but I think the only "spam" I still see is web advertisements (popups) and the occasional random MSN message.

Even though I'm a heavy and literate computer user, I still feel that they can't be making *that* much of a profit these days.

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[KlomDark]

How true and insightful. (Although in 1971 I was just learning to use the toilet... :) )

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[petermgreen]

On the other hand if mail order sales of theese drugs to the general public were made legal then people wouldn't be driven to buy them from such dodgy suppliers.

Woa....

[DrYak]

Here in Switzerland specialities (human medecine vs. vets vs. dentists vs. legal medicine) are much more separated into compartments and strongly regulated.

In fact you can't give a pet human drugs even if the name written on the box is the only difference.

My god. Why didn't I study in the USA ?

Re:Woa....

[DnemoniX]

That is interesting considering that the same families of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors are used for both humans and dogs. I even had a vet tell me to use childrens strength Bendryll to sedate my cat while I moved to a new house.

In regards to dentists, an oral surgeon is still just a specialized dentist, yet they perform surgery under while many patients are fully sedated. They also regularly prescribe antibiotics and pain killers.

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[khayman80]

Agreed. There are many, MANY problems with prohibition, but this one is often overlooked. Namely, by engaging in ridiculous hyperbole about relatively innocuous drugs like marijuana, the government is destroying their own credibility. Most kids hear the DARE officers say that smoking weed will turn you into a crazy homeless bum who sucks dick for joints, and they immediately tune out all government officials because they're obviously not telling the truth.

This is bad, because some of the things the government says about drugs are true. This due more to random statistics than diligent research, I'd say- if you make 1000 completely random statements, some of them are bound to be true simply by chance. For instance, meth, crack and heroin really do have a great addictive potential, and the ratio of the LD50 dose to the active dose is disturbingly small. Unfortunately, kids simply don't listen when they're told this, because cops say the same things about weed.

Even worse, some kids actually buy into the propaganda. These are the kids who believe that illegal drugs are dangerous because they're illegal, so they huff paint cleaner and other "legal" drugs. These "legal" methods of getting high are actually more dangerous than heroin, but they don't carry the illegal stigma so kids don't see them as dangerous if they believe the drug prohibition propaganda.

I'd much rather see all drugs be made legal- ALL of them. Then sell them at convenience stores to adults in packages with certain ratings on the package. Addictiveness could be quantified (by independent medical professionals, not the government) and placed on the package. Also, the ratio of the LD50 dose to the active dose could be printed in big letters. The time to take effect could also be printed, so that people don't accidentally overdose thinking the first hit didn't work. This would increase government revenue through more taxes and less money spent on the DEA, destroy the black market and its associated violence, drastically empty our prisons of nonviolent offenders, restore faith in the police as a force to protect people rather than imprison them for "victimless crimes", and make it more difficult for kids to buy drugs. (Yes, more difficult. Children regularly report that it's more difficult to obtain alcohol than drugs, for the simple reason that most drug dealers don't ask for ID.) It would also help more drug addicts get treatment, because they'd no longer have to fear prosecution if they want to get treatment. Oh, and it would give us back a free society where citizens are treated as adults who can make their own decisions about their own bodies.

If you're looking for an objective information source regarding drugs, I highly recommend erowid.org. This website contains information about damn near every psychoactive drug in existence. Not only chemical information and physiological effects, but also specific legal information and many, MANY personal experiences.

Strangely enough, I find myself recommending the South Park episode about weed to anyone who wants a decent way to sum up the dangers of marijuana. After most of the episode centers around ridiculous propaganda, Stan's father eventually wises up and says: "Son, weed isn't going to make you a criminal. It will make you okay with being bored, though, and every day you spend stoned on the couch is one less day you could be learning a new hobby or developing a new skill." I found that very insightful. Frankly, I also liked the recent drug commercial where a stoner says "I smoked weed, and I didn't become homeless or start smoking crack. We just sat on my friend's couch... and sat... and sat... I'd rather take my chances outside, where it's dangerous."

This kind of honest approach would do wonders, in my opinion. And, yes, I'm a regular stoner- I just know how and when to put the drugs down and work on my physics PhD thesis (if you don't believe this, look at my history and read the posts I've written regarding quantum entangleme

Link

[DnemoniX]

Here is an interesting link regarding human/animal drug use. http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/600_pets.html

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[khayman80]

I mentioned my earlier physics posts, but didn't notice that they're no longer available through my profile (I'm a cheap grad student, so I'm not a subscriber- many of you are probably in the same boat.) The posts I'm referring to are in this thread: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=237325&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=19387637 .

I say this not to brag, but to preemptively counter the (disturbingly common) notion that all stoners are dumb, lazy slackers. I think this is a direct effect of drug prohibition, and most peoples' inability to recognize when their own conclusions are drawn from biased samples.

For example, no one (myself included) who smokes pot will be willing to discuss this in real life for fear of prosecution. So the only stoners that Average Joe knows about are the ones who are stupid enough to get caught, or people in tie dye t-shirts who don't shower regularly and are thus recognizable. The clean cut guy in a suit walking to his job as a doctor or a lawyer isn't recognized as a stoner, and he certainly doesn't broadcast that information, so the sample of people from which this perception is drawn is statistically biased- extremely so.

Statisticians

[nurb432]

Are a bunch of liars, 90% of the time of the surveyed responses.

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[uniquename72]

On the other hand if mail order sales of theese drugs to the general public were made legal then people wouldn't be driven to buy them from such dodgy suppliers. There are plenty of online, non-U.S. pharmacies that are legit and don't use this type of marketing. Ask your doctor to recommend one, and you may be surprised.

Before I had insurance, I got all my drugs (the non-intoxicating kind, that is, like antibiotics) from medsmex.com.

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[glitch23]

This kind of honest approach would do wonders, in my opinion. And, yes, I'm a regular stoner- I just know how and when to put the drugs down and work on my physics PhD thesis (if you don't believe this, look at my history and read the posts I've written regarding quantum entanglement and the relativity of simultaneity implying that the ability to travel FTL is equivalent to the ability to travel back in time)

Well this explains a lot about why theoretical physics is so far out there.

Ok...Let's see...

[iminplaya]

Selling contraband with a computer

Where's my patent attorney?

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[khayman80]

Heh... yes, I've found that physics is often more enjoyable stoned (and I'm a pretty damn big physics geek even when I'm sober, so that's really saying something). So do a lot of other scientists- the most famous being the late Carl Sagan: http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/002.html

Re:you are an idiot

[khayman80]

Thank you for your insightful and thought provoking critique. I appreciate your input, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[Frogbert]

As a crazy homeless bum who sucks dick for joints I take offence to the above comment.

mod parent up

[waspleg]

no mod points ;/

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[waspleg]

heh can you give me the ability to travel FTW?

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[khayman80]

Hey, none of that here. What do you think this is, Digg?

Yeah, but...

[maz2331]

While I disagree with just anyone SELLING the drug without a true assurance of what is being sold, I don't believe in making it illegal to BUY it.

Personally, I don't take any of these prescriptions. I had a doctor who told me I should be on an anti-cholesterol drug, based on one test.

The fatal heart attack within a year she predicted did not occur. And I passed every specialist test requested.

She was promptly and uncerimoniously fired.

IMHO, too many Docs are taking too many "freebies" and incentives from the pharma industry to give objective advice.

I doubt many of them are looking out for the interest of the patient. They are looking out for their next quarterly stock statement from a portfolio heavy in pharma.

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[Oktober Sunset]

oh look, what words are absent in the parent post, oh 'perfectly safe', not there at all.

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[Anonymous Coward]

Comparing pot and crack is about as ridiculous as comparing aspirin and crack

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[Oktober Sunset]

they tell you many drugs are bad, yet at the same time they tell you that alcohol and tobacco are perfectly ok to use for fun, just so long as Uncle Sam gets his cut.

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[DuckDodgers]

Outstanding.

I don't know that I agree about other drugs, but I agree marijuana should be legalized for the reasons you mentioned.

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[sydbarrett74]

AWESOME post, man. I wish more people were as objective and clueful.

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[PoliTech]

"clearly visible ill effects of marijuana that affect you"

Care to provide a citation for your drivel?

Oh! That's right you can't possibly offer any proof! Why? Because your post was nothing but complete and utter horse hockey.

There are no medical studies about marijuana one way or the other, because it's against the LAW to study the substance and/or its effects to begin with.

So, you're both a fool and a liar, and that usually means that you are either in law enforcement or politics.

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[sm62704]

There have been times in my life when I smoked pot daily for periods of several years. I think I was stoned the whole time I was in college.

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[sm62704]

not all drugs are the same

Very true, and you illustrate my point. Cocaine is a nasty drug; people I've known that used it for any sustained periods at all turned into utterly selfish money grubbing assholes (which makes me suspect that people running the MNCs are cocaine addicts).

But after listening to the government's utter bullshit about marijuana and discovering that it is in fact utter bullshit, does NOT fuck your life up, does NOT do anything the government says it does, Joe Kidd is likely to try crack or heroin, which ARE very nasty drugs indeed. The government's anti-drug lies are counterproductive.

Why is tobacco legal? None of its addicts survive; it is the deadliest of all drugs, and may be as addictive as any. Noccotine is one of the deadliest poisons of the planet; it's used in insecticides. All of the stated reasons for drugs being outlawed apply ito tobacco, and in spades. Either outlaw tobacco or legalize all the other drugs (except antibiotics).

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[sm62704]

Well first of all you've destroyed your lungs by smoking that (quasi-unfiltered) stuff.

I've probably destroyed my lungs, but by smoking that LEGAL stuff (tobacco) daily for thirty years. I have every expectation of dying of lung caner from the tobacco.

I never said DRUGS have no effect on you - all drugs are different. But right now the only two girlfriends I've had since my divorce are dying from drug use. Cris and Robyn are alcoholics, and both are dying of cirrhosis. My uncle died of lung cancer twenty years after giving up cigarettes. In fact, the two deadliest drugs there are, alcohol and noccotine, are legal.

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[sm62704]

Maybe alcohol's famous effect of being "liquid courage" is affecting my bravery, mister coward? My speaking out against unjust laws is my civic duty.

Your juvinile ignorance is almost cute, son. heresay is not admissable in court, and the DEA is far too busy going after people importing billions of dollars worth of cocaine to squander its budget going after pot smokers.

My duty isn't to obey unjust laws; my duty is to try to get them changed.

Re:snarkiness here is misplaced...

[sm62704]

A stupid man should have the same right to utterly fuck his life up as an intelligent man. Should fat people and their risk of heart disease be allowed to eat at McDonald's?

The only drugs that should be outlawed are antibiotics, and the reason for that is your overuse diminishes their effectiveness in combatting MY infections.