Meth Dealer Faces Loss of His Comic Book Collection

cultiv8 writes "According to an article from The Smoking Gun: 'A large-scale methamphetamine dealer who allegedly laundered drug profits by purchasing valuable comic books is in danger of forfeiting his 18,753-volume collection to Uncle Sam, according to a new court filing. Federal prosecutors yesterday filed a US District Court complaint seeking ownership of the comic book holdings of Aaron Castro, 30, who is facing a May trial in Colorado on narcotics distribution and weapons charges. The comics are valued in excess of $500,000.'"

Comments

He even looks like Comic Book Store guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not bang your head against the display case, please! There is a very valuable Mary Worth inside, in which she has advised a friend to commit suicide. Thank you!

Re:He even looks like Comic Book Store guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Um excuse me, CBSG has long flowing hair that he holds back with a scrunchy.

Worst comment, ever!

It's A Bird, It's A Plane ...

[WrongSizeGlass]

... It's a meth dealer! It's a shame that these comics will probably be ruined in some humid evidence locker for a few years until he goes to trail. I guess he'll just have to read regular "affordable" comics while he's in prison.

Re:It's A Bird, It's A Plane ...

[skywatcher2501]

... it's MethMaaaaaan!

Re:It's A Bird, It's A Plane ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, I don't think the guy reads comics.

Secondly, I think this is a clever way of laundering money. A bunch of small purchases that (should have) gone unnoticed, and then, one big sale of these on ebay while paying the income tax and paper trailing everything. Pretty smart, except for the fact that he got caught.

Values

[Anonymous Coward]

allegedly laundered drug profits by purchasing valuable comic books

These comic books may be expensive, but I doubt that they're valuable.

Re:Values

[Desler]

But...but...they are his retirement fund! In 50 years he'll be able to sell them to some other obese nerd who will then put them away as their retirement fund! Comic books will never lose value! THEY HAVE COLLECTOR'S VALUE!!!!

Re:Values

[Anonymous Coward]

At least he didn't invest in beanie babies.

Re:Values

[xanadu113]

Aren't most tweakers SKINNY and NOT Obese??

Dibbs

[Anonymous Coward]

So when can we get a list of the comic books?

Why is this here?

[Jiro]

I can't for the life of me figure out why this merits a Slashdot story. Even if you conclude "Slashdot readers are geeks, geeks have comic book collections" it's pretty unlikely that many Slashdot readers use their collections to launder drug money.

Re:Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

It means a comic book collection worth $500,000 will be going on sale at auction at bargain basement prices.

Re:Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed... my best guess is this is another indication that /. is becoming more of a libertarian blog than a geek site. "Lookie! Lookie what the gub'ment is doing now!"

Re:Why is this here?

[artor3]

It's for the "fuck the government" segment of Slashdot readers. They'll claim that this is evil totalitarianism, and that since "everyone is guilty of something" the cops now have the authority to steal your most prized possessions over a jaywalking violation. They might even toss in a few oldies but goodies, like claiming the major political parties are the same, that Americans are no better off than North Koreans, and perhaps even that quip about ballot, jury, soap, and bullet boxes.

Meth dealer? I'm sure he was just a misunderstood amateur chemist.

Re:Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed... my best guess is this is another indication that /. is becoming more of a libertarian blog than a geek site. "Lookie! Lookie what the gub'ment is doing now!"

Libertarian?!?!?!

Post something derogatory about ObamaCare or that the extraordinary claims of the global warming alarmists aren't backed up by extraordinary proof and see where you get modded.

Re:Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

...it's pretty unlikely that many Slashdot readers use their collections to launder drug money.

Hell, it's pretty unlikely that many Slashdot readers do their own laundry at all.

Re:Why is this here?

[Xelios]

I had to go look up "money laundering" in a dictionary...

Re:Why is this here?

[hedwards]

Actually, you shouldn't lump the 4 boxes comment in with the rest of them, it's a legitimate observation. The main disagreement is over how long to wait before transitioning to the next box, and what precisely justifies doing so. But it is absolutely correct, one shouldn't overthrow the government when lesser measures will fix the problem, and one shouldn't use a soap box when only force will solve it.

Re:Why is this here?

[Desler]

or that the extraordinary claims of the global warming alarmists aren't backed up by extraordinary proof and see where you get modded.

Yeah, as opposed to the material coming out of "think tanks" populate by oil company shills. Those are the beacon of truth and honesty! What next? People actually still believe the extraordinary claims that smoking is bad for you and causes cancer! How dare accept those extraordinary claims after the cigarette makers have said otherwise and they have no reason to lie about that!

Re:Why is this here?

[spiffmastercow]

Post something derogatory about ObamaCare or that the extraordinary claims of the global warming alarmists aren't backed up by extraordinary proof and see where you get modded.

For the record, it's not the fact that you're against the health care law that makes us write you off as a right-wing nutjob. It's the fact that you feel the need to use thead hominem portmanteau "ObamaCare", which indicates that you were merely handed your view from Glenn Beck. There's a lot of things wrong with our health care system, but the solution is NOT to simply be against health care in general. We spend twice as much of our GDP on health care as any other country, and we spend a greater amount on Medicare (divided evenly among the population, not just those who benefit from it) than Canada does on universal health care.

As for "Global Warming", it's the same problem. It has been long established that "global warming" was a misleading term, and we switched to "climate change" somewhere in the mid 90s. But yeah, tell you what.. Go get a PhD in Climate Science. If you still think it's a hoax, then we'll discuss it. Until then, I'm going to listen to the scientists who have actually studied the subject.

Re:Why is this here?

[blindseer]

It might not be relevant because of how the money was laundered but how the money was obtained. Judging by many posts on Slashdot there just HAS to be mind altering substances involved. Maybe we need a poll asking what controlled substances people are taking right now.

Re:Why is this here?

[Schadrach]

All that would take is an expansion of civil forfeiture, not even a huge one.

Civil forfeiture is a bad, bad thing, even in concept. It's kind of hard to argue that the government should be able to confiscate arbitrary sections of your personal wealth and then sue the property (not you but the property itself which being neither a citizen nor a person has less rights than you do) and claim ownership of such if they can demonstrate that it's more likely that this property was the proceeds of some crime than that it wasn't.

So yeah, they sue your possessions (which lack civil rights) and have a lower burden of proof since it's a civil case. Basically so that they can claim any wealth belonging to anyone accused of drug violations, and likely do so even if they are found innocent.

Re:Why is this here?

[LainTouko]

Well, treating people who make, sell or use unpopular recreational drugs completely differently to the way you treat people who make, sell or use popular recreational drugs like alcohol, caffeine or tobacco, and trying to put them in prison just because they are scarily unfamiliar and there aren't enough of them to defend themselves is actually pretty evil.

Re:Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

US conservatism is much easier to understand if you realise that the theological aspect is a symptom, not a cause. What you witness in the conservative approach is the adherence to dogma through religious and quasi-religious tenets. The most obvious is "free market = good".

From this, we have the (false) consequence that anything which may restrict the free market is bad. In particular, a national health service is bad and efforts to counter the human contribution toward climate change are bad.

Re:Why is this here?

[Seumas]

Seriously? How about the fact that the government is seeking ownership of half a million dollars in posessions that belong to a man who has not yet been convicted? Should you lose your comic or game collection or your car or even your home for merely being *accused* and tried for a crime? If the government has any business taking your property at ANY time, shouldn't it at least be AFTER you are CONVICTED? You know, when you've been found to actually be GUILTY?

Re:Why is this here?

[sco08y]

It's for the "fuck the government" segment of Slashdot readers. ... like claiming the major political parties are the same, that Americans are no better off than North Koreans

That's more the anti-war / anti-corporation left. Being anti-drug war doesn't require hating the government at all, just wanting to end one huge misguided effort.

Meth dealer? I'm sure he was just a misunderstood amateur chemist.

Morally, how is he any different from someone with a still? Keep in mind, that was completely illegal at one point, and moonshine was the "hard" stuff at the time.

And, again, he only has to deal with criminals because it's been criminalized. He's only "laundering" the money, which is a melodramatic way of saying exchanging it, because the government says that it's "bad" money.

Re:Why is this here?

[sjames]

If only. What we have here is that he is an ALLEGED meth dealer. They WILL be taking his comics through the absurdist legal fiction of suing the comic books themselves! (Yes, literally, the case is "United States Of America vs. 18,753 comic books"!) They do that so they can avoid invoking the Constitutional rights accorded to a person in court. They conveniently gloss over the (former) owner's 5th amendment rights by claiming that he's not involved. They might or might not bother with trying to prove this guy guilty of anything in a court of law once they get his property. Being found not guilty in a criminal trail will in no way allow him to recover his seized property. The system's rigged to not allow for that.

IF they first prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a meth dealer, THEN I would be OK with them taking the comics as part of his sentence, but only if the proceeds from their sale did not go back to the police, DA, or judge (except by passing through the general fund). Otherwise it creates a perverse incentive to railroad people for their possessions.

Re:Why is this here?

[Seumas]

Geeks have a predilection toward the libertarian view.

Also, I like how you try to use the word as if it's some sort of attrocity. What a terrible biased view thinking that capitalism and individual freedom and small government is! Oh noes!

Re:Why is this here?

[murphtall]

i got a bachelors in environmental science. the only species that cares about global warming is humans. its about ego. the farking planet will survive but poor ol' humans will die, wah. humans suck anyway. (you cannot kill off all the extremophilic bacteria) the faster humans die off the better right? if humans did create warming or climate change then humans suck because changing the climate is bad so any way you look at it humans should die. let's start with all the ones that emit so2 ir co2, the gasses al gore made evil, you know the ones we naturally emit.... yea. right.....

Re:Why is this here?

[don.g]

I think it's more of a cultural thing. Not that I live in the US and understand your politics (does anyone?) but from outside it looks like you've got a big group of people who don't look terribly carefully at what their politicans do, are easily whipped up into a frenzy, and have a fairly simplistic approach to their religion that says more about them and the culture they live in than it does about the religion itself.

Mind you, I hang out with a bunch of extremely left-wing christians, in a country with a public health system and a right wing government that seems to have been voted in by people who think their leader is likeable and forget what they did when they were last in power. Political naivety is distressingly widespread.

Re:Why is this here?

[Desler]

What a terrible biased view thinking that capitalism and individual freedom and small government is! Oh noes!

Then move to Somalia. You can have all the capitalism and small government to your hearts content.

Re:Why is this here?

[DavidTC]

Geeks have a predilection toward the libertarian view.

I think you're confusing correlation with causality.

Poorly-socialized people, who think they're smarter than everyone else and that if other people weren't stopping them they'd basically rule the world...have a predilection towards the libertarian view. (Unless they're poor, then they usually become criminals, instead.)

Read what you will about 'geeks' from that. ;)

I can say that, I used to be a libertarian. (And am a geek.) Then I realized I pretty lucky in life and not as smart as I thought. I'm intelligent, but I can't out-clever the world. No one has enough knowledge to never be conned. No one can be smart enough or aware enough to keep all unscrupulous people from harming them. No one can see the future to always predict every disaster, and even if they could, they often couldn't deal with it even if they knew in advance.

Once you get into the actual world and start interacting with society, you realize just how vapid libertarian thought is, or at least how those people understand libertarian thought, which is basically 'Smart people don't need protection or safety nets, and I'm a smart people! I should get to choose what I'm protected from, and never have to spend any money on taxes to cover me in case something bad happens!'.

There are, indeed, non-vapid libertarians, actual libertarians, out there, and the test is currently 'Do you care more about a) the government forcing you to be insured, or b) the fact the military is forcing an unconvicted Bradley Manning to sleep in the nude?'. If you said B, this post is not about you, even if you intend, at some point, to get around to dealing with A.

But almost every libertarian I've met in real life, including me when I was one, and about half the 'libertarian writers' online, are incredibly vapid and shallow and whose entire idea of freedom is 'People should be able to sell things that are dangerous, and not pay taxes to cover them if they happen to buy things that are dangerous', instead of, you know,actual freedoms, like a right to a trial. They are as I described in the first paragraph of this post.

Re:Why is this here?

[spiffmastercow]

I think it's more of a cultural thing. Not that I live in the US and understand your politics (does anyone?) but from outside it looks like you've got a big group of people who don't look terribly carefully at what their politicans do, are easily whipped up into a frenzy, and have a fairly simplistic approach to their religion that says more about them and the culture they live in than it does about the religion itself.

Looks like you understand our politics better than you think. Now, I've read somewhere that there's a "religious gene", and given the fact that this country was founded by puritans, it makes sense that we would have this level religiosity. I just wish more Christians realized that Jesus was a pinko commie liberal.

Re:Why is this here?

[drsquare]

I'm not sure that capitalism has anything to do with freedom and small government. In fact it seems that capitalism requires a pretty big government to remove everyone's freedoms before it can even exist.

How can you even run a private capitalist farm in a field without big government goons coming along and removing the freedoms of everyone else to farm there?

Re:Why is this here?

[will_die]

The term obamacare is used everywhere from NPR to newspaper here in Europe.

Re:Why is this here?

[spiffmastercow]

The term obamacare is used everywhere from NPR to newspaper here in Europe.

You mean the newspapers that Rupert Murdoch bought?

Re:Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to go look up "money laundering" in a dictionary...

I had to google "dictionary"

Re:Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Post something derogatory about ObamaCare or that the extraordinary claims of the global warming alarmists aren't backed up by extraordinary proof and see where you get modded.

For the record, it's not the fact that you're against the health care law that makes us write you off as a right-wing nutjob. It's the fact that you feel the need to use thead hominem portmanteau "ObamaCare", which indicates that you were merely handed your view from Glenn Beck. There's a lot of things wrong with our health care system, but the solution is NOT to simply be against health care in general. [did you pull that strawman out of your ass?] We spend twice as much of our GDP on health care as any other country, and we spend a greater amount on Medicare (divided evenly among the population, not just those who benefit from it) than Canada does on universal health care.

Wow. Talk about proving my entire point.

I never mentioned my position on health care - all I said was all one had to do was be derogatory towards the current efforts at reforming health care. I didn't even have to be derogatory, all I had to do was mention that derogatory attitudes merely exist, and you went off right on schedule.

And got modded up for it to boot.

Thank's for proving my point.

As for "Global Warming", it's the same problem. It has been long established that "global warming" was a misleading term, and we switched to "climate change" somewhere in the mid 90s. But yeah, tell you what.. Go get a PhD in Climate Science. If you still think it's a hoax, then we'll discuss it. Until then, I'm going to listen to the scientists who have actually studied the subject.

A rose by any other name...

So, where's that extraordinary proof?

Re:Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

The term obamacare is used everywhere from NPR to newspaper here in Europe.

You mean the newspapers that Rupert Murdoch bought?

So, since you can't refute the claim the GP made that "ObamaCare" is a term in widespread use, you fall back to irrelevant ad hominem tripe?

The sad thing is, you probably really do think you're smarter than those you disagree with. Yet when someone claims the term "ObamaCare" is in widespread use, your childish reply is to stick your fingers in your ears and mutter, "Rupert Murdoch". As if that's demonstrating how much smarter you are.

Re:Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just wish more Christians realized that Jesus was a pinko commie liberal.

No, he wasn't. I'm not saying he was "conservative" either, as per the way we separate things today.

A pinko commie liberal believes that resources should be forcefully taken from some people and given to others.

Jesus believed that people should volunteer to care for each other by giving to charity.

There is a huge difference.

Re:Why is this here?

[spiffmastercow]

The term obamacare is used everywhere from NPR to newspaper here in Europe.

You mean the newspapers that Rupert Murdoch bought?

So, since you can't refute the claim the GP made that "ObamaCare" is a term in widespread use, you fall back to irrelevant ad hominem tripe?

The sad thing is, you probably really do think you're smarter than those you disagree with. Yet when someone claims the term "ObamaCare" is in widespread use, your childish reply is to stick your fingers in your ears and mutter, "Rupert Murdoch". As if that's demonstrating how much smarter you are.

Alright, fine, I was being snarky. So please, show me an example of the widespread use of "Obamacare" in the news, where it is both a.) being used by a non-pundit , and b.) is not referencing a pundit's use of the phrase "obamacare".

Re:Why is this here?

[ravenshrike]

Bullshit, I use both 'ObamaCare' and 'Bush tax cuts' when referring to the respective legislation. It has no inherent bias to it other than attributing it to the people pushing it. The reason for labels such as ObamaCare is so that in general conversation people don't have to refer to the PPACA.

Re:Why is this here?

[spiffmastercow]

On "obamacare":
You speak in weasel words, much like Glenn Beck. "I didn't say what my my views are on the health care act. I'm just asking what happens when you suggest that it's raping your women and killing your children", and so forth. You clearly implied that you think "obamacare" is bad and that "global warming" is a hoax. The fact that you didn't state it explicitly is irrelevant. Unless you're telling me that those are not your views, then I'd say I've inferred correctly.

on "global warming":
You're really going to sit there and say that you need proof that a layman can understand,and in the span of a /. comment? I fail to see why this is such a contentious issue, particularly with the fucked up weather for the last few years and the fact that the polar ice caps are melting at an alarming rate, but those are beside the point. What makes you think that every climate scientist on earth is lying to you? Do you think there's some big conspiracy to extort money? Because I have news for you, the money is on the other side of the debate. These scientists make shit for pay, and if money was what they cared about, they'd be in the financial sector working on micro-transaction algorithms.

Re:Why is this here?

[gmhowell]

I had to go look up "money laundering" in a dictionary...

Ask the magazine salesman.

Re:Why is this here?

[TapeCutter]

"So, where's that extraordinary proof?

Ok, I'll feed the troll, here's the evidence. BTW, it's "extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence", science is not, and has never been, in the business of proof.

Re:Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a jokster you are.

Or Ignorant.

Which is it?

Re:Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a jokster you are.

Or Ignorant.

Which is it?

Re:Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

On "obamacare":

You speak in weasel words, much like Glenn Beck. "I didn't say what my my views are on the health care act. I'm just asking what happens when you suggest that it's raping your women and killing your children", and so forth. You clearly implied that you think "obamacare" is bad and that "global warming" is a hoax. The fact that you didn't state it explicitly is irrelevant. Unless you're telling me that those are not your views, then I'd say I've inferred correctly. ...

Amazing. The word "ObamaCare" gets you to concoct straw men about sexual violence and child murder.

And stating that extraordinary global warming claims aren't backed by extraordinary evidence leads you to claim I called it a "hoax", when I did nothing of the sort.

And you've been modded up.

Given that my entire original point was that posting anything remotely akin to libertarian positions on health care reform or global warming policy would clearly demonstrate that the Slashdot herd is anything BUT Libertarian, I'd say you did a bang-up job of proving my point.

The Slashdot herd is statist.

And you helped prove that point.

Thanks.

Re:Why is this here?

[spiffmastercow]

On "obamacare":

You speak in weasel words, much like Glenn Beck. "I didn't say what my my views are on the health care act. I'm just asking what happens when you suggest that it's raping your women and killing your children", and so forth. You clearly implied that you think "obamacare" is bad and that "global warming" is a hoax. The fact that you didn't state it explicitly is irrelevant. Unless you're telling me that those are not your views, then I'd say I've inferred correctly. ...

Amazing. The word "ObamaCare" gets you to concoct straw men about sexual violence and child murder.

And stating that extraordinary global warming claims aren't backed by extraordinary evidence leads you to claim I called it a "hoax", when I did nothing of the sort.

And you've been modded up.

Given that my entire original point was that posting anything remotely akin to libertarian positions on health care reform or global warming policy would clearly demonstrate that the Slashdot herd is anything BUT Libertarian, I'd say you did a bang-up job of proving my point.

The Slashdot herd is statist.

And you helped prove that point.

Thanks.

First off, nice job twisting the example of weasel words (your specialty) using yet more weasel words. Second, I actually happen to be registered Libertarian (though I've been meaning to get that changed). Also, I can see how Libertarians would be prone to oppose socialized medicine (a.k.a. evil gubbermint), but what's that got to do with climate change? You're right about one thing though.. I got modded up, and you got modded down. Reality has a liberal bias -- deal with it.

Re:Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? How about the fact that the government is seeking ownership of half a million dollars in posessions that belong to a man who has not yet been convicted? Should you lose your comic or game collection or your car or even your home for merely being *accused* and tried for a crime? If the government has any business taking your property at ANY time, shouldn't it at least be AFTER you are CONVICTED? You know, when you've been found to actually be GUILTY?

While all of those are valid arguments, they are off-topic for Slashdot, and far more germane on another blog.

Now if Congress passed a law that said geek assets did not get the same protections as other assets, i.e. they couldn't touch your house, TV, or phone, but they could break in and take your computers, that would be on topic.

Re:Why is this here?

[spiffmastercow]

Well said. Only thing I'd add is that Libertarians have the irrational belief that all money is earned, and that human worth can be measured by money. Glad to see I'm not the only ex-Libertarian. Now if I can just get them to quit sending me their newsletter..

Re:Why is this here?

[Attila Dimedici]

thead hominem portmanteau "ObamaCare"

You do realize that Democrats were happy to use the term Obamacare back when they still thought that the American people would come to like the law. Now that it has become obvious that the American people are not going to fall in love with this power grab by the Federal government, they want people to consider that term an unacceptable attack. The reason it is called Obamacare by so many people is because it is Obama's signature accomplishment.

Re:Why is this here?

[Attila Dimedici]

You do realize that most AGW proponents propose massive government intervention in the market place, limiting what things people are allowed to do (such as use traditional incandescent lights)?

Re:Why is this here?

[spiffmastercow]

You do realize that you're talking out of your ass, right? I have little love for 'obamacare', but framing it in an ad hominim precludes the possibility for serious discussion of how to fix our health care system. And I've never heard anyone but conservatives use that term (except when people use it sarcastically).

Re:Why is this here?

[spiffmastercow]

So you're saying that the validity of science depends on your political disposition? I'm not sure reality works that way.

Re:Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd think that, but years of Retardican rule have made it otherwise.

Re:Why is this here?

[Attila Dimedici]

So what would you call the law that was passed to change the way Americans pay for health care? Would you prefer "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act"? That seems a bit difficult to keep repeating in slashdot discussions.

Re:Why is this here?

[Attila Dimedici]

So, you think that what we do about global warming is a question of science? What action we choose to take in response to global warming is something to be decided by politics.

Re:Why is this here?

[spiffmastercow]

What to do about climate change is completely separate from denying that it exists.

Re:Why is this here?

[spiffmastercow]

So what would you call the law that was passed to change the way Americans pay for health care? Would you prefer "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act"? That seems a bit difficult to keep repeating in slashdot discussions.

"the health care law", "the 2010 health care law", etc. seem fine. For the record, I also don't use terms like "Bush era tax cuts" or "Reaganomics". It's petty and pointless.

Re:Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer (obviously) is yes. Of course, those posessions should be held in government custody until the actual verdict, after which they can be returned. The presumption of innocence is a legal fiction, and should not be overused. In particular, it should not stand in the way of assets being frozen. It's all too easy already for assets to magically disappear pending trial.

Re:Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the Smoking Gun screwing with the accused's privacy through publishing the name and a picture of him?

"CENSHORSHIP!!!!" in 3...2...1...

Re:Why is this here?

[Attila Dimedici]

The person you replied to referred to "climate change policy", which would make his comment about what to do about climate change rather than about the science of climate change.

Re:Why is this here?

[Attila Dimedici]

But it isn't a "health care" law, it is a law about how we pay for health care.

Re:Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh here is why this story is on slash = idiot because you have to figure out a why to make it anti-American pro drug dealing idiot.

Re:Why is this here?

[GigsVT]

The free market is good because state capitalism and the other alternatives are shit.

State capitalism and fascist socialism is getting overthrown all over the world, as people realize that the only kind of powerful government is corrupt powerful government.

Bush Jr.'s massive increase in state capitalism created a backlash within the Republican party. There is no inherent dogma there, other than the recognition that big government is created for the sole reason of taking wealth from one group and giving it to another.

Re:Why is this here?

[spiffmastercow]

But it isn't a "health care" law, it is a law about how we pay for health care.

And there you show your ignorance on the subject. Requiring insurers to cover children until the age of 26 is not a funding law. Disallowing dropped coverage for pre-existing conditions is not a funding law. Of course, there is funding in there, as well, since you can't separate the end from the means. Or would you prefer we simply make laws about what will be done, without having any way to fund them?

Re:Why is this here?

[Attila Dimedici]

Requiring insurers to cover children until the age of 26 is not a funding law. Disallowing dropped coverage for pre-existing conditions is not a funding law.

Yes, they are both about funding for health care. They are both about how we pay for health care. Neither one is about actual health care.

Re:Why is this here?

[DavidTC]

While I don't get the letter, I often enjoy reading the non-vapid articles they write, which used to be full of actual libertarian thought about freedom.

The libertarians, and Glenn Greenwald, seem to be the only people who will attack the government for detaining people without charges, regardless of party.

Sadly, almost all libertarian institutions are actually funded by the Koch bothers and other superrich, so they've now started writing, and have writers for writing, articles about how taxes are infringement of liberty and we need less of them. Or health care, or whatever.

To rephrase an _honest_ libertarian in a discussion I was having with him the other day:

'I'm not a fan of the health care law, and I actually think forcing people to purchase insurance from a private company does have constitutional issues, so I wish the law had been single payer or something. However, this is an idiotic thing to worry about, considering we're in two unending wars and the government asserts the right to snatch people off the streets and detain them, the war on drugs is still going on along with the patently unconstitutional seizure of property, and as Wikileaks has shown, we're often in bed with dictators and have massive amounts of information classified the American people should know about, just to name three random things more important than _money_. I'll get around to how the government taxes me for health care in 2050 or so, after all that's fixed.'

Re:Why is this here?

[spiffmastercow]

The person you replied to referred to "climate change policy", which would make his comment about what to do about climate change rather than about the science of climate change.

Really? Because here's the comment I replied to:

Post something derogatory about ObamaCare or that the extraordinary claims of the global warming alarmists aren't backed up by extraordinary proof and see where you get modded.

Sounds to me like denialism.

Re:Why is this here?

[Attila Dimedici]

Are you saying that Al Gore (the first person that comes to my mind when I hear "global warming alarmist) is a scientist, or even presents science? Global warming alarmists are people who want the government to spend trillions of dollars to make changes to the amount of CO2 we emit, that according to their own statements will have little to no impact on global warming. One does not move into the alarmist category until one says that we don't have time to study things further, we must change everybody's lifestyle immediately.
Global Warming Alarmists are calling on the countries of Western Civilization to take drastic action immediately. If you want that kind of extraordinary action, you need extraordianry proof. The extraordinary claims of the alarmists are things like sea level rises of 20 feet.

Re:Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, since you can't refute the claim the GP made that "ObamaCare" is a term in widespread use, you fall back to irrelevant ad hominem tripe?

The sad thing is, you probably really do think you're smarter than those you disagree with. Yet when someone claims the term "ObamaCare" is in widespread use, your childish reply is to stick your fingers in your ears and mutter, "Rupert Murdoch". As if that's demonstrating how much smarter you are.

What the fuck, are you a Scientologist or something?

Re:Why is this here?

[cffrost]

"Lookie! Lookie what the government is doing now!"

FTFY.

Illegal fines

[Iamthecheese]

Forfeiture of all of one's earthly possessions is a common punishment for being suspected of a drug-related crime. It reminds me of similar forfeitures required in the past.

Re:Illegal fines

[Kosi]

I did not go to your links, but would you please care to elaborate? I don't recall the "witches" in Salem dealing with drugs, and neither did the Nazis. And the only drug sold by the catholic church is religion, which is unfortunately legal.

Re:Illegal fines

[Rude Turnip]

Nutshell: The Salem Witch Trials were a farce to effect a land grab from property owners.

Re:Illegal fines

[Iamthecheese]

History is full of self-perpetuating, self-funded witch trials of one kind or another. Funds stolen from $group_to_be_persecuted are split between people in power and those doing the persecuting. The general population is told do dehumanize and fear $group_to_be_persecuted to allow it to continue.

Re:Illegal fines

[Relayman]

You didn't read the original submission carefully enough: "laundered drug profits by purchasing valuable comic books." Items purchased by illegal profits are subject to seizure, not "all of one's earthly possessions."

Re:Illegal fines

[Desler]

Yeah, won't someone think of those poor, misunderstood meth dealers!

Re:Illegal fines

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the first thing the cops do when they catch a big dealer is go after "everything". They go after "grandma's" house because the dealer lived there (drugs on the premisis or not) they go after anything that has "title" his name might be on... Because it "forfeit" the judgement is against the property directly (and it's hard for comics to hire their own lawyer) You have to hire a lawyer to prove your PROPERTY is not involved. (legally it's property so it dosen't get civil rights)

Re:Illegal fines

[Anonymous Coward]

I do recall. Hitler took a potent drug cocktail custom made for him by his personal drug physician every day. Many of the Salem witches used very potent herb and plant derived drugs to "fly". Do a google search on why broomsticks are associated with witches and you'll learn something. Here's a hint: It had something to do with where and how the nightshade/mandrake/jimsonweed were applied. So, there's your elaborate explanation.

Re:Illegal fines

[sexybomber]

Not to mention a superstitious overreaction to ergot poisoning caused by eating infected rye grain.

Re:Illegal fines

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFS:

A large-scale methamphetamine dealer who allegedly laundered drug profits [...] is facing a May trial in Colorado on narcotics distribution and weapons charges.

Shouldn't the feds at least wait until he's convicted? Because until he is, he should be considered innocent.

Re:Illegal fines

[Seumas]

ACCUSED.

Get this through your fucking heads, people.

Being ACCUSED of something is not justification for stealing your property from you. Well, it IS . . . people have their cars and other property stolen by the government all the time for merely being ACCUSED rather than being accused, tried, and convicted of a crime, first. But it SHOULDN'T be justification.

Re:Illegal fines

[sjames]

You must have missed the part where he has yet to stand trial for any criminal activity, so he is only alleged to have laundered drug profits. They will likely have already taken his comics before he ever sees the inside of a courtroom. They will also take anything else he might use to fund a vigorous defense. Being found not guilty will not get him his stuff back.

Re:Illegal fines

[Seumas]

No, YOU didn't read the original submission carefully enough.

He is being ACCUSED of laundering drug profits by purchasing valuable comic books.

Until it is proven that he has done such and he has had a fair trial which concluded in his conviction of that crime, there is no rightful justification for stealing his property.

Re:Illegal fines

[Desler]

Being ACCUSED of something is not justification for stealing your property from you. Well, it IS . . . people have their cars and other property stolen by the government all the time for merely being ACCUSED rather than being accused, tried, and convicted of a crime, first. But it SHOULDN'T be justification.

Yes, when you purchased that property through illegal sources of money the government confiscates it. Boohoo. It's not as if they just trumped up a bunch of charges in order to steal his comic books.

Re:Illegal fines

[Anonymous Coward]

Dealing with "magical herbs and potions" was definitely something that could get you accused of witchcraft.

Re:Illegal fines

[Foobar of Borg]

Being ACCUSED of something is not justification for stealing your property from you. Well, it IS . . . people have their cars and other property stolen by the government all the time for merely being ACCUSED rather than being accused, tried, and convicted of a crime, first. But it SHOULDN'T be justification.

Yes, when you purchased that property through illegal sources of money the government confiscates it. Boohoo. It's not as if they just trumped up a bunch of charges in order to steal his comic books.

Yeah, you're right. Let's not even bother with a trial! He MUST be guilty because the gubmint has telled us so!

Re:Illegal fines

[Anonymous Coward]

Forfeiture of all of one's earthly possessions is a common punishment for being suspected of a drug-related crime.

I'm not sure what this has to do with "drug-related crime".
Try robbing a bank and buy a car with the proceeds, then see if you don't have to give back the car.
Same deal here...Or do you think criminals should be able to keep their ill-gotten gains?

Now, whether or not drugs should be illegal is a different debate (and maybe that was the point you were trying to make?)

Re:Illegal fines

[Kosi]

Ah, ok and that trial for dealing meth is just a farce to grab his comic books. Thanks or enlightening me.

Serious, I believe that they just want to make sure that these assets are still there when the trial is over, and he will get them back when not proven guilty.

Re:Illegal fines

[dreampod]

They could freeze or seize assets until after the trial finds someone guilty or innocent if they wanted - but they don't. Instead they sue the items themselves under a rediculous legal theory so as to bypass the owners 5th amendment rights and get the lower burden of proof required under civil law. If the accussed drug dealer is found not guilty there is no return of assets, replacement, or money received from the sale given to them. Regardless of the outcome of the criminal trial the assets are permanently and irrevocably gone and typically the money from the sale goes into the police coffers. This creates a perverse incentive to lay insufficiently founded drug charges against people with easily disposed of assets to fundraise for chronically underfunded police departments. Worse yet, in some jurisdictions, the sales go primarily to police and their friends at dramatically below market value who then turn around and sell them a second time at more reasonable rates and pocket the profit. Even in the cases where the charges are laid in good faith, the disposal of assets prior to conviction and failure to compensate is profoundly contrary to the way the legal system is intended to operate.

In this particular case, the charges are probably legitimately laid against someone who there is reasonable evidence of commiting the crime. The farce is that even if he can prove that he didn't, he is still out $500,000 without legal recourse.

Re:Illegal fines

[dreampod]

I have absolutely no problem with them seizing any assets that are probably purchased using illegal money but the government should have to prove it first. In a proper trial during which the defendant is accorded full rights, rather than the farcical lawsuits against the items themselves where the item's owners rights are not applicable.

Currently funds from these asset seizures are rolled into the departmental budget for the police giving them incentive to lay charges that can't possibly be sustained. Further this is aso used to deprive defendants of the resources to properly defend themselves against the charges they are facing.

Re:Illegal fines

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, the people of Salem murdered innocent because they were high. That's so typical ergot sclerotium junkie behaviour.

Re:Illegal fines

[Kosi]

I am not that familiar with US law, so could you please elaborate? If he's not guilty, why wouldn't he get his stuff back?

Re:Illegal fines

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't recall the "witches" in Salem dealing with drugs, and neither did the Nazis.

The Nazis didn't deal with drugs? What prescription medication are you abusing?

The nazis performed many experiements on human subjects, from sterilisation and malaria immunisation to testing the efficacy of mustard gas, poisons and phosphor bombs.

The stimulant Pervitin (known as speed or meth these days) was delivered to the soldiers at the front and there were many cases of morphine and alcohol addiction throughout the ranks. During the short period between April and July of 1940, more than 35 million tablets of Pervitin and Isophan (a slightly modified version produced by the Knoll pharmaceutical company) were shipped to the German army and air force.

Officers would distribute alcohol to their troops as a reward, and schnapps was routinely sold in military commissaries, a policy that also had the happy side effect of returning soldiers' pay to the military.

Q.E.D: you are a fool and all this information is readily available if you tried looking for it

Re:Illegal fines

[cultiv8]

Great, I get to keep the possessions I own on Mars, I'm fine with this punishment.

Re:Illegal fines

[Attila Dimedici]

Because it will have been sold by then. These civil forfeiture laws were passed because of the myth that many successful crime bosses stayed out of jail because they were careful enough to prevent the police from obtaining sufficient evidence to convict them. In actuality, these crime bosses stayed out of jail because of corrupt law enforcement agents and/or politicians. It turns out that "criminal mastermind" is an oxymoron. Those with the brains (and self-control) to make money at crime and stay out of jail can make much more money by legal endeavor.

Re:Illegal fines

[Attila Dimedici]

Forfeiture of all of one's earthly possessions is a common punishment for being suspected of a drug-related crime.

I'm not sure what this has to do with "drug-related crime". Try robbing a bank and buy a car with the proceeds, then see if you don't have to give back the car. Same deal here...Or do you think criminals should be able to keep their ill-gotten gains?

Now, whether or not drugs should be illegal is a different debate (and maybe that was the point you were trying to make?)

The OP's point was that the government should have to wait until after they have convicted someone of committing a crime before they can seize property that they allege was purchased with money obtained by committing a crime.

Re:Illegal fines

[Kosi]

What? How can they sell it before he has been proven guilty? Until that they belong to him! A law that would allow the gov't to sell it before he is proven guilty would be unconstitutional, or don't you have any guarantee of personal property in your constitution? If you have, such a law can't survive even one second of judicial review.

Re:Illegal fines

[Attila Dimedici]

We do have a guarantee of personal property in our constitution. However, such laws have survived for many years and much judicial review. I agree that such laws are bad laws.

Re:Illegal fines

[Kosi]

How can such an obviously unconstitutional law survive? What does your constitutional court say about these things?

Here (Germany) you are not bound to unconstitutional laws, and it would be illegal if someone enforced them. How is this in the USA? Wasn't there something that allows you to defend yourself against unconstitutional laws, even with weapons (making it legal to shoot the officials who enforce this absurdity)? Can't you at least sue the shit out of them for enforcing an unconstitutional law?

Somehow I feel reminded of my opinion about many religions(*) - back in history someone or some people had really great ideas on how people could live together. Today, the only leftover is a perverted and distorted version, being abused by some few people to serve only their interests.

(*) Please do not get confused here. I talk about the organizations, not the belief systems. If everyone just believed what he wanted to, and let everyone else do the same, all would be fine. But mostly, when the people start to build some kind of organization around their believes, it doesn't take long until big, big instances of shit and fan match coordinates.

Re:Illegal fines

[Attila Dimedici]

The courts have ruled these laws constitutional (or at least failed to rule them unconstitutional). So, if you were to sue officials for enforcing this law, the courts would throw the case out.

If everyone just believed what he wanted to, and let everyone else do the same, all would be fine.

You really have not thought that through. If someone believed that they were morally required to kill one person a day, do you really think society would work fine if nobody interfered with that person's belief?

Re:Illegal fines

[Kosi]

The courts have ruled these laws constitutional (or at least failed to rule them unconstitutional). So, if you were to sue officials for enforcing this law, the courts would throw the case out.

You really need to throw these judges out then, for not doing their job. And, doesn't your constitution allow you to even shoot them for making and/or enforcing unconstitutional laws?

You really have not thought that through. If someone believed that they were morally required to kill one person a day, do you really think society would work fine if nobody interfered with that person's belief?

As long as he wouldn't really do it, it would be fine, yes. :) I thought it obvious that all outward actions had to stay in the boundaries of the law.

Re:Illegal fines

[Attila Dimedici]

The problem is that the question is, who gets to decide what is and what is not constitutional?

On the other point, how can someone say that they believe something is the good and right thing to do, if they do not do it?
You have basically said, "You can believe anything you like, but you can only act as if you believe the things I believe." That is not really any more tolerant than anybody else.

Re:Illegal fines

[Kosi]

The problem is that the question is, who gets to decide what is and what is not constitutional?

The people who wrote the damn thing!

On the other point, how can someone say that they believe something is the good and right thing to do, if they do not do it?

Just open your eyes, people do that all the time! :)

You have basically said, "You can believe anything you like, but you can only act as if you believe the things I believe." That is not really any more tolerant than anybody else.

I say "You may believe anything you want, as long as your actions don't violate the law." What I mean is that I wish people would stop attacking others just for having different beliefs.

Re:Illegal fines

[Attila Dimedici]

Well, the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution were dead long before this law was passed, so we will not be able to get their opinions on it. So, any other suggestions as to who gets to decide if a new law is constitutional or not?

So, you wish people would stop believing that they should attack others who have different beliefs? That is a fine thing to believe, but not very useful in establishing the high ground against people who do not share that belief. What exactly are you going to do about the people who believe that those who believe differently than themselves should be attacked? Attack them? Use the law to outlaw their belief? How is that different than their attempts to use the law to outlaw your beliefs?

Re:Illegal fines

[Kosi]

Well, the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution were dead long before this law was passed, so we will not be able to get their opinions on it. So, any other suggestions as to who gets to decide if a new law is constitutional or not?

Don't you have a constitutional court? And doesn't your constitution even allow you to shoot gov't officials when they make or enforce unconstitutional laws? So, if the judges of this constitutional court don't do their jobs, just shoot'em! :) A solution including a greater use of common sense and civilized manners would be to quit electing representatives who are more or less just greedy powermongers, in favor of people who would view themselves as servants of all the people.

So, you wish people would stop believing that they should attack others who have different beliefs? That is a fine thing to believe, but not very useful in establishing the high ground against people who do not share that belief. What exactly are you going to do about the people who believe that those who believe differently than themselves should be attacked? Attack them? Use the law to outlaw their belief? How is that different than their attempts to use the law to outlaw your beliefs?

It's actions, not beliefs, that have to be outlawed, don't you get that?

Re:Illegal fines

[Attila Dimedici]

Our "constitutional court" is the U.S. Supreme Court and that is a self assumed duty (the U.S. Constitution does not spell out who determines disputes about what is and is not constitutional--which is probably part of the reason your does). I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled these laws constitutional, although it is possible they have just refused to take any cases on these laws. If the latter is the case, that means that all lesser courts that have ruled on these laws have ruled them constitutional.
I would agree that actions are the province of law, not beliefs. However, if you never take any actions based on your beliefs, I will never know what they are. Therefore even people who want to outlaw certain beliefs, are actually only outlawing the action of expressing those beliefs.

Re:Illegal fines

[Kosi]

Our "constitutional court" is the U.S. Supreme Court and that is a self assumed duty (the U.S. Constitution does not spell out who determines disputes about what is and is not constitutional--which is probably part of the reason your does). I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled these laws constitutional, although it is possible they have just refused to take any cases on these laws. If the latter is the case, that means that all lesser courts that have ruled on these laws have ruled them constitutional.

It seems that you Americans are pretty screwed then.

I would agree that actions are the province of law, not beliefs. However, if you never take any actions based on your beliefs, I will never know what they are. Therefore even people who want to outlaw certain beliefs, are actually only outlawing the action of expressing those beliefs.

Laws should be based on common sense and factual decisions, not on religious beliefs.

Re:Illegal fines

[Attila Dimedici]

All laws are based on beliefs and there is no way to separate religious beliefs from other beliefs. What one considers to be "common sense". derives from one's world view. One's world view is a product of one's religion. Facts do not provide any direct basis for passign laws. It is not until those facts are passed through a value system that one has something that is the basis for laws.

Re:Illegal fines

[Kosi]

All laws are based on beliefs and there is no way to separate religious beliefs from other beliefs. What one considers to be "common sense". derives from one's world view. One's world view is a product of one's religion. Facts do not provide any direct basis for passing laws. It is not until those facts are passed through a value system that one has something that is the basis for laws.

You don't need to be religious to have a world view. Mine for example is based on how I experienced the world, and that does not include any proof nor sufficient evidence for the existence of any god or higher power.

For the common sense, I mean it like this: no one wants to be killed himself, so killing someone should be illegal, with very little exceptions (like when killing an attacker in direct self-defense is the only way to defend your own life). For those needing some help with it, the 30 articles of the https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights are a good base to start with, as this declaration has been accepted worldwide in 1948, although even today you can hardly find any country not violating more or less of them.

In my ideal world, humankind has become wise enough to live together in peace and harmony without a need for laws telling them how to do that. Yes, I know that my lifespan is much too short to have a chance to experience that myself. As I'm afraid that we will have extincted our human race long before having reached such enlightenment, that is probably a good thing.

Re:Illegal fines

[Attila Dimedici]

Exactly how do you enforce Article 25? For that matter, how do you accomplish Article 26 without infringing on one of the previous rights?
That declaration is a very religious document and is based on a belief system that not everyone shares. I do not share your world view and based on my experience I consider your worldview to be very unrealistic and lacking in an understanding of basic human nature. I do not see any reason in your worldview to expect that human nature will move from where it is to where your worldview says it should go.

Re:Illegal fines

[Kosi]

I said it's a good base to start with, not that they should be enforced exactly like written. Except for the parts that restrict families to one man and one woman (and their kids), I don't see so much religiosity here.

I know that my ideal world is unrealistic, humankind is just too busy wasting this planet and killing each other in their greed for wealth and power. Common sense should tell that this way leads to our own extinction.

Re:Illegal fines

[Attila Dimedici]

Common sense should tell that this way leads to our own extinction.

Why do you care? And why should I care? I am not in imminent danger of death or even significant interference with the way I choose to live.

Re:Illegal fines

[Kosi]

Don't you care for your children, grandchildren and so on? Or at least the kids of your relatives and friends, if you have none of our own (yet) like me?

Re:Illegal fines

[Attila Dimedici]

I didn't say that I don't. I was asking why, in your world view, I should.

Re:Illegal fines

[Kosi]

And I didn't say you have to, I just took it for a fact that about everybody, except for some few pathological cases, does.

Re:Illegal fines

[Attila Dimedici]

So, basically, your worldview doesn't give people a reason to do good, but expects that they will anyway.

Re:Illegal fines

[Kosi]

Hm, let's not confuse my actual view of the world as it is now and my vision of an ideal world. In the latter, people are wise enough to do good just because they understand where sayings like "don't to to others what you don't want to be done to yourself" come from. In my actual world view, I am aware that far too many people don't give a fuck about others and our planet, they mostly just care for what they have and how to make that more.

Attila, I like a good discussion, but I don't think this will lead anywhere further. So, if you don't mind, let's set an EOD here.

Where's the news here?

[Kosi]

It is absolutely normal that the assets made with crimes get confiscated. Maybe except for the not so usual form of investment, why is this worthy mentioning?

Re:Where's the news here?

[Kosi]

GFY. People advocating death sentence should be hanged.

Anyone finding irony here - keep it!

Re:Where's the news here?

[warGod3]

Because someone thinks that a majority of the readers here collect comic books... and live in their mother's basements... and have never had a girlfriend that wasn't named "Rosey"... and can fix any technical issue that arises...

Re:Where's the news here?

[Monchanger]

You're right- it's not very newsworthy. But you're halfway to a possible answer. The other half is because to geeks the seizing of one's comics stash might seem cruel.

Add in some good old Slashdot libertarianism and you've got a bit of constitutional humor.

Re:Where's the news here?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no problem with convicted criminals losing their ill-gotten assets. I do have a problem with civil forfeiture where you lose your assets simply because it's more likely than not that they are ill-gotten.

Re:Where's the news here?

[hedwards]

The fact that there are presumably in the near future going to be $500k worth of comic books going up on government auction. It doesn't sound like these were seized for evidence, but were being seized as spoils of crime. They'll get auctioned off and I'll wager a lot of /. posters will be interested.

The question though is why this is a YRO story. It happened in real life and not online, it's been well established that the government can seize property purchased with stolen or otherwise illegally obtained money.

Re:Where's the news here?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Feds moved to confiscate the collection before the guy has even had a trial yet? That doesn't seem right. What if he's found not guilty?

Re:Where's the news here?

[spire3661]

IT may be the 'norm', but it is far from normal.

Re:Where's the news here?

[orphiuchus]

Smug anti-death penalty people should be imprisoned for life at massive taxpayer expense.

Re:Where's the news here?

[calmofthestorm]

Smug, ignorant pro-death penalty people should be executed by the state at still greater expense.

Re:Where's the news here?

[orphiuchus]

So... still you?

Re:Where's the news here?

[Locke2005]

What blatant stereotyping! I mean, there are still some technical issues I have trouble with!

Re:Where's the news here?

[sjames]

Because they're making the grab for his assets before proving him guilty of a crime?

Re:Where's the news here?

[Seumas]

You don't have the slightest little problem with the government stealing your property before you've even been CONVICTED of a crime?

Re:Where's the news here?

[Seumas]

Yeah, who cares that studies show that approximately 10% to 15% of the prison population is actually innocent. Hey, maybe we should torture them before killing them, too! I mean, if the whole point is to feel like we've really gotten our vengeance, why just kill them straight out before really getting your rocks off, huh?

Re:Where's the news here?

[WoRLoKKeD]

On meth it is.

Re:Where's the news here?

[Relayman]

Except in the case of big banks. Then you're allowed to keep the excessive bonus.

Re:Where's the news here?

[Kosi]

That's also normal. I bet that also his bank accounts are frozen until he's proven guilty or not. Without that, there would never be anything left over to confiscate after the trial.

Re:Where's the news here?

[Kosi]

I think they just want to avoid that there is no more property when the trial ends. Just like a suspect's bank accounts are frozen until the case is closed.

Re:Where's the news here?

[Kosi]

So, you want to advocate that e. g. a thief should be allowed to keep what he stole?

Re:Where's the news here?

[Kosi]

"Anti-death" penalty? Oh, you mean an injection of immortality serum! What crime do I have to commit for that penalty?

Re:Where's the news here?

[sjames]

I'm not talking about FROZEN, or HELD. I'm talking about taken as in no longer his even in name, gone even if found not-guilty. POOF!

Re:Where's the news here?

[Kosi]

That would not only be illegal, it would be unconstitutional. Or am I wrong with remembering that your constitution contains a paragraph or something like that, which guarantees personal property?

Re:Where's the news here?

[sjames]

I agree fully that it is unconstitutional and unconscionable, yet it is done all the time. Start here, then Google "asset forfeiture". Be sure to have a barf bag handy, it's absolutely sickening that this happens in any supposedly civilized country.

Re:Where's the news here?

[Anonymous Coward]

After he is found guilty, sure, yes, in fact, I am an ardent supporter of that.

But not BEFORE (as is the case here) by doing an end-around using civil tort law directed at inanimate property. And if he is found not guilty, the property should be returned (which it will not, in this case, as it will have likely already been sold).

That's the issue.

Re:Where's the news here?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not “frozen until the case is closed”.

This is taken and sold at auction. The property is gone. It will no longer belong to the accused. Not the convicted, the accused.

Before the accused has come to trial, his assets are put “on trial”. A civil trial which does not have the burden of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”, but rather the standard of “a preponderance of evidence”. A level of proof which has frequently been perverted to the simplistic argument: “well there’s no way someone could have amassed that amount of money (comic books, cars, whatever) legally, so it must have been done illegally.”

Consider the following scenario: The police chief of Podunk takes a personal dislike to you because he thinks you got his daughter pregnant. He has you arrested on drug charges. Before you even get to trial, the chief’s friend the DA has your house, car and bank account seized under civil forfeiture. Your money and the proceeds of the sale of your house and car vanish into government coffers.

You are lucky that you come to trial before a judge who is not friends with the police chief and the DA. The judge rules the evidence tainted and dismisses the charges. Congratulations, you are innocent. You are also broke. You have no money, no house, and no car. You have no way to get them back, and no way to get any compensation.

That is not justice.

Re:Where's the news here?

[Kosi]

Don't you have any kind of constitutional court, like we have in Germany ( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Federal_Constitutional_Court_of_Germany ), who is there to take down such laws?

Btw, in civilized countries there is no death penalty and no torture.

Re:Where's the news here?

[sjames]

We do, but there's a few serious catches. First you have to have an actual interest. That is, they have to have actually taken the money from you personally. Then you have to have exhausted your normal court options. That is, you have to sue and appeal. All of this on your own dime. Finally if you lose at appeal, you may petition the Supreme Court to hear the case. They are not obligated to do so.

Now is where we get to the dirty tricks. All of that costs a great deal of time and money. Generally they take from 2-10,000 dollars from people kniowing it would cost twice that just to sue them. They tend to avoid taking the money from people who seem like they might be well off enough to sue anyway on principle. Finally, if it seems like you might actually go as far as the supreme court, they give you your money back (really they just steal it from someone else) so that you no longer have a cause of action.

Then they wonder why average citizens seem to have less respect for the law every year.

Re:Where's the news here?

[Kosi]

We do, but there's a few serious catches. First you have to have an actual interest. That is, they have to have actually taken the money from you personally.

No. It is absolutely in everyone's actual interest that he is able to carry any amount in cash around with him without having to fear that gov't takes it away from him (except when they can prove that he earned it in illegal ways, or when he owes them (think taxes)). Or in other words: the cause lies in the threat that is the result of the sole existence of such laws. If they suddenly made a law that a cop may shoot you for no reason, do you need to get killed before you can do anything against that law? Doesn't make any sense!

Then you have to have exhausted your normal court options..

I read up a little on that stuff now, and if I got it right, there are no options when I can't prove being not guilty. I'd even go that far to say that proving myself not being guilty is not really an option, because the constitution says that I do not have to.

Finally, if it seems like you might actually go as far as the supreme court, they give you your money back (really they just steal it from someone else) so that you no longer have a cause of action.

Oh, for sure I have. My money has been taken illegally from me, and retaking it cost me at least time and money. By enforcing an unconstitutional and therefore illegal law they caused me lots of damages. I would demand compensation for that, and I would demand that the culprits are punished. That's even more than just a little cause.

But, anyway, one person taking this to a constitutional court should be enough to have these laws invalidated. Or what else happens if someone goes to your constitutional court and has a certain law ruled unconstitutional? The only thing I can imagine is that this law gets "deleted".

Then they wonder why average citizens seem to have less respect for the law every year.

That amazement is just acting. No halfway intelligent person in a position of leadership/power really wonders why others follow his example. But they have to act it, because otherwise they would have to admit their own lack of respect for the law.

btw, how can I tell /. not to insert an additional blank line between every two of my lines of text?

Re:Where's the news here?

[sjames]

I agree with you completely. The phrases I used above should probably be in quotes. They are bits of legal sophistry being perpetrated against the American people.

The holes are there mostly because our founding fathers didn't imagine the depths of villainy our public officials might fall to in the centuries to come or the complex web of laws that citizens might one day be subjected to. In their day, a person could actually be reasonably expected to know the entirety of the law that they were subject to. Many people spent their entire lives without being subject to any law enforcement action at all (not even a ticket). It was a very different world indeed. If a modern DA were sent back in time and tried to operate then the way they do now, he would probably be literally tarred and feathered by an angry public within a year.

Re:Where's the news here?

[Kosi]

If a modern DA were sent back in time and tried to operate then the way they do now, he would probably be literally tarred and feathered by an angry public within a year.

You should absolutely restore this tradition.

Re:Where's the news here?

[evilviper]

Start here [wikipedia.org], then Google "asset forfeiture". Be sure to have a barf bag handy, it's absolutely sickening

Yeah, lots of wikipedia articles have that same effect on me, too...

It's Big Pharna

[Dzonatas]

Do note that big pharma deals out these drugs all the time, so it's a tug-o-war of who is legit to distribute meds. Many people have Rx for meth. They just don't have Rx for guns.

Re:It's Big Pharna

[hedwards]

That's not true. When people say meth they mean something that's cooked up by somebody without any quality controls and it's really not the same thing as the chemical equivalent produced by pharmaceutical corporations. Suggesting this is a tug-o-war about legitimate distribution completely misses the point. There is no QA that goes into street drugs, no screenings about medical necessity, counter indications or any way of knowing how big the effective dosage is. And the main goal of the dealer is to get the buyer hooked.

It's a very different case on either side, and trivializing it isn't helping anybody out.

Re:It's Big Pharna

[countertrolling]

And the main goal of the dealer is to get the buyer hooked.

And just what do you think the main goal of your entire economic system is?

She goes running to the shelter
of her mother's little helper

Re:It's Big Pharna

[PopeRatzo]

The prescription bottle says "Amphetamine Salts" because that's what the generic name is. I take this shit and it literally makes you feel like a cross between a meth and coke addict.

Did you bring enough for the whole class?

Re:It's Big Pharna

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that there is a big, big, difference between methamphetamine and methylphenadate, the safer and much more common amphetamine prescribed today.

Not to mention the fact that meth cookers leave behind serious toxic waste dumps all over the country... including "bottle cookers" thrown all over interstate highways.. as opposed to being skilled in the safe handling and regulated disposal of waste products.

Re:It's Big Pharna

[PopeRatzo]

When people say meth they mean something that's cooked up by somebody without any quality controls and it's really not the same thing as the chemical equivalent produced by pharmaceutical corporations.

So let me get this straight: the difference between somebody cooking meth to sell in the Wal-mart parking lot and somebody cooking meth to sell in the Wal-mart pharmacy is quality control?

What if some illicit meth dealer did everything by the ISO standards and industry best practices?

So then what's the difference between somebody selling high-quality Blueberry Yum Yum with the little purple hairs and buds as big and juicy as cucumbers and Big Pharma selling some pills that deliver THC without the "making you feel good" part and charging $45 per pill to cancer patients who can't eat because of the chemo and their insurance company won't cover anyway?

If your point is that pharmaceutical companies are a very ugly part of the corporate tyranny that's working to keep people from having options or power, then I absolutely agree. If your point is that "illicit" drugs are a scourge because they don't come with a page of contraindications and possible side effects in 3-point type that's usually full of contradictory and misleading information anyway, then I'm not sure we're on the same page.

Re:It's Big Pharna

[Artifakt]

Well, yes, there's more to it than just a squabble over who gets to produce the drug, but there's many actions on the part of the 'legitimate' side that give just that impression. It isn't the people cooking street meth that claim methamphetamine itself causes ulceration and loss of teeth - it's the DEA, saying that such symptoms are caused by abusing even the purest meth, not by any of the many adulterants or flaws in the street process. If the government is really out to protect people from the risks of cheap kitchen chemistry and drugs cut with rat poison, Then the government needs to tell the truth. Lie to people, tell them the drug itself causes the bad side effects, but not when it has the magical Barr Pharmaceuticals or DuraMed seal on it, and of course people will seize on that lie to prove it's all just a turf war.

Re:It's Big Pharna

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah because meth has a legitimate medical use? Maybe you should try living in a community that has been devastated by meth. Then you might realize how trite and banal you college brat fight the man bullshit sounds.

Re:It's Big Pharna

[vvaduva]

Exactly, which is why legalizing this stuff would bring more stringent quality control processes into the manufacturing of the drugs. It would also prevent government from just confiscating people's property as they are doing in this instance.

Re:It's Big Pharna

[reub2000]

Pretty much. I doubt most doctors with their limited patient interaction are actually doing a thorough diagnosis and checking for contradictions. The difference pretty much comes down to purity, amount used, and route of administration.

Re:It's Big Pharna

[reub2000]

Desoxyn is approved for ADHD and weight loss. So according to the feds it does have a legitimate medical use. And all you need is a prescription from your doctor.

Re:It's Big Pharna

[hairyfeet]

Don't forget the kickbacks, mustn't forget those. You can tell what drug Big Pharma is pushing this year by going to your average GP and see what he is writing waaaay too many prescriptions for. In the case of my town it is the antibiotic known as "Z-Pac" which if you so much as sneeze is getting handed to you, even when a generic drug like Erythro would probably work just as well and certainly be cheaper on both the insurance companies and/or the government's wallets.

To say there is really much of a difference between Big Pharma and your average pusher is kinda BS. both don't care what they are selling as long as they make the money, both are happy to push anything no matter what the cost or side effects as long as it makes them $$$, and both are happy to give kickbacks to those that bring in the business.

Re:It's Big Pharna

[Anonymous Coward]

contradictions

The word is "contraindications."

If you're going to learn armchair medicine, you should at least get the words right.

Re:It's Big Pharna

[reub2000]

Your dealer has the drugs that you want. Your doctor will give you the drugs that you "need" whether or not you want them. I mean who goes into their doctor requesting lipitor?

Re:It's Big Pharna

[Anonymous Coward]

We used to call it "kiddie speed".

It is nowhere near as potent as meth or coke.

Re:It's Big Pharna

[bluemonq]

I mean who goes into their doctor requesting lipitor?

Folks who saw all the friggin' ads for Lipitor on TV.

Re:It's Big Pharna

[hedwards]

This is a pretty bad argument to make. I've never heard of an illicit meth dealer that was following all of the best practices for the industry. I've yet to encounter one that was being inspected by the FDA as is the case.

Pharmaceutical corporations are necessary, unless you've got an alternate means of getting medication that they haven't produced at some point past or future. They also happen to develop nearly all the medications that are on the market.

Additionally, it's more than just product information, you've got no way of knowing what's actually in it, nobody has verified any of the batches, you don't have any sort of guidance, consequently it's significantly more dangerous, even if it's the same chemical.

Re:It's Big Pharna

[PopeRatzo]

Pharmaceutical corporations are necessary

Oh, I agree. You see, I'm not arguing so much against the need for pharmaceutical companies as for the need for pot farmers and dealers.

Unfortunately, as long as the former has so much power, the latter will always have to be on the margins of society, working in dangerous, sketchy circumstances. I don't believe our marijuana laws exist so much because of the puritanical nature of our politicians or citizens as because of the power of the pharma lobby and the power of the enormous companies that sell alcohol and tobacco. And no, this is not personal to me, because I'm not a pot smoker and haven't been for decades.

Re:It's Big Pharna

[WorBlux]

Melting point analysis is a fairly cheap and quick way to tell weather something is pure or not. A recrystallization or two can bring purity up to 98%. It's not the 99.99% racemic pure that the FDA demands, but you're not going to find any difference in biological activity after you account that some manufacturing processes don't produce a chirally pure result and one of the racemes of meth is less active than the other. Professional production with all the right tools is a good thing. Pharma is good, Big Pharma isn't, especially big politically connected pharma.

Re:It's Big Pharna

[WorBlux]

However most of those who pursue illegal drugs are so self-destructive that they don't care enough or don't have the means to do these simple tests and procedures to protect themselves against potential adulterants.

Re:It's Big Pharna

[dougmc]

"Z-Pac" -- Azithromycin -- is already available in generic form and it's relatively cheap (especially since only five or six pills total are needed) and effective. As for cheap, I see it available online at six pills for $7.50 -- I'm not sure how reliable that is, as many online pill vendors are shady as prescriptions are required, but I do recall it being less than my $20 copay at Walgreens.

And at least around here, doctors are very scared of giving antibiotics for everything as it will help speed along the production of resistant strains. Instead, they'll test rather than give antibiotics up front. If you have a bacterial infection, they'll give you the antibiotics, but they like to test first -- even if the test costs $100 and the antibiotics $15 and they have almost no side-effects.

Erythromycin and Azithromycin (at least in a Z-pack -- no idea bout other delivery systems) seem to have similar costs.

Re:It's Big Pharna

[uninformedLuddite]

And the main goal of the dealer is to get the buyer hooked.

And they are always hanging around in parks right near primary schools. Often they put Heroin in Sherbet Fountains and show the kiddies how to sharpen the licorice sticks using Sponge Bob's a druggie pencil sharpeners. No one forces anyone to smoke, sniff, and/or inject anything. The drug user makes a concious decision to put whatever substance they want into their body. No one is forcing them to do it. A drug dealer meets a demand just like a prohibition era alcohol salesman's goal was to get the buyer hooked. Or, is that argument not applicable here as alcohol prohibition was silly and drugs are evil?

Re:It's Big Pharna

[uninformedLuddite]

The woosh here was my coffee onto the keyboard

Re:It's Big Pharna

[Khyber]

"When people say meth they mean something that's cooked up by somebody without any quality controls and it's really not the same thing as the chemical equivalent produced by pharmaceutical corporations."

Actually, that isn't quite true. In the raw base form, it's exactly the same quality as pharm company-produced methamphetamine. This is what street users typically use. Without a proper amount of quality control, you have an EXPLOSION, pure and simple, there is either a proper reaction and formation, or you screw up, have too much water in the mix, and you go KABOOM from hydrogen exploding due to the lithium reacting with the water. Yes, I have made and used the stuff, not proud of it, but at least I learned something from it. Wanna see the track marks from hot boosting? I have pictures.

What happens afterwards is the pharm company modifying it into a hydrochloric salt, and that makes it entirely different from what street users obtain.

Re:It's Big Pharna

[squizzar]

I'm sorry to tell you this, but some drug dealers are a bit smarter when it comes to creating a market than that. When you've got guys who go round housing estates with high unemployment, befriending people, offering them a couple of free hits, then coming back the next day and charging them some small amount, then the day after, charging a bit more etc. until they're at full price and coming back for more (sitting around watching Jeremy Kyle/Oprah/Whatever? Getting high is probably quite an easy thing to get into when you've got nothing better to do).

Look at how the crack epidemic started in the US: It was given away, couple of rocks at a time, to heroin addicts to help with the comedown. The dealers knew then, as they do now, that they stand to make a lot more money selling crack than heroin, and they created the market intentionally

I'm of the belief that drug use should be seen as a medical, not criminal problem. That drugs should be manufactured, prescribed, monitored and controlled. There will still be people whose lives get ruined, there will still be addicts, but I think the overall cost to society will be lesser than if we continue down the incredibly expensive and ineffective path we are on. That's the only way I can see to have a system that doesn't 'push' drugs. To suggest that drug dealers play a completely passive role in selling their product at the moment is naive at best.

Re:It's Big Pharna

[g253]

I highly doubt that. Both the pharma & tobacco industries would be very happy to sell pot if it were legal. They don't need to fear competition and lobby against it, they would be the purveyors ; there'd be no competition.

Re:It's Big Pharna

[PopeRatzo]

I highly doubt that. Both the pharma & tobacco industries would be very happy to sell pot if it were legal. They don't need to fear competition and lobby against it, they would be the purveyors ; there'd be no competition.

I didn't say "fear". They don't "fear" competition, they covet it.

And now is pharma going to sell pot if it can't be patented? And I believe that if the tobacco industry started selling pot it would the their end, but my argument about that is too long to go into here.

I believe that if anyone took over the pot industry, it would be the beverage companies, which aren't a whole lot better than the other two I named, though not quite as historically evil.

Re:It's Big Pharna

[PopeRatzo]

Your dealer has the drugs that you want. Your doctor will give you the drugs that you "need" whether or not you want them

You can not, possibly, be serious. Have you not followed anything about the pharmaceutical industry/health care industry connection in the past thirty years? "They give you the drugs you need."

I'm not saying that doctors are evil in their prescribing, they're just being lazy and paying too much attention to that hot pharmaceutical rep who flirted with him at the "conference" in Hawaii last month. And take a guess at the effectiveness of the average prescribed drug. Then go ahead and check it out. I'll wait here to help you pick your jaw off the floor when you find out just how ineffective most drugs are compared to no drugs and how often they're actually more dangerous than not taking them for the patient. When you find out what the "price/performance" ratio really is.

Re:It's Big Pharna

[uninformedLuddite]

You have it backwards heroin is used for the crack crash and not the other way around. Anyone who claims to have an opiate addiction that uses crack to deal with withdrawal doesn't have a habit and is kidding themself. You are aware that there is no crash after using heroin right? Unless you have a habit and then it is called withdrawal which isn't any form of crash and is only made to feel a hundred times worse by the use of any stimulant. You are aware that physically addicted opiate users consider meth/crack to be 'a shot of hanging out'(unless it is being used at the same time as an opiate high then it is a different kettle of fish) and call it such. As for dealers befriending the unemployed to get them hooked do you have any idea how long it takes to make a real habit? and how little money the unemployed actually have? They don't need to manufacture addicts to be in business as there are plenty of self made addicts to go around. Getting a physical addiction to any drug actually takes quite a bit of work and no dealer would be bothered spending hundreds/thousands of dollars and weeks/months of their time creating business when there are so many walk up customers to service.
The only thing you got right is that it should be treated as a medical problem and not criminal. We have common ground there. I speak from over thirty years experience with drug addicts and assure you any naivety about the role of the dealer is coming from your side of the aisle and not mine.

Re:It's Big Pharna

[badkarmadayaccount]

There is no protection against stupidity - death by meth or alcohol - what's the difference?
Lack of means is a valid argument - but that is brought on by the establishment, and not characteristic of homebrew drugs, in, and of themselves.

Re:It's Big Pharna

[reub2000]

*whoosh*
Notice that word need was in quotes?

War on drugs

[damicatz]

The war on drugs is nothing more than a war on the American people by a bunch of holier-than-thou moral imperialists. It has squandered trillions of dollars in taxpayer money and claimed tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives over the years. It doesn't stop drug use and merely floods our prisons with people whose only "crime" is simple possession. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol and it certainly isn't working for drugs.

Re:War on drugs

[Kosi]

I totally agree with that. The war should not be "on drugs", but on the reasons why people chose taking them.

Re:War on drugs

[TheGratefulNet]

that would be a war on society, then.

society (its complexity) causes people to need to 'get away' from that very society.

interesting, huh?

Re:War on drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

This argument flies when you're talking about harmless drugs like pot.

Making and dealing meth is a completely different story. This assface should go to prison.

Re:War on drugs

[harrytuttle777]

Ted Kaminsky (sp) wrote that when people are living a more and more pointless life and utterly domesticated life, they will sometimes turn to drugs in order to keep themselves placated, and continue to believe that things make sense. If a society does not start consuming drugs whole sale, a lot of strife is sure to ensue. He said that among many other things.

Of coarse his thoughts were considered heretical, so the establishment wrote them off as a rambling lunatic.

Well I have to go now and watch my daily fix of Jerry Springer / Sports / take my prescription of Zoloft (or other major pharacutical drug) in order to take my mind of the fact that I no longer have to struggle to survive, and that my life is largely pointless. But hey at least I am not taking meth. Delicious sweet smelling meth anphetamine. Just like Grandma used to bake up.

Re:War on drugs

[hedwards]

Anytime you have a large number of people who are that self centered you end up where we are currently. The reality is that it's as much the drug users that are causing the problems as the prohibitionists. Pretending otherwise is pretty dishonest, if you buy drugs you're likely to be funding narco-terrorism. I mean where precisely do you think the drug cartels get their money from?

Suggesting that it's more the prohibitionists fault than the people who are buying the banned substances is questionable at best. The fact that a lot of people don't think that the law applies to them isn't a rational basis for suggesting a repeal is in order.

Re:War on drugs

[Culture20]

I totally agree with that. The war should not be "on drugs", but on the reasons why people chose taking them.

War on friends, peer pressure, and addiction?

Re:War on drugs

[countertrolling]

...it certainly isn't working for drugs.

<Yes it is>. Crime does pay... very handsomely

Re:War on drugs

[russotto]

Ted Kaminsky (sp) wrote that when people are living a more and more pointless life and utterly domesticated life, they will sometimes turn to drugs in order to keep themselves placated, and continue to believe that things make sense. If a society does not start consuming drugs whole sale, a lot of strife is sure to ensue. He said that among many other things. Of coarse his thoughts were considered heretical, so the establishment wrote them off as a rambling lunatic.

If you mean Ted Kaczynski, he WAS in fact a rambling lunatic. Rambling you can get from his writings, lunatic from the fact that he mailed bombs to people.

Re:War on drugs

[sco08y]

I totally agree with that. The war should not be "on drugs", but on the reasons why people chose taking them.

Or maybe it shouldn't be called a war at all? I don't think it's unreasonable to say we should reserve war for our mortal enemies.

This tendency of declaring war on arbitrary things goes back to progressives, such as Woodrow Wilson, who saw the military as a means of organizing and unifying society. That's why, for example, he declared a "war on poverty." You still see it with modern liberals, like Rahm Emanuel, who proposed "basic training, civil defense preparation, and community service" for everyone aged 18-25 in his book (not sure how to direct link, just search it for "universal citizen service", the chapter starts at page 58).

It was a terrible idea then, and it's a terrible idea now: we don't need to unify society around grand visions by aping the military. It is just a way of stomping all over the basic freedom of millions of people to do what the hell they want with their life, not what some politician thinks would make him look good in a history book.

Re:War on drugs

[westlake]

Prohibition didn't work for alcohol and it certainly isn't working for drugs.

Per capita consumption of beer in the U.S., 1911-1915, 29 gallons.

In 1934, 13 gallons.

In the prosperous mid-fifties, 23 gallons. Drinking in America: A History

Re:War on drugs

[orphiuchus]

Just because the laws on Marijuana are poorly thought out, ineffective, and unnecessary doesn't mean that all drug laws are.

Prohibition is necessary in the case of hard drugs. Its true that we need to attack it from all angles, but legalization and taxation of most of the illegal drugs would be a societal disaster the scale of which we have never seen.

Re:War on drugs

[darkonc]

We should make war on the reason why pushers push these drugs onto people -- profits -- and not just why kids take them. Most kids that do Meth do it because they're addicted. Avoiding the addiction means removing the incentive to 'market' it.

Most of the problems with the lighter drugs (like Pot) have to do with the fact that the drug is illegal. As such, legalization would go a long way (but not all the way) to minimizing the harm that they do. The other step would be to regulate the drugs such that it's a bitch to make a profit on them.. That way dealers wouldn't have much reason to trick kids into using this crap.

I've seen what Meth can do to kids It's highly addicting -- and really does rot the brain (some of the rot is temporary, but a lot of the rot from long-term use is permanent). Just legalizing it without reasonable regulation would make it open season on our kids for unscrupulous corporations (really -- the Hells Angels are just a corporation that is willing to take blatantly illegal action to increase it's profits. If you made the action legal (if unethical) and didn't remove the profit motive, they'd just keep on with the same actions (but more out in the open).

In this case, with the drug being illegal -- and thus high profit -- seizing the proceeds of the illegal dealing is completely appropriate. If Meth was made legal and regulated, I'd still keep the laws that allow seizing the proceeds of improper trading.

Re:War on drugs

[LainTouko]

Well, I take alcohol because a little bit makes me outgoing. But I don't think stopping me from wanting to be friendly is the answer. Indeed I don't think my drug-taking is a problem in the first place.

It's impossible to understand the drugs issue while you use the word 'drug' to refer only to substances which aren't sufficiently mainstream to remain legal. The notion that there's some sort of fundamental difference between popular drugs and drugs only taken by a small minority, to the point that the latter need group needs a special name, is the poison which is at the root of this worldwide system of state-sponsored discrimination against people just for being different. So part of the solution is to use words in a fair and accurate manner.

Re:War on drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, the entire point is that Pharma companies sell "needless" drugs all over TV. look how big depression meds or penis enlargement meds are. Illegal rhino horn is probably cheaper and more effective than stuff on TV. Same with drugs like Ritilan that are basically "reorganized" forms of the illegal stuff with high price tags and more side effects... But they're legal, and companies have a RIGHT to make money!!!

The double standard is hilarious. A big right wing radio host can have "pounds" of restricted-class painkillers and get off with a "warning". Black rapper has a "dime" bag and they face prison time...

Meanwhile the REST of us get "registered" and "allocated" for buying a decongestant that's been common for 30 years.. But bad people might use it!!! If that's not a war on the lower class what is it??

Re:War on drugs

[Creepy Crawler]

That would be correct. It was that Ted Kaczynski.

However, you are guilty of committing an ad hominem attack. His sending mail bombs and possibly being a crazy person does not make his other writings true or false.

You should take what he claims on its own merits and judge if they are correct or not by the evidence given. And from his commentary regarding the USA turning into a bunch of pill munchers to placate their boring lives, I would say he is correct.

Re:War on drugs

[LainTouko]

Just because the laws on Marijuana are poorly thought out, ineffective, and unnecessary doesn't mean that all drug laws are.

Prohibition is necessary in the case of hard drugs. Its true that we need to attack it from all angles, but legalization and taxation of most of the illegal drugs would be a societal disaster the scale of which we have never seen.

Alcohol and tobacco are legalised and taxed. If neither of them are hard drugs, I don't know what is.

Before we prohibited heroin in this country (UK), there were only about 500 addicts in the whole country, and they could still live their lives with a reasonable amount of normality. Prohibition came, and now 50,000 risk death from adulterated doses of uncertain strength and are forced by prohibitionists to steal or sell themselves to pay black-market prices.

I'd like the societal disaster back.

Re:War on drugs

[sjames]

So we should spend those resources on reforming the more aversive aspects of society.

Re:War on drugs

[Seumas]

Really? You don't think he should be proven guilty, first? We're just taking property of innocent people now and throwing them in prison without a trial? What country do you live in? In the states, you're innocent until proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be guilty by a jury. By your logic, all those people who are accused of rape and later confess to false accusations (say, because they didn't want to go to a party, so they pretended to be raped to get out of going - seriously, google this shit) . . . then the mere fact that you were accused means they should be rushed to prison and the key thrown away. Fair trial and truth be fucked, eh?

I'm all for dealing with true criminals who absolutely damage other unwilling individuals in society. But let's be sure they're guilty, before we do it.

Re:War on drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

If the drugs weren't illegal, everybody could have an herb garden for their one use. Weed can grow in all 50 states, cocoa could probably be a houseplant too... People would munch the natural leaves rather than the dangerously manufactured versions.

Prohibitionists have made "failing at life" illegal. Most drugs were not illegal untin the early 1900's. The took away alcohol, created illegal suppliers, then drugs moved in because they weren't illegal at first, and they had better profit margins. Why move whisky when weed is 100 times more profit by weight? Drug use has been dropping for a while... Yet "enforcement" needs more and more laws to stamp it out... That is the definition of "religious" jihad and not common sense. Violent crime dropped for most of the 2000's so we filled the prisons to overflow making a bunch of NEW drug laws that didn't exist even 15 years ago!

The only sanity is that the states can't afford $35k per year for "weed" possession anymore. You'll notice the want education to take 10-11% cuts of their $5k but aren't demanding the same cuts from prisons, are they?

Meanwhile I sit here with an earache because I don't feel like being "registered" to get the proper decongestant, the "preferred" stuff dosen't work nearly as well... But hey, I got insurance, they'll gladly pay $100 for a Dr. visit... When $2 in decongestant would have prevented the issue!!!

Re:War on drugs

[harrytuttle777]

Your mistake my friend is believing that sanity/insanity can be determined absolutely. Sure you think he is crazy, but he probably thinks YOU are crazy for 'mindlessly' playing along with an insane society. As for being guilty of mailing bombs to people, without a doubt he is guilty of that. However the victors always make the rules. In another time-line he is considered a freedom fighter, in this one he is just a terrorist. If the Axis had won WWII, undoubtedly everyone on prime time TV would be decrying the crimes of the Jews, and the cowardly bombing of German homeland by the evil allies. If we were living in Greco Roman times people would be on trial for NOT being pedophiles. What is 'sane' can not be taken out of the context of the societal norms. Ted Kaminzky (sp) questioned those norms, therefore it is necessary that he be locked up.

  After reading his writing though, I though he had some interesting insight on the disillusionment with contemporary society. It does not mean that I agree with everything he says, it just means that I found some insight from it. I try to evaluate ideas based on their merit w/o regard to the context of the prejudices of the society I am in. Take for example Hitler. Everyone know that Hitler is 'bad'. However That does not mean that animal rights, the green movement, vegetarianism, or oral hygene, all of which Hiller was a big champion of are bad ideas. I try to cherry pick the good ideas from the bad independent of who stated them.

Re:War on drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

You left out the statistics on hard liquor consumption during prohibition. Bear (like marijuana) is less concentrated therefore harder to hide and smuggle then liquor (or methamphetamine). Prohibitions don't address demand they attempt to control supply. Lack of legitimate supply chains for products that are still in high demand lead to black markets and directly feed the organized and, in the lucrative drug markets, often violent syndicates that spring up to meet that demand.

Re:War on drugs

[Elbereth]

No, I don't agree with that at all.

If you actually take the time to look, progressives in the 18th century (and, rarely, earlier) were discussing at length the health risks of tobacco smoking, the inhumanity of slavery, feminism and women's suffrage, socialism, anarchism, democracy, republicanism, and the dehumanizing effects of a modern, technological society. Granted, some of these people might have been branded crackpots, heretics, or vile traitors, but they were out there.

I do not support the philosophical position that we can not judge past societies. I believe the opposite, in fact. If my beliefs turn out to have been racist in origin, then I fully accept that future generations will judge me as a racist. So, too, should the rest of society be judged.

Re:War on drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

Please keep these kinds of comments of Slashdot. This is a website for adults, not drug-addled hipster teens like yourself that insist on legalizing criminal behavior and getting everyone as high as possible.

There's a war on drugs because people like you try your hardest to "educate" the public about drug use and "encourage" the public to take drugs. You are part of the problem.

I use this example often, just ask yourself what people have ever contributed to society throughout their lives, are alive today, and have been taking drugs the entire time. Answer? Nobody. They are all dead, or shadows of their former selves, or whatever skills they had were never used again after they started drugs as they got put on some wild dope-induced tangent. No great art, or literature, or scientific work has ever been done in modern times by a drug addict who didn't die or stop or otherwise become incapacitated as their drug use spiraled out of control.

If anything, take notice that it's the people that finally stopped drugs who regained their health, their sanity, and their creativity.

There's been a major shift in American society, especially on the West coast, to relabel drugs as something fashionable that shouldn't be discriminated against. The majority of people involved with this movement have never worked closely with drug addicts, the mentally hill, homeless people, and others who have had their lives destroyed by them. Sure, as a young hipster teen you can smoke a joint while blasting Bob Marley and keeping your neighbors frustrated, but what about the real people who lose their jobs, their savings, their families, and their lives because they are hopelessly addicted to drugs and can't stop?

We have a war on drugs because people can't control their drug use. That in turn impacts society, and the government's job is to keep society generally in order. It's very simple. In fact we'd do the same with booze and cigarettes but there's too much money from the corporations involve to completely shut that down.

We're all having a good laugh at Charlie Sheen these days, but he is the real face of drug use. And right now, he'll either end up dead or never have a career again. That's drugs for you. Please consider what I've said.

Or take some ecstasy and kill yourself. Either way, I'd like you to change your mind.

Re:War on drugs

[houghi]

War on society would mean war on everybody. That would mean that everybody is a criminal and everybody should be followed closely without the right to any privacy.

Wait, I think we are on to something here.

Re:War on drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

Different AC here. Where did the guy you're replying to say anything about throwing people in prison without a trial? He said "This assface should go to prison." He said nothing about "without trial." You've basically gone off on a long-winded rant without being entirely certain of the meaning of what he meant. Perhaps you could ask for clarification prior to commencing ranting in the future?

Re:War on drugs

[DavidTC]

Erm, the War on Poverty was from President Lyndon B. Johnson, not Woodrow Wilson.

And it's sorta silly to pretend it's just the left that uses 'war' now. Nixon invented 'War on Drugs'. Also 'War on Cancer' for some reason. (This was back when we thought all cancer might be caused by a single virus, instead of the dozens of things that cause it.)

The War on (some) Drugs and War on Terror are the only militarized 'Wars'...the War on Poverty was just the idea we should put as many resources towards ending poverty as we do a real war.

Re:War on drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

War on relaxing on a friday night?

Re:War on drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Do you have any evidence for this dubious claim?

Re:War on drugs

[cowboy76Spain]

I mean where precisely do you think the drug cartels get their money from?

From selling drugs?

Re:War on drugs

[DavidTC]

What that statistic, in addition to the fact that the population switched en mass to hard liquor from beer, doesn't mention is that prohibition resulted in vastly more women and children drinking. Before, it was essentially unthinkable for women to drink in public. Afterward, check out any picture of a speakeasy.

Prohibition is an interesting story, but it's important to realize it wasn't about 'drinking' per se. Prohibition was about the fact that men would get blackout drunk, and fail to support their family, and even beat their wife.

Solution: Make them stop drinking.

It's obviously a fucking stupid solution, but there it is. And the thing is...it worked. Spousal abuse went down, people spending all their money on booze went down. Seriously, that part did work to some extent, although not to the extent that the 'beer stats' would indicate.

Of course, it introduced a whole host of new problems, like for the first time in American history women started drinking in large amounts, as did children. And all the violence associated with the criminal element. And the outright flaunting of the law caused problems too. At its height, it made heros of bank robbers and other criminals. John Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde, hell, watch a production of 'Anything Goes', which satirizes this in the titular song. We have crappy attractive teenager singers as superstars, they had attractive criminals instead. (Actually, they didn't really care what they looked like, they were just fuzzy newspaper pictures.)

Meanwhile, the actual problems were solved by having public drunkenness laws, no-fault divorce, women being able to earn money, women being able to get custody of their children, and spousal abuse laws. And even the existence of contraceptives.

Turns out the problem wasn't 'demon rum', after all, the problem was utter asshole men, who felt, and had the law on their side, that they could do anything they wanted and their wife had no possibility to complain. Give women some power, any power, and suddenly all the problems go away, or at least become completely unacceptable behavior.

Likewise, we're using the same sort of justification for drug abuse, although they're on even thinner ice, if that's possible. While alcohol was, in theory, causing the problems prohibition was supposed to stop (Even though it was really 'treat women as property' that was doing it.), it's pretty obvious that almost all the problems of 'drugs' are being caused by prohibition itself.

There's really no arguing that. Taking pot has probably never caused anyone to shoot anyone else, or at least it's in the single digits every decade. Ownership of pot, OTOH, seems to be often decided by violence.

Other drugs do actually make people violent, like PCP, but a) there's a question of how many people would be taking that if other drugs were available cheaply, and b) alcohol is pretty famous for causing violence also, a certain percentage of the population seems to be an 'angry drunk'. (I'm not sure how we managed to forget that, considering, as I said, that was the basis of Prohibition in the first place.)

If all drugs were magically 100% legal tomorrow, we'd end up with a bunch of new problems, but it would be hard to claim they were worse than what we have now.

Of course, 100% legal isn't the ideal solution either, surely we need some sort of regulations, but when 'removing all the laws about this thing' seems likely to give you a better outcome, something is very very wrong.

Re:War on drugs

[Kosi]

Well, I take alcohol because a little bit makes me outgoing. But I don't think stopping me from wanting to be friendly is the answer.

Correct. But the answer is to learn how to socialize without ethanol or other substances as a crutch. It may work for you, but for many people this way leads down the drain.

Indeed I don't think my drug-taking is a problem in the first place.

Yes, many people consuming drugs (legal or illegal) don't run into serious problems with that. But around 10 percent develop an addiction, and a good part of the other 90 percent tend to an unhealthy consume.

What I meant with "war on the reasons" was that normally people have a reason why they develop unhealthy substance consume. Some can't handle the pressure in our much too achievement-oriented society. Some feel socially inept like you. And so on. We should reduce this pressure, we should be more friendly to each other, and we should learn from society that there are much better ways to reach what we try to reach by consuming psychoactive substances. And not "drugs are evil" or other bullshit. I hope that makes my POV a little clearer.

Re:War on drugs

[HornWumpus]

You can get lunatic from his writings as well.

The manifesto 'sort of' sound logical, hence fooled many reporters. It also fit into many of their hippie world views.

Read the damn things for yourself, I did when they were first published. He was schizophrenic. His thoughts jump, one thing doesn't follow another. He bases the rest of his diatribe on initial insane conclusions and draws still insaner conclusions. IIRC his initial insane conclusion was that 'everybody is powerless'. Find where he started to feel powerless and you find where he went off the tracks.

Like most constructs it's complex. Not insightful about anything except the roots of Kaczynski's insanity.

Re:War on drugs

[Kosi]

Ted Kaminsky (sp) wrote that when people are living a more and more pointless life and utterly domesticated life, they will sometimes turn to drugs in order to keep themselves placated, and continue to believe that things make sense.

Yep, that's what I meant. If we would put the same amount of resources (manpower, money, ...) that we waste on that impossible-to-win "war on drugs" to the task of improving our society, life would be better for almost everyone.

Re:War on drugs

[DavidTC]

A disaster? Why?

Please state the actual problems that heroin addition causes that happy is guaranteed a continual supply of heroin:

...

Oh, that's right, there aren't any. In fact, a lot of soldiers got addicted to heroin, given as a painkiller, in WWI and managed to go decades by just, you know, buying heroin and taking it every day. Not saying it's a good thing, but it's hardly going to destroy society.

LSD? No known health effects, and, incidentally, flashbacks are a myth.

Ecstasy? You can dehydrate easily, but this could be easily solved just by requiring it be distributed in a rehydration solution, like Gator-aid. Esctasy-aid.

So we've got, what, cocaine, meth, and PCP as the hard drugs that actually cause problems? (Namely, they all cause dementia and/or paranoia.)

PCP almost dead, anyway, and no one really took 'it', it was just mixed in with pot.

And meth and crack are essentially replacements drug dealers invented to replace the lack of pot. How many people do you think would start taking meth if they could get pot? Almost no one.

So Meth, PCP, and crack were all inventions by drug dealers to stretch out or replace lack of pot. Sure, current addicts will have to stick with them, but it's hard to see why anyone would choose them over pot or booze.

Straight cocaine, OTOH, was massively abused by the rich in the 80s...and yet society didn't blow up.

I'm confused as to how this would be any sort of disaster, anyway. There are 20 million people in the US who abuse alcohol, that's about 7% of the total population, and yet we appear to keep functioning.

Re:War on drugs

[Kosi]

War on lacking other, healthier methods to relax.

Re:War on drugs

[Kosi]

War on false friends and lack of self-esteem. And except for the poor babies of addicted mothers, no one is born with an addiction, you develop that. I know what I'm talking about here.

Re:War on drugs

[DavidTC]

I don't think we should allow any profit on cocaine, PCP, or meth, or any recreational drug more addictive than caffeine or alcohol. (Or, let's say, any drug that can kill you with withdrawal.) Or allow any branding, or anything.

You want to buy them, you go to a free clinic or something, and convince them you're addicted. Then you go to a pharmacy, which will sell it to you at the cost the government supplies it to them. That's it. No profit. In fact, the pharmacy is actually out some employee time. (That is just the cost of being a licensed pharmacy, tough.)

The clinic visit will be free, BTW, but is there to make it harder to start drugs. If you want to read up on the symptoms of cocaine addiction and fake them so you can get a prescription to start taking cocaine, go right ahead, but hopefully that will stop at least some people.

Likewise, you could fake the addiction, and then sell it to other people who aren't addicted to try to get them hooked...but that's a pretty stupid business model, because once they get hooked they will hopefully be smart enough to go get it from the government.

Re:War on drugs

[Kosi]

War on those aspects of society that make people chose to take drugs (in unhealthy manners). For example the massive pressure to achieve wealth and/or power in our western society, caused by the big lie capitalism is built on - that everyone can "make" it, if he just works hard enough.

Re:War on drugs

[zippthorne]

...a certain percentage of the population seems to be an 'angry drunk'. (I'm not sure how we managed to forget that, considering, as I said, that was the basis of Prohibition in the first place.)

Maybe it was all the booze?

Re:War on drugs

[IICV]

Prohibition is necessary in the case of hard drugs. Its true that we need to attack it from all angles, but legalization and taxation of most of the illegal drugs would be a societal disaster the scale of which we have never seen.

What, why? What's wrong with doing (e.g) cocaine, exactly? All sorts of businessmen and entertainers and other powerful people do it on a regular basis, without significant side-effects; because it's illegal, you only hear about the people who crash and burn because of it, not the people who keep it in check.

I mean, seriously, we can get a good idea of how much cocaine is being used, even if (because it's illegal, obvs) we can't track actual rates. The NDIC claims that there's roughly 300 metric tons of cocaine available in the USA annually - and you can bet that a significant portion of that gets used. If cocaine is so dangerous, and people are using so much of it, where are all the cocaine addicts who burn out and need to be treated? Sure, there are some, but not significantly more than any other legal drug like alcohol or tobacco.

Our current "hard drug" policy is like basing alcohol policy on surveys of Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and temperance groups. What we need are reality-based policies, not these bullshit wish-based policies we have right now.

Re:War on drugs

[Chowderbags]

Why should any drug be prohibited? If it's about the bodily harm it can do, then we should ban household cleaners, since those will fuck you up a lot faster than any recreational drug. If it's about addiction, then let's ban nicotine and caffeine. If it's about people losing all their money to them, why aren't we going after Wall Street?

Besides, who decides what a "hard drug" is? Is LSD a hard drug, even though no one has ever died from overdose? Where's the line in the sand drawn for painkillers? Aspirine? Codeine? Morphine? Heroin? Can we agree that meth is dangerous to use, oh wait, it's prescribed to children for ADHD, and that's a'ok. Sure, we can say "it's about the dose" all we want, but we don't restrict alcohol, even though people die from alcohol poisoning or liver damage all the time.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should encourage any drug, but we can't say "alcohol is a delightful all American product that will get you laid by beautiful women coming out of nowhere" and then turn around and say "LSD will cause people to go axe crazy and kill women and children". But maybe I just wish that successful people who use drugs wouldn't have to hide it, so we could really see that it's not the worst thing in the world.

(Note to internet police: I don't use drugs. Don't backtrace my IP and take my comic book collection by shopping around till you find a judge who doesn't care about due process.)

Re:War on drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

stop gibbering and mind your own business

Re:War on drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

uh, okay, but meth fucks people up in a very short period of time. large-scale dealers of it deserve to lose their comic collections.

Re:War on drugs

[sco08y]

Erm, the War on Poverty was from President Lyndon B. Johnson, not Woodrow Wilson.

Yeah, I was thinking of FDR's "freedom from want". Or something like that. Brain fart.

And it's sorta silly to pretend it's just the left that uses 'war' now. Nixon invented 'War on Drugs'. Also 'War on Cancer' for some reason. (This was back when we thought all cancer might be caused by a single virus, instead of the dozens of things that cause it.)

The War on (some) Drugs and War on Terror are the only militarized 'Wars'...the War on Poverty was just the idea we should put as many resources towards ending poverty as we do a real war.

The GWOT is legit; asymmetric warfare has a long and hoary history, but it really is war.

Nixon had broad bipartisan support in the war on drugs, just as when he created the EPA. He wasn't an ideological purist so much as intensely partisan and paranoid. The other problem with the war on dugs is that present support for it is coming from left, right and center.

The progressive movement was, though, infatuated with the notion of organizing society around the military model, and the modern left still is. Emanuel's plan for universal civilian service is more openly militaristic, but AmeriCorps, PeaceCorps and others are organized around notions of service and duty that are modeled from military service.

Re:War on drugs

[owlstead]

You forgot to mention that this mostly happens when people are put in a tight spot with no way out. If people would honestly try and make society good - or at least tolerable - for most people, a lot of these problems would go away. That money would be spent much better than spending money on keeping people in prison.

Re:War on drugs

[chihowa]

War on people deciding that they need to make personal decisions for everyone else.

Re:War on drugs

[Kosi]

That means war on priests/mullahs, politicians/dictators and managers. I could live with that. :)

See, what I mean is not to forbid anyone his beer, reefer or even line of coke. What I mean is to repair the bad sides of society, so people will be less inclined to flee from their life that they experience as miserable. Usually people do not consume greater amounts of psychoactive substances without any reason. If we spent the money and manpower we waste on the "war on drugs" on making society and with that almost everyone's life better, the people would be much less interested in numbing themselves with substances, because they were too busy enjoying life.

Re:War on drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer we keep the "war on drugs" focused on the supply chain. I believe money spent prosecuting people who are in the business of importing, manufacturing, or distributing illegal drugs is a good use of my tax money. What I don't like is needlessly filling our jails with addicts who need rehabilitation.

The legalization of Marijuana is a separate issue.

Re:War on drugs

[orphiuchus]

Alcohol and tobacco are legalised and taxed. If neither of them are hard drugs, I don't know what is.

...

Then you're a fucking moron.

Re:War on drugs

[orphiuchus]

Prohibition is necessary in the case of hard drugs. Its true that we need to attack it from all angles, but legalization and taxation of most of the illegal drugs would be a societal disaster the scale of which we have never seen.

What, why? What's wrong with doing (e.g) cocaine, exactly? All sorts of businessmen and entertainers and other powerful people do it on a regular basis, without significant side-effects; because it's illegal, you only hear about the people who crash and burn because of it, not the people who keep it in check.

I mean, seriously, we can get a good idea of how much cocaine is being used, even if (because it's illegal, obvs) we can't track actual rates. The NDIC claims that there's roughly 300 metric tons of cocaine available in the USA annually - and you can bet that a significant portion of that gets used. If cocaine is so dangerous, and people are using so much of it, where are all the cocaine addicts who burn out and need to be treated? Sure, there are some, but not significantly more than any other legal drug like alcohol or tobacco.

Our current "hard drug" policy is like basing alcohol policy on surveys of Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and temperance groups. What we need are reality-based policies, not these bullshit wish-based policies we have right now.

Whats wrong with doing cocaine? See Charlie Sheen please.

Re:War on drugs

[MarkvW]

Imagine the USA with all drugs legalized.

Would the highways become a nightmare?
What about domestic violence?
You would certainly see increased dependency actions against doped parents.
You would see lost job production.
It would be difficult to keep dope away from servicemen.

It would make our country weaker if all drugs were legalized. A weak country is prey.

Legalizing marijuana is one thing. Legalizing meth and cocaine is an entirely different thing.

Re:War on drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

if this is to be believed, then we did it: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2000/06/chase.htm

Re:War on drugs

[randyleepublic]

No, actually we have seen that disaster - it's called, wait for it, The War On Drugs.

Re:War on drugs

[j-beda]

Before you can guarantee an increase in these potential drug abuse effect, first you need to show that there would be an increase in the use of these now legally available drugs. I don't know how one can go about establishing exactly what the population would do with wider availability of the "harder" drugs. Certainly there are arguments that easy legal access to pot would lead to increases in the use of harder drugs (though it doesn't seem to have done so for the Dutch), but there are arguments that also sound pretty good in the exact opposite direction.

I suspect that if we limited the possibility of gross profits on the distribution and manufacture side of things, and limited the advertising and stuff like that, the societal costs would be no greater than the costs associated with alcohol. Heck, I'm all for placing stricter limits on profits and advertising for tobacco and alcohol for that matter.

Re:War on drugs

[spiffmastercow]

So Meth, PCP, and crack were all inventions by drug dealers to stretch out or replace lack of pot. Sure, current addicts will have to stick with them, but it's hard to see why anyone would choose them over pot or booze.

I don't know about that.. I think the meth crowd is a lot different than the pot crowd. Meth addicts tend to like staying up all night pulling copper plumbing out of foreclosed houses. Potheads like to play video games and eat cheetos.

Straight cocaine, OTOH, was massively abused by the rich in the 80s...and yet society didn't blow up.

Actually, cocaine abuse is at fault for a good deal of the Great Recession. Bankers with lots of money, doing lots of coke, and taking ridiculously stupid risks with the bank's money.

Re:War on drugs

[mpe]

Prohibition is necessary in the case of hard drugs. Its true that we need to attack it from all angles, but legalization and taxation of most of the illegal drugs would be a societal disaster the scale of which we have never seen.

If you look at history the opposite is true. Prohibition of alcohol in the US something of a disaster. Also remember that prohibition is very recent, yet society didn't collapse in the several thousand years before someone came up with the idea.

Re:War on drugs

[mpe]

Alcohol and tobacco are legalised and taxed. If neither of them are hard drugs, I don't know what is.

IIRC nicotine is actually more addictive than opiates (it's certainly more toxic)

Before we prohibited heroin in this country (UK), there were only about 500 addicts in the whole country, and they could still live their lives with a reasonable amount of normality.

This tends to be the case with people addicted to legal drugs. Including perscription only drugs.

Prohibition came, and now 50,000 risk death from adulterated doses of uncertain strength and are forced by prohibitionists to steal or sell themselves to pay black-market prices.

Even highly taxed legal drugs would be likely to be considerably cheaper than those from any kind of black market.

Re:War on drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

> but legalization and taxation of most of the illegal drugs would be a societal disaster the scale of which we have never seen.

Evidence needed

Re:War on drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite right. I did not mean to suggest anyone should go to prison without first being found guilty. I'm not sure where that idea came from.

Re:War on drugs

[squizzar]

The problem with drug use is three things - they're bad for you (arguably due to the quality, but I digress), they are expensive and they are illegal. So if we take away the illegality we have an expensive health problem. The proposed solutions to alcohol and smoking seem to be to make them more expensive, or in some places illegal. My guess is that won't work because it doesn't seem to be a major barrier to every other drug. There are also obesity problems in some nations (UK/US particularly). This is generally seen as a health problem, although there are many who would say that people 'shouldn't eat so much'.

Would anyone suggest that we treat overweight people by making a supersize big mac meal cost several times as much - or a minimum price per calorie for food? Or how about we lock them up for eating too much? Of course not, it's a medical problem that can and should be dealt with in better ways than criminalizing the behaviour. So how is it that with drugs we rely on criminalization to control drug use? Because we don't see drug problems as 'medical' problems. They are seen as a lack of self control, or weak personality or something equally preachy and unhelpful. The very fact that they are illegal seems to stop people from looking rationally at the problem, and comparing it with other problems that on the individual level are nothing more than health problems. Why are we more accepting of someone who eats too much than we are of someone who uses drugs? Why are people ok with alcohol, up to the point where people are functioning alcoholics, but not ok with someone who uses drugs in a controlled way that has no significant impact on their health? Why is smoking still legal - it's not even that much fun!

We should look to control drug use, and other health issues, regardless of the legality of the problem, through trying to stop the problems in the first place, and by treating and rehabilitating those who suffer from them. Criminalisation hasn't worked, and doesn't seem to do much for reducing demand. Would you describe a drive to get people to eat better, or exercise more, or become better educated, or more conscious of the environment, or more charitable, or to vote, as a war on society because it seeks to change the desires and behaviour of that society? If so then we are already fighting an enormous number of 'wars with society', and describing them as such is just inflammatory rhetoric, and is a way of deflecting the reality of the problems.

Re:War on drugs

[squizzar]

You really didn't read what he said did you? The whole point was that basing an entire policy on a few bad examples is doomed to failure, so your argument is to point out a bad example. You could at least have thought of two...

Re:War on drugs

[DiEx-15]

I say this: Tough shit to the guy going to lose his comic book collection. I hate tweekers with a passion and glad to see this inferior non-human get his justice served.

Re:War on drugs

[DavidTC]

I don't know about that.. I think the meth crowd is a lot different than the pot crowd. Meth addicts tend to like staying up all night pulling copper plumbing out of foreclosed houses. Potheads like to play video games and eat cheetos.

Yes, they behave differently currently, I'm just not sure there's a market for new users of meth. Maybe there is, I don't know, but meth seems like a weird drug to start if you can get others, unless you're a college student who wants to stay up all night or something.

Actually, cocaine abuse is at fault for a good deal of the Great Recession. Bankers with lots of money, doing lots of coke, and taking ridiculously stupid risks with the bank's money.

Do not blame poor innocent cocaine for that behavior.

Re:War on drugs

[chihowa]

That means war on priests/mullahs, politicians/dictators and managers. I could live with that. :)

It's a deal!

See, what I mean is not to forbid anyone his beer, reefer or even line of coke. What I mean is to repair the bad sides of society, so people will be less inclined to flee from their life that they experience as miserable. Usually people do not consume greater amounts of psychoactive substances without any reason. If we spent the money and manpower we waste on the "war on drugs" on making society and with that almost everyone's life better, the people would be much less interested in numbing themselves with substances, because they were too busy enjoying life.

Not all drugs have the effect of numbing, though. I agree that we have societal problems that outweigh any damage done by drugs, but sometimes drugs are just entertaining. Nobody takes LSD, for example, to escape from their miserable life. That's like jumping from the pot to the fire. Taking drugs as self-medication is arguably bad, but taking drugs for recreation isn't any worse than watching a movie or playing football. Please note that either of these would be bad if taken to an unhealthy extreme, just as with drugs.

 

Re:War on drugs

[Kosi]

Not all drugs have the effect of numbing, though.

They do, you just have to take enough and often enough. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about. :)

I agree that we have societal problems that outweigh any damage done by drugs, but sometimes drugs are just entertaining. Nobody takes LSD, for example, to escape from their miserable life. That's like jumping from the pot to the fire. Taking drugs as self-medication is arguably bad, but taking drugs for recreation isn't any worse than watching a movie or playing football. Please note that either of these would be bad if taken to an unhealthy extreme, just as with drugs.

I personally know more than one person who took (also) LSD as a mean to escape, maybe you have also heard of this guy named Jim Morrison (read his biography, an absolute acid freak he was). And I have my own experiences with almost all of the "common" drugs we have here (Germany). So I consider myself somewhat competent on these matters.

And I am not advocating total abstinence for everyone, I advocate to make society better. I am sure that not only much less people would consume in unhealthy manners, also the number of people using it for recreation would decrease in general.

Re:War on drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism NEVER EVER said "everyone can make it".
Capitalism has failure built into it. Capitalism guarantees failure.
Those who succeed in a capitalist society should be moral and help those who are on tough times (i.e. failed)

TRWTF is YRO

[Anonymous Coward]

The real WTF is that this is an yro.slashdot.org story. Idle I would have kinda understood..

Re:TRWTF is YRO

[Desler]

That's intentional on samzenpus' part. He knows that almost everyone filters idle so he posts idle stories usually under YRO or some other completely inappropriate categories so his shit is still polluting the front page.

Re:TRWTF is YRO

[Seumas]

Yeah, what does the government seeking ownership of your property before you're even found guilty of a crime have to do with your rights?

19k comic books?

[gmuslera]

He was just swiching from trading illegal, addictive substances to other market addictive, but this time legal, things, and they put him in jail?

Re:19k comic books?

[hedwards]

He was using the proceeds of his criminal enterprise to buy comic books, some of the larger sales apparently attracted some attention and upon investigation it was determined where the money was coming from. It has to be settled in court whether or not he's guilty, but assuming he is, this is standard procedure. Criminals aren't typically allowed to profit from their crimes by buying things.

Re:19k comic books?

[virg_mattes]

He was using the proceeds of his criminal enterprise to buy comic books, some of the larger sales apparently attracted some attention and upon investigation it was determined where the money was coming from.

The problem is that he hasn't been convicted of this crime, so saying any of this is premature.

It has to be settled in court whether or not he's guilty, but assuming he is, this is standard procedure.

The problem here is that they've filed to take his collection before the "settled in court" part, and they filed suit against the comic book collection itself to prove that it's garnered from illegal funds. This whole procedure will play out before the defendant goes to trial, he won't be permitted to take any part in his collection's defense and unless something extraordinary happens, the court will find for the DA and the collection will be sold. That means that it's gone, even if he's acquitted of all charges.

Criminals aren't typically allowed to profit from their crimes by buying things.

The problem here is that he's not a criminal. No conviction, remember? They're taking his property without proving he's a criminal, and they won't give it back if it's proven he isn't. That doesn't bother you at all?

Virg

Gosh, I hope he gets a single cell

[SmallFurryCreature]

Can you imagine the place in prison hierarchy for comic book guy?

Sex, drugs and comic books... although since this is comic book guy, he probably skipped on sex... until now.

Re:Gosh, I hope he gets a single cell

[don.g]

One of the (many, many) things I detest about prison rape jokes is that it's really a serious problem. If you're condoning rape as an acceptable sentence from your country's justice system... then I don't know what to say. If you just haven't thought about it, you might want to.

Re:Gosh, I hope he gets a single cell

[Dhalka226]

Joking about something is not an indication that it is not serious, nor that it is not taken seriously. To leap that a prison rape joke means anybody is condoning prison rape is inappropriate.

I bet he didn't read them.

[Anonymous Coward]

So this is supposed to relate to us nerds because comic books are involved. Big deal.

This guy used them as assets for laundering money. He didn't read them. He didn't have them to be read. He's no nerd. Screw him.

"Switching"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose it is better than selling drugs to buy slaves, but selling drugs to buy comic books isn't exactly a great thing. Lots of drug dealers use their money to buy legal things, such as cars, houses, boats, etc.

Police confiscating evidence is not news

[mschaffer]

The guy is allegedly laundering money with the comic books. The police are confiscating the evidence. What makes this unusual?

Re:Police confiscating evidence is not news

[sjames]

They aren't confiscating evidence, they are taking ownership. The police are suing the comic books for the tort of being bought with drug money. (Yes, the comics themselves are the defendant of record!). They are doing this well in advance of the person's criminal trial. In other words, they are presuming his guilt and circumventing his 5th amendment rights through the absurd practice of suing an inanimate object.

If they would care to prove him guilty in a court of law and the law allows loss of proceeds to be part of the sentence, then so be it. The current practice, however, makes a mockery of the rule of law.

Re:Police confiscating evidence is not news

[codegen]

Not confiscating evidence, seizing property. And nothing really unusual about it, even though he has not been found guilty of a crime. The US is one of the few jurisdictions in the world that allows the gov't to seize proceeds of crime before the person has been found guilty of a crime.

Re:Police confiscating evidence is not news

[mschaffer]

Yes, they are confiscating evidence, and taking ownership. These laws have been on the books for around 20 years and bypass trial.
So, I ask again, why is this news? Because it's comic books?

Here's an interesting opinion piece from 1993 (18 years ago):
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1093c.asp
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1193c.asp

Re:Police confiscating evidence is not news

[sjames]

It seems to be news to a lot of people here. In any event, it's probably worthwhile to keep this issue in the public awareness.

Google: Will Eisner at 94

[westlake]

These comic books may be expensive, but I doubt that they're valuable.

Today's Google Doodle is a tribute to Will Eisner and The Spirit

It took a long time for the comic book to gain respectability as the "graphic novel."

But the Americam comic strip and comic book have attracted some very gifted artists and writers from the beginning. The Will Eisner Hall of Fame

$500,000

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! $500,000 for a "large-scale methamphetamine dealer who allegedly laundered drug profits by purchasing valuable comic books"... I mean, for that amount of cash you can infringe the copyright for what, 10 songs? That's a full album!!!

Is the Bad Lieutnant still working

[vorlich]

in the Property Room? Cos if he is, those comic books are history.

This would have been great on Miami Vice!

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Crockett: "I need a new Ferrari! Didn't we confiscate anything from drug dealers that I can drive!?!?!"

Castillo: "Sorry, Sonny, no. But here, read some Incredible Hulk, Spider Man and Richie Rich. It will cheer you up.

Comic Books ; houses -- what's the difference?

[darkonc]

If he's a meth dealer and he's using the comic books to launder his drug profits, then there's nothing unusual about this other than the method of laundering.

If he had been trading houses to launder his drug money, this wouldn't have made page 34 of his local paper, much less the front page of Slashdot. Even so, there's not a whole lot to say about it.

Re:War on drugs == War on Money Laundering

[turtleshadow]

Meth is not a drug its poison to the human body and society for both use and manufacture.
It has not a peer to alcohol, or other lesser drugs.

War on Drugs? How about War on Money Laundering?! Thats the imperialism of the mafia over civil society.

I say money laundering is the serious and imminent threat to geek culture.
Too many geeks are getting sucked into the underworld's lure of fast money, trinkets and bobbles and hallmarks of evil-geekdom.

Will anyone miss the old days when geeks would just rip-off cpu cycles, disk space and bandwidth for wares & p0rn from their company sites.
Next it moved into fencing parts -- where did all that Disk & memory go from the upgrades last month?
Now entire data centers have been compromised in Eastern Europe by mafia seeking to money launder all sorts of activity.

Looking at one of the mug shots. gang / mafia is involved: Nasty stuff, stone cold died in the wool killers & innocent lives wreaked.

Here is the AG post

Its enlightening the AG says it accounts for 2/3 of the ID theft: probably to cloak procurement of the means to manufacture, warehouse, and transport the nasty stuff. That means other much more serious crimes have to be committed in support of this industry... not just the simple possession.

Here are general facts about meth and more reading.

This is called 'Laundering'

[orphiuchus]

Assuming the facts are presented correctly, what this guy was doing is simple old fashioned money laundering. He was buying something with drug money so he could later sell it and have clean money. Comic books are actually a smart way to do this, its unlikely that anyone would suspect it.

Here's an example of how it may have worked:
1. Dude sells $500 of meth.
2. Dude takes the $500 cash to a comic book convention.
3. Dude buys a comic book for ~$500
4. Dude sells the same comic book for $450 in clean, crisp, legal bills
5. Repeat 1-4
6. Profit!
7.?
8. Prison!

Re:This is called 'Laundering'

[cptnapalm]

Except the story didn't say anything about him selling comics. Just buying them. Buying over 18,000 of them.

“Gwinn said that Aaron began to struggle with money because he would spend his drug money on comic books.”

It would be funny if he turned to meth dealing as a way to finance his addictive comic book collection habit.

Re:This is called 'Laundering'

[orphiuchus]

Yea, he skipped steps 4-7. I never said he was good at it.

My bet is he was going to ultimately sell these though. He was probably sitting on them so it looked legit when he reported the income.

I'm not saying he didn't love comic books, but that would be a fantastic way to launder money.

Re:This is called 'Laundering'

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you understand money laundering. Ending up with $450 in cash presents exactly the same problem as the original $500 in cash. Now, if you had a comic book business, or intended to export the comic books elsewhere, or otherwise mean to obtain some other form of payment, that might work. But merely losing $50 in cash makes you a bad criminal as well as a bad businessman.

Re:This is called 'Laundering'

[orphiuchus]

I don't think you understand money laundering. Ending up with $450 in cash presents exactly the same problem as the original $500 in cash. Now, if you had a comic book business, or intended to export the comic books elsewhere, or otherwise mean to obtain some other form of payment, that might work. But merely losing $50 in cash makes you a bad criminal as well as a bad businessman.

The idea is that you can get a receipt for the sale of the comic book. The loss is just so you can sell it faster.

Ideally you would want to own a cash business, such as a car wash or a small restaurant, from which you can report your ill gotten gains as profits, but because when you're just starting out you aren't likely to have the money to set up an entire business to clean your funds, cash transactions like this would be a solid starting point.

If you report 30k of income to the IRS and site the sale of comic books they're going to ignore it, or maybe giggle about what a nerd you are. If you don't report any income at all yet you buy a new car and pay rent all year round you're going to be getting a lot of attention (assuming someone notices).

Re:This is called 'Laundering'

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a receipt for the sale? Repeat that to yourself, and you'll see what the problem is. And you underestimate the difficulty and specificity of sole proprietorship tax filings. If your inventory were essentially, magically free, it shows up on the documents.

Re:This is called 'Laundering'

[orphiuchus]

Thats why you use something like comic books. Its not that weird for someone in their 20s or 30s to have a comic book collection with no record of acquisition.

How are you not getting this? Oh, that's right, you're just being contrary because this is slashdot and everyone has to act like a fucking prick the moment anyone doesn't bow to their moronic point.

Imagine...

[LainTouko]

A useful mental exercise on the topic of drugs. Imagine if the coca leaf had been known to the native Americans in North America, becoming part of their traditions, and the tobacco leaf had only been found in the south of the continent...

Re:Imagine...

[Attila Dimedici]

A useful mental exercise on the topic of drugs. Imagine if the coca leaf had been known to the native Americans in North America, becoming part of their traditions, and the tobacco leaf had only been found in the south of the continent...

I am not sure what you are getting at. However, you should do a study of the history of cocaine. When 19th Century European scientists discovered cocaine, they thought it was a wonder drug. The reason that cocaine has become demonized is because cocaine has fairly severe negative side effects. If cocaine was consumed the way that nicotine is (by smoking the natural leaf), it would not be a problem and might still be legal. Unlike marijuana, racism does not play a role in the fact that cocaine is illegal. This does not in any way address the question of whether or not cocaine should be illegal.

Re:Imagine...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike marijuana, racism does not play a role in the fact that cocaine is illegal.

It certainly plays a role in how you are punished for possessing it. Crack possession carries a much higher penalty for possession than simple powder in the same quantities. Why? Because "niggers" smoke crack, while white politicians snort cocaine.

Fucking good!

[Darth_brooks]

I don't hold any sympathy for anyone in the Meth food chain. If this were Joe the pot guy losing his collection, I'd be just a bit bummed. But this is an entirely different ballgame. There's a whole class of drugs out there that really are "bad" drugs, and meth is one of 'em. Show me someone who's been smoking pot for 30 years, then go and try to find someone who's been doing meth for 30 years. Aside from a lack of motivation and a glorious set of man boobs, the pot head's probably ok. The meth user has probably either been dead for twenty years or in jail. The incredible screw job that meth does to your neurochemistry makes anything Glaxo SmithKlien is doing look like two cups of coffee and a mountain dew chaser.

A couple of apocryphal internet stories for you; A friend of mine moonlighted as a prison shrink while stationed in the Pacific Northwest in the AF. He ended up dealing with a lot of the royally fucked up folks. Those who weren't either A. genuine psychopaths or B. the products of horribly fucked up situations were meth addicts. According to him, the nicest guy he dealt with was an actual axe murderer who hacked up a couple of people while tweaked. Once he was in prison and clean, he wasn't a bad person.

My wife is a librarian. When we lived in northern Indiana, one of the more common problems that rural libraries faced was the loss of children's books due to meth lab exposure. The kids would check the book out, take it home, and it would come back reeking of the various chemicals the poor kid was being exposed to at home. If this guy spent any time around production, these comics are toast.

In short, fuck this guy. You want to bitch about the big bad government and your civil liberties? You want to be all cool and snarky by throwing a (tm) after the phrase "war on drugs", go do it on a norml forum. When it comes to tweaks, fuck 'em, there ain't a hole deep enough.

Re:Fucking good!

[Seumas]

So you and your wife live in the united states, but don't support the most fundamental tenet of our law, which is that you're innocent until you're proven guilty. Nice.

Re:Fucking good!

[Darth_brooks]

And where exactly do I say that? If and when he's convicted, lock him up and be done with him. He's as entitled to due process as anyone else, and that's what he's getting right now.

Re:Fucking good!

[virg_mattes]

He's as entitled to due process as anyone else, and that's what he's getting right now.

What part of taking his collection, suing the comic books themselves for being bought with drug money, and then selling them and keeping the money, all before actually trying him for the crime, constitutes due process? What part of not giving back the money if he's acquitted fits with due process? The problem is that the justice system is allowed to jump the gun with his stuff and they're not required to give it back if it turns out that he's innocent. That's what's so wrong with this whole thing.

Virg

Nobody Seems to Grasp The Government Abuse, Here.

[Seumas]

I've read enough comments here that seem to completely miss what is going on here and are completely ignorant on the abuse by our government in violating the Fourth Amendment. The assumption by everyone seems to be one of two things. Either the police are seizing property as evidence of a crime committed (in which case, you would presume it will be returned if he's found innocent) or that he has been found guilty and they're taking his ill-gotten gains.

That is not the case.

What they're doing is taking possession of someone's property. Someone who has not been convicted of a crime through a fair trial, yet. Then they're going to sell it and keep the profit. Does that sound right to you? Shouldn't you receive a trial and be found guilty of a crime, before paying for that crime?

In fact, not only do you not have to be found guilty through trial of an actual crime in this country for the government to steal your property and sell it for themselves, but you don't have to even be charged with a crime, in many cases. I went looking for something to explain it to those who care to be enlightened (by what I thought was common knowledge, but by the reactions on Slashdot to this article, seems to be foreign to 80% of us). I actually found a well composed video that from the Institute for Justice

(video 2m30s) - Policing for Profit - The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture

Essentially, what has been happening for about thirty years, is that instead of charging YOU with a crime, the government charges your PROPERTY with a crime. Your property can't defend itself, so it is assumed "guilty". They take the property, sell it at auction, and then split it up among various government departments. All without YOU being convicted. Or even tried in a court of law. Or even being charged with a crime. It is currently a billion-dollar scam in this country.

So save your "durr durr meth dealer bad!" bullshit. You aren't a hard-ass for saying "throw away the key!" or "execute this guy!" or "he deserves it!". You just look ignorant for not considering the due process we have in this country that protects people like you and me from being railroaded without evidence. Maybe the guy IS guilty. That's fine. If he's guilty, throw the book at him. The mere fact that someone has charged him with a crime doesn't mean he deserves punishment nor that he deserves to have his property stolen from him, auctioned off, and then split amongst his local government agencies.

Just start his own new series:

[Tablizer]

"Captain Meth"

uninteresting

[Anonymous Coward]

"allegedly laundered drug profits by purchasing valuable comic books"
Large scale meth dealer launders his money using comics. Comics get confiscated.
Nothing interesting to see here.

If he was using gems, precious metals, or any other means whereby he could transform the value of his ill-gotten gains into something small, portable, legitimate, and easily transferable...they'd do they same thing. Now, when he converts it all to MMORPG gold to move it out of the country, then it'll be interesting.

That's all folks!

[kstahmer]

Th-th-th-that's all folks!

waste of time

[Anonymous Coward]

When are we going to give up this pointless and unconstitutional war on drugs?

Re:waste of time

[orphiuchus]

You know, one of the worst effects of the Marijuana prohibition has been that kids now days don't see a clear line between the light drugs and the hard ones. Just because Pot should be legal doesn't mean that Meth should. Its not even in the same universe of drugs.

Marijuana, Shrooms, Extacy(maybe), and a few others should probably be legal, but heroin, crack, meth, cocaine(sorry guys, its not a light drug), and anything else on that level should remain illegal.

You have to be pretty removed from reality to think that Meth should be a legal drug IMO.

Re:waste of time

[retchdog]

meth is technically more legal than any of your ought-to-be-legal examples above; it's schedule II since it's approved for treating ADHD (!!) and morbid exogenous obesity. of course it's probably almost impossible to get a prescription for it; i'm sure no doctor wants to risk their license in actually doing so.

it's a little weird that DEA hasn't moved meth to schedule I given all the real damage it causes; a case could be made that marijuana and MDMA have more medicinal use than meth, and DEA seems totally unmoved by that. maybe it's just inertia.

Worst sentence ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's it. It was all in the title.

I don't think prison rape is a serious problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think prison rape is anywhere near the problem people make it out to be - it is in the government's interest to perpetuate the myth to make people more scared of stepping out of line.

Re:I don't think prison rape is a serious problem

[j-beda]

How big of an issue does it need to be to be considered a big enough problem?

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Prison_rape_in_the_United_States

The way a society treats its least powerful and valued members, its enemies, and its critics is a measure of that society's strength and fitness. Unfortunately while "western" nations might score better on this type of scale than many other nations, we still have a lot of room for improvement.

Re:I don't think prison rape is a serious problem

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The way a society treats its least powerful and valued members, its enemies, and its critics is a measure of that society's strength and fitness.

Why do it's enemies matter?

And these people are treated badly because they are criminals, not because they are the least powerful or least valued.

Re:I don't think prison rape is a serious problem

[squizzar]

Because you have a justice system that sets the punishments for criminal actions. If being raped in prison is to be part of the punishment then the judge should state the number of times during sentencing.

Why not just use the death penalty for every crime? Cheaper than imprisoning people, zero re-offending rate, what's the catch?

Re:I don't think prison rape is a serious problem

[j-beda]

The way a society treats its least powerful and valued members, its enemies, and its critics is a measure of that society's strength and fitness.

Why do it's enemies matter?

Because they are a useful metric. The lowest level or respect a society shows for anyone, in my opinion, can be a good measure of how just, honorable, fair, etc. that society is overall. You don't get many "points" for treating your kings well - everyone does that. Treating your enemies well takes some serious effort.

And these people are treated badly because they are criminals, not because they are the least powerful or least valued.

Criminals, in general, are not valued highly by a society. In some sense, they are "enemies" of the society. I think it degrades us all when we treat them as less than human, even (or especially) if we feel that they have behaved in a less-than-human manner. Fortunately back in 1948 we all agreed to the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", so these types of abuse are purely theoretical at this point, no?

Article 5 - No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

As an aside, I heard an interview with a military doctor serving in Afghanistan who spoke about their policy of treating the wounded of the enemy Taliban. He said that personally he would be more than happy to leave them dying on the field, but that he recognized the tremendous PR value of actually fixing them up. He claimed that the Taliban were actually leaving their wounded by the side of the road on occasion because they realized they would get better treatment than could be offered by their own side. The doctor wondered how long the Taliban could maintain the idea that the west were a bunch of evil devils while implicitly stating that they gave their enemies as good treatment as they did their allies.

Re:I don't think prison rape is a serious problem

[Actually, I do RTFA]

If being raped in prison is to be part of the punishment then the judge should state the number of times during sentencing.

I disagreed with the statement about the fitness measure for a society. I also disagree with allowing prison rape to continue.

Why not just use the death penalty for every crime? Cheaper than imprisoning people, zero re-offending rate, what's the catch?

For one, you don't want to encourage kidnappers, armed robbers, etc to commit murder. So you do need something worse. Secondly, it's not cheaper. But third, I never said that they weren't deserving of some rights. I think if we can rehabilitate them, bully for society. I'd like that. I just see how society treats children born into poverty by providing them the means and encouragement to become middle-class+ to be a good measure of society, and how society treats criminals by rehabilitating and deterring future crimes to be a good measure of society. So if electroshock is the best way to accomplish both of those goals (without encouraging more witness killing), then great.

Re:War on drugs - Devils advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Just playing the role of Devil's advocate for the next few minutes... You say, "It doesn't stop drug use... Prohibition didn't work for alcohol and it certainly isn't working for drugs."
Using that analogy, there has been laws against drunk driving. Hasn't stopped the practice of drinking and driving. So should drunk driving laws be repealed and done away with because it hasn't stopped drunk drivers? Are we to eliminate any laws that fail to put an end to the situation trying to be controlled?

Payback

[ossuary]

I see it as a small bit of payback because of meth heads like him I can't buy a simple damned sudafed tablet anymore without a freaking act of congress, strip search, and a blood sample.

Re:Nobody Seems to Grasp The Government Abuse, Her

[Anonymous Coward]

Wake up.

You have no 'right' to be a drug dealer. These comic books are essentially stolen.

Re:Nobody Seems to Grasp The Government Abuse, Her

[Mashiara]

Yes, and when the goverment proves that he actually is a drug dealer *then* they can forfeit property as part of damages (punititive or otherwise), before the trial they can freeze the assets (not forfeit, *freeze* a *huge* difference) to avoid the property from "getting lost" (this is also a bit tricky, a person should be able to defend themselves but if all their assets are totally frozen how to do that ? [IMO using frozen property to fund defense should be allowed])

Gov only has to prove you couldn't afford it

[Anonymous Coward]

Civil asset forfeiture has it problems, but we're not talking about Tenaha, Texas here, but comic books worth $500k.

The gov only has to prove this alleged meth dealer didn't have legitimate income to buy $500k worth of comic books.
Really, does it make sense to you, to allow a meth dealer, to use his meth cash, to hire lawyers, to avoid going to prison for meth dealing?
Say if he was a COMIC BOOK THIEF and instead stole those comic books, should he be able to sell the stolen comic books to finance his defense?

Let's get to the important part, shall we?

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly is in his collection? After all if he's got Action Comics #1 and I can get it for pennies on the dollar (like houses or cars seized by the government), then there might be a plane flight to the auction in my future.

They are trying to get his ill-gotten gains

[Anonymous Coward]

While we can argue back and forth over whether civil forfeiture is abuse of government powers or not, to me this is the same as if he'd taken his alleged drug money and bough a car, jewelry, gold coins, stocks and securities, or stuffed $100 bills in his mattress.

If you are a drug dealer and you don't spend your ill-gotten money on services or on things like food that you use up before the feds bust you, expect that it will all be confiscated.

If you are into illegal activities, have a legal job and keep your illegal money completely segregated from your legal money. Use your legal money for "necessities" and for investments and use your illegal money for things like entertainment and other expenses so there is nothing left to seize.

Why use legal money for necessities? So the cops can't claim that your illegal money went to rent "displacing" your legal income thereby making the amount of your "legal" income that would have gone to necessities subject to seizure. Even if the government loses their argument your lawyer has more important things to do than fight that battle.

No illegal money was used in the posting of this comment.

This is why I hardly read Slashdot anymore..

[Anonymous Coward]

The user base is to fucking retarded to converse with.

Not only that, all the pro government/military propaganda they post here under the guise of 'tech' makes me want to vomit.

Also, no one in their right mind here would consider that drugs should be legal in the first place, and because the government said 'no don't take that! we know better' it means that it must be the right thing to do..

Run along sheep

good job Seumas

[BusyBeeNYC]

I agree with Seumas, enjoyed reading your comment ! http://www.bbcleaningservice.com/

Re:Nobody Seems to Grasp The Government Abuse, Her

[Anonymous Coward]

Wake up.

You have no 'right' to be a drug dealer. These comic books are essentially stolen.

Not the argument that OP made. Beyond that, the accused has not been tried yet, never mind found guilty - if later found not guilty at trial the wrongfully accused has now lost their property and has limited recourse.

The system is broken.

Re:Nobody Seems to Grasp The Government Abuse, Her

[Anonymous Coward]

So you contend that the most significant issue is that the government is taking someone's property against the 4th amendment. But I'm pretty sure the 4th amendment only protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures, and so I ask what specifically is unreasonable about the seizure? Honestly, I don't think conviction is required to make a seizure "reasonable."

For instance if there was a trailer full of comic books being exchanged for meth ingredients, then I think seizing the comic books and the meth ingredients and selling the comic books would be reasonable--but stupid, as they are also evidence. If the government sets the standard "backwards" that we have to prove our property wasn't involved in a crime to get it back, is this unreasonable?

Surely we would say requiring us to prove our own innocence was against the constitution, but the seizure of goods? If these comic books came from a legal source, the man (accused of dealing meth) could prove it and get them back, all he would have to do is show receipts for purchases and the paychecks he cashed and then used to buy the comic-books. But if he has $500,000 of comic books, in the same house he deals from and the cops come in and take i don't think it is unreasonable to require him to prove they weren't connected to the drugs.

I think you could find potential for abuse, but a receipt and a paycheck or other income source make it simple to prove your stuff is your own.

Turn from the norm

[Dawayne409]

Usually its people with drug addictions selling comic books to get more drugs, this guy is fueling his comic book addiction by selling drugs to get more comic books.....I find it refreshing.