Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

47 of 317 comments (clear)

  1. He even looks like Comic Book Store guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!

  2. Why is this here? by Jiro · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    2. Re:Why is this here? by spiffmastercow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Why is this here? by Schadrach · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Why is this here? by Seumas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?

    5. Re:Why is this here? by sjames · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:Why is this here? by don.g · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Pretend that something especially witty is here. Thanks.
    7. Re:Why is this here? by DavidTC · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    8. Re:Why is this here? by spiffmastercow · · Score: 2

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

      You mean the newspapers that Rupert Murdoch bought?

    9. Re:Why is this here? by spiffmastercow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  3. Re:Values by Desler · · Score: 2

    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!!!!

  4. Where's the news here? by Kosi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Where's the news here? by hedwards · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:Where's the news here? by Kosi · · Score: 2

      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.

    3. Re:Where's the news here? by sjames · · Score: 2

      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.

  5. Re:Values by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    At least he didn't invest in beanie babies.

  6. War on drugs by damicatz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:War on drugs by Kosi · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    2. Re:War on drugs by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      that would be a war on society, then.

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

      interesting, huh?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:War on drugs by DavidTC · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    4. Re:War on drugs by Kosi · · Score: 2

      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.

    5. Re:War on drugs by Kosi · · Score: 2

      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.

  7. Re:It's A Bird, It's A Plane ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  8. Re:Illegal fines by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 2

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

  9. Gosh, I hope he gets a single cell by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2

    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.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Gosh, I hope he gets a single cell by don.g · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Pretend that something especially witty is here. Thanks.
  10. Re:Illegal fines by Iamthecheese · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  11. Re:It's Big Pharna by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:It's Big Pharna by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

    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?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  13. This would have been great on Miami Vice! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  14. Re:It's Big Pharna by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  15. This is called 'Laundering' by orphiuchus · · Score: 3, Informative

    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!

    1. Re:This is called 'Laundering' by cptnapalm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  16. Re:It's Big Pharna by Artifakt · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  17. Re:It's Big Pharna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    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.

  18. Fucking good! by Darth_brooks · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
  19. Re:TRWTF is YRO by Seumas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  20. Re:Illegal fines by sjames · · Score: 2

    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.

  21. Re:Police confiscating evidence is not news by sjames · · Score: 2

    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.

  22. Re:It's Big Pharna by reub2000 · · Score: 2

    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.

  23. Re:It's Big Pharna by reub2000 · · Score: 2

    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.

  24. Nobody Seems to Grasp The Government Abuse, Here. by Seumas · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  25. Re:It's Big Pharna by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  26. Re:Illegal fines by dreampod · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  27. Re:It's Big Pharna by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  28. Payback by ossuary · · Score: 2

    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.