Here here. Everyone keeps mentioning LED but LED is insanely expensive lighting. Florescent lighting is cost effective and cool while still being reasonably power efficient.
LED's give a high electrical efficiency but they aren't cost efficient even with the electrical savings and the LED's last forever thing is a myth especially given the larger number of elements to fail. You could achieve a better result with a mix of cool and warm fluorescent lights or daylight spectrum fluorescent. Really anything but those crappy 'grow light' fluorescent.
"How is suicide selfish? It's your life, no one elses, so you should be able to end it how and when you want."
That is exactly what people going down the selfish path to suicide are thinking. But it isn't about whether or not you have the right. It is about what happens afterward, the permanent emotional damage to those you love. My comments were primarily targeted at people going through emotional pain. Terminal illness and physical pain are something else altogether.
I don't think ease of application was the point of the exercise. If a couple hundred dollars worth of stuff and the effort of connecting a solenoid and plugging it in are enough to stop you then maybe you shouldn't be committing suicide.
At least in the case of carbon monoxide the procedure is basically the same. But carbon monoxide can be dangerous for those who find you.
"So instead they should selflessly suffer unspeakable physical or emotional pain indefinitely to save their loved ones from self-deluded guilt?"
Yes. At least with regard to the emotional pain. Indefinite unspeakable emotional pain is exactly what committing suicide inflicts on those who are about you. Physical pain and terminal illness are a different discussion.
People who are going through a great deal pull themselves together and move past it every single day. Suicide means never having a chance to do that. I can't tell you how many people I know who attempted suicide at some point and lead generally happy lives now. Most swear they would never kill themselves, not even because they got beyond what they were struggling with that time but because they saw the emotional damage that the attempt inflicted on their loved ones.
" anything that leaves someone that cares about you feeling bad is selfish"
Yes it is. Every time you choose your feelings over the feelings of others it is selfish. But death is a little different than telling your uncle that he undercooked your steak. You can't correct those feelings and they never go away.
"want to let someone go on in a worthless futile existence"
For the terminally ill that is one thing. For the rest, a worthless and futile existence is a feeling, not a reality. Emotions are subjective, on some level we've all chosen to feel how we feel. Which means that as long as you are alive there is a chance of encountering something that makes you feel differently about your lot. For instance, if you can't find meaning in what you have for yourself, you can find meaning in what you can do for others.
"maybe some people deserve a lifetime of self blame"
Maybe they do but suicide isn't selective. Everyone who cares about you including the ones you care about will have that same lifetime of self blame. Even people who just know you and work with you.
Possibly but not likely. The gas will disperse when the door is opened into the much larger space of the room and since it is a heavy gas it will settle to the floor (settle being a loose term here, heavy gas will dissipate altogether from most spaces in a reasonably short time). CO2 or the other gases mentioned like helium and nitrogen are inert (no fire or explosion risk) and are only harmful in a heavy enough concentration to deprive you of oxygen. In lower concentrations they are present in the atmosphere all the time.
If you use a timer you can have the gas tank output for only a couple hours and then shut off.
All that said. I'm definitely NOT advocating anyone do this. Suicide isn't the answer and people considering it aren't considering the fact that their family and loved ones will blame themselves no matter what you say or do. Call 1-800-273-8255 instead.
Your best friend no doubt blames himself. Maybe they don't admit it, maybe not all the time but you can't help it. Whether they find you or not suicide means everyone who cared about you will live with guilt for the rest of their lives.
People contemplating suicide are selfishly only considering their own feelings.
I guess if you have nobody who cares about you then you could dodge the selfish bullet. But you will give people who care about you a lifetime of self blame otherwise. Selfish.
The lethal injection is believed to be about the most painful and horrible death imaginable. The body is immobilized so that it LOOKS peaceful but that perfectly still individual is believed to be in a state of pain comparable to burning over their entire body.
The lethal injection isn't used because it is humane. It is used because the drug companies like getting $250,000 a shot.
Problem with that policy is that if a doctor giving a patient lethal doses of morphine is overlooked you don't have any way to catch the sick bastard who is murdering patients. After all, you can't ask them after the fact.
"A bullet works, too, but it leaves more of a mess for someone to clean up. I understand haning one's self isn't a bad way to go. Slitting your wrists might be a little painful, particularly if the blade isn't sharp."
For the sake of someone who might consider any of these things they are all bad ways to go. Most people don't know enough about bullets and human anatomy to be certain they don't end up a vegetable or paralyzed. Hanging is a horrible way to go along with drowning, it is a slow and painful process and most of the rope you would buy at the store will stretch when your weight is applied. My aunt hung herself on a closet door and I'll never forget the long fingernail grooves in the door.
Suicide is extremely selfish but if someone is going to do it a combination of drugs to put you to sleep and a heavy gas are what you need. Take strong pain killers, muscle relaxers, etc. Get a CO2 tank and a solenoid you can put on a timer then go into an enclosed space like a closet. The drugs put you to sleep, the gas makes sure you don't wake up. If I'm wrong somehow, or you didn't have enough drugs, or you otherwise find it unpleasant, just open the door to the enclosed space.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming all or even most individuals in the legal profession are evil, corrupt, etc. In fact, I've yet to find any individual in any profession that actually thinks of themselves as bad unless they were mentally ill. Group generalizations work when referring to the group but don't hold on the individual level. I know some people have trouble separating the two but I'm not one of them. I am strongly opposed to our corrupt and evil legal system, the legal profession as whole and lawyers as a generalized group are responsible for all of that, but I don't apply that to an individual attorney when I meet one on the street.
But even the best of the legal profession are supporting the broken and corrupt legal system by participating in it. As you've just demonstrated these well intentioned people and their actions make it harder to paint the system as evil and therefore get it reformed from without because they will be invoked when it is time to defend the profession and tradition.
I think he would argue that a software patent scheme that ran correctly is not practical in the real world.
Even if there are cases where software patents would be valid they are few and far between and the benefits of having them don't outweigh the problems.
For example, people discovered compression and encryption algorithms before software patents and likely would continue without them. Why? Because their actual applications are still covered under copyright and because people need compression and encryption. The people who develop this stuff don't hatch a plot to make something, patent it, and make a profit.
They have a problem, they develop a solution, then a lawyer comes in afterward and searches for any patentable technology. So it would have all been developed without the patents.
" I have plenty of policy complaints about some of the details, but overall it does exactly what it's supposed to: grant a strong, limited-time monopoly to inventors."
That isn't what it is supposed to do that is how it is supposed to do it. The strong limited-time monopolies are the tool not the end. The tool is given to congress to solve a particular problem and congress only has the authority to have a patent system if that system is designed to solve that problem AND SUCCEEDS. There is no evidence that invention is furthered by a patent system. Even if you suppose it is, there is definite evidence that progress is naturally speeding up in all areas of invention and patent term needs to be reduced periodically in order to prevent that monopoly from stopping others from developing improvements on it. As patent length drops the bar to get a patent and the cost should decrease as well. Personally I'd have no problem with patents that were more incremental in nature if they only lasted 3-6months and could be obtained with a quick email to the PTO in plain English along with an online card payment of $20. That would promote fast paced innovation and progress.
But none of that applies to software, software is a clear case of the patent system being broken. Software is math. Math is not invention, it is discovery, math is fundamentally true and a natural property of the universe so an algorithm is true before it is written, its results are true before they are calculated, you can't invent new math only discover it. Patents need not apply. However, there are multiple ways to express the same math and so an individual implementation of an algorithm or set of algorithms can be said to come under copyright.
There is no circumstance under which is benefits the public to have the same work covered under multiple forms of IP.
" I'm pretty strictly constitutionalist and while I understand the value of IP rights I also understand that there should be strict limitations on them including length of time."
^ He already clearly answered you. He has pointed out that he agrees with your conclusion and that it doesn't conflict with anything strict constitutionalists believe. Therefore it is a strawman attack.
Much like attacking evolution by pointing out how ridiculous it would be to claim we are descended from monkeys. It is an easily beaten strawman, evolution doesn't claim we were descended from monkeys but that claim bears a mock resemblance to something evolution does support, but the audience may not all be aware of that or sure of that so you've just created the appearance of scoring a logical point against evolution. If this is an actual debate the damage is greater because the opponent must give the point that we aren't decended from monkeys in any response. Many will walk away again thinking you've scored a point no matter how much the opponent tries to explain that his case has nothing to do with descending from monkeys.
It would nullify in practice most software (aka bogus) patents but it isn't going to impact patents on anything else.
It also isn't going to fix anything else. For instance, it wouldn't nullify any patents on my toaster. On the other hand, the patent system is still broken if someone thinks you can invent something related to a toaster that is worthy of a government granted monopoly.
"The point comes down to this: if I write it, I should be able to dictate the terms under which I will share it with the world."
Sure. That same is true if you wrote it and I got it from you. Writing it is like carving a statue. That is yours, right up until I get it. The writing or carving doesn't convey to you some sort of innate right above and beyond what you'd get if you simply bought the statue or written work it just saves you the cost of buying it or gains you the flexibility to have a statue or work that nobody else is making available to you.
So once I've gotten my hands on something you've distributed to me. I should be able to decompile it, modify it, recompile it, and start selling it in turn where I have no ability to stop others from doing the same. You in turn should be free to attempt to obfuscate your code, or attempt to gain some sort of leverage or mutual benefit that prevents me from doing this.
"You don't get to do whatever you want with this software (unless it's explicitly stated that you may, in the case of the BSD license) - you can have a copy if you want, you can do certain things with it, but you MUST comply with certain other restrictions and requirements that I've placed on the code. Failure to do so is a breach of the license, and thus opens you to legal action on the part of the rights holders."
Was there a point in there somewhere? I'm pretty sure that everyone is already aware that someone can choose any license they want and that not complying with its terms and restrictions is violating the license.
That is an impossible conflict. If the user is free to modify the code and redistribute it closed he is denying potentially thousands of other users the freedom to inspect, study, understand, and amend the program. That might be more free for that one user but it certainly isn't freedom for all users.
"IOW you prefer TRUE freedom from the user/developer's point of view."
Not true. He doesn't support the idea that a developer should be free to license his code under the GPL.
This is fairly typical of this argument. You don't hear people who like the GPL complaining about people choosing the BSD license. It is BSD supporters who want to deny the freedom to choose the GPL. Those who choose the GPL aren't arguing, they are defending themselves and their choice of license against unreasonable and unprovoked attacks from BSD supporters.
At the end of the day there is only one 'freedom' granted by the BSD license that isn't granted under the GPL. The ability to benefit from other people's work while hypocritically refusing to pass that ability along. There is nothing altruistic about wanting that 'freedom' or attacking people for their choice to not give it to you.
Not valid. The comment was clearly targeted at the GPL licensing model and the way it requires subsequent people who make use of GPL'd code to follow it.
A developer who has written an original work is free to use any license he chooses and there is nothing about the GPL stopping them. That is comparable to a vegetarian dinner eating with omnivores*.
The complaint is more akin to omnivores dining at your house being forced to eat a vegetarian meal you prepared because you are a vegetarian. While this situation might be annoying to them they are eating at your house, its your food, you did the work, you are a vegetarian and there is nothing at all stopping them from buying their own food and preparing their own meal. It is the same with someone who doesn't want to use the GPL but wants a free meal and that meal is GPL'd.
* I'm using omnivore in the same incorrect context that you are. Being an omnivore isn't a diet choice, it is a reference to the biological ability to process both animal and plant food sources. It isn't a use it or lose it type of thing (despite hallucinations of illness from broth) and all humans are omnivores regardless of their individual diet and the motivations behind it.
I've got no citations to support that but it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility. Congress can't make retroactive laws so laws they pass today can't retroactively revoke existing patents that were perfectly legal yesterday. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
It can however pass a law that would effectively make them unenforceable tomorrow which is what he is suggesting.
It's kind of sad that people would still put drug dealers on the evil list.
Empowering an individual to execute their RIGHT to choose what they want to put in their body is not evil and certainly doesn't belong on the same line with car thieves and human trafficking.
Unless you are referring to the crimes which are not drug dealing that sometimes happen in the black market drug trade? Drug prohibition is responsible for those crimes not drug dealing. Get rid of prohibition and drugs would be produced by farmers and legitimate labs and drug dealers would be Walgreens, CVS, and an isle at the grocery store. Sort of like what happened to the market for alcohol after prohibition. Hopefully when we stop outlawing other drugs we won't attach extra and unreasonable taxes on them like we do to Tobacco and Alcohol though.
Slashdot Mirror
custom lights sound pricey
Here here. Everyone keeps mentioning LED but LED is insanely expensive lighting. Florescent lighting is cost effective and cool while still being reasonably power efficient.
LED's give a high electrical efficiency but they aren't cost efficient even with the electrical savings and the LED's last forever thing is a myth especially given the larger number of elements to fail. You could achieve a better result with a mix of cool and warm fluorescent lights or daylight spectrum fluorescent. Really anything but those crappy 'grow light' fluorescent.
"How is suicide selfish? It's your life, no one elses, so you should be able to end it how and when you want."
That is exactly what people going down the selfish path to suicide are thinking. But it isn't about whether or not you have the right. It is about what happens afterward, the permanent emotional damage to those you love. My comments were primarily targeted at people going through emotional pain. Terminal illness and physical pain are something else altogether.
"You are extremely selfish and ignorant of the facts. This topic is not about someone taking their own life because of"
The story was about that. Most post was in reference to suicide in general.
I don't think ease of application was the point of the exercise. If a couple hundred dollars worth of stuff and the effort of connecting a solenoid and plugging it in are enough to stop you then maybe you shouldn't be committing suicide.
At least in the case of carbon monoxide the procedure is basically the same. But carbon monoxide can be dangerous for those who find you.
"So instead they should selflessly suffer unspeakable physical or emotional pain indefinitely to save their loved ones from self-deluded guilt?"
Yes. At least with regard to the emotional pain. Indefinite unspeakable emotional pain is exactly what committing suicide inflicts on those who are about you. Physical pain and terminal illness are a different discussion.
People who are going through a great deal pull themselves together and move past it every single day. Suicide means never having a chance to do that. I can't tell you how many people I know who attempted suicide at some point and lead generally happy lives now. Most swear they would never kill themselves, not even because they got beyond what they were struggling with that time but because they saw the emotional damage that the attempt inflicted on their loved ones.
" anything that leaves someone that cares about you feeling bad is selfish"
Yes it is. Every time you choose your feelings over the feelings of others it is selfish. But death is a little different than telling your uncle that he undercooked your steak. You can't correct those feelings and they never go away.
"want to let someone go on in a worthless futile existence"
For the terminally ill that is one thing. For the rest, a worthless and futile existence is a feeling, not a reality. Emotions are subjective, on some level we've all chosen to feel how we feel. Which means that as long as you are alive there is a chance of encountering something that makes you feel differently about your lot. For instance, if you can't find meaning in what you have for yourself, you can find meaning in what you can do for others.
"maybe some people deserve a lifetime of self blame"
Maybe they do but suicide isn't selective. Everyone who cares about you including the ones you care about will have that same lifetime of self blame. Even people who just know you and work with you.
Possibly but not likely. The gas will disperse when the door is opened into the much larger space of the room and since it is a heavy gas it will settle to the floor (settle being a loose term here, heavy gas will dissipate altogether from most spaces in a reasonably short time). CO2 or the other gases mentioned like helium and nitrogen are inert (no fire or explosion risk) and are only harmful in a heavy enough concentration to deprive you of oxygen. In lower concentrations they are present in the atmosphere all the time.
If you use a timer you can have the gas tank output for only a couple hours and then shut off.
All that said. I'm definitely NOT advocating anyone do this. Suicide isn't the answer and people considering it aren't considering the fact that their family and loved ones will blame themselves no matter what you say or do. Call 1-800-273-8255 instead.
Your best friend no doubt blames himself. Maybe they don't admit it, maybe not all the time but you can't help it. Whether they find you or not suicide means everyone who cared about you will live with guilt for the rest of their lives.
People contemplating suicide are selfishly only considering their own feelings.
I guess if you have nobody who cares about you then you could dodge the selfish bullet. But you will give people who care about you a lifetime of self blame otherwise. Selfish.
The lethal injection is believed to be about the most painful and horrible death imaginable. The body is immobilized so that it LOOKS peaceful but that perfectly still individual is believed to be in a state of pain comparable to burning over their entire body.
The lethal injection isn't used because it is humane. It is used because the drug companies like getting $250,000 a shot.
Problem with that policy is that if a doctor giving a patient lethal doses of morphine is overlooked you don't have any way to catch the sick bastard who is murdering patients. After all, you can't ask them after the fact.
"A bullet works, too, but it leaves more of a mess for someone to clean up. I understand haning one's self isn't a bad way to go. Slitting your wrists might be a little painful, particularly if the blade isn't sharp."
For the sake of someone who might consider any of these things they are all bad ways to go. Most people don't know enough about bullets and human anatomy to be certain they don't end up a vegetable or paralyzed. Hanging is a horrible way to go along with drowning, it is a slow and painful process and most of the rope you would buy at the store will stretch when your weight is applied. My aunt hung herself on a closet door and I'll never forget the long fingernail grooves in the door.
Suicide is extremely selfish but if someone is going to do it a combination of drugs to put you to sleep and a heavy gas are what you need. Take strong pain killers, muscle relaxers, etc. Get a CO2 tank and a solenoid you can put on a timer then go into an enclosed space like a closet. The drugs put you to sleep, the gas makes sure you don't wake up. If I'm wrong somehow, or you didn't have enough drugs, or you otherwise find it unpleasant, just open the door to the enclosed space.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming all or even most individuals in the legal profession are evil, corrupt, etc. In fact, I've yet to find any individual in any profession that actually thinks of themselves as bad unless they were mentally ill. Group generalizations work when referring to the group but don't hold on the individual level. I know some people have trouble separating the two but I'm not one of them. I am strongly opposed to our corrupt and evil legal system, the legal profession as whole and lawyers as a generalized group are responsible for all of that, but I don't apply that to an individual attorney when I meet one on the street.
But even the best of the legal profession are supporting the broken and corrupt legal system by participating in it. As you've just demonstrated these well intentioned people and their actions make it harder to paint the system as evil and therefore get it reformed from without because they will be invoked when it is time to defend the profession and tradition.
I think he would argue that a software patent scheme that ran correctly is not practical in the real world.
Even if there are cases where software patents would be valid they are few and far between and the benefits of having them don't outweigh the problems.
For example, people discovered compression and encryption algorithms before software patents and likely would continue without them. Why? Because their actual applications are still covered under copyright and because people need compression and encryption. The people who develop this stuff don't hatch a plot to make something, patent it, and make a profit.
They have a problem, they develop a solution, then a lawyer comes in afterward and searches for any patentable technology. So it would have all been developed without the patents.
" I have plenty of policy complaints about some of the details, but overall it does exactly what it's supposed to: grant a strong, limited-time monopoly to inventors."
That isn't what it is supposed to do that is how it is supposed to do it. The strong limited-time monopolies are the tool not the end. The tool is given to congress to solve a particular problem and congress only has the authority to have a patent system if that system is designed to solve that problem AND SUCCEEDS. There is no evidence that invention is furthered by a patent system. Even if you suppose it is, there is definite evidence that progress is naturally speeding up in all areas of invention and patent term needs to be reduced periodically in order to prevent that monopoly from stopping others from developing improvements on it. As patent length drops the bar to get a patent and the cost should decrease as well. Personally I'd have no problem with patents that were more incremental in nature if they only lasted 3-6months and could be obtained with a quick email to the PTO in plain English along with an online card payment of $20. That would promote fast paced innovation and progress.
But none of that applies to software, software is a clear case of the patent system being broken. Software is math. Math is not invention, it is discovery, math is fundamentally true and a natural property of the universe so an algorithm is true before it is written, its results are true before they are calculated, you can't invent new math only discover it. Patents need not apply. However, there are multiple ways to express the same math and so an individual implementation of an algorithm or set of algorithms can be said to come under copyright.
There is no circumstance under which is benefits the public to have the same work covered under multiple forms of IP.
" I'm pretty strictly constitutionalist and while I understand the value of IP rights I also understand that there should be strict limitations on them including length of time."
^ He already clearly answered you. He has pointed out that he agrees with your conclusion and that it doesn't conflict with anything strict constitutionalists believe. Therefore it is a strawman attack.
Much like attacking evolution by pointing out how ridiculous it would be to claim we are descended from monkeys. It is an easily beaten strawman, evolution doesn't claim we were descended from monkeys but that claim bears a mock resemblance to something evolution does support, but the audience may not all be aware of that or sure of that so you've just created the appearance of scoring a logical point against evolution. If this is an actual debate the damage is greater because the opponent must give the point that we aren't decended from monkeys in any response. Many will walk away again thinking you've scored a point no matter how much the opponent tries to explain that his case has nothing to do with descending from monkeys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
It would nullify in practice most software (aka bogus) patents but it isn't going to impact patents on anything else.
It also isn't going to fix anything else. For instance, it wouldn't nullify any patents on my toaster. On the other hand, the patent system is still broken if someone thinks you can invent something related to a toaster that is worthy of a government granted monopoly.
"The point comes down to this: if I write it, I should be able to dictate the terms under which I will share it with the world."
Sure. That same is true if you wrote it and I got it from you. Writing it is like carving a statue. That is yours, right up until I get it. The writing or carving doesn't convey to you some sort of innate right above and beyond what you'd get if you simply bought the statue or written work it just saves you the cost of buying it or gains you the flexibility to have a statue or work that nobody else is making available to you.
So once I've gotten my hands on something you've distributed to me. I should be able to decompile it, modify it, recompile it, and start selling it in turn where I have no ability to stop others from doing the same. You in turn should be free to attempt to obfuscate your code, or attempt to gain some sort of leverage or mutual benefit that prevents me from doing this.
"You don't get to do whatever you want with this software (unless it's explicitly stated that you may, in the case of the BSD license) - you can have a copy if you want, you can do certain things with it, but you MUST comply with certain other restrictions and requirements that I've placed on the code. Failure to do so is a breach of the license, and thus opens you to legal action on the part of the rights holders."
Was there a point in there somewhere? I'm pretty sure that everyone is already aware that someone can choose any license they want and that not complying with its terms and restrictions is violating the license.
That is an impossible conflict. If the user is free to modify the code and redistribute it closed he is denying potentially thousands of other users the freedom to inspect, study, understand, and amend the program. That might be more free for that one user but it certainly isn't freedom for all users.
"IOW you prefer TRUE freedom from the user/developer's point of view."
Not true. He doesn't support the idea that a developer should be free to license his code under the GPL.
This is fairly typical of this argument. You don't hear people who like the GPL complaining about people choosing the BSD license. It is BSD supporters who want to deny the freedom to choose the GPL. Those who choose the GPL aren't arguing, they are defending themselves and their choice of license against unreasonable and unprovoked attacks from BSD supporters.
At the end of the day there is only one 'freedom' granted by the BSD license that isn't granted under the GPL. The ability to benefit from other people's work while hypocritically refusing to pass that ability along. There is nothing altruistic about wanting that 'freedom' or attacking people for their choice to not give it to you.
Not valid. The comment was clearly targeted at the GPL licensing model and the way it requires subsequent people who make use of GPL'd code to follow it.
A developer who has written an original work is free to use any license he chooses and there is nothing about the GPL stopping them. That is comparable to a vegetarian dinner eating with omnivores*.
The complaint is more akin to omnivores dining at your house being forced to eat a vegetarian meal you prepared because you are a vegetarian. While this situation might be annoying to them they are eating at your house, its your food, you did the work, you are a vegetarian and there is nothing at all stopping them from buying their own food and preparing their own meal. It is the same with someone who doesn't want to use the GPL but wants a free meal and that meal is GPL'd.
* I'm using omnivore in the same incorrect context that you are. Being an omnivore isn't a diet choice, it is a reference to the biological ability to process both animal and plant food sources. It isn't a use it or lose it type of thing (despite hallucinations of illness from broth) and all humans are omnivores regardless of their individual diet and the motivations behind it.
I've got no citations to support that but it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility. Congress can't make retroactive laws so laws they pass today can't retroactively revoke existing patents that were perfectly legal yesterday. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
It can however pass a law that would effectively make them unenforceable tomorrow which is what he is suggesting.
It's kind of sad that people would still put drug dealers on the evil list.
Empowering an individual to execute their RIGHT to choose what they want to put in their body is not evil and certainly doesn't belong on the same line with car thieves and human trafficking.
Unless you are referring to the crimes which are not drug dealing that sometimes happen in the black market drug trade? Drug prohibition is responsible for those crimes not drug dealing. Get rid of prohibition and drugs would be produced by farmers and legitimate labs and drug dealers would be Walgreens, CVS, and an isle at the grocery store. Sort of like what happened to the market for alcohol after prohibition. Hopefully when we stop outlawing other drugs we won't attach extra and unreasonable taxes on them like we do to Tobacco and Alcohol though.