If you were an uninsured person with a chronic medical condition working for minimum wage you might reconsider.
It's not like you're buying it on the street corner either. You can do some research about these places. A web site selling sugar pills as prescription drugs wouldn't last long and would definitely have some bad publicity you could find via Google search.
Hell, you could strike out on 9 places out of 10 and still save yourself money vs. US prices.
I REALLY doubt that a scammer would sell something poisonous. At worst, you're likely to get something inert.
If it wasn't ILLEGAL to set up a drug importing business, we wouldn't even be having this dialogue.
I think people who use online pharmacies generally know what they're looking for and have a prescription for the drug.
When getting it through "official channels" means $12K per year, and getting it through "unofficial channels" means $1200 per year, it's worth a little bit of risk, especially if the choice is between taking your meds and paying your rent and utility bills.
Importing prescription drugs into the U.S. from foreign countries is technically illegal. The FDA is definitely cracking down on cheap drugs from Canada.
I'm not saying that the guy is NOT dealing in crap and misrepresenting his sources, but this "safety" excuse is just a ruse. Even if his product was 100% pristine, there would be an issue. If his business ever got too big, they would come down on him with force.
Probably true. But all other drugs would be sold at a fair market price based on real supply/demand dynamics. Or maybe the drug companies would simply refuse to sell to Canadian retailers at the controlled price?
Businesses are "parasites"? If you're talking about the banking industry I agree. Businesses that are providing real goods and services help you, even if they are looking to maximize profits. I'll bet that a big business manufactured the device you used to post your comment. Another big business is probably providing your 3G or internet connection too. Do you feel victimized, or did you gladly exchange some of your wealth for these goods and services?
Socialism my ass! Competition is one of the foundations of free markets. Another one is consumer choice. Even the hardcore libertarians believe that there needs to be a tort system for settling disputes, and selling snake oil is at least a "tort". For the libertarians that believe in a minimal state, the act of fraud is a common law crime.
In the absence of the FDA, why couldn't someone start a business testing the quality of drugs? Why would any company intent on running and maintaining a profitable business deliberately sell garbage to their customers? Rather than have to submit data to the FDA, the drug companies could simply publish their research and the consumer, armed with the available knowledge could make his/her own decisions.
Think of the whole Vioxx fiasco. It increases the risk of stroke and heart attack so BAN IT COMPLETELY! That's government-think for you. Forget the fact that it was one of most effective treatments we had for arthritis pain. The trade-off between pain relief and risk of stroke and heart attack should be patient choice. Screw the FDA.
The fact that it's illegal to import drugs and medical devices is precisely what enables the snake-oil salesman who are only looking to make a quick buck in the short term.
Get rid of the import ban and legitimate businesses will spring up to fill this need. Those companies will have a desire to stay in business and will be concerned about quality and their reputation. Not to mention that they would be subject to U.S. tort law.
The FDA can add whatever spin they want. Their mission in cracking down on these online pharmacies and importers is to guard the profits of big pharma.
If it was not illegal to import drugs and medical devices, people wouldn't be forced to deal with these small, fly-by-night operations in the first place.
Consider the illegal drug trade. If you get burned by someone selling you powdered sugar while claiming it is cocaine, you basically have little recourse. You can't call the cops. You can't file a claim with the BBB. You can't organize a boycott or widely publicize the fact that they sold you garbage.
Similar with these online pharmacies. You can't easily show up in person to complain. You can't go to the U.S. authorities and claim you got ripped off when you were doing something illegal.
The U.S. government is basically forcing U.S. citizens to subsidize drug and medical device development for the rest of the world, and doing so under the auspices of "keeping us safe".
In a free market, there's no way a company could sell the SAME product for 1/10th the price just across the border.
The FDA is protecting the profits of the pharmaceutical industry. Plain and simple. I'll take freedom of choice any day.
Of course EVERYONE is safer if a hostile situation does not escalate into a firefight. However, in the vast majority of defensive firearms uses, the mere presence of a firearm is enough to deter a would-be criminal.
If you and your dad think you're safer without guns, by all means keep them disassembled in two separate safes. In the unlikely event of a break-in, you might survive, but how would you feel about yourself if you passively allowed your home to be robbed? What if you survived, but you allowed someone in your family to be hurt by a criminal while you watched helplessly? I'd probably open my two safes, re-assemble one of my firearms and shoot myself.
One of my pacifist anti-gun friends was robbed at knife-point while at a bus stop. He and his then-gf just brushed it off, thinking that the small amount of cash wasn't worth escalating the situation. I'm shaking my head just remembering the conversation because I can't imagine thinking about it like that. I'll take my chances of having an accident or being in a firefight rather than surrender to a criminal. I don't care if it's $20 or $2000.
"how is having a microscopic pattern on a fining pin "annoying" to the end user?"
First of all, the company is just going to pass along the costs to the customer. Next, the end user will need to disassemble the weapon, find the damned thing and file it off. It will also require a microscope to make sure that it was done successfully.
Can you now be charged for simply setting up and administering a carding forum? I RTFA but only skimmed the indictment. Not saying that this is all the guy was doing. Just curious. I think they've taken down most of these guys because they are not only administering the site, they're also active participants in the commerce.
"he actively hacked into and absconded with stolen card data taken from other fraud forums."
IANAL, but how can they prosecute you for stealing stolen stuff? Wouldn't this be like being charged for "grand larceny" for stealing illegal drugs from someone? Don't the victims need to press charges? I think the real crime will be transfer/sale of the stolen property.
Now, if the U.S. government would exert the same effort on investigating and prosecuting the big banks for their rampant acts of fraud, there might be some justice in this country.
"Did you know that a fresh credit card number is worth about $0.50 on the open market today?"
I didn't know that, and I doubt it. That might be the cut that the carder gives to the bus-boy, but it's my impression that the mag stripe data is worth a lot more than that on the open market.
"If the banks were losing out from this though would change the credit card system."
They're definitely losing big money but they're doing so much business that the losses don't have a material impact on their profits. Millions or maybe tens of millions vs. tens or hundreds of billions. Not enough to justify the expense of updating all the point-of-sale systems(they already have the technology to do this) and certainly not enough to make them want to change their policies of giving easy credit to anyone with a pulse.
"Neo-Nazi parties in Europe are on the far right and labelled as such in the European media."(sic)
I prefer the Heinlein political dichotomy:
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."
There are elements of both the "far left" and "far right" which strongly support the use of state power to achieve their objectives. Was Hitler "far right" (nationalism) or "far left"(socialism)? How about Stalin?
This linear view of the spectrum of political ideas is frustrating. In the USA, people(leftists mostly) accuse those who advocate individual liberty and small government as belonging to the "extreme right". There's certainly no parallel to the "far right" who want authoritarian government to carry out their policies.
What do you call the tax collectors then? The OP is right. To deny that taxes are forceful confiscation of wealth is to obscure the nature of government. Covering up this fact with the cloak of "society" or the "social contract" is just masking naked theft.
I'm not a stateless society advocate. I just think we need to recognize that government, by its very NATURE is the use of violent force to achieve certain objectives. Looking only at the benefits government provides is to deny this nature. When you put government in the right perspective, it becomes obvious that government should be the "solution" of last resort. Unfortunately, it is also an "expedient" way to achieve an objective, so it becomes a temptation to do everything by force.
"There are lines and boundaries to anything... Where these lie is a subject for discussion"
That's the fundamental problem. Those lines will always be arbitrary and, when enforced by the power of government, will be arbitrarily MOVED and selectively enforced to promote an agenda.
Absolute freedom of speech is a "simplistic" solution to this problem, but IMO, the potential abuse of those arbitrary boundaries vastly outweighs the abuses which stem from the absolutist stance.
I disagree. By your argument you have "free speech" as long as your expression itself isn't impaired. That's hardly possible, even for the most repressive regimes. Sew your mouth shut and cut off your fingers?
The whole point of the principle of free speech is that you can express yourself without fear of consequences (or as you say, "responsibility") or reprisal, especially from government. To the extent that one needs to fear reprisal above and beyond logical counter-argument, they should have anonymous speech.
The viewer/reader/listener should weigh any unattributed speech with skepticism, but banning it through the power of the state? No way.
You shouldn't watch TV in general, but especially not if you are in a distracted, yet emotionally charged state of mind. Those are the moments when humans are most vulnerable to suggestion.
"...bullets fired from the primary weapons carried by military personnel..."
There is no appreciable difference between the penetrating power of a projectile fired from a military rifle and one fired from the civilian equivalent of the same weapon. In fact, many of the civilian model AR-15s are "Mil-Spec" and a lot of the bulk ammo available is military surplus. The difference is only in rate of fire. Military versions can selectively fire in 3 round burst(or full auto on older versions).
"military-grade body armor will stop rounds fired by 99% of the weapons held by civilians"
Well, I don't have an accurate picture of the breakdown of civilian weapon ownership, but the protection ratings on the body armor are standards. The armor is either "Level 3" (or whatever) or it's not. Nothing special about military versions.
It's a supreme tragedy for the human race that eugenics has been so powerfully (perhaps inextricably) linked with the policies of Nazi Germany. We're fools for not being able to dissociate the two and take an objective look at the idea.
Why is it 'bullshit' to think that we just MIGHT be able to apply our knowledge of genetics to improve the condition of the human species across multiple future generations? Think about cystic fibrosis for example, a hereditary disease resulting from genetic contributions of both parents. From the perspective of overall human well being, is eliminating this disease in perpetuity not worth the inconvenience of a few people in each generation finding someone else to procreate with?
I don't presume to know the answers, but I think these sorts of questions are obviously relevant and our fear of the Nazis shouldn't preclude this type of discussion.
Your brain implant obviously needs to be upgraded to the newest version of the NewSpeak dictionary.
"I got this brain implant from Big Brother and I feel good. In fact, I feel plus-good. When I watch sitcoms, sports, and reality shows--it's double-plus-good."
"please don't think for a second that the people writing these "laws" are just stupid, that would be dangerous."
Precisely. The actions of government (like the scum in Washington D.C.) only appear idiotic when you assume that they are attempting to act in the best interests of the vast majority of the citizens. We shouldn't mistake evil for stupidity.
"If marketers are making false claims, go after them for false advertising."
Exactly. Fraud, including fraudulent misrepresentation of a product, should definitely be illegal. Government steps over the line when its minions begin interfering in our informed choices.
Slashdot Mirror
If you were an uninsured person with a chronic medical condition working for minimum wage you might reconsider.
It's not like you're buying it on the street corner either. You can do some research about these places. A web site selling sugar pills as prescription drugs wouldn't last long and would definitely have some bad publicity you could find via Google search.
Hell, you could strike out on 9 places out of 10 and still save yourself money vs. US prices.
I REALLY doubt that a scammer would sell something poisonous. At worst, you're likely to get something inert.
If it wasn't ILLEGAL to set up a drug importing business, we wouldn't even be having this dialogue.
I think people who use online pharmacies generally know what they're looking for and have a prescription for the drug.
When getting it through "official channels" means $12K per year, and getting it through "unofficial channels" means $1200 per year, it's worth a little bit of risk, especially if the choice is between taking your meds and paying your rent and utility bills.
Importing prescription drugs into the U.S. from foreign countries is technically illegal. The FDA is definitely cracking down on cheap drugs from Canada.
I'm not saying that the guy is NOT dealing in crap and misrepresenting his sources, but this "safety" excuse is just a ruse. Even if his product was 100% pristine, there would be an issue. If his business ever got too big, they would come down on him with force.
Probably true. But all other drugs would be sold at a fair market price based on real supply/demand dynamics. Or maybe the drug companies would simply refuse to sell to Canadian retailers at the controlled price?
This "artificial" import barrier is ridiculous.
Businesses are "parasites"? If you're talking about the banking industry I agree.
Businesses that are providing real goods and services help you, even if they are looking to maximize profits. I'll bet that a big business manufactured the device you used to post your comment. Another big business is probably providing your 3G or internet connection too. Do you feel victimized, or did you gladly exchange some of your wealth for these goods and services?
Socialism my ass! Competition is one of the foundations of free markets. Another one is consumer choice. Even the hardcore libertarians believe that there needs to be a tort system for settling disputes, and selling snake oil is at least a "tort". For the libertarians that believe in a minimal state, the act of fraud is a common law crime.
In the absence of the FDA, why couldn't someone start a business testing the quality of drugs? Why would any company intent on running and maintaining a profitable business deliberately sell garbage to their customers? Rather than have to submit data to the FDA, the drug companies could simply publish their research and the consumer, armed with the available knowledge could make his/her own decisions.
Think of the whole Vioxx fiasco. It increases the risk of stroke and heart attack so BAN IT COMPLETELY! That's government-think for you. Forget the fact that it was one of most effective treatments we had for arthritis pain. The trade-off between pain relief and risk of stroke and heart attack should be patient choice.
Screw the FDA.
The fact that it's illegal to import drugs and medical devices is precisely what enables the snake-oil salesman who are only looking to make a quick buck in the short term.
Get rid of the import ban and legitimate businesses will spring up to fill this need. Those companies will have a desire to stay in business and will be concerned about quality and their reputation. Not to mention that they would be subject to U.S. tort law.
The FDA can add whatever spin they want. Their mission in cracking down on these online pharmacies and importers is to guard the profits of big pharma.
If it was not illegal to import drugs and medical devices, people wouldn't be forced to deal with these small, fly-by-night operations in the first place.
Consider the illegal drug trade. If you get burned by someone selling you powdered sugar while claiming it is cocaine, you basically have little recourse. You can't call the cops. You can't file a claim with the BBB. You can't organize a boycott or widely publicize the fact that they sold you garbage.
Similar with these online pharmacies. You can't easily show up in person to complain. You can't go to the U.S. authorities and claim you got ripped off when you were doing something illegal.
The U.S. government is basically forcing U.S. citizens to subsidize drug and medical device development for the rest of the world, and doing so under the auspices of "keeping us safe".
In a free market, there's no way a company could sell the SAME product for 1/10th the price just across the border.
The FDA is protecting the profits of the pharmaceutical industry. Plain and simple. I'll take freedom of choice any day.
Of course EVERYONE is safer if a hostile situation does not escalate into a firefight. However, in the vast majority of defensive firearms uses, the mere presence of a firearm is enough to deter a would-be criminal.
If you and your dad think you're safer without guns, by all means keep them disassembled in two separate safes. In the unlikely event of a break-in, you might survive, but how would you feel about yourself if you passively allowed your home to be robbed? What if you survived, but you allowed someone in your family to be hurt by a criminal while you watched helplessly? I'd probably open my two safes, re-assemble one of my firearms and shoot myself.
One of my pacifist anti-gun friends was robbed at knife-point while at a bus stop. He and his then-gf just brushed it off, thinking that the small amount of cash wasn't worth escalating the situation. I'm shaking my head just remembering the conversation because I can't imagine thinking about it like that. I'll take my chances of having an accident or being in a firefight rather than surrender to a criminal. I don't care if it's $20 or $2000.
"how is having a microscopic pattern on a fining pin "annoying" to the end user?"
First of all, the company is just going to pass along the costs to the customer. Next, the end user will need to disassemble the weapon, find the damned thing and file it off. It will also require a microscope to make sure that it was done successfully.
Totally annoying!
Can you now be charged for simply setting up and administering a carding forum? I RTFA but only skimmed the indictment. Not saying that this is all the guy was doing. Just curious. I think they've taken down most of these guys because they are not only administering the site, they're also active participants in the commerce.
"he actively hacked into and absconded with stolen card data taken from other fraud forums."
IANAL, but how can they prosecute you for stealing stolen stuff? Wouldn't this be like being charged for "grand larceny" for stealing illegal drugs from someone? Don't the victims need to press charges? I think the real crime will be transfer/sale of the stolen property.
Now, if the U.S. government would exert the same effort on investigating and prosecuting the big banks for their rampant acts of fraud, there might be some justice in this country.
"Did you know that a fresh credit card number is worth about $0.50 on the open market today?"
I didn't know that, and I doubt it. That might be the cut that the carder gives to the bus-boy, but it's my impression that the mag stripe data is worth a lot more than that on the open market.
"If the banks were losing out from this though would change the credit card system."
They're definitely losing big money but they're doing so much business that the losses don't have a material impact on their profits. Millions or maybe tens of millions vs. tens or hundreds of billions. Not enough to justify the expense of updating all the point-of-sale systems(they already have the technology to do this) and certainly not enough to make them want to change their policies of giving easy credit to anyone with a pulse.
"Neo-Nazi parties in Europe are on the far right and labelled as such in the European media."(sic)
I prefer the Heinlein political dichotomy:
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."
There are elements of both the "far left" and "far right" which strongly support the use of state power to achieve their objectives. Was Hitler "far right" (nationalism) or "far left"(socialism)? How about Stalin?
This linear view of the spectrum of political ideas is frustrating. In the USA, people(leftists mostly) accuse those who advocate individual liberty and small government as belonging to the "extreme right". There's certainly no parallel to the "far right" who want authoritarian government to carry out their policies.
What do you call the tax collectors then? The OP is right. To deny that taxes are forceful confiscation of wealth is to obscure the nature of government. Covering up this fact with the cloak of "society" or the "social contract" is just masking naked theft.
I'm not a stateless society advocate. I just think we need to recognize that government, by its very NATURE is the use of violent force to achieve certain objectives. Looking only at the benefits government provides is to deny this nature. When you put government in the right perspective, it becomes obvious that government should be the "solution" of last resort. Unfortunately, it is also an "expedient" way to achieve an objective, so it becomes a temptation to do everything by force.
"There are lines and boundaries to anything ... Where these lie is a subject for discussion"
That's the fundamental problem. Those lines will always be arbitrary and, when enforced by the power of government, will be arbitrarily MOVED and selectively enforced to promote an agenda.
Absolute freedom of speech is a "simplistic" solution to this problem, but IMO, the potential abuse of those arbitrary boundaries vastly outweighs the abuses which stem from the absolutist stance.
I disagree. By your argument you have "free speech" as long as your expression itself isn't impaired. That's hardly possible, even for the most repressive regimes. Sew your mouth shut and cut off your fingers?
The whole point of the principle of free speech is that you can express yourself without fear of consequences (or as you say, "responsibility") or reprisal, especially from government. To the extent that one needs to fear reprisal above and beyond logical counter-argument, they should have anonymous speech.
The viewer/reader/listener should weigh any unattributed speech with skepticism, but banning it through the power of the state? No way.
You shouldn't watch TV in general, but especially not if you are in a distracted, yet emotionally charged state of mind. Those are the moments when humans are most vulnerable to suggestion.
"...bullets fired from the primary weapons carried by military personnel..."
There is no appreciable difference between the penetrating power of a projectile fired from a military rifle and one fired from the civilian equivalent of the same weapon. In fact, many of the civilian model AR-15s are "Mil-Spec" and a lot of the bulk ammo available is military surplus. The difference is only in rate of fire. Military versions can selectively fire in 3 round burst(or full auto on older versions).
"military-grade body armor will stop rounds fired by 99% of the weapons held by civilians"
Well, I don't have an accurate picture of the breakdown of civilian weapon ownership, but the protection ratings on the body armor are standards. The armor is either "Level 3" (or whatever) or it's not. Nothing special about military versions.
OK, let's see you mix up a few chemicals and create a kangaroo ... or even a bacterium.
"Someone call Digikey and order 600 million transistors!"
ROFL.
It's a supreme tragedy for the human race that eugenics has been so powerfully (perhaps inextricably) linked with the policies of Nazi Germany. We're fools for not being able to dissociate the two and take an objective look at the idea.
Why is it 'bullshit' to think that we just MIGHT be able to apply our knowledge of genetics to improve the condition of the human species across multiple future generations? Think about cystic fibrosis for example, a hereditary disease resulting from genetic contributions of both parents. From the perspective of overall human well being, is eliminating this disease in perpetuity not worth the inconvenience of a few people in each generation finding someone else to procreate with?
I don't presume to know the answers, but I think these sorts of questions are obviously relevant and our fear of the Nazis shouldn't preclude this type of discussion.
Your brain implant obviously needs to be upgraded to the newest version of the NewSpeak dictionary.
"I got this brain implant from Big Brother and I feel good. In fact, I feel plus-good. When I watch sitcoms, sports, and reality shows--it's double-plus-good."
"please don't think for a second that the people writing these "laws" are just stupid, that would be dangerous."
Precisely. The actions of government (like the scum in Washington D.C.) only appear idiotic when you assume that they are attempting to act in the best interests of the vast majority of the citizens.
We shouldn't mistake evil for stupidity.
"If marketers are making false claims, go after them for false advertising."
Exactly. Fraud, including fraudulent misrepresentation of a product, should definitely be illegal. Government steps over the line when its minions begin interfering in our informed choices.