RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [Politech] Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 1984 has arrived [priv]]
Supposedly, the tobacco companies have had commercial marijuana products ready forever (I've even seen photos, but I always suspected they were doctored up stoner's dreams). The idea that the pharmaceutical companies would start actively researching new designer drugs is fascinating and scary...wait, scratch that scary, because it can't be scarier than drug-related crime in the US. The New York Times Magazine had a fascinating story years back on the US's marijuana industry. it's apparently the #2 export crop and US pot technology is in some cases extremely, uh, high. They described growers with strings of apartments in various US states connected with sesnors to the internet. If any of the apartments showed signs of entry, the grower would never return. (Each apartment supposedly had low levels of crops to fly under certain state laws if they were ever caught.) No doubt some of those growers are good customers of RSA products! -TD From: Trei, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED], cypherpunks@minder.net, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [Politech] Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 1984 has arrived [priv]] Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:39:17 -0400 Tyler Durden writes: Yes, but the old question needs to be asked: How much of this crime would go away if crystal meth were legal? Actually, if we ever managed to kill the culture of prohibition, I suspect that crystal meth would be about as popular is bathtub gin is today. It's terrible stuff. I'd expect the big pharmas to start 'recreational drug' wings, which would bring real research power to the problem of finding highs which are fun, safe, affordable, and with minimal physical addiction. I need a new drug... Peter Trei
RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [Politech] Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 1984 has arrived [priv]]
At 10:39 AM 8/23/2005, Trei, Peter wrote: Tyler Durden writes: Yes, but the old question needs to be asked: How much of this crime would go away if crystal meth were legal? Actually, if we ever managed to kill the culture of prohibition, I suspect that crystal meth would be about as popular is bathtub gin is today. It's terrible stuff. Meth is not fundamentally that different from Sudafed, and the nasty chemical processes of extracting the sugar coating and filler material and moving around a couple of methyl and hydroxy groups and disposing of the bodies of the people you thought were ratting you out to the police and the space alien biker gangs could all be avoided if you could make it legally at a big pharma company. Before the War on Drugs started helping us by making Sudafed hard to get, the generic pills tended to be on sale for about ten cents per 30mg dose. If I'm reading Erowid correctly, and guessing the kinds of quantities a tweaker might use if it were readily available and nearly free, a buck or two a day would cover all the meth you could use, and you could easily make that much at a minimum-wage job in the extra hours you've got that you used to waste sleeping, and you wouldn't have to resort to crime unless it seemed like more fun. Also, you could use somewhat calmer amphetamine relatives instead of meth; can't be *that* much nastier than tobacco, and much of the cost of legal pharmaceutical amphetamines today is the DEA paperwork. Opiates are another drug for which crime would be unnecessary if the stuff were legal. The last time I got codeine for dental work, I think I spent about $5 for 20-30 pills. That's enough for a day of Rush-Limbaugh-quantity abuse, and enough for a couple of days' worth of withdrawal-prevention for an average addict, and stronger opiates are similar in cost; opiate addiction doesn't need to be as expensive as tobacco addiction. By the way, if you've watched the TV medical drama House, the star is an acerbic doctor who's addicted to Vicodin, as an after-effect of leg injury, and it's interesting to see the wall of political correctness cracking a bit.
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [Politech] Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 1984 has arrived [priv]]
On 8/23/05, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Tyler Durden wrote: Yes, but the old question needs to be asked: How much of this crime would go away if crystal meth were legal? agreed; though i'd rather see them taking something less neurotoxic, like dex or racemic amphetamine. Lets not forget the lessons of the NYC Methadone Maintenance Programs either... Along with legalization must come the removal of monopoly practices such a single sourcing of the drug and prescriptions to dispense. Only then does the free market take over and keep the price, and the crime, low. fortunately stimulants are some of the cheapest drugs to produce minus all the regulatory overhead. I like the idea of belief in drug-prohibition as a religion in that it is a strongly held belief based on grossly insufficient evidence and bolstered by faith born of intuitions flowing from the very beliefs they are intended to support. don zweig, M.D. i'm saving this quote :)
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [Politech] Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 1984 has arrived [priv]]
On 8/21/05, Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... As for crystal meth, I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but if I want to pour something from my chemistry set down my throat that shouldn't be anybody's business. The fact that it doesn't accidentally kill me and indeed gives me a buzz shouldn't be the sole provence of the pharmaceutical companies. After that, if you want to make laws about selling the stuff well that's a different matter. the state of oregon just passed a law (yet to be put into effect) that requires a prescription from a doctor for all sudafed (pseudo ephedrine) purchases. the problem isn't drug addicts killing themselves with corrosive fluids, as this would be a problem that solves itself in short order, but rather that meth heads are idiotic crime machines. i've had numerous friends and acquaintances affected by this (vehicles stolen or broken into, property damaged and/or stolen, tweakers robbing at knife point, etc, etc) and it's getting ridiculous*. big brother isn't the answer, but when you get a lot of pissed off citizens and overwhelmed police involved the solutions they settle for are going to be ugly and invasive. what a fucking mess... * last week a tweaker out of jail for only a few weeks went around to our hay growers neighbors and stole all sorts of random crap from homes up and down the road he lived on. everything from elk antlers to hand made arrows for bow hunting, power tools loaded into a wheel barrow, the most random crap. the only reason he didn't hit our hay grower was that last time he stole from them they went to his parents house and told him the next time your son steals from my home you'll be attending a funeral. now that's closer to an effective solution. :)
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [Politech] Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 1984 has arrived [priv]]
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Tyler Durden wrote: Yes, but the old question needs to be asked: How much of this crime would go away if crystal meth were legal? There's little doubt that the vast majority of drug-related crime stems not from some crazed crime spree but from issues relating to supply and demand. Legalizing drug XYZ no doubt drops the cost. Lets not forget the lessons of the NYC Methadone Maintenance Programs either. While heroin results in crime due to high cost (by virtue of illegalization), the legal version also creates crime due to it's high cost. The MMPs have the same Money or else position that the junkie faces on the street, and while the prices are certainly lower, they are NOT low. In 1983 a junkie expected to pay $40-$80 per *day* for maintenance (I'm sure it's a lot higher today). Along with legalization must come the removal of monopoly practices such a single sourcing of the drug and prescriptions to dispense. Only then does the free market take over and keep the price, and the crime, low. Then again, if we legalized a lot of drugs then what would all those corrections officers do for a living? Become airport security experts no doubt. Move Stars. Presidents. McBodies... -TD -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0xBD4A95BF I like the idea of belief in drug-prohibition as a religion in that it is a strongly held belief based on grossly insufficient evidence and bolstered by faith born of intuitions flowing from the very beliefs they are intended to support. don zweig, M.D.
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [Politech] Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 1984 has arrived [priv]]
Coderman wrote... the state of oregon just passed a law (yet to be put into effect) that requires a prescription from a doctor for all sudafed (pseudo ephedrine) purchases. the problem isn't drug addicts killing themselves with corrosive fluids, as this would be a problem that solves itself in short order, but rather that meth heads are idiotic crime machines. i've had numerous friends and acquaintances affected by this (vehicles stolen or broken into, property damaged and/or stolen, tweakers robbing at knife point, etc, etc) and it's getting ridiculous*. Yes, but the old question needs to be asked: How much of this crime would go away if crystal meth were legal? There's little doubt that the vast majority of drug-related crime stems not from some crazed crime spree but from issues relating to supply and demand. Legalizing drug XYZ no doubt drops the cost. Then again, if we legalized a lot of drugs then what would all those corrections officers do for a living? Become airport security experts no doubt. -TD
RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [Politech] Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 1984 has arrived [priv]]
Tyler Durden writes: Yes, but the old question needs to be asked: How much of this crime would go away if crystal meth were legal? Actually, if we ever managed to kill the culture of prohibition, I suspect that crystal meth would be about as popular is bathtub gin is today. It's terrible stuff. I'd expect the big pharmas to start 'recreational drug' wings, which would bring real research power to the problem of finding highs which are fun, safe, affordable, and with minimal physical addiction. I need a new drug... Peter Trei
RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [Politech] Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 1984 has arrived [priv]]
Holy Fuck we need some smarter people in this society. OK, you threw away your trash. I see no inherent reason why someone else can't grab it. But INFORMATION about you isn't trash. Then again, you do throw away the photons that exit through your windows, so I guess cops should be able to stare at you through binoculars all the time and haul you in based on the photons you've thrown away. Oh, and to take it further, police should have immediate, un-warranted access to the trashcan on your computer, at all times. Indeed, there should be a registry that constantly monitors what you're throwing away, because it's just (digital) trash, right? As for crystal meth, I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but if I want to pour something from my chemistry set down my throat that shouldn't be anybody's business. The fact that it doesn't accidentally kill me and indeed gives me a buzz shouldn't be the sole provence of the pharmaceutical companies. After that, if you want to make laws about selling the stuff well that's a different matter. -TD From: Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [Politech] Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 1984 has arrived [priv]] Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:55:41 +0200 - Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: Declan McCullagh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 12:20:34 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Politech] Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 1984 has arrived [priv] User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Macintosh/20050317) http://news.com.com/2061-10796_3-5820618.html Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 1984 has arrived August 5, 2005 12:13 PM PDT Believe it or not, it's perfectly legal for police to rummage through your garbage for incriminating stuff on you -- even if they don't have a warrant or court approval. The Supreme Court of Montana ruled last month that police could conduct a warrantless trash dive into the trash cans in the alley behind the home of a man named Darrell Pelvit. The cops discovered pseudoephedrine boxes -- a solvent with uses including the manufacture of methamphetamine -- and Pelvit eventually ended up in prison. Pelvit's attorney argued that his client had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his trash, but the court rejected the argument and said the trash was, well, meant to be thrown away. What's remarkable is the concurring opinion of Montana Supreme Court Justice James C. Nelson, who reluctantly went along with his colleagues but warned that George Orwell's 1984 had arrived. We reproduce his concurring opinion in full: -Declan -- Justice James C. Nelson concurs. I have signed our Opinion because we have correctly applied existing legal theory and constitutional jurisprudence to resolve this case on its facts. I feel the pain of conflict, however. I fear that, eventually, we are all going to become collateral damage in the war on drugs, or terrorism, or whatever war is in vogue at the moment. I retain an abiding concern that our Declaration of Rights not be killed by friendly fire. And, in this day and age, the courts are the last, if not only, bulwark to prevent that from happening. In truth, though, we area throw-away society. My garbage can contains the remains of what I eat and drink. It may contain discarded credit card receipts along with yesterday's newspaper and junk mail. It might hold some personal letters, bills, receipts, vouchers, medical records, photographs and stuff that is imprinted with the multitude of assigned numbers that allow me access to the global economy and vice versa. My garbage can contains my DNA. As our Opinion states, what we voluntarily throw away, what we discard--i.e., what we abandon--is fair game for roving animals, scavengers, busybodies, crooks and for those seeking evidence of criminal enterprise. Yet, as I expect with most people, when I take the day's trash (neatly packaged in opaque plastic bags) to the garbage can each night, I give little consideration to what I am throwing away and less thought, still, to what might become of my refuse. I don't necessarily envision that someone or something is going to paw through it looking for a morsel of food, a discarded treasure, a stealable part of my identity or a piece of evidence. But, I've seen that happen enough times to understand--though not graciously accept--that there is nothing sacred in whatever privacy interest I think I have retained in my trash once it leaves my control--the Fourth Amendment and Article II, Sections 10 and 11, notwithstanding. Like it or not, I live in a society that accepts virtual strip searches at airports; surveillance cameras; discount cards that record my buying habits; bar codes; cookies and spywear on my computer; on-line access to satellite technology that can image my back yard; and microchip radio frequency identification devices already implanted
