hustler

iTrader: (6)

Thanks for killing the Earth with your half-breath bullshit.

FRT_Fun

iTrader: (19)

asthmatic kids should have died off years ago. we need to let evolution take place!

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Yes, I'm aware of that. Which is why I said in post #17 of this thread (on the subject of my experience in going to the store to purchase the generic equivalent of Claritin-D) "and then tap a button on the screen and sign you name on a line saying that you promise not to operate a meth lab."



Unfortunately, as we have discussed many times in the past, no law is perfect.

The only sure-fire way that I can think of to prevent people from manufacturing meth would be to place every person in the US under constant surveillance, in the manner of Orwell's 1984 or modern-day Great Britain. A slightly less comprehensive method would be to repeal the fourth amendment, and engage in the practice of unrestricted periodic inspections of every residence and place of business within the US.

But beyond the practical problems of implementing such policies (cost of installing and monitoring surveillance equipment, revolt and overthrow of the government, etc) I expect that you would not deem any of these practices to be acceptable.

So what can we do? Since we have agreed for the purpose of this discussion to assume that it is morally correct to criminalize meth manufacturing, how can we actually enforce that law?


Well, one approach would be to take a reactive posture. Do nothing to prevent the production and distribution of meth, but prosecute those who you find selling or consuming meth. This is not an entirely ineffective method, although the history of America's failed "war on drugs" would suggest that it is not an optimal one.


Another approach would be to limit the availability of the means to produce meth.

Many products in the US which have legal, practical applications still bear restrictions on their sale due to the fact that they are also highly likely to be used for illegal purposes, or in furthering the goal of committing an illegal act. Explosives are one example of this- there are many legitimate uses for both ready-made explosives (TNT, Dynamite, ANFO) as well as chemical compounds and devices which are a crucial ingredient in the fabrication of explosives (ammonium nitrate, primacord, blasting caps, etc.)

These products are used every day in the US for the purposes of construction, mining, agriculture, and so on. Would you argue, therefore, that there should be no restrictions at all on their sale?


If one searches hard enough, one can find examples of cases where a bumbling law enforcement officer or bureaucrat has arrested / prosecuted someone who was technically violating the law, but with genuinely innocent (and harmless) intentions. Such cases call for better education of the public (eg: signage at points-of-sale), better education of civilians responsible for handling restricted materials (eg: drugstore clerks who explain to granny the reason why they need to check her ID), better rationalization of law enforcement (eg: did granny have a history of buying large quantities of Zyrtac at regular intervals), and yes, sometimes the re-forming of laws and regulations.


They do not, however, call for the whosesale repeal of any law for which even the merest prima facie evidence exists that the law might be unjustly applied. Were that the case, we would have no laws at all.





I do, in all sincerity, applaud the fact that you took the time to compose a response which was relevant (if tangential) to the conversation at hand, rather than just posting a link to some conspiracy newsletter. I was originally going to end this post with a funny picture of a cat, however on more careful consideration, that would not be warranted. I strongly disagree with what you are saying, but I respect the fact that you actually gave us the consideration of saying it for yourself.


Oh, and FYI, carrying more than $10k in cash or negotiable instruments through an airport is illegal only on international flights and only if you have failed to file FINCEN Form 105 with US Customs. It's only one page, and you don't even need to justify the reason why you are carrying the money. The same goes for mailing money into / out of the US.

JasonC SBB

Re: $10k cash - my buddy is building a house overseas and periodically sends money. He basically *needs to show where the money came from* - the onus is on *him* to prove he didn't sell drugs to come up with that money, instead of on the gov't to prove that he is a criminal. I stand by my assertion that he is now guilty until he proves himself innocent.

All this BS from the gov't is a net negative for society. Just like in the other thread about how such a tiny tiny minority actually go out and blow up victims, all this Big Brother surveillance not only fattens bureaucracies, but from a purely cost/benefit standpoint they're not worth it. Not only the direct cost of the taxation, but the cost of and economic inefficiency of complying with these regulations.

I say "terrerists" and drug lords can be found with plain police work. (Again assuming drug production should be criminalized). No need for special BS laws that criminalize innocents and suck taxpayer money. Why is it that we need more and more and more regulations and BS laws for society to function? We didn't have anywhere near as many laws in the 70s, and it's not like people are dying left and right from drugs and terrerists .

The criminalization of innocents is but one form of tyranny.

see:
www.overcriminalized.com

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Now you're just talking out of your ***.

Have you even looked at Form 105, which I linked to above? It does not at any place ask "where did you get this money" or "why are you shipping this money?" All they ask is "who are you, who are you sending the money to, when, and by what means?"

Honestly, if your friend finds this to be too burdensome, just tell him to send the cash $9,999 at a time.


But this isn't really about him. You just can't pass up an opportunity, any opportunity at all, to try to convince everyone that the US Government is tyrannical and corrupt, and should be abolished in its present form. Speaking from the personal perspective of someone whose family came to this country on a boat in the 1960s, you don't even know what a corrupt, tyrannical government is.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I'm going to count that one.

Faeflora

iTrader: (2)

gimme my huffer!

levnubhin

iTrader: (30)

I joined the military at a good time.
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

levnubhin

iTrader: (30)

rofl, anytime.
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

Faeflora

iTrader: (2)

I thought that they didn't let ahsshamaatics in the military?