88-Year-Old Inventor Hassled By the DEA 757
New submitter Calibax writes "30 years ago, Bob Wallace and his partner came up with a product to help hikers, flood victims and others purify water. Wallace, now 88 years old, packs his product by hand in his garage, stores it in his backyard shed and sells it for $6.50. Recently, the DEA has been hassling him because his product uses crystalline iodine. He has been refused a license to purchase the iodine because it can be used in the production of crystal meth, and as a result he is now out of business. A DEA spokesman describes this as 'collateral damage' not resulting from DEA regulations but from the selfish actions of criminals."
Not just meth (Score:5, Informative)
It can also be used to create an explosive compound that shall remain nameless.
Re:Not just meth (Score:5, Insightful)
As can coal, sulfur, saltpeter. Let's forbid them.
Re:Not just meth (Score:5, Informative)
Laser printer toner is a great explosive. As is flower.
Re:Not just meth (Score:5, Funny)
Daffodils are fucking hardcore.
Re:Not just meth (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not just meth (Score:5, Insightful)
No they are confiscating Chemistry books, and are considering to make it legal for international raids on libraries.
All of this tracking of chemicals that are toxic is rather pointless, similar to the overdone security theatre at airports. From my High School days Chemistry where I was an A+ student allowed to basically go into the teacher's lab and play myself, I've learned certain truths:
1.) Ecological products are seldom that. The then-current fad were phosphate-free detergents. Phosphate-free they were, but nobody asked what the substitutes were. (Let's say filling up rivers with phosphate would have been way nicer than that to the eco system)
2.) Toxic chemicals book keeping is a joke. So you do keep your book, and in the end you check how much "toxic waste" (which we in the school kept in huge dark glass bottles) you've got and fill it up to the expected amount with (purified) water. (Purified to avoid causing funny reactions inside)
3.) If you need some "dangerous" chemicals, take a little water, a little bit of salt, and a PSU, plugin the PSU into an outlet, put the DC side into the salt water. Now put that into your bedroom, close all windows, and good sleep, chlorine gas clearly make your corpse be very clean. Considering the fact that new "drugs" (and substitutes) are being created every day, the incredible many ways to create an explosive (or a precursor), the policy of licensing/forbidding access will obviously mean death by starvation (you can do dangerous stuff with food stuff, e.g. NaCl also called table salt), which is good because some stuff the human body produces can be dangerous (piss, gases, ...), so the government will end up with a very dead and incredible secure country.
Phosphate substitutes (Score:5, Interesting)
The issue with the phosphate was the effect on plants and other green organisms. Algae and bacteria blooms, that kind of thing. What is so much worse about zeolite A, sodium carbonate, citrates, and sodium silicate?
Re:Not just meth (Score:4, Informative)
Dude, if you want to make chorine gas, that's a silly way.
Go look under your kitchen sink. Remember how you're not supposed to mix bleach and ammonia?
Guess why.
Fun fact: Doing it the 'right' way, with the correct amount of each, is perfectly safe if you don't mind getting killed with chlorine gas. Doing it the 'wrong' way with too much ammonia will produce hydrazine, aka, rocket fuel, which will explode in your face if you do, well, anything, like move around or breath.
And, because God wanted to make sure we won't try this in any form at all, doing it the 'wrong' way by adding too much bleach will poison you in an entirely different way with nitrogen trichloride, which will also heat up so much it, uh, explodes. Also, there's going to be a bunch of spare hydrochloric acid in that explosion, although I'm not sure having that in an explosion is going to be more painful than just a normal explosion. (We must now blow up a control group, and then blow up another group with explosive made out of hydrochloric acid.)
There are some warning labels they are kid ding about, or that won't really cause problems. And there are some things they really aren't screwing around when they tell you not to do it.
Admittedly for your point, it technically would be possible to ban bleach and/or ammonia.
Re:Not just meth (Score:5, Informative)
It can also be used to create an explosive compound that shall remain nameless.
Why should it be nameless?
Nitrogen Triiodide [wikipedia.org]
Censorship will never prevent misuse, only perpetuate ignorance. It is better to explain that this compound explodes violently, and at the smallest touch [collegehumor.com] (starts at about 1:00).
Re:Not just meth (Score:5, Funny)
Why should it be nameless?
Because "triiodide" is extremely awkward to say.
Re:Not just meth (Score:5, Funny)
Why should it be nameless?
Because "triiodide" is extremely awkward to say.
Actually if explosives were your only worry the best thing would be to give free access to Iodine. The terrorists are much more likely to blow themselves up before getting out of the lab with nitrogen triiodide than almost any other explosive.
Re:Not just meth (Score:5, Funny)
Because, dear god, no one knows how to use a search engine. If they did, they wouldn't see the abundance of links that reference nitrogen triiodide. And forbid the thought that they could figure out where to source the other ingredient. (hint: anywhere that sells cleaning supplies.)
If I remember right, it's in the Anarchists Cookbook, when I read it about 20 years ago.
But, I seriously doubt the guy would be selling it as an explosive. If he made any quantity, he'd most likely blow himself up trying to transport it.
The war on drugs... The war on kids blowing their fingers off trying to make explosives... I guess the later is a better reason than the former.
I never made it When I was a kid (like around 12-ish), a friend got a hold of crystalline iodine, and we *were* going to do it. It sat around for a while, while I contemplated the fun of *not* blowing myself up. Then I discovered something. Girls are pretty, and nice to touch.. Yippie! Hormones saved the day!
Thinking about it, and reflecting on two divorces, maybe I should have stuck with making unstable compounds. It would have probably been safer than unstable women.
Re:Not just meth (Score:5, Funny)
Both can cost you an arm and a leg.
Re:Not just meth (Score:5, Interesting)
Yah but not one of particular use to terrorists as Iodine tri-whatever is too unstable to make a useful explosive. You start making large batches and it will go off randomly while drying or large parts may fail to detonate.
It's much less of a public safety threat than a gun. The expected harm caused by a man with a pistol far exceeds that of a bomber with this stuff.
Re:Not just meth (Score:5, Informative)
Nope, that's the ether that causes meth labs to explode. I won't go into details, but you use a shitload of ether in amphetamine production.
Re: (Score:3)
Good to know, I'll remember that next time I'm in a Meth lab... :P
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You forgot the NO CARRIER
Re:Not just meth (Score:4, Funny)
Nope, that's the ether that causes meth labs to explode.
This is also a problem when modern network equipment burns, as the combusion causes its constituents to separate. Net isn't a big problem, but the Ether given off certainly is.
Some have suggested going back to Token Ring [wikipedia.org] for safety's sake, but while both Toke n' Ring are harmless when separated, paranoia about the former's Cannabis-related uses have stopped the introduction of this potentially life-saving measure.
So instead the proposal is that we go back to Econet [wikipedia.org], running on BBC Microcomputers [wikipedia.org].
What?!!
Re:Not just meth (Score:5, Funny)
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a saltshaker half-full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers... Also, a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether, and two dozen amyls. Not that we needed all that for the trip, but once you get locked into a serious drug collection, the tendency is to push it as far as you can. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge, and I knew we'd get into that rotten stuff pretty soon.
Sorry, couldn't resist. One of my all-time favorite quotes. :-)
Re:Not just meth (Score:5, Insightful)
As I understand it, the DEA can go after any precursor of drugs. Besides your example of ephedrine, then pseudoephedrine, they were also watching for large purchases of lithium batteries. And of course, anhydrous ammonia, which was usually stolen from farmers or pipelines.
It goes along the same lines as possession of "burglary tools". That can be anything, including your average hand tools. Yup, everyone here, who's had a screwdriver in their car, could be arrested if they were caught. Luckily, that's rarely enforced without other supporting evidence. A crow bar, ski mask, and bag full of cash with dollar signs on it will probably do. :)
So back to the drug cooking, they could go after ether, water, distilled water, reverse osmosis water systems, gasoline, diesel fuel, etc... Those are for some various drugs, but all are used in making at least something that's popular on the street. But lets not forget the most popular illicit American pasttime, marijuana... High pressure sodium lights, fluorescent lights (cool white and soft white bulbs), sprinkler timers, drip irrigation hose, air filtration systems, supplemental air conditioning (portable air conditioners, or requests to have additional air conditioners installed in a residence).
So, why would the DEA want to block this innocent inventor? Well, easy.. There are alternative solutions for cheap. He doesn't *have* to sell crystalline iodine. He'd still have a viable product with another solution that couldn't be used to make drugs or explosives. Then again, a substantial part of his customer base may be those who aren't looking to purify water.
Re:Not just meth (Score:5, Insightful)
Then there is the most important and significant component of all of this drug making -- knowledge and understanding. If people don't know how to do stuff, they will be less likely to do stuff. Let's regulate knowledge and learning. ...can I just ask "are we there yet?"
Re: (Score:3)
There are those farmers who do. The name Anders Behring Breivik [wikipedia.org] ringing any bell?
Re:Not just meth (Score:5, Insightful)
So: some nutter abuses something useful, what should we do ? Another nutter kills someone with a kitchen knife, should we ban all knives ? You use petrol to make a molotov cocktail [wikipedia.org] so should we shut all petrol stations ? We cannot tie everything down just because a few people abuse what we need for day to day life.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes we can
This is America! (Sorry about the Puerto Rican accent :-)
Re:Not just meth (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not just meth (Score:5, Funny)
I'm guessing you don't live in the UK where this kind of reactionary "OMG someone got hurt let's ban something" vote-chasing by our politicians is a daily fact of life.
I do -- but I don't read the Daily Mail.
Re:Not just meth (Score:5, Funny)
especially fertilizers... they can be used to make rocket fuel! imagine all those farmers engaging in criminal activities all over the world!
think of the children people!
Ammonia bird in a guilty cage
That's a very nice product you've got there... (Score:5, Funny)
Is this guy bald? (Score:5, Funny)
Also, make sure there's no Los Pollos Hermanos close by.
Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:5, Informative)
I hate to read TFA and I hate to defend the DEA (did we learn nothing from Prohibition?) but once again this is a sloppy and wholly misleading article summary (thanks Slashdot!) To wit:
As much as I like this guy and his sense of humor, it seems much less sinister than the Slashdot linkbait summary indicates. It appears to be a pretty simple case of "government restricts chemical that can be used in meth labs, old guy making product in his garage with said product doesn't want to deal with the government bureaucracy and is surprised when the government shuts off his access to that chemical."
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, thank you for the better summary. While the DEA has in the past, and likely will in the future done some stupid and mindless things, it doesn't appear that this is the case in this instance. Additionally, it would seem that for a self admitted tinkerer who nets $100,000 per year on his hobby, he could put a little more thought into the product, seal off the iodine in sintered glass or some other method that allowed water to pass over the crystals but did not allow for removal or tampering, continue to sell the products and make the DEA happy.
But it's more fun to rant and whine.
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Ranting against the DEA for any reason is well justified considering the damage it does to our country. Glenn Greenwald debated Bush's drug czar recently and really laid open the festering wound that is prohibition. The video is here:
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/15/debating_bushs_drug_czar_on_legalization/singleton/ [salon.com]
(Glenn Greenwald should run for president)
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, if we repealed all drug laws (except perhaps antibiotics) and regulated, licenced, and taxed the production, importation, and sale, you could disband the DEA and remove the national debt. As it is, billions upon billions of dollars are going straight to Columbia making some very evil people incredibly wealthy, with not a single penny of it benefiting the American economy.
It's madness. Take crack cocaine, for example. If the stuff was legal it would probably cost like five bucks a gram, and the crackheads wouldn't have to break into my house and steal to support their filthy habits. The drug laws haven't stopped a single person from becoming a junkie. In fact, twice as many people drank after prohibition than before its passage, meaning that the law not only didn't stop people from drinking, somehow it encouraged drinking.
The forbidden fruit is always more tempting.
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and it follows that piling on extra consequences - jail time - is never going to be effective. We should instead accept that this is human nature and concentrate on mitigating the consequences, for example by having the government run drug dens where people can get their high while under guard, on safe dosages and substances, and with overall usage monitored to keep it on safe level. Of course such measures would be needed only for drugs likely to result in dangerous behaviour, rather than, say, cannabis or tobacco.
So DEA is not responsible for the unintended side effects of its actions, but drug users are? Despite this being the same unintended side effect? After all, if drugs were not illegal the war in Mexico would not be an issue.
At the end of the day human rights are whatever people agree they are. There are several competing versions, and I'd argue that the right to alter your body chemistry should be included, because after all it's your body.
Also, who are you to say what sacrifice is meaningful or not to someone else?
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't a human rights issue
On the contrary, the Supreme Court ruled that it's a woman's right to remove a blastocyct from her body. If she has the right to remove a fetus, why doesn't she have the right to inject heroin? It isn't anyone's business but hers. If she steals to support her habit, arrest her for stealing.
People routinely blame the DEA and the prohibition on the war in Mexico
And they're right, just as alcohol prohibition was responsible for the wars in Chicago and other cities. The only reason there wasn't violence in Canada was because alcohol was legal in Canada.
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
You're operating under the premise that it's reasonable to place all these restrictions on his behavior to prevent meth labs from popping up.
Another perspective (that I share) is that the government shouldn't be trying to regulate drugs to begin with, and that the government is essentially taxing him to pursue an unachievable objective, eradicating drug use.
I appreciate the grandparent post providing some context, but to me it's just another example of an outdated prohibitionist mindset getting in the way of people actually producing useful products.
The period of extended prohibition in the US has tremendous costs that people have sort of become habituated to--not just financial costs, but costs in terms of police militarization, civil rights violations, an implicitly (if not explicitly) racist justice system, etc.
This sort of government babysitting doesn't seem sustainable in the long-term, especially if the government gets serious about what it actually needs to spend money on and what it doesn't (and if it doesn't happen voluntarily, it will happen as a consequence of market and economic collapse).
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if they were subject to the same case law.. (Score:3)
.. as, say, gasoline refineries, I bet they would not be "blowing up at alarming rate" -- and no, I do not use their end product, and do not even intend to use it!
Paul B.
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
If it was legal, you wouldn't ever have a meth lab next door, some mail order house would be selling reasonably pure Chinese made meth for a fraction of the price a bathtub lab could make it for.
Meth labs exist because of our drug laws.
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
And if drugs were legalised, there would no longer be any reason to operate a back street meth lab...
Drugs would instead be manufactured in large factories, which can be situated well away from any neighbours and can have regulated safety procedures... Explosive chemicals are already processed every day in factories on an industrial scale with a relatively good safety track record.
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:4, Insightful)
You have to love the hypocrisy. Everyone on slashdot LOATHES corporations, presuming that anyone trying to turn a profit in groups of more than 3 people must be horrible monsters and parasites. But legal meth labs? It's GAME ON... because it only makes sense. It blows my mind.
You must live in a very black and white world!
If you have:
- Activity A that is evil.
- Activity B that is a LOT more evil.
- Defending that activity B should be changed to Activity A is extremely reasonable. Where is the hypocrisy?
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't use drugs as a weapon to kill others, they take them themselves, and when done in a safe manner harms noone else.
And noone is suggesting a free for all, just that drugs should be regulated.
Doing so would eliminate or massively reduce drug related crime, save law enforcement a huge amount of money and bring in a large amount of tax revenue.
Drugs themselves would be safer as it would no longer be an underground activity, drugs would no longer be cut with other random substances and users would have an avenue for complaint if they received a sub standard product. The government could also keep track of who was purchasing and using drugs.
Addicts would no longer be risking contracting HIV or similar illnesses through needle sharing etc...
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:4, Informative)
read TFA again pls, that $100,000 number you quoted is not the regular income but it was the MAXIMUM they had ever made in an year, long ago.
they make much less than that per year these days.
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
While the DEA has in the past, and likely will in the future done some stupid and mindless things, it doesn't appear that this is the case in this instance
It does to me. It won't stop real meth cooks for a minute. It just covers the DEA's asses and fucks up a legitimate businessman selling a potentially life-saving product.
he could put a little more thought into the product, seal off the iodine in sintered glass or some other method that allowed water to pass over the crystals but did not allow for removal or tampering
Yeah, because a meth cook could never work out how to break a glass capsule.
And it would cost a lot more and probably price it out of the market (for those who actually wanted to purify water).He has been filling the iodine bottles by hand in his shed, and doesn't have an R&D facility or make his own glassware.
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Im sorry, i dont side with the DEA on anything (not that my name lends any credibility on this one)
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider it part of the cost of doing business. His competitors, if they used the same chemical, would be faced with the exact same costs, so this doesn't put him at a competitive disadvantage.
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:5, Informative)
He had no competitors, apparently. This action just put the entire market for this particular product entirely out of business.
Looking at the Wikipedia article right now, these iodine crystals were a low-cost and high-water-volume alternative to dissolving iodine tablets, and Polar Pure is the only product of its class mentioned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_water_purification#Chemical_disinfection [wikipedia.org]
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
According to TFA, he did apply for a license and was refused by the DOJ. He's appealing that decision.
The fact remains that a useful product to purify water cheaply is no longer available because the government wants to control the active ingredient, and is willing to make the product unavailable as "collateral damage". I would guess some other collateral damage is the people who may end up with diseases because they drink water that isn't purified, and the percentage that die as a result.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, thanks! I guess the governmentrestrictschemicalthatcanbeusedinmethlabs...edwhenthegovernmentshutsoffhisaccesstothatchemical tag should have tipped me off.
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
The DEA has started keeping a much tighter rein on the active ingredient in his product in order to keep it out of the hands of the aforementioned meth labs (just like they did a couple years back with buying decongestants using psuedoephedrine).
Bullshit. The law enacted in 1983 banned possession of precursors and equipment for methamphetamine production. Iodine is neither. What they did a few years back was to enforce the law as it was written. Today the executive branch of the government, in the form of the DEA, is overstepping the law - that is plenty sinister for me. How does one deal with a bureaucracy that makes up rules rather than following the law?
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:4, Informative)
You sue the agency. This is how the overbroad application of wetlands regulation beyond the 'navigable waters of the USA' was overturned.
Generally agencies get a great deal of deference in creation and application of their regulation but whether that extends to interpratation of the underlying authorizing act is less clear. In other words you have no chance in court challenging a DEA ruling that crystalized iodine is a meth precursor no matter what the facts provided the law gives them the power to enumerate precursors by regulation. If they are genuinely overstepping the power granted by the law rather than making unwise determinations it's more feasible.
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:5, Informative)
And they know that small operators don't have the resources to do that. The NAR and Tripoli (model/amateur rocket organizations) sued the BATFE for classifying Ammonium Perchlorate based propellants as explosives, when the BATFE's own testing showed that the burn rate was a small fraction of their _own_ limit for what constitutes and explosive. It took a decade and a six figure legal bill to beat them in court.
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:4, Funny)
From the summary: "He has been refused a license"
From the article: "He has been rejected for a state permit"
"He was supposed to pay $1200 for a license to handle this chemical and refused."
Strikes me as that's a high price for the privilege of signing a register when you pick the stuff up at a supplier.
"He was asked to keep tabs on who bought the product to the extent that he would report "suspicious" bulk purchasers. He refused."
He couldn't give what he didn't have; instead he offered the names of the outfitters he sold to.
"He also does not appear to be able to tell the difference between the DEA and the TSA, as the article points out. This does not suggest he is good at dealing with bureaucracy."
He might not be good at 'dealing with bureaucracy' but he seems to know who they are well enough. He called 'em "thickheads" which I think well characterizes the mentality, no matter the alphabet-soup agency. You'd have to ask him, but I suspect he full well knows the difference between the DEA and the TSA.
The article points out that two noted sales spikes were just before end of 1999 and after post-tsunami Fukushima. Isn't the demand for meth steadier? The comments from DEA seem enough to talk to Wallace so as to verify he's not in the meth business, but nowhere near convincing enough to shut him down. The statement from Barbara Carreno is straight out of the Ministry of Truth handbook.
I think it's a simple case of over-reaction based on the inability of thickheads to reason. Like you, I admire Wallace and his sense of humor.
Even if he's allowed to continue making Polar Pure, he won't be able to unless he can find a supplier not intimidated by DEA.
Good point but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
- He would need to produce an additional 200-300 units a year to justify the cost of the license and this is a lot of units to produce.
- He's 88 years old. He most probably produces the product for his love of the technology than for profit by this time.
Let's be pretty blunt about this... I'd imagine that it all started with the $1200. While the DEA is obviously trying to do their job, their job policing the drug trade in the U.S. should not be impact legitimate uses of these chemicals by stopping the small and up and coming businesses from being able to function. It would be like saying that since a bomb maker would likely need a resistor or relay to make a detonator, then anyone who wishes to build anything with a resistor or relay should have to pay DHS a $1200 fee before they could purchase them. This would eliminate a tremendous number of small businesses from starting up and would seriously hurt America as a result. We as computer geeks often forget that things like crystalline iodine is a component to a guy like this in the same way that a resistor is to a electronics nerd.
The DEA is a publicly funded entity. They already receive their budgets from the government and we as a people pay their operating expenses as a whole because we recognize that they "fight an evil" which most of us believe needs to be fought. I am disappointed to see that they are penalizing this guy. Yes, you have many great and valid points about how he dealt poorly with this situation...but... he's justifiably pissed off that the DEA is penalizing him for doing absolutely nothing wrong. I makes absolutely no difference which organization it is that is trying to take his money... honest inventors and businessmen shouldn't have to pay stipends such as this because there's a few bad apples screwing it up for him.
No he obviously is not a diplomat. He almost certainly isn't someone you'd want negotiating contracts for your company. But he is a guy who produces and probably regularly improves upon a technical innovation and provides it to a group of people who wish to buy it and see a utility with it. The DEA is obviously aware of him now. They had the budget to track him down and communicate with him. Asking $1200 for a license to a chemical he obviously knows how to handle was just plain stupid. As to the bulk purchasers thing... this is obviously what was most important or should have been to the DEA. Instead of putting the guy out of business, they instead should have been more diplomatic and asked him "If someone orders more of these things than they could actually use, could you give them a call and say 'Hi... wow you're my best customer this month... it's a big order and I don't want to make you wait unjustifiably long, what are you using all these filters for? Can I send you the first 1/4 of the order today as I have that many on my shelf and I'll send the remaining 3/4 when I finish producing them?' and call us if they sound like they aren't buying them for the filtering itself.". I bet you anything, the old fella would have been much more amenable, and then the DEA would have accomplished something meaningful instead of shutting down a small, legitimate business.
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
The DEA has NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER regulating a common element with many well known uses simply because a few morons might do something they don't like with it. That includes iodine and decongestant tablets (BTW, the reformulated DEA friendly tablets are not as effective). They shouldn't be charging people a thousand bucks for a license to handle iodine in any event. If THEY are so interested in watching iodine, let THEM foot the bill. They shouldn't be embarking on a STASI campaign to get citizens to keep watch lists for them.
Given his age, he would have grown up in an era far less tolerant of government interference in an individual's actions than you appear to be. Cooperating with the DEA likely feels a bit too much like being "a good Nazi" to someone who probably fought in WWII.
Re: (Score:3)
Paying for the 'license' keeps this chemical out of meth labs... how?
Paying for it means a methlab can't get 10000 people to get one. This means the DEA can check everyone once in a while. This means the methlab can't simply get a license for it. This means the methlab can't aquire it through legal means.
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't sound like he was 'asked', since when he refused, they forbade him the chemical. Asking implies that you have the choice to say yes OR no.
I ask my 4 year old if he'd like to go to bed, and he doesn't have a choice. That in no way diminishes the polite manner in which I ask.
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't sound like he was 'asked', since when he refused, they forbade him the chemical. Asking implies that you have the choice to say yes OR no.
I ask my 4 year old if he'd like to go to bed, and he doesn't have a choice. That in no way diminishes the polite manner in which I ask.
I hope you don't consider the relationship of a 4 year old to a parent a good metaphor for your relationship with your government.
Unless you're in North Korea, then of course that makes sense.
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:4, Informative)
Sure it is, and as the article stated, it would be pretty easy. He sells to camping stores, and camping supply wholesalers. It's not up to him to provide the list of end users, and that's not what they were asking for.
The DEA cut off his supplier, because his product was already found being used in the manufacture of illegal drugs. It's not any sort of vengeful act against him. The problem has come about where he refused to cooperate with some simple requests.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you saying we would have nicer things if people believed anything they read in slashdot summaries as long as it fits in their pre-existing beliefs?
It IS helpful! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
wow (Score:4, Insightful)
so much for blaming people for killing people, this is blaming the gun maker for the people killed by it.
Notice how this hasn't gone to court? The DEA would be shut down so fast from harassing Mr. Wallace in court that they wouldn't even dare it. Instead, they shut him down by threats alone, aka PIPA/SOPA.
Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)
More accurately, this is like hassling a firework manufacturer under the guise of stopping gun violence.
Loss of snark (Score:3)
I want to say something about this, something clever, something snarky...but I'm at a loss. I mean, this is a facepalm of such epicness it is nearly unfathomable.
Another victim of prohibition (Score:5, Insightful)
He should just (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
When you let fear rule... (Score:5, Insightful)
... then nothing gets done.
The DEA could easily tell whomever gives the licenses to approve this guy, but they choose not to. Instead, they want to blame it on criminals, instead of where the blame really lies, which is the bullshit anti-drug laws that we have too many of.
We could legalize meth, have the government or some pharmacy make it safely, and then every loser that wants to do it won't be supporting the people who make it.
The problem here is not meth addicts, it's the bullshit they go thru to make the meth, which hurts consumers more. You won't have druggies stealing the crap the makes meth, you won't have places become toxic because people are making meth in their bathtub/kitchen.
America, the land of the hypocrites and home of the illusion of freedom.
And when you let ignorance rule.... (Score:5, Insightful)
We could legalize meth, have the government or some pharmacy make it safely, and then every loser that wants to do it won't be supporting the people who make it.
Just because the DEA overreaches and just because there are solid libertarian arguments for legalizing some drugs doesn't mean there are no substances for which prohibition makes good social, economic, and ethical sense....
Your idea sounds nice, but unless your plan includes banning the users of your legal dispensary from medical and dental care the fiscal costs alone are way too high. Amphetamine abuse causes serious neurological problems, well in excess of those potentially caused by alcohol, cocaine, or heroin; the burden of caring for addicts could be staggering. Severe depression, anxiety, concentration problems, motor impairment, etc. Not to mention the social and moral costs of, you know, just watching people cook themselves into death or permanent oblivion with product that you asked your government to manufacture and give to them.
If you firmly believe that people should have a right to get high, fine. But don't go spouting off about which particular substances should be available - without the pharmacology, economics, and ethics to back it up - simply to satisfy your libertarian impulse. That's not advocacy, it's sociopathy.
There's also no real safe recreational dose for it (Score:5, Insightful)
It is just too addictive. It has more or less a 100% addiction rate. So you can't do "just a little" meth or be an occasional user. You get hooked, hardcore. Combine that with the massive amount of damage it does and it is just not safe for use at all really.
I think people forget that there are different levels of dangers in terms of drugs. Some, like marajuna, are pretty harmless. It doesn't have any physical addiction symptoms, is effectively impossible to OD on, and doesn't cause much long term damage (there are studies to indicate it causes some damage to higher reasoning skills, and of course when smoked it causes damage that any smoke inhalation does). It is quite safe over all.
Others though, like meth, are exceedingly dangerous. They have strong physical addictions (some like heroin can have fatal withdrawal symptoms), and do extreme amounts of damage to the body. You want to see real nasty, look up Krokodil but don't look at photos unless you have a strong stomach: People literally rot away alive. Life expectancy for addicts is a couple years at best.
While I sure as hell don't support the current "All drugs are evil and should be illegal," mentality, you have to learn about them and appreciate that some are just too addictive and destructive to be things that are sold over the counter. We need to legalize the reasonably safe drugs, not just everything and say "Fuck it, this can kill you quick but who cares?"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Combine that with the massive amount of damage it does and it is just not safe for use at all really."
A new study out this week from Columbia University reports that the "massive amount of damage" caused by meth is actually totally overblown, basically a "myth", and in fact counter-productive for the purpose of treating meth addicts. Very much in the same scare-mongering tradition of claims that (a) marijuana causes instant insanity, (b) crack babies are crippled for life, etc.
http://healthland.time.com/20 [time.com]
Iodine isn't freely available (Score:5, Funny)
Iodine isn't available [ebay.com] without a license from the DEA.
Not here [ebay.com], or here [ebay.com], or even here [unitednuclear.com].
In fact, I can only find 32 results in the first web site I thought to look in.
Looks like the system works!
Re: (Score:3)
Why the drug dealers don't actually give a damn about the people that use their product, this guy is trying to save lives not destroy them. The picture on the first link at ebay didn't look like it was "pure". So what happens if there are contaminates in the iodine? For a drug dealer, they don't care, for this guy though, it probably matters and thus not having access to a clean product means that he can't sell it.
Think of the drugs! (Score:4, Insightful)
The list of controlled chemicals (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the DEA's list. [usdoj.gov] Those marked as "List 1" are the most restricted. It's not that long a list. Iodine is the only chemical on List 1 that isn't particularly hazardous.
Where's the *bleep*ing proof? (Score:5, Insightful)
I apologize in advance for actually reading TFA, but I don't see anywhere in the article any claims from the DEA that the chemical has ever been used to actually make meth.
Choice quotes:
about four years ago, the DEA began to look closely at the product, even citing it in a position paper, and suggested that it was being used by cranksters as well as campers.
Suggestions do not equal proof.
Special Agent Richard Camps, a San Jose-based state narcotics task force commander, said he received reports of suspicious buyers. "Weird-looking people, 'Beavis and Butt-Head'-types, were coming into camping stores and buying everything they had on the shelves," Camps said.
Really? A "state narcotics commander" (which I assume is someone important, probably in charge of other officers) just called a class of people "beavis and butt-head types," and he gets to keep his job? Whoever is doing PR for the state is probably cringing right now.
"Then they would take off into the mountains and try to cook meth with it." The DEA reported agents found Polar Pure at a meth lab they dismantled in Tennessee two years ago.
Okay, so they tried to do it, but then what happened? Did they succeed?
If it's just as hard to cookup meth with this stuff as it is to cook up meth with other stuff that's legal, or if you just can't figure out how to cook up meth with this stuff at all, then let this old guy have his iodine.
Why focus on iodine? (Score:3)
Iodine has all kinds of legitimate uses in all kinds of non-drug fields. Why not focus on stopping the drug labs getting hold of those things that are specific to the production of drugs. If the drug labs cant get the Pseudoephadrine or other drug ingredients, it wont matter how much iodine they can get.
Am I the only one who thinks he's an idiot? (Score:3)
This guy makes $100,000 a year on this stuff. They told him he needed to pay a $1100 regulatory fee and needed to secure his stash. He completely ignores the fee and sends the DEA a picture of his old dog claiming it's his security. I'm really at a loss. Did he secretly not actually want to keep his business?
I do not think the over regulation of these kinds of materials is necessary in society, but it is what it is right now. If he wanted to keep his business, he should have at least tried to look like he wanted to comply instead of brushing everything off and hoping for the best.
Re:Am I the only one who thinks he's an idiot? (Score:4, Informative)
No, the guy doesn't make $100,000 per year, he brings in 100,000 per year gross. Unless his margins are absoloutely huge then he will be making a lot less.
You also ignored the part of the article where he did apply for the license but was then refused.
And how much is he supposed to spend on security? Enough to wipe out a year's net income?
I do not think the over regulation of these kinds of materials is necessary in society, but it is what it is right now.
He is in a position to do the best thing possible: treat the regulations with the utter contempt they deserve and bring in some much needed publicity.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Your logic is twisted.
These more addictive (and cheaper) substances were invented because there're people wanting them. They would be invented the same way if the drugs were legalized and (substantially) taxed for the inevitable health caring funding.
The core problem here is simple: people wants to get high, and they don't care about the consequences. All the rest is secondary to that.
There's no laws forbidding you from jump seat on a cactus, there is?
Re: (Score:3)
Grow up and learn to face the consequences of the decisions YOU DO, instead of pleading "not my fault, it's the prohibitions! It's their fault" childish.
What are you talking about? I do not do drugs. I would not if they were legal. Prohibition wastes massive amounts of my tax dollars on idiotic tail-chasing and imprisoning non-violent "criminals" for life. Nothing good has ever come from Prohibition. Prohibition is an excuse for the government to violate our rights, spend our money, and Prohibition causes crime (and no, not in the way that making murder illegal makes murders criminals, but that Prohibition causes murder, rape, and robbery, in addition
Re:Wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
Read more. I know we are capable of.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/27/crime-smuggling-alcohol-tobacco [guardian.co.uk]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/648986/posts [freerepublic.com]
http://www.atf.gov/alcohol-tobacco/ [atf.gov]
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
And that is why Portugal's approach to drugs, treating it as a medical and mental health issue, is working and ours isn't.
After all the money spent on the War on Drugs, the US still has the addiction rates that we had at the turn of the 19th century. If we only had as many freedoms.
Re: (Score:3)
Care to name even one politician in Washington that fits that bill?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Motherfuckers. (Score:4, Informative)
He seems to have clarified / changed his mind: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/foreign-policy [garyjohnson2012.com]
(Thanks for bringing that up... I didn't know he ever said that.)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
so the founders went through the pain of enumerating the powers of the federal administration and saying the rest is up to the states and the people themselves only to throw that concept under the bus with a vague idea of general welfare...
Somehow i doubt that. Imo the clause merely provides the context in which the federal government operates, but doesn't give any authority to arbitrarily extend the scope.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cue all the comments from Keynesians (Score:5, Interesting)
Keynes is widely misunderstood. He once said that it would be better to build totally useless pyramids than to have high unemployment, but he wasn't actually suggesting that we should do that. It's obvious when you think about it, because there are a million and one productive things that could be done with the same labor. The actual idea is that it's better to pay someone to work in a soup kitchen than it is to watch crime skyrocket if you leave them to starve and they resort to theft.
If (as would seem obvious from this case) the DEA is not engaged in anything productive, you don't have to make them unemployed. You just have to eliminate their current positions and instead set them to work patrolling the streets in gang neighborhoods at night to suppress actual crime.
Re:Land of the Dream? (Score:4, Informative)