×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Meth Dealer Faces Loss of His Comic Book Collection

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the taking-their-pound-of-flash dept.

Crime 317

cultiv8 writes "According to an article from The Smoking Gun: 'A large-scale methamphetamine dealer who allegedly laundered drug profits by purchasing valuable comic books is in danger of forfeiting his 18,753-volume collection to Uncle Sam, according to a new court filing. Federal prosecutors yesterday filed a US District Court complaint seeking ownership of the comic book holdings of Aaron Castro, 30, who is facing a May trial in Colorado on narcotics distribution and weapons charges. The comics are valued in excess of $500,000.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

317 comments

He even looks like Comic Book Store guy (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35398012)

Do not bang your head against the display case, please! There is a very valuable Mary Worth inside, in which she has advised a friend to commit suicide. Thank you!

It's A Bird, It's A Plane ... (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398022)

... It's a meth dealer! It's a shame that these comics will probably be ruined in some humid evidence locker for a few years until he goes to trail. I guess he'll just have to read regular "affordable" comics while he's in prison.

It's Big Pharna (0, Offtopic)

Dzonatas (984964) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398170)

Do note that big pharma deals out these drugs all the time, so it's a tug-o-war of who is legit to distribute meds. Many people have Rx for meth. They just don't have Rx for guns.

Re:It's Big Pharna (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35398364)

Adderral is one such drug. The prescription bottle says "Amphetamine Salts" because that's what the generic name is. I take this shit and it literally makes you feel like a cross between a meth and coke addict. It is so potent and it only costs $100 to take a test and then get a script for it if you have ADD, which anyone can fake. Then, college kids will start offering you $20 a pill when finals come around. Big pharma deals out a lot of other highly illegal drugs, one of which is the date rape drug. I don't remember what the name of it is, but apparently GHB has some medical purpose other than date raping or feeling very drunk for 3 hours.

Re:It's Big Pharna (3, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398522)

The prescription bottle says "Amphetamine Salts" because that's what the generic name is. I take this shit and it literally makes you feel like a cross between a meth and coke addict.

Did you bring enough for the whole class?

Re:It's Big Pharna (3, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398386)

That's not true. When people say meth they mean something that's cooked up by somebody without any quality controls and it's really not the same thing as the chemical equivalent produced by pharmaceutical corporations. Suggesting this is a tug-o-war about legitimate distribution completely misses the point. There is no QA that goes into street drugs, no screenings about medical necessity, counter indications or any way of knowing how big the effective dosage is. And the main goal of the dealer is to get the buyer hooked.

It's a very different case on either side, and trivializing it isn't helping anybody out.

Re:It's Big Pharna (1, Troll)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398496)

And the main goal of the dealer is to get the buyer hooked.

And just what do you think the main goal of your entire economic system is?

She goes running to the shelter
of her mother's little helper

Re:It's Big Pharna (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35398548)

Not to mention that there is a big, big, difference between methamphetamine and methylphenadate, the safer and much more common amphetamine prescribed today.

Not to mention the fact that meth cookers leave behind serious toxic waste dumps all over the country... including "bottle cookers" thrown all over interstate highways.. as opposed to being skilled in the safe handling and regulated disposal of waste products.

Re:It's Big Pharna (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398648)

When people say meth they mean something that's cooked up by somebody without any quality controls and it's really not the same thing as the chemical equivalent produced by pharmaceutical corporations.

So let me get this straight: the difference between somebody cooking meth to sell in the Wal-mart parking lot and somebody cooking meth to sell in the Wal-mart pharmacy is quality control?

What if some illicit meth dealer did everything by the ISO standards and industry best practices?

So then what's the difference between somebody selling high-quality Blueberry Yum Yum with the little purple hairs and buds as big and juicy as cucumbers and Big Pharma selling some pills that deliver THC without the "making you feel good" part and charging $45 per pill to cancer patients who can't eat because of the chemo and their insurance company won't cover anyway?

If your point is that pharmaceutical companies are a very ugly part of the corporate tyranny that's working to keep people from having options or power, then I absolutely agree. If your point is that "illicit" drugs are a scourge because they don't come with a page of contraindications and possible side effects in 3-point type that's usually full of contradictory and misleading information anyway, then I'm not sure we're on the same page.

Re:It's Big Pharna (2)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398784)

Well, yes, there's more to it than just a squabble over who gets to produce the drug, but there's many actions on the part of the 'legitimate' side that give just that impression. It isn't the people cooking street meth that claim methamphetamine itself causes ulceration and loss of teeth - it's the DEA, saying that such symptoms are caused by abusing even the purest meth, not by any of the many adulterants or flaws in the street process. If the government is really out to protect people from the risks of cheap kitchen chemistry and drugs cut with rat poison, Then the government needs to tell the truth. Lie to people, tell them the drug itself causes the bad side effects, but not when it has the magical Barr Pharmaceuticals or DuraMed seal on it, and of course people will seize on that lie to prove it's all just a turf war.

Re:It's Big Pharna (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35398810)

Yeah because meth has a legitimate medical use? Maybe you should try living in a community that has been devastated by meth. Then you might realize how trite and banal you college brat fight the man bullshit sounds.

Re:It's A Bird, It's A Plane ... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35398196)

Dude, I don't think the guy reads comics.

Secondly, I think this is a clever way of laundering money. A bunch of small purchases that (should have) gone unnoticed, and then, one big sale of these on ebay while paying the income tax and paper trailing everything. Pretty smart, except for the fact that he got caught.

Values (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35398028)

allegedly laundered drug profits by purchasing valuable comic books

These comic books may be expensive, but I doubt that they're valuable.

Re:Values (2)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398086)

But...but...they are his retirement fund! In 50 years he'll be able to sell them to some other obese nerd who will then put them away as their retirement fund! Comic books will never lose value! THEY HAVE COLLECTOR'S VALUE!!!!

Re:Values (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35398142)

At least he didn't invest in beanie babies.

Google: Will Eisner at 94 (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398348)

These comic books may be expensive, but I doubt that they're valuable.

Today's Google Doodle is a tribute to Will Eisner and The Spirit [google.com]

It took a long time for the comic book to gain respectability as the "graphic novel."

But the Americam comic strip and comic book have attracted some very gifted artists and writers from the beginning. The Will Eisner Hall of Fame [wikipedia.org]

Dibbs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35398078)

So when can we get a list of the comic books?

Why is this here? (4, Funny)

Jiro (131519) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398080)

I can't for the life of me figure out why this merits a Slashdot story. Even if you conclude "Slashdot readers are geeks, geeks have comic book collections" it's pretty unlikely that many Slashdot readers use their collections to launder drug money.

Re:Why is this here? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35398110)

It means a comic book collection worth $500,000 will be going on sale at auction at bargain basement prices.

TRWTF is YRO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35398202)

The real WTF is that this is an yro.slashdot.org story. Idle I would have kinda understood..

Re:TRWTF is YRO (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398438)

That's intentional on samzenpus' part. He knows that almost everyone filters idle so he posts idle stories usually under YRO or some other completely inappropriate categories so his shit is still polluting the front page.

Re:TRWTF is YRO (4, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398922)

Yeah, what does the government seeking ownership of your property before you're even found guilty of a crime have to do with your rights?

Re:Why is this here? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35398228)

Agreed... my best guess is this is another indication that /. is becoming more of a libertarian blog than a geek site. "Lookie! Lookie what the gub'ment is doing now!"

Re:Why is this here? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35398354)

Agreed... my best guess is this is another indication that /. is becoming more of a libertarian blog than a geek site. "Lookie! Lookie what the gub'ment is doing now!"

Libertarian?!?!?!

Post something derogatory about ObamaCare or that the extraordinary claims of the global warming alarmists aren't backed up by extraordinary proof and see where you get modded.

Re:Why is this here? (0)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398464)

or that the extraordinary claims of the global warming alarmists aren't backed up by extraordinary proof and see where you get modded.

Yeah, as opposed to the material coming out of "think tanks" populate by oil company shills. Those are the beacon of truth and honesty! What next? People actually still believe the extraordinary claims that smoking is bad for you and causes cancer! How dare accept those extraordinary claims after the cigarette makers have said otherwise and they have no reason to lie about that!

Re:Why is this here? (4, Insightful)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398502)

Post something derogatory about ObamaCare or that the extraordinary claims of the global warming alarmists aren't backed up by extraordinary proof and see where you get modded.

For the record, it's not the fact that you're against the health care law that makes us write you off as a right-wing nutjob. It's the fact that you feel the need to use thead hominem portmanteau "ObamaCare", which indicates that you were merely handed your view from Glenn Beck. There's a lot of things wrong with our health care system, but the solution is NOT to simply be against health care in general. We spend twice as much of our GDP on health care as any other country, and we spend a greater amount on Medicare (divided evenly among the population, not just those who benefit from it) than Canada does on universal health care.

As for "Global Warming", it's the same problem. It has been long established that "global warming" was a misleading term, and we switched to "climate change" somewhere in the mid 90s. But yeah, tell you what.. Go get a PhD in Climate Science. If you still think it's a hoax, then we'll discuss it. Until then, I'm going to listen to the scientists who have actually studied the subject.

Re:Why is this here? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35398896)

US conservatism is much easier to understand if you realise that the theological aspect is a symptom, not a cause. What you witness in the conservative approach is the adherence to dogma through religious and quasi-religious tenets. The most obvious is "free market = good".

From this, we have the (false) consequence that anything which may restrict the free market is bad. In particular, a national health service is bad and efforts to counter the human contribution toward climate change are bad.

Re:Why is this here? (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398942)

Geeks have a predilection toward the libertarian view.

Also, I like how you try to use the word as if it's some sort of attrocity. What a terrible biased view thinking that capitalism and individual freedom and small government is! Oh noes!

Re:Why is this here? (0, Troll)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398246)

It's for the "fuck the government" segment of Slashdot readers. They'll claim that this is evil totalitarianism, and that since "everyone is guilty of something" the cops now have the authority to steal your most prized possessions over a jaywalking violation. They might even toss in a few oldies but goodies, like claiming the major political parties are the same, that Americans are no better off than North Koreans, and perhaps even that quip about ballot, jury, soap, and bullet boxes.

Meth dealer? I'm sure he was just a misunderstood amateur chemist.

Re:Why is this here? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398416)

Actually, you shouldn't lump the 4 boxes comment in with the rest of them, it's a legitimate observation. The main disagreement is over how long to wait before transitioning to the next box, and what precisely justifies doing so. But it is absolutely correct, one shouldn't overthrow the government when lesser measures will fix the problem, and one shouldn't use a soap box when only force will solve it.

Re:Why is this here? (5, Informative)

Schadrach (1042952) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398778)

All that would take is an expansion of civil forfeiture, not even a huge one.

Civil forfeiture is a bad, bad thing, even in concept. It's kind of hard to argue that the government should be able to confiscate arbitrary sections of your personal wealth and then sue the property (not you but the property itself which being neither a citizen nor a person has less rights than you do) and claim ownership of such if they can demonstrate that it's more likely that this property was the proceeds of some crime than that it wasn't.

So yeah, they sue your possessions (which lack civil rights) and have a lower burden of proof since it's a civil case. Basically so that they can claim any wealth belonging to anyone accused of drug violations, and likely do so even if they are found innocent.

Re:Why is this here? (0)

LainTouko (926420) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398864)

Well, treating people who make, sell or use unpopular recreational drugs completely differently to the way you treat people who make, sell or use popular recreational drugs like alcohol, caffeine or tobacco, and trying to put them in prison just because they are scarily unfamiliar and there aren't enough of them to defend themselves is actually pretty evil.

Re:Why is this here? (1)

sco08y (615665) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398910)

It's for the "fuck the government" segment of Slashdot readers. ... like claiming the major political parties are the same, that Americans are no better off than North Koreans

That's more the anti-war / anti-corporation left. Being anti-drug war doesn't require hating the government at all, just wanting to end one huge misguided effort.

Meth dealer? I'm sure he was just a misunderstood amateur chemist.

Morally, how is he any different from someone with a still? Keep in mind, that was completely illegal at one point, and moonshine was the "hard" stuff at the time.

And, again, he only has to deal with criminals because it's been criminalized. He's only "laundering" the money, which is a melodramatic way of saying exchanging it, because the government says that it's "bad" money.

Re:Why is this here? (3, Interesting)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398926)

If only. What we have here is that he is an ALLEGED meth dealer. They WILL be taking his comics through the absurdist legal fiction of suing the comic books themselves! (Yes, literally, the case is "United States Of America vs. 18,753 comic books"!) They do that so they can avoid invoking the Constitutional rights accorded to a person in court. They conveniently gloss over the (former) owner's 5th amendment rights by claiming that he's not involved. They might or might not bother with trying to prove this guy guilty of anything in a court of law once they get his property. Being found not guilty in a criminal trail will in no way allow him to recover his seized property. The system's rigged to not allow for that.

IF they first prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a meth dealer, THEN I would be OK with them taking the comics as part of his sentence, but only if the proceeds from their sale did not go back to the police, DA, or judge (except by passing through the general fund). Otherwise it creates a perverse incentive to railroad people for their possessions.

Re:Why is this here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35398372)

...it's pretty unlikely that many Slashdot readers use their collections to launder drug money.

Hell, it's pretty unlikely that many Slashdot readers do their own laundry at all.

Re:Why is this here? (1)

blindseer (891256) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398746)

It might not be relevant because of how the money was laundered but how the money was obtained. Judging by many posts on Slashdot there just HAS to be mind altering substances involved. Maybe we need a poll asking what controlled substances people are taking right now.

Re:Why is this here? (4, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398908)

Seriously? How about the fact that the government is seeking ownership of half a million dollars in posessions that belong to a man who has not yet been convicted? Should you lose your comic or game collection or your car or even your home for merely being *accused* and tried for a crime? If the government has any business taking your property at ANY time, shouldn't it at least be AFTER you are CONVICTED? You know, when you've been found to actually be GUILTY?

Illegal fines (1, Informative)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398104)

Forfeiture of all of one's earthly possessions is a common punishment for being suspected of a drug-related crime. It reminds me of similar [yadvashem.org] forfeitures [wikipedia.org] required [catholic-history.org.uk] in the past.

Re:Illegal fines (1)

Kosi (589267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398160)

I did not go to your links, but would you please care to elaborate? I don't recall the "witches" in Salem dealing with drugs, and neither did the Nazis. And the only drug sold by the catholic church is religion, which is unfortunately legal.

Re:Illegal fines (2)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398350)

History is full of self-perpetuating, self-funded witch trials of one kind or another. Funds stolen from $group_to_be_persecuted are split between people in power and those doing the persecuting. The general population is told do dehumanize and fear $group_to_be_persecuted to allow it to continue.

Re:Illegal fines (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398476)

Yeah, won't someone think of those poor, misunderstood meth dealers!

Re:Illegal fines (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398964)

ACCUSED.

Get this through your fucking heads, people.

Being ACCUSED of something is not justification for stealing your property from you. Well, it IS . . . people have their cars and other property stolen by the government all the time for merely being ACCUSED rather than being accused, tried, and convicted of a crime, first. But it SHOULDN'T be justification.

Re:Illegal fines (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35398642)

I do recall. Hitler took a potent drug cocktail custom made for him by his personal drug physician every day. Many of the Salem witches used very potent herb and plant derived drugs to "fly". Do a google search on why broomsticks are associated with witches and you'll learn something. Here's a hint: It had something to do with where and how the nightshade/mandrake/jimsonweed were applied. So, there's your elaborate explanation.

Re:Illegal fines (1)

Relayman (1068986) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398402)

You didn't read the original submission carefully enough: "laundered drug profits by purchasing valuable comic books." Items purchased by illegal profits are subject to seizure, not "all of one's earthly possessions."

Re:Illegal fines (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35398600)

No, the first thing the cops do when they catch a big dealer is go after "everything". They go after "grandma's" house because the dealer lived there (drugs on the premisis or not) they go after anything that has "title" his name might be on... Because it "forfeit" the judgement is against the property directly (and it's hard for comics to hire their own lawyer) You have to hire a lawyer to prove your PROPERTY is not involved. (legally it's property so it dosen't get civil rights)

Re:Illegal fines (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35398718)

From TFS:

A large-scale methamphetamine dealer who allegedly laundered drug profits [...] is facing a May trial in Colorado on narcotics distribution and weapons charges.

Shouldn't the feds at least wait until he's convicted? Because until he is, he should be considered innocent.

Re:Illegal fines (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398974)

You must have missed the part where he has yet to stand trial for any criminal activity, so he is only alleged to have laundered drug profits. They will likely have already taken his comics before he ever sees the inside of a courtroom. They will also take anything else he might use to fund a vigorous defense. Being found not guilty will not get him his stuff back.

Re:Illegal fines (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398980)

No, YOU didn't read the original submission carefully enough.

He is being ACCUSED of laundering drug profits by purchasing valuable comic books.

Until it is proven that he has done such and he has had a fair trial which concluded in his conviction of that crime, there is no rightful justification for stealing his property.

Where's the news here? (3, Insightful)

Kosi (589267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398122)

It is absolutely normal that the assets made with crimes get confiscated. Maybe except for the not so usual form of investment, why is this worthy mentioning?

Re:Where's the news here? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35398144)

Fuck you. Highway robbers should be hanged.

Re:Where's the news here? (1)

Kosi (589267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398214)

GFY. People advocating death sentence should be hanged.

Anyone finding irony here - keep it!

Re:Where's the news here? (1)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398614)

Smug anti-death penalty people should be imprisoned for life at massive taxpayer expense.

Re:Where's the news here? (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35399004)

Yeah, who cares that studies show that approximately 10% to 15% of the prison population is actually innocent. Hey, maybe we should torture them before killing them, too! I mean, if the whole point is to feel like we've really gotten our vengeance, why just kill them straight out before really getting your rocks off, huh?

Re:Where's the news here? (1)

warGod3 (198094) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398300)

Because someone thinks that a majority of the readers here collect comic books... and live in their mother's basements... and have never had a girlfriend that wasn't named "Rosey"... and can fix any technical issue that arises...

Re:Where's the news here? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398948)

What blatant stereotyping! I mean, there are still some technical issues I have trouble with!

Re:Where's the news here? (1)

Monchanger (637670) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398302)

You're right- it's not very newsworthy. But you're halfway to a possible answer. The other half is because to geeks the seizing of one's comics stash might seem cruel.

Add in some good old Slashdot libertarianism and you've got a bit of constitutional humor.

Re:Where's the news here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35398396)

I have no problem with convicted criminals losing their ill-gotten assets. I do have a problem with civil forfeiture where you lose your assets simply because it's more likely than not that they are ill-gotten.

Re:Where's the news here? (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398436)

The fact that there are presumably in the near future going to be $500k worth of comic books going up on government auction. It doesn't sound like these were seized for evidence, but were being seized as spoils of crime. They'll get auctioned off and I'll wager a lot of /. posters will be interested.

The question though is why this is a YRO story. It happened in real life and not online, it's been well established that the government can seize property purchased with stolen or otherwise illegally obtained money.

Re:Where's the news here? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35398462)

The Feds moved to confiscate the collection before the guy has even had a trial yet? That doesn't seem right. What if he's found not guilty?

Re:Where's the news here? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398988)

Because they're making the grab for his assets before proving him guilty of a crime?

Re:Where's the news here? (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398990)

You don't have the slightest little problem with the government stealing your property before you've even been CONVICTED of a crime?

War on drugs (5, Insightful)

damicatz (711271) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398190)

The war on drugs is nothing more than a war on the American people by a bunch of holier-than-thou moral imperialists. It has squandered trillions of dollars in taxpayer money and claimed tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives over the years. It doesn't stop drug use and merely floods our prisons with people whose only "crime" is simple possession. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol and it certainly isn't working for drugs.

Re:War on drugs (4, Insightful)

Kosi (589267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398244)

I totally agree with that. The war should not be "on drugs", but on the reasons why people chose taking them.

Re:War on drugs (3, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398366)

that would be a war on society, then.

society (its complexity) causes people to need to 'get away' from that very society.

interesting, huh?

Re:War on drugs (1)

harrytuttle777 (1720146) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398442)

Ted Kaminsky (sp) wrote that when people are living a more and more pointless life and utterly domesticated life, they will sometimes turn to drugs in order to keep themselves placated, and continue to believe that things make sense. If a society does not start consuming drugs whole sale, a lot of strife is sure to ensue. He said that among many other things.

Of coarse his thoughts were considered heretical, so the establishment wrote them off as a rambling lunatic.

Well I have to go now and watch my daily fix of Jerry Springer / Sports / take my prescription of Zoloft (or other major pharacutical drug) in order to take my mind of the fact that I no longer have to struggle to survive, and that my life is largely pointless. But hey at least I am not taking meth. Delicious sweet smelling meth anphetamine. Just like Grandma used to bake up.

Re:War on drugs (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398638)

Ted Kaminsky (sp) wrote that when people are living a more and more pointless life and utterly domesticated life, they will sometimes turn to drugs in order to keep themselves placated, and continue to believe that things make sense. If a society does not start consuming drugs whole sale, a lot of strife is sure to ensue. He said that among many other things. Of coarse his thoughts were considered heretical, so the establishment wrote them off as a rambling lunatic.

If you mean Ted Kaczynski, he WAS in fact a rambling lunatic. Rambling you can get from his writings, lunatic from the fact that he mailed bombs to people.

Re:War on drugs (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398888)

That would be correct. It was that Ted Kaczynski.

However, you are guilty of committing an ad hominem attack. His sending mail bombs and possibly being a crazy person does not make his other writings true or false.

You should take what he claims on its own merits and judge if they are correct or not by the evidence given. And from his commentary regarding the USA turning into a bunch of pill munchers to placate their boring lives, I would say he is correct.

Re:War on drugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35398830)

Exactly, the entire point is that Pharma companies sell "needless" drugs all over TV. look how big depression meds or penis enlargement meds are. Illegal rhino horn is probably cheaper and more effective than stuff on TV. Same with drugs like Ritilan that are basically "reorganized" forms of the illegal stuff with high price tags and more side effects... But they're legal, and companies have a RIGHT to make money!!!

The double standard is hilarious. A big right wing radio host can have "pounds" of restricted-class painkillers and get off with a "warning". Black rapper has a "dime" bag and they face prison time...

Meanwhile the REST of us get "registered" and "allocated" for buying a decongestant that's been common for 30 years.. But bad people might use it!!! If that's not a war on the lower class what is it??

Re:War on drugs (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398484)

I totally agree with that. The war should not be "on drugs", but on the reasons why people chose taking them.

War on friends, peer pressure, and addiction?

Re:War on drugs (1)

sco08y (615665) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398666)

I totally agree with that. The war should not be "on drugs", but on the reasons why people chose taking them.

Or maybe it shouldn't be called a war at all? I don't think it's unreasonable to say we should reserve war for our mortal enemies.

This tendency of declaring war on arbitrary things goes back to progressives, such as Woodrow Wilson, who saw the military as a means of organizing and unifying society. That's why, for example, he declared a "war on poverty." You still see it with modern liberals, like Rahm Emanuel, who proposed "basic training, civil defense preparation, and community service" for everyone aged 18-25 in his book [amazon.com] (not sure how to direct link, just search it for "universal citizen service", the chapter starts at page 58).

It was a terrible idea then, and it's a terrible idea now: we don't need to unify society around grand visions by aping the military. It is just a way of stomping all over the basic freedom of millions of people to do what the hell they want with their life, not what some politician thinks would make him look good in a history book.

Re:War on drugs (1)

LainTouko (926420) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398774)

Well, I take alcohol because a little bit makes me outgoing. But I don't think stopping me from wanting to be friendly is the answer. Indeed I don't think my drug-taking is a problem in the first place.

It's impossible to understand the drugs issue while you use the word 'drug' to refer only to substances which aren't sufficiently mainstream to remain legal. The notion that there's some sort of fundamental difference between popular drugs and drugs only taken by a small minority, to the point that the latter need group needs a special name, is the poison which is at the root of this worldwide system of state-sponsored discrimination against people just for being different. So part of the solution is to use words in a fair and accurate manner.

Re:War on drugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35398418)

This argument flies when you're talking about harmless drugs like pot.

Making and dealing meth is a completely different story. This assface should go to prison.

Re:War on drugs (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398472)

Anytime you have a large number of people who are that self centered you end up where we are currently. The reality is that it's as much the drug users that are causing the problems as the prohibitionists. Pretending otherwise is pretty dishonest, if you buy drugs you're likely to be funding narco-terrorism. I mean where precisely do you think the drug cartels get their money from?

Suggesting that it's more the prohibitionists fault than the people who are buying the banned substances is questionable at best. The fact that a lot of people don't think that the law applies to them isn't a rational basis for suggesting a repeal is in order.

Re:War on drugs == War on Money Laundering (0)

turtleshadow (180842) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398644)

Meth is not a drug its poison to the human body and society for both use and manufacture.
It has not a peer to alcohol, or other lesser drugs.

War on Drugs? How about War on Money Laundering?! Thats the imperialism of the mafia over civil society.

I say money laundering is the serious and imminent threat to geek culture.
Too many geeks are getting sucked into the underworld's lure of fast money, trinkets and bobbles and hallmarks of evil-geekdom.

Will anyone miss the old days when geeks would just rip-off cpu cycles, disk space and bandwidth for wares & p0rn from their company sites.
Next it moved into fencing parts -- where did all that Disk & memory go from the upgrades last month?
Now entire data centers have been compromised in Eastern Europe by mafia seeking to money launder all sorts of activity.

Looking at one of the mug shots [denverpost.com]. gang / mafia is involved: Nasty stuff, stone cold died in the wool killers & innocent lives wreaked.

Here is the AG post [coloradoat...eneral.gov]

Its enlightening the AG says it accounts for 2/3 of the ID theft: probably to cloak procurement of the means to manufacture, warehouse, and transport the nasty stuff. That means other much more serious crimes have to be committed in support of this industry... not just the simple possession.

Here are general facts about meth [about.com] and more reading. [wikipedia.org]

Re:War on drugs (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398680)

Prohibition didn't work for alcohol and it certainly isn't working for drugs.

Per capita consumption of beer in the U.S., 1911-1915, 29 gallons.

In 1934, 13 gallons.

In the prosperous mid-fifties, 23 gallons. Drinking in America: A History [hoboes.com]

Re:War on drugs (1, Insightful)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398692)

Just because the laws on Marijuana are poorly thought out, ineffective, and unnecessary doesn't mean that all drug laws are.

Prohibition is necessary in the case of hard drugs. Its true that we need to attack it from all angles, but legalization and taxation of most of the illegal drugs would be a societal disaster the scale of which we have never seen.

Re:War on drugs (1)

LainTouko (926420) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398954)

Just because the laws on Marijuana are poorly thought out, ineffective, and unnecessary doesn't mean that all drug laws are.

Prohibition is necessary in the case of hard drugs. Its true that we need to attack it from all angles, but legalization and taxation of most of the illegal drugs would be a societal disaster the scale of which we have never seen.

Alcohol and tobacco are legalised and taxed. If neither of them are hard drugs, I don't know what is.

Before we prohibited heroin in this country (UK), there were only about 500 addicts in the whole country, and they could still live their lives with a reasonable amount of normality. Prohibition came, and now 50,000 risk death from adulterated doses of uncertain strength and are forced by prohibitionists to steal or sell themselves to pay black-market prices.

I'd like the societal disaster back.

Re:War on drugs (1)

darkonc (47285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398740)

We should make war on the reason why pushers push these drugs onto people -- profits -- and not just why kids take them. Most kids that do Meth do it because they're addicted. Avoiding the addiction means removing the incentive to 'market' it.

Most of the problems with the lighter drugs (like Pot) have to do with the fact that the drug is illegal. As such, legalization would go a long way (but not all the way) to minimizing the harm that they do. The other step would be to regulate the drugs such that it's a bitch to make a profit on them.. That way dealers wouldn't have much reason to trick kids into using this crap.

I've seen what Meth can do to kids It's highly addicting -- and really does rot the brain (some of the rot is temporary, but a lot of the rot from long-term use is permanent). Just legalizing it without reasonable regulation would make it open season on our kids for unscrupulous corporations (really -- the Hells Angels are just a corporation that is willing to take blatantly illegal action to increase it's profits. If you made the action legal (if unethical) and didn't remove the profit motive, they'd just keep on with the same actions (but more out in the open).

In this case, with the drug being illegal -- and thus high profit -- seizing the proceeds of the illegal dealing is completely appropriate. If Meth was made legal and regulated, I'd still keep the laws that allow seizing the proceeds of improper trading.

19k comic books? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398216)

He was just swiching from trading illegal, addictive substances to other market addictive, but this time legal, things, and they put him in jail?

"Switching"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35398280)

I suppose it is better than selling drugs to buy slaves, but selling drugs to buy comic books isn't exactly a great thing. Lots of drug dealers use their money to buy legal things, such as cars, houses, boats, etc.

Re:19k comic books? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398490)

He was using the proceeds of his criminal enterprise to buy comic books, some of the larger sales apparently attracted some attention and upon investigation it was determined where the money was coming from. It has to be settled in court whether or not he's guilty, but assuming he is, this is standard procedure. Criminals aren't typically allowed to profit from their crimes by buying things.

Comic Books ; houses -- what's the difference? (1)

darkonc (47285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398622)

If he's a meth dealer and he's using the comic books to launder his drug profits, then there's nothing unusual about this other than the method of laundering.

If he had been trading houses to launder his drug money, this wouldn't have made page 34 of his local paper, much less the front page of Slashdot. Even so, there's not a whole lot to say about it.

Gosh, I hope he gets a single cell (2)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398230)

Can you imagine the place in prison hierarchy for comic book guy?

Sex, drugs and comic books... although since this is comic book guy, he probably skipped on sex... until now.

I bet he didn't read them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35398266)

So this is supposed to relate to us nerds because comic books are involved. Big deal.

This guy used them as assets for laundering money. He didn't read them. He didn't have them to be read. He's no nerd. Screw him.

Police confiscating evidence is not news (1, Insightful)

mschaffer (97223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398338)

The guy is allegedly laundering money with the comic books. The police are confiscating the evidence. What makes this unusual?

$500,000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35398378)

Wow! $500,000 for a "large-scale methamphetamine dealer who allegedly laundered drug profits by purchasing valuable comic books"... I mean, for that amount of cash you can infringe the copyright for what, 10 songs? That's a full album!!!

This would have been great on Miami Vice! (3, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398532)

Crockett: "I need a new Ferrari! Didn't we confiscate anything from drug dealers that I can drive!?!?!"

Castillo: "Sorry, Sonny, no. But here, read some Incredible Hulk, Spider Man and Richie Rich. It will cheer you up.

Charlie Sheen (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35398588)

Q: How much coke did Charlie Sheen do?
A: Enough to kill two and a half men.

This is called 'Laundering' (3, Informative)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398754)

Assuming the facts are presented correctly, what this guy was doing is simple old fashioned money laundering. He was buying something with drug money so he could later sell it and have clean money. Comic books are actually a smart way to do this, its unlikely that anyone would suspect it.

Here's an example of how it may have worked:
1. Dude sells $500 of meth.
2. Dude takes the $500 cash to a comic book convention.
3. Dude buys a comic book for ~$500
4. Dude sells the same comic book for $450 in clean, crisp, legal bills
5. Repeat 1-4
6. Profit!
7.?
8. Prison!

Imagine... (1)

LainTouko (926420) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398796)

A useful mental exercise on the topic of drugs. Imagine if the coca leaf had been known to the native Americans in North America, becoming part of their traditions, and the tobacco leaf had only been found in the south of the continent...

Fucking good! (2, Insightful)

Darth_brooks (180756) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398854)

I don't hold any sympathy for anyone in the Meth food chain. If this were Joe the pot guy losing his collection, I'd be just a bit bummed. But this is an entirely different ballgame. There's a whole class of drugs out there that really are "bad" drugs, and meth is one of 'em. Show me someone who's been smoking pot for 30 years, then go and try to find someone who's been doing meth for 30 years. Aside from a lack of motivation and a glorious set of man boobs, the pot head's probably ok. The meth user has probably either been dead for twenty years or in jail. The incredible screw job that meth does to your neurochemistry makes anything Glaxo SmithKlien is doing look like two cups of coffee and a mountain dew chaser.

A couple of apocryphal internet stories for you; A friend of mine moonlighted as a prison shrink while stationed in the Pacific Northwest in the AF. He ended up dealing with a lot of the royally fucked up folks. Those who weren't either A. genuine psychopaths or B. the products of horribly fucked up situations were meth addicts. According to him, the nicest guy he dealt with was an actual axe murderer who hacked up a couple of people while tweaked. Once he was in prison and clean, he wasn't a bad person.

My wife is a librarian. When we lived in northern Indiana, one of the more common problems that rural libraries faced was the loss of children's books due to meth lab exposure. The kids would check the book out, take it home, and it would come back reeking of the various chemicals the poor kid was being exposed to at home. If this guy spent any time around production, these comics are toast.

In short, fuck this guy. You want to bitch about the big bad government and your civil liberties? You want to be all cool and snarky by throwing a (tm) after the phrase "war on drugs", go do it on a norml forum. When it comes to tweaks, fuck 'em, there ain't a hole deep enough.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...