×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

84 comments

I for one... (1, Funny)

Roachie (2180772) | about 2 years ago | (#40487117)

would like to welcome our olfactory overlords!

Re:I for one... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40487731)

would like to welcome our olfactory overlords!

While many business and government leaders are drug sniffing drones, it's a little late to be welcoming them. They've been here forever.

Re:I for one... (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 2 years ago | (#40488319)

Happy to see a beneficial use for drones, instead of imposing the will of the Empire on the other side of the world, or spying on American citizens because they can all be eeeveeel tarrrrrraaaaaissssts!

countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (4, Insightful)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | about 2 years ago | (#40487155)

To sniff accurately, they have to fly low. Perhaps a simple anti-aircraft gun will do.

Of course, the USA could just DO THE RIGHT THING and legalise drugs and remove the profit from the drug cartel system, but then a bunch of congressmen won't get campaign funds to keep it all illegal.

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (2, Insightful)

jhoegl (638955) | about 2 years ago | (#40487593)

Right... because nothing could be safer than a Heroine addict that has no money because they can not keep a job due to their addiction.

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40487797)

Hey, just give them as much heroin as they want and problem solved!

Go do a cost benefit analysis between addicts long-term with limited supply and high pricing, and short term with unlimited supply and low or non-existant pricing. The latter will clean up the drug using population in a matter of years. The hard users will wipe themselves out, the weaker ones will manage it themselves, in a few generations the problem will have self-regulated.

Horrible perhaps, but it beats the current system.

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (2)

Dunbal (464142) | about 2 years ago | (#40487961)

It's actually very hard to "wipe yourself out" with opioids. The problem comes when an addict either receives a stronger dose than usual because there is no regulation on how drugs are "cut", or an addict that has stopped using for a while, loses his tolerance, and starts using again at his old dose. However there is no upper limit to the amount of opioids a body can take over time. The curve simply shifts to the right.

I think he meant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40488243)

I think he meant that most of the hard users will eventually overdose, as they likely would anyway.

Re:I think he meant (5, Informative)

Dunbal (464142) | about 2 years ago | (#40489105)

Except, given a product with a guaranteed standard strength and some education, it's likely they wouldn't ever overdose, which is the point I am trying to make. When have you heard of terminal cancer patients accidentally overdosing on their morphine? Some do it on purpose, choosing suicide instead of the long drawn out death process that awaits them. But that is not by accident. The more opioids you take, the more tolerant you become, and the higher the dose you need to achieve the desired effect but also the more dose you can tolerate. Addicts regularly take doses that would kill you and me very quickly, without their suffering any of the dangerous cardiovascular depressive effects. There is no limit to the amount of opioids a person can tolerate, over time. The limit is the amount of money they can afford to spend daily on their habit.

As a doctor I happen to know quite a bit about these drugs. It's unfortunate that they have been demonized so much, because you will not ever find a better painkiller, a better cough suppressant, and a better anti-diarrheal medication, all rolled into one. People used to take opium derivatives all the time 100 years ago with little if any professional oversight, and society failed to collapse. But today mention opium and suddenly people are afraid of the boogey-man.

Re:I think he meant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40490717)

When have you heard of terminal cancer patients accidentally overdosing on their morphine?

-- It happens, but not accidentally.

Re:I think he meant (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 2 years ago | (#40491207)

I think you needed to read the next sentence, where I said "Some do it on purpose... but that is not by accident".

Re:I think he meant (2)

ooshna (1654125) | about 2 years ago | (#40492429)

Exes mother ODed on pills after years of abusing them. Current girlfriend's father ODed on heroin after first being addicted to pain pills. Best friend's brother ODed injecting oxycontin but luckily was found by his mother and was saved by EMS. There is a reason opiates are demonized they are abused very badly by many people. Education or not people will abuse and do stupid things when drugs are involved. Look at all the drunk driving deaths every year and that's with every bottle labeled with the strength and plenty of education about the dangers.

Re:I think he meant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40493009)

ODs are terrible, and I've known too many that are gone now. But look how many more deaths occurred due to alcohol during the Prohibition because of organized crime. That's one example of how prohibition actually hurts the problem, not helps it.

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (5, Informative)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about 2 years ago | (#40487811)

Seriously? Not even basic research? [wikipedia.org]

We can find other, more reputable sources... start with the reference list on that Wikipedia article. You would do well to actually do some reading before you decide that it's automatically a bad thing. What has actually been seen is the exact opposite of what you seem to think would happen: because it can be obtained legally with a prescription, and because "addiction" is a legitimate reason for a prescription, the junkies are actually getting it from the hospital, and the overwhelming majority of them actually get addiction counseling and the help they need to break their addiction. In other words, the Netherlands, where heroin is essentially legal, has a *lower* percentage of hard drug users than the rest of the world, not higher.

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (1)

Teresita (982888) | about 2 years ago | (#40488531)

In other words, the Netherlands, where heroin is essentially legal, has a *lower* percentage of hard drug users than the rest of the world, not higher.

It's reverse psychology, man. You say, "Don't you dare try smoking fried banana peels" and that's the first thing they do.

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | about 2 years ago | (#40489073)

Dude... I am so fucked up on fried banananana peels it isn't even funny. If I could afford bananananas every day I'd be, like, an addict. Or something.

Shhhhhhh! Don't tell people about this. I can make serious dolla dolla billz yall just posting on craigslist advertizing banananannanaBATMAN peels.

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 2 years ago | (#40487941)

Confirming there are no penniless heroin addicts today. Oh wait you think that legalising drugs means that everyone will start consuming drugs, just like everyone smokes and everyone drinks alcohol, right?

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40487959)

It'd be safer than letting a dumb redneck (who can't even be bothered to learn how to spell the topic he's blathering about) handle a computer keyboard.

Hint: It's spelled "heroin". A heroine is a woman hero - like Daisy Duke.

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (1)

redneckmother (1664119) | about 2 years ago | (#40490043)

It'd be safer than letting a dumb redneck (who can't even be bothered to learn how to spell the topic he's blathering about) handle a computer keyboard.

Hint: It's spelled "heroin". A heroine is a woman hero - like Daisy Duke.

Hey! Chill! I resemble that remark! ... and... Leave Daisy out of this!

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40488009)

Thank goodness Heroin is illegal and there are no Heroin addicts in the U.S. It's debatable whether the legalization of drugs would increase or decrease their usage. It's also debatable how secondary crimes are affected. One can easily argue that lower prices would result in less theft and that being able to go into a business establishment instead of the 'bad' part of town could help decouple a lot of the criminal element associated with drugs.

Look at that classic example of alcohol. How did alcohol related crime during prohibition compare to when it was legal?

Fun Fact: In 1895, the German drug company Bayer marketed diacetylmorphine as an over-the-counter drug under the trademark name Heroin. The name was derived from the Greek word "Heros" because of its perceived "heroic" effects upon a user.

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (3, Interesting)

blind monkey 3 (773904) | about 2 years ago | (#40489587)

Interesting outcome in Portugal after 5 years [scientificamerican.com] and after 10 years [time.com] - there were warnings of doom if they decriminalised at the time - all the drug addicts in europe were going to move to Portugal apparently. Big difference between decriminalised and legalised (imo) though.

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40497059)

How dare you posting those links! What are the Colombians, Mexicans, Peruvians (that have been killing themselves for drug related issues) going to think of the US, that has been keeping them from taking legal action over drugs!?

To be honest, my thoughts always were that the US needs to have large profits from drugs before they become a non-issue for the rest of the world. I'm glad to hear some countries have been taking little steps.

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (1)

drkim (1559875) | about 2 years ago | (#40489907)

...yes, those were fun times.

They used to strap radioactive stuff to their nuts, too (The Scrotal Radiendocrinator)
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/offbeat-news/10-radioactive-products-that-people-actually-used/1388?image=4 [environmen...affiti.com]

But just because they used to do it doesn't mean we should.

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40490173)

Arguing that drugs should be legal is not arguing that people should do them. Is there anyone who thinks the government doesn't need to care of us?

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40490401)

Smug ignorance at its finest... iv known plenty of heroin addicts that hold a 6 figure jobs... the problem is not as simple as you make it seem... you obviously drink the DARE kool aid

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 2 years ago | (#40490637)

Right... because nothing could be safer than a Heroine addict that has no money because they can not keep a job due to their addiction.

When's the last time you heard of people buying booze from the Maffia? Do you live in fear of recreational alcohol users?

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40491793)

Do you live in fear of recreational alcohol users?

Clearly you haven't been introduced to our charming British football club supporters.

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (1)

ooshna (1654125) | about 2 years ago | (#40492457)

Umm I never heard of a recreational crack or heroin user. Though it would be funny to hear someone say "I'm not an addicted I'm just a social freebaser."

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40492139)

I'd sooner trust a heroin addict than government. After all, I don't know whether the heroin addict is peaceful or violent. But I sure as hell do know that government is violent.

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40493393)

i suppose you also believe heroine addicts do not currently exist with current laws?

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (1)

Fned (43219) | about 2 years ago | (#40493723)

How the fuck did this get +5 insightful? Drug use tends to go down when drugs are legalized. And heroin addicts with access to legal heroin aren't any more unemployable than smokers.

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40495661)

I love all these blanket assumptions by people who I can only assume have not been around drugs / drug use very much. The effects of heroin are waaaaay more debilitating than smoking cigarettes. It is dose dependent for sure, but if you get loaded on heroin (as heroin addicts with large amounts of heroin tend to do) you aren't gonna be doing much of anything except staring at the back of your eyelids for a few hours.

Also, believe it or not, the high price of heroin does turn some people away from it. After a while, your tolerance gets so high that it's basically hustle all day every day for dope money or quit. Some people DO choose the latter.

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (2)

sonamchauhan (587356) | about 2 years ago | (#40488053)

> Of course, the USA could just DO THE RIGHT THING and legalise drugs and remove the profit from the drug cartel system,
> but then a bunch of congressmen won't get campaign funds to keep it all illegal.

Some say its been tried before:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/om/om15.htm [druglibrary.org]

But of course, its not the same, like all Scotsmen today.

Instead of sorting out the mess caused by the combination of your silly laws with silly individualism (e.g. sending addicts to jails instead of into forced-rehab), just carry on. Those who ignore history...

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (1)

Vylen (800165) | about 2 years ago | (#40488171)

Sounds like a great thing and all, but it's not like as if the USA is the only place where the drugs are being sent to.

Unless you're saying ALL countries should legalise drugs?

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (2)

puto (533470) | about 2 years ago | (#40488251)

Well, I am US citizen and a Colombian citizen, and a fairly liberal guy who has probably been higher on most substances in my life during my younger and wilder years. A coke head in Colombia or in the US is equally dangerous, I have seen the dangers of cocaine in both countries, and have had to deal with potential muggies in both countries due to crack heads. Weed, booze, E, is fine, but cocaine is a truly evil drug. Removing the profit from it will not change it. Cheaper cocaine will just lead to addicts who do not have to pay as much to get high. You have no idea how cocaine really works.

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about 2 years ago | (#40490367)

Well,

I am US citizen and a Colombian citizen

You're either under 18, or telling a fib. Surely you renounced one citizenship as a condition of receiving the other.

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#40490605)

Many people hold dual citizenship. Renouncing your citizenship is not a requirement to get a US citizenship. So GP could at point have held a Colombian citizenship, then obtained US citizenship. US law or Colombian law does not require renouncing Colombian citizenship.

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40492221)

You're either under 18, or telling a fib. Surely you renounced one citizenship as a condition of receiving the other.

I don't think the US government is thrilled about dual citizenship, but they don't do anything about it. I know a large number of Canadians who have dual citizenship in Canada and the US and a smaller number of Americans who do.

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (1)

Time_Ngler (564671) | about 2 years ago | (#40490861)

In nearly every country in the world the same drugs in the US are also illegal there. Since this wasn't always so and these drugs were once legal, and in each and every country were then made illegal, then how can you argue that legalizing drugs works? How can you explain why the reasons all these countries chose to ban them wouldn't apply today?

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40493267)

In nearly every country in the world the same drugs in the US are also illegal there. Since this wasn't always so and these drugs were once legal, and in each and every country were then made illegal, then how can you argue that legalizing drugs works? How can you explain why the reasons all these countries chose to ban them wouldn't apply today?

Because instead of the "enlightened" US and major European powers bullying all other countries to ban them, we'd then be bullying them to legalize them?

Re:countdown to anti-aircraft missles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40504171)

Making it all legal would only turn the cartels into corporations. How is that any better????

This is fascist. (3, Funny)

elucido (870205) | about 2 years ago | (#40487235)

Seriously we are using drug sniffing drones?
The drones are more dangerous than the drugs in this situation!

Re:This is fascist. (3, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#40487349)

Seriously we are using drug sniffing drones?
The drones are more dangerous than the drugs in this situation!

These are pointing them out. Not bombing them.

Re:This is fascist. (3, Insightful)

redneckmother (1664119) | about 2 years ago | (#40490059)

Seriously we are using drug sniffing drones? The drones are more dangerous than the drugs in this situation!

These are pointing them out. Not bombing them.

"Yet."

Re:This is fascist. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40487633)

It's ok, The drones are already high most of the time.

Re:This is fascist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40487787)

Not only that, but a violation of Bolivia's sovereignty.

I think this sort of thing comes under act of war, if done without Bolivia's permission. I wonder if US is just trying to stir the pot. No, I don't know of a US link, but the drones/plan may be from "El Norte" And, given past behavior, pretty much first response to illegal aggression should be to assume a US link.

Re:This is fascist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40487877)

Maybe if you'd read the fucking article you wouldn't have made your stupid post about "sovereignty." Or maybe you would have. Dumbass.

Re:This is fascist. (2)

lvxferre (2470098) | about 2 years ago | (#40491961)

No, it's not the Brazilian government who's doing this, but Bolivian (using Brazilian tech). No sovereignty issues here.

Re:This is fascist. (1)

fluffy99 (870997) | about 2 years ago | (#40490285)

I don't think they are "sniffing" in the olfactory sense. I think the article just enjoyed a play on words, and the drones are simply looking for heat sources that indicate someone in the woods is cooking up some coke.

Re:This is fascist. (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#40492965)

Let me save you some time reading that headline trolling + 1 page of fluff that they call an article. It's not really "sniffing" anything, as particles from drug production don't get that high in the air. They're just looking for abnormal tree patterns and smoke and vehicles and stuff. Of course, even years ago I saw a documentary showing how they camouflage their locations from aerial observation.

Re:This is fascist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40493457)

I'll let you in on some top secret intel, these are actually piloted by dogs, they have a small hole for their nose to stick out of.

Low tech is better (5, Funny)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | about 2 years ago | (#40487237)

Keith Richards strapped to a glider.

Done.

Re:Low tech is better (1)

failedlogic (627314) | about 2 years ago | (#40487949)

I'm surprised there are still drugs left in the world.

According to Dr. Dennis Leary, Keith Richards already did all the drugs.

Santa Cruz Operations (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40487253)

Good to see SCO finally getting what it deserves.

Oh it is a different pack of drug heads?

Meh still sounds lime Darl is in charge of this group.

How long before drones monitor us all 24/7? (2, Interesting)

elucido (870205) | about 2 years ago | (#40487263)

Is this the new way to fight crime or the new way to fill up the private prisons?
Drone manufacturers in bed with private prison owners in bed with law enforcement to create a militarized prison industrial complex?

I think drones and private prisons are worse than drugs an drug dealers. I support the drug dealers over the drone operators and private prisoner owners. What side are you on?

IF they wanted the drug war stopped? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40487469)

They'd do what they did to Iraq: Take over the Andes mountains & Bolivia, Peru, Columbia (etc./et al - wherever coke comes from).

Do they WANT it STOPPED? Hell no!

Why not? Well - That'd put MILLIONS of "law enforcement personnel" (the strong-arm cronies of those in power) out of a job (stopping a large part of their "raison d'etre"). Instead you saw the CIA get caught importing dope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_Contras_cocaine_trafficking_in_the_US [wikipedia.org] ... wtf!

APK

P.S.=> People, face 1 fact, if you haven't already: We're in the GRIP OF THE BIGGEST CRIMINALS OF ALL TIME, as our governments (who are run by those with wealth & corporate bodies) & we HAVE BEEN, for roughly 65++ yrs. I figure!

See - I've lived nearly 50 yrs. now in this life, & what I am seeing almost daily the past 1/2 decade now is TRULY making me ASHAMED to be a human being (because 1/2 of what we hear & see is 3/4 bullshit - mere "masks" & twisted statements to further the agenda of those in power... Since the greatest FEAR OF THOSE IN POWER, is losing that power!)... apk

Re:IF they wanted the drug war stopped? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40487619)

If they wanted to stop the drug ware, they'd legalize drugs.

Re:How long before drones monitor us all 24/7? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40490675)

Actually I support none of them.

But legalizing cannabis - and maybe few other drugs - might just a) end the "war on drugs" with its insane financial and political costs and b) reduce illegal income sources for the drug cartels. Grow your own cannabis in your garden legally, so no one gets to benefit outside of the fertilizer and seedbank business.

Drug sniffing... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 2 years ago | (#40487269)

I hear pigs can smell truffles underground, some flying pigs should do much better than the drones.

Re:Drug sniffing... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#40487453)

I hear pigs can smell truffles underground, some flying pigs should do much better than the drones.

Sure, all we need is Arnold Ziffle and Zsa Zsa to translate for us.. <_<

Re:Drug sniffing... (1)

redneckmother (1664119) | about 2 years ago | (#40490099)

I hear pigs can smell truffles underground, some flying pigs should do much better than the drones.

Sure, all we need is Arnold Ziffle and Zsa Zsa to translate for us.. <_<

(love the Green Acres reference)

"... and watching, for pigs on the wing ..." (mandatory Pink Floyd reference)

Re:Drug sniffing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40490171)

That'll do pig, that'll do.

Re:Drug sniffing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40491805)

Oh, right, that'll happen when -- well, you know.

how to construct your own ICBM in your own house (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40487621)

gay moths open wide to show surprise

icbm nuclear war ww3 ww2 ww1 iran iraq turkey explode explosion drug drugs dog sniff sniffer sniffing crotch verbal warfare strategy game virtual torture terror terrorist terrorism check checks visa mastercard american express card skim duke nukem forever

Pheew! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40487819)

How bad does it have to smell for flying drones to pick it up?

Mmmh (1)

drumlight (1244276) | about 2 years ago | (#40487895)

I had a temporary warehouse job where I worked with drug sniffing drones; generally a bunch of tedious mother&*@#*s.

They aren't sniffing for drugs ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40488489)

They are looking for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid !

We won't spy on Americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40489891)

Today Bolivia, tomorrow Los Angeles on the drug sniffing over your PERSONAL airspace.

OBTW Bolivians are Americans too. :)

Re:We won't spy on Americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40490001)

http://law-journals-books.vlex.com/vid/overflight-flights-interfering-enjoyment-44008099

"The complete statement of the doctrine 88 quoted by moat eommmtstm is "cujus est dum ejua est usque ad coelum." Literally the statement means that he who owns the soil also owns upward to heaven and slm downward to perdition."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum_eius_est_usque_ad_coelum_et_ad_inferos

However what the latin print giveth the Supreme Court taketh away:

The "ultimate demise" of ad coelum in the United States came in the United States Supreme Court case United States v. Causby in 1946.[13] In the Causby case:[12]

        low-flying military planes caused the plaintiffs' chickens to "jump up against the side of the chicken house and the walls and burst themselves open and die" . . . The plaintiffs sued the government, arguing that they were entitled to compensation under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.

        The court's decision, authored by Justice William O. Douglas, could have resolved the case on a narrow ground by simply holding that there was a taking of land because the government's flights affected the land. Justice Douglas did reach that conclusion, but then he went much further and opined on what airspace landowners do and do not own. He wrote that "if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run" . . . Thus, a landowner "owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land," and invasions of that airspace "are in the same category as invasions of the surface."

Therefore they can strafe you so long as they don't touch your roof. :(

And regulations further give back to a limited degree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the sole authority to control all airspace, exclusively determining the rules and requirements for its use. Typically, in the "Uncontrolled" category of airspace, any pilot can fly any aircraft as low as he or she wants, subject to the requirement of maintaining a 500-foot (150 m) distance from people and man-made structures except for purposes of takeoff and landing, and not causing any hazard. Therefore, it appears to trump any individually claimed air rights, near airports especially.

You will never see a government agency enforced against since they are a part of the Executive branch, who is also responsible for persuing fines, prosecutions and other legal motions.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CFcQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.wm.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D3223%26context%3Dwmlr&ei=_yXtT8fKLuil2AXmvqSJAg&usg=AFQjCNHZIlkAlZrnGgofFjAzcMBO6czkUg

"Traditionally, the Supreme Court has recognized that restrictions
by the Federal Government or State Government can be
a "taking" of property within the Fifth Amendment. In every
instance, all factors should be considered to determine whether
the restriction has, in fact, resulted in a "taking" or whether the
restriction is merely within the normal police powers under the
Constitution. 5 For example, the destruction of all uses of property
by floodlights reflecting from an airport has been held to be
a "taking" of property under the Fifth Amendment. 6"

I suppose throwing someone in Prison as a result of an overflight of private property would do that!

Vietnam (1)

redneckmother (1664119) | about 2 years ago | (#40490133)

I can't help but remember the towed methane sensors used by the US in Vietnam... "sniffing" for "charlie's farts" above the jungle...

Re:Vietnam (1)

tinkerton (199273) | about 2 years ago | (#40491189)

I can just see it: a vietcong suddenly comes running straight at you, then farts and passes at top speed. And then a missile lands on your head.

WOW!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40490563)

Anti-drug squads are now using Brazilian spy drones to sniff out drug labs that dot Bolivia in increasing numbers

Brazillian?!? That's a lot of drones!!! That's like a thousand times a gazillion!

That is awesome... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40490649)

It's about time those countries that export the drugs to America are taking some initiative. I keep hearing about how America is losing the war on drugs, but the truth is, we are the only ones seriously invested in keep drugs a pharmaceutical, medical and well-regulated affair, whereas our population seriously demands street drugs that foreign countries are all too happy to supply. More and more areas in those countries' entire economies can be based on drug production, making the authorities there reluctant to end it. So the burden is left to America who can't really do shit about it other than stopping domestic trade of it (which isn't as big a problem as the importation of it).

Now before someone gets preachy and suggests we ought to legalize it, just be rational and put down the pipe/pills/straw or whatever it is you're into for a second. Those areas in foreign countries like Mexico where narcotic production and exportation have become the most significant economic contribution, the authorities there really do live and let live. It's legalized narco by policy if not even law. But drug related crime there has become toxic. The murder rates are staggering. Thus legalizing the drug has not been shown to diminish various related types of wrongs our government is mandated to address. I would rather have a hard time acquiring marijuana than adopt an unnecessary risk of violence and death as cartels battle it out on OUR streets.

In the U.S. legalizing the narco, if we want to keep gang related crimes down due to increased competetive opportunities, we would have to regulate the production, distribution, sales, and access to narco. Which would cost taxpayers (and I certainly DO NOT want to subsidize your heroin addiction) and would still leave plenty of room for underground, illicit narco trade, and I don't think it would feel a lot less oppressive or restrictive than it does now to the recreational user. It really does make the very most sense to control the substances like we've been doing.

And if other countries play their part we should give them incentives so their economies won't suffer as they begin to eradicate the drug problem. After all, if we have less drug addicts, it follows we have a better available work force, a better economy, and therefore better means to affect international trade. It would also be helpful if countries' authorities would "seed" narco with radio tagged chemicals (like AMerica often does with its marijuana - they sometimes sanction the growing and distribution of cannabis which have been secretly tagged, then when it is picked up again later down the line, they can identify its place of origin and hopefully understand how it was moved and whatever other helpful statistics can be learned by this method.) Then they could notify us about trade routes and we could learn about cartel connections, quality control of the narc on the street (some sets cut it with this, some with that, etc.). We could develop a lot of intel this way and feed that back to the foreign countries who could take down entire organizations without much effort.

*shrugs* I know it's a long rant and unusual for slashdot but I had an energy drink at work that hasn't worn off yet. DOn't worry I'm not flaming, flamebaiting, or trolling.

Re:That is awesome... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40493635)

Now before someone gets preachy and suggests we ought to legalize it, just be rational and put down the pipe/pills/straw or whatever it is you're into for a second.

Alright. I'll put down my nicotine vaporizer and caffeine-laden iced tea, since that's what I'm into. (But only for a second!)

Those areas in foreign countries like Mexico where narcotic production and exportation have become the most significant economic contribution, the authorities there really do live and let live. It's legalized narco by policy if not even law. But drug related crime there has become toxic. The murder rates are staggering. Thus legalizing the drug has not been shown to diminish various related types of wrongs our government is mandated to address. I would rather have a hard time acquiring marijuana than adopt an unnecessary risk of violence and death as cartels battle it out on OUR streets.

Two distinctions there:
One, when something that is a crime is ignored for the sake of the local economy, you don't have the rule of law -- we call this corruption, and its effect on ancillary crime is well known.
Two, since importing it into (say) the US remains illegal and enforced, you're basically guaranteed to have criminal gangs handling the importation, if not the growing. If you legalize either importation, distribution, and use, or just distribution and use of domestic product, you greatly reduce the demand for smuggling (because legal importation is cheaper, or because local production is cheaper than importing, respectively), so the criminal gang's involvement may go away. (Or, being entrenched, they may just turn to running a protection racket on everyone who tries to import it legally... I don't claim to have all the answers.)

Without addressing why these differences somehow don't matter, your argument really doesn't say all that much...

In the U.S. legalizing the narco, if we want to keep gang related crimes down due to increased competetive opportunities, we would have to regulate the production, distribution, sales, and access to narco.

Like we have to regulate nicotine, ethanol, and caffeine to keep gang-related crimes down? There are regulations on those, to be sure, but they don't seem to be the sort you're envisioning, nor for the purpose of preventing Los Zetas from running an illegal coffee grow and caffeine extraction.

Which would cost taxpayers (and I certainly DO NOT want to subsidize your heroin addiction) and would still leave plenty of room for underground, illicit narco trade, and I don't think it would feel a lot less oppressive or restrictive than it does now to the recreational user.

Does our current alcohol and tobacco regulation cost money? (Hint: sin taxes)
Is there a lot of underground, illicit alcohol trade? (yes, and it's almost entirely nonviolent and harmless -- mostly homebrewers getting their buddies a tax-free keg) or tobacco/nicotine trade? (yes, people illegally buying smokes over the state line) If that level of underground, small-scale tax-dodgery is almost certain -- but also practically harmless. Why will it be worse for narcotics and other currently scheduled drugs?
Is there a big problem with it feeling oppressive or restrictive (well, outside Utah and a few Southern counties)?

*shrugs* I know it's a long rant and unusual for slashdot but I had an energy drink at work that hasn't worn off yet.

Heh. Tell me all about how oppressive and restrictive it was to get that.

www.brand-onlinerabat.dk,nike free run 2 purple/wh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40491011)

http://www.brand-onlinerabat.dk/nike-free-sko-c-277.html
http://www.brand-onlinerabat.dk/nike-free-sko-c-277.html
Als de Gunners kapitein, een kleine wet heeft meer dan twee weken uit de buurt van het stadion, en net een prachtig weer om een dergelijke prestaties hebben, hoe kunnen de fans juichten. De eerste vertegenwoordiger van een kleine wet Arsenal begint, of in het 28 oktober 2003 de League Cup derde ronde wedstrijd tegen Ross, billige free sko,wholesale nike free shoes in uk usa canada, Graham Wing. Na zeven jaar, hij heeft ingeluid in de eerste 250 keer voor de Gunners eerste gelegenheid, is na vijf opeenvolgende tegenstanders versloeg Chelsea zelf. Gezicht heeft een "haat" van Chelsea, een kleine wet niet alleen de song en Walcott de doelstellingen helpt, waren ze nog 51 minuten, billig free sko, scoorde een doelpunt. Naast de doelstellingen en helpt, een kleine wet te spelen 88 minuten een game-high 74 passen, billig max sko, het slagingspercentage van bijna 80%. 88 minuten, een kleine wet vervangen door Tomas Rosicky, Emirates Stadium, de fans stonden en applaudisseerde. Warcraft dutje Blues verloren en minder dan onoverwinnelijk jeugd, zullen 32-jarige Drogba niet oud geworden soort van gevoel? nike sko lilla,Had 13 keer tegen Arsenal, scoorde hij 13 doelpunten, de wedstrijd stuurde een vrije trap slechts assisteert laatste 10 wedstrijden, scoorde slechts twee doelpunten. Chinese fans zullen nog steeds liefkozend genoemd Drogba een "Warcraft", maar nadat de deur wordt genereus om hem afstappen. Lampard slaapwandelen, Drogba niet het doel te vinden, Terry werd een vergiet, is Chelsea is gevallen van de top van de vierde het huidige seizoen de laatste zes Premier League zonder een te winnen.

Counter measures on the way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40491093)

Time for some anti-drone rockets...

Neal Stephenson was right again! (1)

RPI Geek (640282) | about 2 years ago | (#40494453)

The first image that popped into my head was a German Shepherd with aviator glases in a Predator drone painted like the Red Baron's plane, flying over the jungle and barking into a radio when it smelled some pot. Then I thought, "why not just make a flying Rat Thing with the nose intact?"
I should really patent this idea so I can sue the first company who actually makes one!

EPA Pollution Sniffing Drones (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40497477)

That's the comeback for any over-exciting conservative who thinks this is a great idea and should be done immediately in American skies without a warrant.

Just say the magic words: "EPA Pollution Enforcement Drones" and watch the conservative's eyes bulge before they suddenly re-discover due process and civil rights in a hurry.

Check for New 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...