Sciencemadness Discussion Board - It finally happened, the police showed up

That is a presumption of Guilt.
They can suspect anything, and everything under the sun but they have to have legal grounds for a warrant. NOT suspicion.

Kinda my point too...

What's a 'rouge' judge? Did you mean 'rogue'?

[Edited on 1-6-2015 by blogfast25]

Loptr - 31-5-2015 at 18:16

I think the war on drugs has really made that a mute point, unfortunately. All people can think of with the mention of a drug lab is the place blowing up and children being affected by the toxic chemicals adsorbed on the walls.

I think the mere possibility would be more than enough for a warrant, which seems to be he case if the officer was telling the truth...

blogfast25 - 31-5-2015 at 18:29

Quote: Originally posted by Loptr

I think the war on drugs has really made that a mute point, unfortunately. All people can think of with the mention of a drug lab is the place blowing up and children being affected by the toxic chemicals adsorbed on the walls.

I think the mere possibility would be more than enough for a warrant, which seems to be he case if the officer was telling the truth...

Whose side are you on?

Tdep - 31-5-2015 at 18:53

I think it's important to note that the war on drugs in Australia is more a war on drug. Every second night there's an 'ice epidemic' story on the news and inbetween the stories there's anti ice ads. I feel it would be easy to get a warrant for investigating meth labs in Australia. But the police here are alright. So I've found, maybe it gets better with small country police forces too.

The glassware isn't illegal, and I don't mind if LEOs read this post of course. Investigate me anytime for meth, I really don't mind. Got to show off my disulfur dichloride to more people, my friends are sick of me bragging to them.

Oh and Ned, I got the glassware from DesChem's ebay store. So it went through customs from China. The police did say something about 'importing glassware from China', the glass did get to me by post though so they didn't sieze it which is nice.

Zombie - 31-5-2015 at 20:39

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25

That is a presumption of Guilt.
They can suspect anything, and everything under the sun but they have to have legal grounds for a warrant. NOT suspicion.

Kinda my point too...

What's a 'rouge' judge? Did you mean 'rogue'?

[Edited on 1-6-2015 by blogfast25]

No I meant rouge. Cross dresser Judge, ya know...

You're right I cain't spell fer crap.

Oscilllator - 1-6-2015 at 01:11

Oh boy that lab looks just like one of those meth lab posters I used to see on the wall of my PE classroom. It's good to see that the police were nice to you though, that bodes well for any interactions I might have as I too live in Australia(NSW). When I decided to buy glassware from china though I emailed a law enforcement guy (experience detailed in another thread), so perhaps that's the only thing that prevented them from turning up to my house!

Tdep - 1-6-2015 at 02:01

Quote: Originally posted by Oscilllator

Oh boy that lab looks just like one of those meth lab posters I used to see on the wall of my PE classroom.

That's what my friends always say! This is the poster I remember from school, although the tagline gets a bit less threatning when you realise it's just talking about sodium hydroxide, hydrogen peroxide and sulphuric acid haha

Loptr - 1-6-2015 at 05:38

I wouldn't want to take something that came out of that toilet, but I have absolutely no problem with taking something that was prepared using sodium hydroxide, hydrogen peroxide, and sulfuric acid.

We should replace that picture of the bathroom with one of a bottle of medication.

That bathroom looks disgusting.

learningChem - 8-6-2015 at 00:55

So australia is just another shitty police state. Well, I suppose they take their orders from the DEA.

Tdep - 8-6-2015 at 01:18

Lol no? It's illegal to make methamphetamines and they enforce it, where is the issue?

Loptr - 8-6-2015 at 08:47

I think the issue may be with how easily they were able to get a warrant just for the observance of glassware.

blogfast25 - 8-6-2015 at 09:38

Quote: Originally posted by Loptr

I think the issue may be with how easily they were able to get a warrant just for the observance of glassware.

If possession of lab glassware isn't illegal in your locality, you should sue.

'Watching them watching us'.

szuko03 - 8-6-2015 at 11:10

I think its interesting how people from the US instantly think that if it involves police and "shrinking rights" if you will they think its domestic. Of course Australia investigates lab glass as that is their biggest threat it is much different then in the US in a sense. I would also imagine they are right in the middle of the media frenzy if you will, I mod on a forum more directed toward harm reduction and drug use safety all of the articles coming out of AU are for their ice epidemic. Sure we have some stories about meth but we are more into Research chemicals and "fake this and that killing high school honors students" then methamphetamine that was ours in like 2008.

I didnt mean it as an insult to anyone at all it is just something I noticed as a parallel between the two forums. I know it is because of a sort of fear or disrespect toward police on our end and its not for no reason either as "cop kill unarmed so and so" is all over our news.

turd - 8-6-2015 at 11:32

Lol no? It's illegal to make methamphetamines and they enforce it, where is the issue?

If you don't understand the issue, then you are part of the problem. Simply put: If glassware is not illegal, then it's none of their business. Also looks like they were lying to you about the warrant.

aga - 8-6-2015 at 11:54

Ok children, calm down, and stop thinking the Police are Bad.

They're (mostly) grown-ups trying to prevent people from harming each other.

If they see a room full of Guns, they might well want to have a look to see what that's all about. If it's a room full of people brandishing guns, they may well call for backup first.

If they see Glassware in a 'non-standard' setting then they will want to ask questions, and begin by assuming it's a drug lab, as they usually are.

Same as if they see a drunkard weaving across the highway - they will investigate, not to cause the innocent drunkard a problem, but to prevent the idiot drunkard causing life-threatening problems for other people.

Police are used by politicians, so it isn't anywhere near black-and-white.

Whichever way you view the Police, we need them to maintain any kind of 'safe' society, and in the main, they do a better job at it than you or i.

Loptr - 8-6-2015 at 12:27

Ok children, calm down, and stop thinking the Police are Bad.

They're (mostly) grown-ups trying to prevent people from harming each other.

If they see a room full of Guns, they might well want to have a look to see what that's all about. If it's a room full of people brandishing guns, they may well call for backup first.

If they see Glassware in a 'non-standard' setting then they will want to ask questions, and begin by assuming it's a drug lab, as they usually are.

Same as if they see a drunkard weaving across the highway - they will investigate, not to cause the innocent drunkard a problem, but to prevent the idiot drunkard causing life-threatening problems for other people.

Police are used by politicians, so it isn't anywhere near black-and-white.

Whichever way you view the Police, we need them to maintain any kind of 'safe' society, and in the main, they do a better job at it than you or i.

I have more of a problem with the loosening of the requirements in order to investigate this sort of matter. In this particular instance, there wasn't a problem and of no ill affect on Tdep, which is a good thing and something I hope we see a lot more of in the coming years, rather than the opposite.

All of this is an indicator of the current perception of chemistry, and the more risky hobby's in general, by the general populous and politicians. If the populous says that chemistry is an invalid hobby, and that anyone ordering glassware is a possible threat, then I say that is an issue that needs to be addressed. Also, if the politicians want to make themselves looks good in the eyes of the populous, then they will do their best to be perceived as their champion; champion in the war on drugs! When the politicians have made this claim, then the police have to fulfill that promise, and in turn, become more vigilante in this pursuit. It is this vigilance that is of concern, as you have just become an enemy of the State in their minds, and we have heard evidence of this happening.

In the USA, we have a similar issue that been brewing for a while now, and that is with the right to bear arms. More balanced individuals, like myself, enjoy having the ability to own a weapon and go to great lengths to ensure something unintentional does not happen during the course of its usage and storage. In the mean time we have nuts blatantly open-carrying around schools, grocery stores, and airports (?!?!?). They are screwing it up for the rest of us, as I can guarantee you, after shenanigans such as this, this fundamental provision will be given quite a bit more thought of its relevance in the future. This parallels with the chemistry hobbyist and drug cooks. We should be as equally opposed to the generalization and treatment of drug cooks compared to hobbyist, as we should in the USA of separating the more conservative individuals from the extremes. Our rights shouldn't be trampled upon just because some people break the law, as there will always be those that break the law, and this is no justification for them to take a second look at us without just cause. Ordering glassware is not just cause! Should you have the ability to come to my house and take a look around just because I ordered something completely legal? I think not. Should you have the right to come to my house and take a look around after neighbors start reporting suspicious behavior, traffic, explosions, and smells coming from my property. Absolutely!

[Edited on 8-6-2015 by Loptr]

aga - 8-6-2015 at 13:10

If you ordered 2kg of plutonium off ebay, then i'd call that Just Cause and grant a warrant.

The problem (in the US at least) is that those ordering glassware and chemicals are meth cooks, with the amateur chemists in the minority.

The majority of gun & ammo orders are made by 'normal' people, with the gun-toting criminals in the minority.

Why on earth you'd need 300,000 rounds of 30 cal ammo a week is beyond me, however personal ownership and use of an M134 is deemed OK in most states.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC8jnSaCqxY

[Edited on 8-6-2015 by aga]

aga - 8-6-2015 at 13:18

Quote: Originally posted by learningChem

So australia is just another shitty police state. Well, I suppose they take their orders from the DEA.

Learn something about Australia before making stupid remarks about a State that spans an entire Continent.

I guess you saw on Youtube that their capital city is Sydney.

[Edited on 8-6-2015 by aga]

blogfast25 - 8-6-2015 at 13:55

If you ordered 2kg of plutonium off ebay, then i'd call that Just Cause and grant a warrant.

The problem (in the US at least) is that those ordering glassware and chemicals are meth cooks, with the amateur chemists in the minority.

Talk about an absurd comparison: 2 kg of Pu and ordering/owning lab glass ware!!!!

Owning Pu, with exception for minute quantities and relevant permits, is ILLEGAL almost anywhere, BTW. Own it and you're breaking the Law. Go straight to Gaol, do not collect $100.

As for the second assertion, do you have any evidence for it or have you retreated into your 'no evidence needed, I just KNOW these things' bunker again?

People should not be penalised for owning something that is neither used nor intended for malice. By your logic, start rounding up people who own hammers and knives too. It's even more absurd that in some countries guns are mostly legal but lab glass invites a knock on the door.

aga - 8-6-2015 at 14:05

The reality is that owning chemical-ish glassware raises a high degree of suspicion.

No Scientific Facts are readily available relating to this as the Studies to render such confirmatory Data are pretty much impossible at this time.

May as well ask the Catholic church to do a Scientific study relating to the incidence of Burning At The Stake vs Let Go Free for Catholic priests in 1538 during the Dissolution of the Monasteries.

With Human behaviour, Science fails badly, especially regarding the derivation of Laws.

[Edited on 8-6-2015 by aga]

blogfast25 - 8-6-2015 at 14:17

The reality is that owning chemical-ish glassware raises a high degree of suspicion.

A reality that strongly points to prejudice. And that has to change unless one wants it to simply get worse over time...

aga - 8-6-2015 at 14:22

"There is no need for argument where an experiment is possible."

blogfast25 wearing a white coat in a windowed shop on the corner of West 141st Street and Amsterdam Avenue, close to New York City College, simply making Methyl Salicylate by the bucketload, stored in 5g cellophane bags.

I would suggest Time from start of first reflux to SWAT arrival to be the determinant in this experiment.

Edit:

Catalysts could be employed such as adding a Towel, however we only have one blogfast25 and would not wish to lose him in this way.

[Edited on 8-6-2015 by aga]

blogfast25 - 8-6-2015 at 15:39

You miss the point and I give up. Or should that be 'you piss the point'?

Whatevah...

confused - 8-6-2015 at 19:49

"There is no need for argument where an experiment is possible."

blogfast25 wearing a white coat in a windowed shop on the corner of West 141st Street and Amsterdam Avenue, close to New York City College, simply making Methyl Salicylate by the bucketload, stored in 5g cellophane bags.

I would suggest Time from start of first reflux to SWAT arrival to be the determinant in this experiment.

Edit:

Catalysts could be employed such as adding a Towel, however we only have one blogfast25 and would not wish to lose him in this way.

[Edited on 8-6-2015 by aga]

if its done in a windowed shop people might think it was a demo/marketing stunt .etc

szuko03 - 9-6-2015 at 08:01

I do like how everyone is going nuts when the police investigated and decided he wasnt a threat and didnt bother him further. Is that not the desired outcome? I mean when you get pulled over you show your paperwork and prove the car isnt stolen maybe answer some questions and go on your way, which is almost exactly what happened here. The police came asked about what he was doing he answered a few questions was deemed not a threat and allowed to proceed. I get it we can all go "but they shouldnt show up in the first place" and although that may be true in a sense being told to proceed is basically the same thing if not better. Provided the OP isnt a closet meth cook or something at least now he knows hes in the clear and if he got the officers info he can say "officer so and so already inspected my lab station"

I think it was ok and if it happened to me I would be ok with it. I love talking chemistry and as long as the police arent jerks I would gladly show them my lab and show them how far you can take at home learning, which I think is another issue in todays society we separate learning from the home when most chemists in the 1800s the lab was their home and they discovered shit outside of the university.

blogfast25 - 9-6-2015 at 08:17

Quote: Originally posted by szuko03

I do like how everyone is going nuts when the police investigated and decided he wasnt a threat and didnt bother him further.

Because there's a principle at stake here: sufficient probable cause.

There's plenty of stuff lying about the house that can be used for all kinds of nefarious uses but we don't go around asking people what they plan to do with their knives (or whatever else)... just in case!

If possession of labware in a home setting makes you almost by definition a suspect then clearly something is wrong and that needs to be addressed.

Quote: Originally posted by szuko03

Provided the OP isnt a closet meth cook or something at least now he knows hes in the clear and if he got the officers info he can say "officer so and so already inspected my lab station"

Being 'in the clear' on this occasion does not provide immunity against future (legitimate or not) investigation or worse. Nor should it.

[Edited on 9-6-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 9-6-2015 at 17:29

100% on board w/ Blogfast.

What is in the US constitution, and without a doubt Aus, Great Brit, and MOST other free nations???

Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Suspicion of impending loitering is NOT a crime. Possession of Lab Glass is NOT a crime (in this case).
Grounds for a warrant? I would go ahead, and ask to see this warrant today, and SUE THE SHORTS OFF OF THEM!!! As has been said here already. You're talking 100g's at least to settle.

Buy a Monster lab with a jacobs ladder, and those big electric switches on the wall.
Get some 55 gallon drums of dry ice, and dump ultra violet hot stuff in them. Do it all on the front lawn.

Then buy 40 cases of baseball bats, 40 cases of duct tape, 40 bags of lye, 40 tarps, and 40 ski masks, and sue the hell out of them AGAIN!

Eventually you can buy plutonium, and build a hole maker in your front yard, and they'll walk right past.

Look at Camden, New Jersey. Cameras on every pole, and microphones to triangulate gun shots. Guess what else the mic;s pick up? Every word you say. VIOLATION of your rights>>>>>>>>>>Period!

The world is in over drive, and allowing it HAS to stop. SUE THE BASTARDS! Best three words on this thread!

[Edited on 6-10-2015 by Zombie]

blogfast25 - 9-6-2015 at 17:49

Thanks Zomb.

No need to go 'nukular' (in Shrub's immortal words), though

. Revenge is best served cold. If 'probable cause' constitutes no more than legal possession of whatever, I think a case for suing the cops exists. Whoever has the courage to do so.

Or contact Ralph Nader: none of the a$$h*ts in Congress are likely to even think about your cause, too busy sucking up to Big Corp and any one else willing to give them 'moar moneys' for passing lucrative bills.

As I've written elsewhere, if the problem of needless harassment of amateur chemists persists, the latter need to get organised. Occupy Something!!

[Edited on 10-6-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 9-6-2015 at 19:20

Bring dogs! It worked for the Irish.

Can you imagine the next occupation of the Grey House lawn? The million man, and 7 million dog re declaration of Independence!

I just got goose bumps~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (That's a Tilde

)

Tdep - 10-6-2015 at 02:00

I do disagree with you guys, but that's ok. Let's not underestimate the differences in the cultures between the two countries. Most people have nothing against the police here in Aus. The other Australian members will back me up here i'm sure.

When the police asked us to turn our guns in, what did we do? Everyone turned their gun in. Would that ever happen in America? (hint: no.) If the police want to investigate every house for a meth lab, everyone would open their homes. Not even kidding, at least where I live there's a sort of 'if you've done nothing wrong you shouldn't try to hide anything' attitude.

Zombie - 10-6-2015 at 02:17

100% agree with you on all of it.

It's not the police in particular that we have the problem with. It is the powers that be that control the police. THEY have been shifting the mentality, and the function of the police departments from "Protect, and Serve" to Follow your orders, and let us worry about the applicable laws.

Our Constitution has become an antiquated notion of how a country should be governed. I don't think it is even taught in schools anymore.

How many Americans here under the age of 20, have really read it? In honest replies my guess is less than 4%.

Come to my house with a LEGIT court order for anything, and I'll put out coffee, and doughnuts. Come to my house with some BS violation of my Constitutional rights, and I'll put out the dogs. Not even joking a little.
I'll defend myself from jail if need be.

j_sum1 - 10-6-2015 at 03:12

I think there are a couple of issues in question here.

The first is the legitimacy or otherwise of police being requested to follow leads provided by customs officials. Actually, I don't mind that. I quite like proactive policing. I like it when things get investigated early and the majority of matters turn out to be non-events. That is a whole lot better than people displaying a range of, let's say ambiguous behaviour, which the police know about but do nothing until some fruit loop cracks and the whole lot blows up in our faces. Cite: Sydney cafe seige. So if someone is buying up large volumes of cold medication, importing swords, has 200 cars per day pull up to their house for five minutes each, or has clouds of unusual-smelling smoke emanating from their garage on a regular basis or whatever, I don't mind if questions are asked. That used to be called community policing -- a paradigm where the police have a presence in the community and know a bit of what is going on. They are then able to distinguish between eccentric crackpots like you and me and real criminal behaviour and get the jump on the latter. I am led to believe that this policing paradigm is (a) cheaper, (b) more effective at curbing criminal activity and (c) more supportive of individual rights in the long run.

The second is the fact that the police had a warrant to search. I don't know if that means something different in the US, but here in oz, it means just that -- a warrant to search. There is no implication of guilt here. Tdep was not a suspect. It isn't even possible for him to be a suspect since there was no crime. A warrant to search is merely an information-gathering tool. It is very limited in its scope. It is specific to a particular instance -- date and location. It is not too different to closing off a road after a car accident to investigate the scene. It is a nuisance from a practical standpoint. There is no suggestion of accusation until after the information has been gathered and there is positive evidence of illegal activity. A search warrant is not a waiver of an individual's rights in any way -- those are actually protected by law. Even if the warrant was procured illegitimately, there is nothing to sue for. You can only sue for identifiable damages and in this case there was none. Again, I consider it good that the police had a warrant that they could use. If they had come across a clandestine drug lab (as happens reasonably often) then they would have had the ability to act decisively straight away to deal with it. Without a warrant the crims likely get away. With a warrant there is a greater distinction made between the behaviour of law-abiding citizens and criminal activity.

The third issue is the way in which the police acted. No photos. No accusations. Just a few straightforward questions. No notes taken. Quickly sizing up the situation and acting appropriately in a friendly way. That is all I would expect of LEO. The fact that Tdep demonstrably had nothing to hide worked in his favour.

My $0.02.

MrHomeScientist - 10-6-2015 at 05:57

I don't think it [the Constitution] is even taught in schools anymore.

That's pretty blatantly false and alarmist, don't you think?

Texium - 10-6-2015 at 06:21

Quote: Originally posted by MrHomeScientist

I don't think it [the Constitution] is even taught in schools anymore.

That's pretty blatantly false and alarmist, don't you think?

Yeah, don't worry Zombie, it's still taught, I just finished Government class and that's pretty much all it was.

Zombie - 10-6-2015 at 16:06

Quote: Originally posted by MrHomeScientist

I don't think it [the Constitution] is even taught in schools anymore.

That's pretty blatantly false and alarmist, don't you think?

I don't know, and no.

I don't know but a handful of people that can cite their Constitutional rights, and I know hundreds of people.

In fact I don't think I know one cop that is aware of his real legal rights, and I know several dozen cops that I see almost daily. (small town w/ three forces. City, county, and state agencies here) .I repair most of the boats these fellas own, and we talk about how they can say anything to anyone, and there are always two reactions. One is the person/people will believe whatever the cop spews out as LAW, and the other is they run or try to lie their way out of it.

If people knew their rights, they would also know that they do NOT have to answer any question from any cop ever.
You do not have to move along, you do not have to identify yourself. you do not have to "step out of the vehicle", you do not have to put the gun on the ground.
Ask if you are being detained, and inform them that you are an American citizen that knows his rights, and the legal boundaries of the police, even if they do not.

Will cops make up a charge that sounds good because you bruised their ego? Sure as hell they will. Is this legal? Sure as hell not.
Does it happen thousands of times a day in the US? YEP!
Does it piss me off? YEP!
Do people that know me know how I feel on this? You tell me.

The only thing blatant here is that fact that I don't care for BS, and I make that clear.

fabio5546 - 12-6-2015 at 10:02

Lol this picture is great!!! Thats what I call a sterilized Lab.
I agree with you guys, the only problem here I see is the disgusting lab, sodium hydroxide, sulfuric acid and EVEN HYDROGEN PEROXIDE(whats the big deal???) is used in a lot of food processing standarts as well as in medicine fabrication.

Scr0t - 12-6-2015 at 12:18

Quote: Originally posted by fabio5546

whats the big deal???

Indeed!
It exploits the ignorance or/and 'chemophobia' of the general populace and attempts to associate the drug with filth and deprivation... it's just standard fare propaganda.

Praxichys - 15-6-2015 at 06:32

Citing your rights in front of a cop is like citing the employee handbook to a McDonald's employee about the number of pickles on your burger, saying that there should be two and not three and you know everything about McDonald'd food and demand it be corrected and that the rules should be changed or better enforced.

It just pisses everyone off. If you wish to find excuses to tout your legal rights to the fullest extent, then they too will exercise the rule of law to prosecute you to the fullest extent. Nobody wins.

If you can live with three pickles, fine. If you really have a problem with it, asking nicely will get the problem resolved. Sometimes it's better just to pick the damned pickle off yourself.

If we can put paranoia aside for a moment, consider that the legal system is designed to punish those outside the law. Judges are taught to uphold the spirit of the law and are only going to dig for psalm and verse if you make it difficult for them. If you are a presentable, well-educated person knowledgeable about the subject, in agreement with the expert witnesses, with no violations against you other than an accusation of narcotic manufacture, and have a clean drug test at the time of arrest, I see no way a jury can convict you.

Getting crazy about rights and such is going to imply to judge and jury that you're hiding something. You'll be scrutinized under a microscope, and perhaps convicted falsely just for being a toolbag. Frankly, I'm not sure that letting paranoid, argumentative people play with lab supplies is a good idea either.

I find that a lot of people who seem to always be on the soapbox about rights are just pissed because they like to do something illegal and feel threatened by every tiny thing that might compromise that. If you don't want to get convicted for manufacturing drugs, but still want a lab, you can't also do drugs. Life is not fair. Pay to play; that's how a country works. If you can't muster the fortitude to act like a grown-up, maybe you shouldn't be doing chemistry at home.

Unfortunately, the scientific mind is often very logical. We do not tend to consider the validity of the social "fudge factor" - the gray areas - in many of these things, looking at law as if it were followed algebraically every time, when this is nowhere near reality.

Edited for a grammar faux pas.

[Edited on 15-6-2015 by Praxichys]

Loptr - 15-6-2015 at 08:38

Citing your rights in front of a cop is like citing the employee handbook to a McDonald's employee about the number of pickles on your burger, saying that there should be two and not three and you know everything about McDonald'd food and demand it be corrected and that the rules should be changed or better enforced.

It just pisses everyone off. If you wish to find excuses to tout your legal rights to the fullest extent, then they too will exercise the rule of law to prosecute you to the fullest extent. Nobody wins.

If you can live with three pickles, fine. If you really have a problem with it, asking nicely will get the problem resolved. Sometimes it's better just to pick the damned pickle off yourself.

If we can put paranoia aside for a moment, consider that the legal system is designed to punish those outside the law. Judges are taught to uphold the spirit of the law and are only going to dig for psalm and verse if you make it difficult for them. If you are a presentable, well-educated person knowledgeable about the subject, in agreement with the expert witnesses, with no violations against you other than an accusation of narcotic manufacture, and have a clean drug test at the time of arrest, I see no way a jury can convict you.

Getting crazy about rights and such is going to imply to judge and jury that you're hiding something. You'll be scrutinized under a microscope, and perhaps convicted falsely just for being a toolbag. Frankly, I'm not sure that letting paranoid, argumentative people play with lab supplies is a good idea either.

I find that a lot of people who seem to always be on the soapbox about rights are just pissed because they like to do something illegal and feel threatened by every tiny thing that might compromise that. If you don't want to get convicted for manufacturing drugs, but still want a lab, you can't also do drugs. Life is not fair. Pay to play; that's how a country works. If you can't muster the fortitude to act like a grown-up, maybe you shouldn't be doing chemistry at home.

Unfortunately, the scientific mind is often very logical. We do not tend to consider the validity of the social "fudge factor" - the gray areas - in many of these things, looking at law as if it were followed algebraically every time, when this is nowhere near reality.

Edited for a grammar faux pas.

[Edited on 15-6-2015 by Praxichys]

You are absolutely right, Praxichys. The idea is that through the absence of evidence against you will be found innocent.

However, there are some grey areas regarding what could get you into trouble, and one of those is storage of hazardous chemicals on your property. The Newport News incident I posted about a while back said they were looking for hazardous chemicals. What does that mean? I think all chemicals are hazardous to the point where I don't let my children near them, and have cabinets for storage, a corrosives cabinet, etc. It is through such safety precautions that I hope to avoid a hazmat cleanup.

IrC - 15-6-2015 at 10:07

Praxichys "Citing your rights in front of a cop is like citing the employee handbook to a McDonald's employee about the number of pickles on your burger, saying that there should be two and not three and you know everything about McDonald'd food and demand it be corrected and that the rules should be changed or better enforced.

It just pisses everyone off. If you wish to find excuses to tout your legal rights to the fullest extent, then they too will exercise the rule of law to prosecute you to the fullest extent. Nobody wins."

Clearly your major is not law considering cases ruled by the Supreme Court stating failure to cite your rights implies willful forfeiture of them. If I want a legal opinion I will not go to a fast food business, or you. Rights only survive the ages when one exercises them. Use it or lose it.

Zombie - 15-6-2015 at 10:16

Unfortunately, the scientific mind is often very logical. We do not tend to consider the validity of the social "fudge factor" - the gray areas - in many of these things, looking at law as if it were followed algebraically every time, when this is nowhere near reality.

Edited for a grammar faux pas.

[Edited on 15-6-2015 by Praxichys]

This is what your post comes down to. Actually you are incorrect. No cop, lawyer, or judge can "fudge" the law or your rights.

This is exactly why I am PISSED, and every citizen of the world should be as well. Take the pickle weather you want it or not???
To hell with that notion.

Get arrested for public intoxication, and yet you never drank in your life. Let's say Heat Stroke caught you... Go to jail, get bailed out, appear in court with your 2000.00 dollar lawyer, and they agree to plea bargain vs. go to trial. Choice is accept the plea of disorderly conduct or spend another 2000.00 bucks, and another day in court OR take the pickle off yourself.

They should have kept the frigin' pickle in their bin, and never put it on you to begin with.

In this instance you have the RIGHT to be taken to the hospital, and confirm you have a medical condition. You never would have been taken to jail or court or any of that BS.
IF they deny or violate your rights. FIGHT BACK. Take thew offending agency to court, and buy a flag that covers your entire house. Hell buy the entire neighborhood, and set up a 24 hour Go-cart track. Don't eat their damn pickles just because they THINK they have to power here. They do not!
They work for US not each other, as complacency has them thinking.

Know your rights, stand up for your rights, and bring the wrath when they violate your rights.

As to those that wish to have cake, and eat it too... To hell w/ them. Drinking one beer, and driving is as guilty as drinking five. Make one beer, and driving a crime, and all the debate on how many pickles goes away.

Let's say you take MAOI's to live a decent life. You understand you can't eat cheese... so you dont'
If one beer is illegal unless you wait one hour.... WaiT!!! Make grown up choices, and you have the right to live, and let live.
make stupid choices, and remain part of the problem. It's simple really.

Sorry for the silly examples but I don't want to get pissed about this. The subject of our rights is getting out of control in America. When they can read your mail, record your conversations, and check your bank activity by pushing a button... Yeah I'm pissed. It is against the Constitution this country was founded on.

Praxichys - 15-6-2015 at 12:28

IRC and Zombie - Yes, and I find those things just as disturbing.

I'd just rather risk some of my rights maintaining lubricity (and therefore leniency) with my local law enforcement rather than take the road of a rights activist and provoke my captors into searching for ways to punish me.

You pick the pickle off, you do extra work but you eat the burger. It was your right not to have to take it off, but hey, we all make mistakes. If you immediately blow up about regulations at them, they'll replace that pickle with spit at the first opportunity.

However noble it may be to defend rights, I make a much better chemist than an activist. As legal minorities in the home chemistry world, I feel better trying to slip through the cracks than to introduce legislation just for hobby chemists. We don't have enough manpower for that, and, let's face it - home chemistry PR is pretty terrible.

The law is "fudged" in something like 91% of small cases. Look up how many criminal cases these days end in plea bargains. If I end up in court for my lab, I'll just try to work a deal - drop any alleged narcotics charges in favor of some fines for improper storage of flammable materials, or something. As Loptr suggests: dotting your i's, crossing your t's, and keeping a good lab notebook will get you farther than kicking and screaming about your rights.

Technically what we do is illegal. If you have drain opener, matches, and camping fuel in the same room, intent to manufacture is already there according to the law as it stands. If you go down with the silent treatment and the "I know my rights" stance, you look very guilty to a whole lot of people, and someone is going to try and burn you. If you come off pleading as the innocent student, hobbyist, educator, clean-cut, well-behaved, eloquent, and drug-free, you might just get off the hook.

I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't always have to be a war, because the unfortunate reality is that we would all technically lose.

Zombie - 15-6-2015 at 12:52

I'd rather stand in front of my house armed to the teeth, than hide my weapons under the furniture.

Same for the precursor, and analog laws/acts. How do you PROVE what someone was or was not INTENDING to do?
You can assume but assumption is not a basis in law.

I get your point for sure. Don't rock the boat...

I'm the guy that shoots holes in the boat. If there is a law that is just, I obey it.
Draino, matches, and camping fuel??? I have all of those!

If one of my cop buddies asks to see, sure. Come on in.
If they have a warrant because I was at wally world, and bought them all at the same time? The reason for that analog act was an excuse to barge into your home. It is an assumption of intent. What judge in his right mind could follow the Constitution, and sign a warrant for assumption of intent? Where is this in the Constitution?

What is needed is a Class Action Law Suit against the United States Government.
WE the People have to get off our complacent arses, and act. WE have to change things or WE are all under the bus for good.

There are soo many grounds for such a suit that it would take generations to sort out all the cause/effect.
Will it ever happen?

NO! People will accept that extra pickle. Sheep!

turd - 15-6-2015 at 13:16

Getting crazy about rights and such...

This is not about "getting crazy", this is about fundamental civil rights that are the defining factors of a free society. These factors are not some random shit; they were slowly worked out over the last few centuries.

See http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/:

Quote:

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

This means that you have a right to privacy in your home and it's nobody's business what you're doing there. Yes, under very special circumstances the government may interfere with that privacy, for example your house is burning or there is a strong suspicion that you are commiting a serious crime. This is such a fundamental right that every free society has very strict rules to avoid abuse by the authorities. Usually a warrant has to be issued by a judge and you have a right to one or more independent persons overseeing the search. And you have a right to be told exactly what you are accused of (including paper trail).

As a citizen of a free society it is your duty to defend these fundamental rights. Calling this "getting crazy" is a false dichotomy, because this can be handled perfectly calmly. Of course they will instantly switch to aggressive mode to make you feel insecure. Don't let that impress you; don't react by becoming cocky; call a lawyer and let the professional handle the situation.

I have a hard time believing that - even in Australia - a judge would issue a warrant for trivial glassware. The police were probably lying (so much about being "nice"). Basically OP was fucked over and should take it as a lesson how the system works. Next time be friendly, but get a copy of the warrant (if it exists), god damn it.

Quote:

I find that a lot of people who seem to always be on the soapbox about rights are just pissed because they like to do something illegal and feel threatened by every tiny thing that might compromise that. If you don't want to get convicted for manufacturing drugs, but still want a lab, you can't also do drugs.

Well that's the whole point why these rights are fundamental. Chemistry only for the submissive slave, but not for somebody who happens to grow a few socially unacceptable plants? That's ridiculous.

BTW, I doubt that blogfast, Zombie or IrC are the lowlife stoners you seem to insinuate. Your whole post was in an under-the-belt tone; no real arguments?

IrC - 15-6-2015 at 13:46

IRC and Zombie - Yes, and I find those things just as disturbing.

I'd just rather risk some of my rights maintaining lubricity (and therefore leniency) with my local law enforcement rather than take the road of a rights activist and provoke my captors into searching for ways to punish me.

You pick the pickle off, you do extra work but you eat the burger. It was your right not to have to take it off, but hey, we all make mistakes. If you immediately blow up about regulations at them, they'll replace that pickle with spit at the first opportunity.

However noble it may be to defend rights, I make a much better chemist than an activist. As legal minorities in the home chemistry world, I feel better trying to slip through the cracks than to introduce legislation just for hobby chemists. We don't have enough manpower for that, and, let's face it - home chemistry PR is pretty terrible.

The law is "fudged" in something like 91% of small cases. Look up how many criminal cases these days end in plea bargains. If I end up in court for my lab, I'll just try to work a deal - drop any alleged narcotics charges in favor of some fines for improper storage of flammable materials, or something. As Loptr suggests: dotting your i's, crossing your t's, and keeping a good lab notebook will get you farther than kicking and screaming about your rights.

Technically what we do is illegal. If you have drain opener, matches, and camping fuel in the same room, intent to manufacture is already there according to the law as it stands. If you go down with the silent treatment and the "I know my rights" stance, you look very guilty to a whole lot of people, and someone is going to try and burn you. If you come off pleading as the innocent student, hobbyist, educator, clean-cut, well-behaved, eloquent, and drug-free, you might just get off the hook.

I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't always have to be a war, because the unfortunate reality is that we would all technically lose.

Some very good points. Reason, politeness, discretion at all times. This has helped me in times past go on my way quickly. Police are people too and as such simple human nature takes precedence at the moment when one is being confronted. Being an activist in such situations is irritating to all of sound mind, that is those subject to reason. One must weigh the situation. There is a time to stand on your rights but this must be tempered with the facts of the current situation. If I were LEO just doing my job (and not starting with a bad attitude, also having a history of blatantly ignoring the rights of the citizen) and someone gets rude and annoying for no just cause my first reaction will be to oppose aggression with the same attitude.

How to define these limits is fluid most of the time but discretion is the better part of valor (or is it a kind word turneth away much wrath). In the OP's situation he politely answered questions using intelligence and reason, with the result being they determined this was a simple student interested in science as opposed to someone conducting criminal activity. Imagine what would have resulted had he been all up in their faces demanding his rights be respected. They had a warrant if it had been needed so under the law not only did they not violate his 'rights', they acted politely, professionally, and went on their way in peace. I imagine a sane experimenter would always wish for this outcome.

When they are already violating your rights, going to charge you with unfounded charges, then you stand on your rights. As Praxichys noted this does in effect result in their escalating the situation due to simple human nature but there is a point where one to protect themselves must invoke their rights or when it comes to trial it can be ruled you already surrendered them. This has happened many times in the past. When they arrest you I would say its time to remain silent and demand legal council. Technically the OP made a mistake in not refusing a search unless they presented a warrant but at the same time Praxichys is correct this invariably escalates the situation. Hard to say if the OP's actions were either correct or incorrect from a legal view yet the outcome was positive. I have no doubt it would not have been positive had he acted differently that how he did. In effect for this situation the best thing he could have done was not demand his rights be respected. His story of events appears to reinforce this idea. So maybe one must be sharp, observant, play it by ear. They were polite and respectful right from the start and were merely trying to determine what was going on with the glassware he ordered. Kindness should always be rewarded with kindness, respect with respect.

If he would have had say 2 or 3 (or more) precursors under the law he may be screwed under any circumstances yet showing the documentation of legitimate use of said items maintaining the attitude he had this time could still possibly result in a good outcome for him because it is up to the investigators how they are going to proceed. Obviously pissing them off is a bad idea even in one is within their rights. Due to the current 'atmosphere' virtually everywhere in the world, home experimenters start out with a big disadvantage in terms of their legal 'rights'.

I have no doubt a room full of lawyers would come up with as many different versions of how one should conduct themselves in these situations as there are lawyers in the room. Mainly because politics and public opinion has created a very serious 'grey area' concerning the legal standing of anyone outside of some government approved laboratory conducting chemical experiments. It sucks but there it is, put simply I do not think there is any good answer (*for this narrow discussion of home chemistry) as to what is the correct way to act when confronted by LEO at your home laboratory other than what has been mentioned by Praxichys and others here as well as in previous threads on this subject.

* I say this because the point zombie was bringing up covers virtually all areas or situations and this may not be the best approach for home chemists due to the 'grey area' politicization has created for home science in general.

Magpie - 15-6-2015 at 15:39

I have to wonder how this would have turned out in the US. It seems that the citizenry-police relationship varies a lot depending on location. Pyro (Netherlands) gives examples of good relations he has with the local police.

Some time ago I tried to be friendly with some cops at a Starbucks while sipping a latte. They seemed cold and didn't seem to want to talk with me. Now, because of recent events they seem to want to develop good relations with those they are sworn to serve. They do this with formal "get to know your police" programs. I think they would be better off just talking to us at Starbucks. I have no desire to go to one of their formal programs and have my name put on a list.

Zombie - 15-6-2015 at 17:06

I posted about the neighbors "missing kid".

When they started knocking on doors, I invited them in.

Yes you all are 100% correct that discretion in a given situation is the best of all choices. If I lived in DC or NYC I would NOT have let them in even if my head were on fire.
It is all a fluid thing as Irc says.

What gets me is the fact that your internet, mail, phone, credit/debit are all monitored. The tactic is to watch shipments from certain vendors, and demand customer lists or be seized.
How is this played legally? It's not!
Who has the money to stop them?

Ups bowed down to 40 million dollars in fines to escape prosecution for "Aiding, and Abetting".
FedEx is not caving in, and going to court on that same charge.
USPS is supplying the information requested as a government agency.

How high up on the "list" do you think a fella like me is? I google everything, and anything. I post key words by the thousands. I buy what I want when I want.

The fact of the matter is, the strongest "drug" in my house is a bottle of FireBall Whiskey in the freezer.
Another fact here is EVERYTHING you own came from some fashion of science. Even that pretty coffee table. 17 coats of hand rubbed urethane, and 5 coats of wax. Your socks? jeans? The key to your door?

And they have the stones to say an amateur scientist has no place in society? Making a great cup of tea is a science project!!!
It's the fact that THEY watch us, and have NO laws to do so until THEY make one up, and do so with NO input from the general public. The very people that put them in power to SERVE US!

Now we serve them. The machine has taken control of itself, and it is feeding on its creators. US!
Where do your tax dollars go?

macckone - 15-6-2015 at 20:41

First and foremost you should always be polite to people with guns rather they deserve it or not. Similarly people with the authority not necessarily the right should also be dealt with politely. Even if all you have to say to them is may I please call a lawyer. As in most things there is a time and place to assert your rights. It is up to each individual to determine when that is. And it is different in different countries. And it also differs between districts in the US. In Texas for example having a Pyrex coffee pot is sufficient to get you jail time. In California possessing lye has the same effect. In other states to varying degrees there are rebuttal presumption rules, like having camping fuel, matches and Sudafed. You could have allergies and be planning a camping trip, but if you have four hundred boxes of matches the burden is on you to explain why you are removing the strikers. You may have rights but don't assume they will be respected. But also don't roll over and let them pineapple you a la 'little nicky'. Pick your battles and stay off the radar.

j_sum1 - 15-6-2015 at 21:01

I agree that the situation is highly dependent on location. In my home country (not here) police don't even routinely carry guns. (Why would they need them? Shooting people is not a normal part of the job!)

Every little thing that contributes to the legal and/or cultural status of the situation is a factor that also contributes to what constitutes and appropriate response. This is what makes Tdep's experience so encouraging. Common sense prevailed.

Now I fully understand (ok, fully appreciate) the comments made by our American friends. But the fact is that that attitude does not translate well to a different cultural context. The kind of stance advocated by Zombie would be considered over the top and would likely be deleterious and not beneficial.

There are times when I am thankful that I don't live in the US.

Zombie - 15-6-2015 at 21:21

Why do you think they call me Zombie sir?

I've had to fight (fists or words) my entire life. You get tired of seeing abuses every day for decades, and I live a relatively peaceful life. It's all the little things like someone hitting a kid or beating a dog, and I have to pay for their welfare to support them.
The same drunk everyday at the same bar, and yet he NEVER catches a DUI. The dope dealer that doesn't get busted because he's the local deputies son. The local deputy that gets a misdemeanor charge after being caught red handed stealing from local boat storage yards.
The city commissioner that passes zoning to help friends, and gets paid on both ends to do so.
The uncle of another commissioner that builds 8 buildings on one property without a single permit.
The mother of the Chief of police that gets free asphalt on her driveway. The NEW chief that retires after 2 years, and collects a pension on MY dime.
The local hardware or IGA that sell at triple the price because the next closest stores are a 40 mile trip.

Knock Knock!
Who's there?
I KNOW my attitude sucks. I'm the one that lives with it. All day every day. Everywhere I look.

I've been looking for a venue to help correct all this crap. If anyone has a suggestion... I'm all ears, and ready.

[Edited on 6-16-2015 by Zombie]

Tdep - 16-6-2015 at 01:46

Heh, Zombie, my gosh do we disagree. Would still love to see your opinion on the topical Australian issue of the government deciding to outlaw bikie gangs though. Article

Quote:

Currently, anyone who associated with a member of a "declared" organisation more than six times in a year would face up to five years' jail.

Under Queensland law, people who commit a serious offence while participating in a criminal organisation could spend 15 years in jail on top of their sentence for the original offence.

It was now also an offence for three or more members of a declared criminal organisation to knowingly meet in public or to work in certain industries such as tattooing.

Loptr - 16-6-2015 at 09:56

Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1

I agree that the situation is highly dependent on location. In my home country (not here) police don't even routinely carry guns. (Why would they need them? Shooting people is not a normal part of the job!)

Every little thing that contributes to the legal and/or cultural status of the situation is a factor that also contributes to what constitutes and appropriate response. This is what makes Tdep's experience so encouraging. Common sense prevailed.

Now I fully understand (ok, fully appreciate) the comments made by our American friends. But the fact is that that attitude does not translate well to a different cultural context. The kind of stance advocated by Zombie would be considered over the top and would likely be deleterious and not beneficial.

There are times when I am thankful that I don't live in the US.

I also have to add that this situation could have also been highly age-dependent. I am sure it is how you say it is in Australia for the most part, but I am not ruling out the same can't happen there, especially if politicians start becoming the target of public's outcry for them to do something about a problem...

[Edited on 16-6-2015 by Loptr]

fabio5546 - 16-6-2015 at 10:16

I fully agree with Zombie and I even havent been yet in america where this problem seems to be even worse.
Its not about doing legal or illegal stuff (and to be honest, which hobby chemic hasnt done things which are at least on the edge???) Even distilling your own CH3CH2OH is forbidden by law in most countries and you could get busted for it.
I lived half of my life in brazil and the other in germany, two extreme opposites, but in both countries police isnt worth a cent! Full of arrogant, power-abusing grown up loosers which are frustated from all the bullying they suffered and want revenge on society.
If you really need them you are screwed, happened to me in saint, fully-correct and functional germany! In Brazil they are worse than the deliquents, those at least "only" want your money, and wont be profiling themselves using your powerlessness against the great law!

Zombie - 16-6-2015 at 13:12

Corruption, and hypocrisy are the real issues in my way of looking at it. You have to have pure motives in passing a law. Collecting payment for supporting a bill is not a pure motive, yet it is allowed to continue. Not legaly but under the table. Your community gets a new park IF you vote to outlaw lab glass.
The same is true all across the board. Right down to the cops that enforce the laws. We hang out in the back yard, drinking beer, and doing shots till the firewood is gone. maybe 1-2 in the morning. Guess who gets in the car to drive home... Not me! I stay put or catch a ride w/ a sober driver BUT the local cop, gets in his STATE owned truck, and drives home. With a hardy Hi Ho Silver... They can't arrest me!

Live by the law or don't. There is NO GRAY AREA HERE!

Make just laws or don't. NO GRAY!

The Aus bike laws are the same as US RICO statutes. If there is not a specific crime to arrest you for, they made up a law. RICO.

What happened to the right to free assembly?

Now I have to say that some of the 1%rs out there deserve to go to prison forever. If they are posers? Send them anyway. You don't want real or pretend murderers running free.

If you wear a patch? How is this a crime? I know some bad ass bikers that I do NOT associate with. Friends of friends, ect... In the same club(s) there are some of the nicest people that you will ever meet. I know one fella that has had his door open to everyone that needs a place to stay for as long as they need to stay. He goes to church every Sunday, and gives to the church.
Yet if he were caught riding with 3 buddies in Aus. they throw him in prison?

Who made that law? The minister that supported his village with cocaine kick backs? Or was it the one that screwed underage girls... while his wife raised HIS kids.

Goose, and gander. Good for one is fair for the other. How about IF your political party has committed a crime ie: Nixon. The party is declared an outlaw organization, and anyone caught maintaining that party is a criminal. Sound fair? To ME it does. 100% fair!

Does the world work this way? You tell me.

Why not?

macckone - 17-6-2015 at 20:13

The US RICO act requires certain crimes to be committed and there to be a certain relationship between the people committing them. The Australian law sounds a little over the top. In the US there is also the patriot act, but its provisions requires that the 'terrorist organization' be 'foreign'. So no matter how repugnant a domestic organization is, you can't be prosecuted for just being a member. You have to agree to participate in a felony and commit overt acts in furtherance of the crime to be prosecuted. Usual I am not a lawyer disclaimer.

Fenir - 18-6-2015 at 15:15

Quote: Originally posted by macckone

In Texas for example having a Pyrex coffee pot is sufficient to get you jail time. In California possessing lye has the same effect.

I think that statement is a little alarmist, the laws are not actually that strict. Texas may ban most glassware but you would not go to jail for possesing a coffee pot. In California I have had no trouble buying lye over the counter. I agree that some laws are unjust, but building up a strawman argument is not the answer to this problem.

Hawkguy - 18-6-2015 at 20:34

Quote: Originally posted by Fenir

Quote: Originally posted by macckone

In Texas for example having a Pyrex coffee pot is sufficient to get you jail time. In California possessing lye has the same effect.

. I thought borosilicate/ lab glass was banned without license in Texas?

Zombie - 18-6-2015 at 23:45

That alone is a restriction with no basis in reality. Dope dealers/manufacturers do NOT walk into Science "R" us, and order lab glass on their credit card.

Robbers, rapists, murders do not go to WalMart, and buy guns.

They steal the crap or buy it from someone that did. For glass they will be breaking into real labs, and universities. Not Buco's house on 123 Main st.

Another fact is the small fry guy that makes for his buddies, and a few bucks is using soda bottles, not glass. Glass is too dangerous. It breaks!

The entire vision of home chemistry is sooooooo screwed up that it is really a no win situation.
The big suppliers are not dealing with home labs. The on line suppliers are being monitored, and very often harassed for their customer records.
The shipping companies are being brought to court on real serious charges, and all a guy wants to do is make something fun, cool, useful, or unique.

I get it because I see how many people come here looking to make drugs. There are quite a few. I'd personally love to make drugs but there are none that interest me. Well DMT is interesting but Ytube has everything you need to know, and all you need is a turkey baster, and a freezer.

Maybe the world is F'd?

I'll just play w/ my dogs, drink a few beers, and make the occasional bon fire. forget about it!

KesterDraconis - 19-6-2015 at 06:38

So Tdep is Explosionsandfire on Youtube? I'm a big fan of the channel! (MrLittleLawyer on Youtube) Yes, I recognized the laboratory.

On this issue I have to agree with Zombie however. People these days wish to live in utopian safety, and will more quickly rely on government action to achieve that end than themselves and their own responsibility.

Now, I would like everyone to interpret the following remarks properly, in context of my situation. I know MANY police officers, the reason for my youtube name is because my father is a lawyer working for the government. I've met and know (by that I mean talk often with) so many LEOs I can't count them all. I've sat in a lounge room with several of them more than once listening to stories about drug arrests and more.

Almost all have treated me fairly and kindly, but despite this I have not found reason to trust them. Rather, I've found reason only to respect them. Its sad but it is true. Any one of them would arrest me for some charge or search my house and laboratory. The very strong sense of duty which would also make them lay down their lives for me, would also compel them to attack me if ordered. Its a very blind ideal that they follow, so that even the ones that aren't pigs with power (of which there are a few) are still dangerous to the common people. Especially when they have been convinced, for example, that they are actively engaged in a war (like the "war" on drugs) or that they face so great a threat that only their duty to the state matters (terrorism).

Even my dad has trouble with understanding why the mindset of many LEOs is wrong, or why its a good thing that they won't be given military surplus anymore. It wasn't until I showed him pictures of Boston after the bombing, with police officers in full camouflage in the streets, that he quietly said "Oh...no I don't support that, they look like US army!"

The dutiful mindset of good LEOs, mixed with the pigs, mixed with peoples wish to live in utopia in this day and age, combined with politicians who only want to have power through appeasement, has lead to our current situation. A situation where nobody cares about fundamental rights, about what freedom truly means, or why its there. Rather, everything has become a massive Gordian knot of regulations and laws, and it continues to become worse. DUI checkpoints are legal because they aren't "so unreasonable an invasion of privacy" that they are illegal, even though they still are an invasion of privacy and the Constitution does not allow for exceptions, men in black coats decided to think otherwise, which is not their authority to do. The draft, effectively making every male in this country a reserve military member, supports involuntary servitude, yet again men in black coats decided that servitude that is not voluntary is not involuntary servitude.

Understand also, I have nothing against honorable judges. My father also wore one of those black coats for a while (he decided he didn't like the job after a while, I guess he didn't know what he was getting into). What I am against is dishonorable judges, liars and cheats, who are all too common in society. Men and women of power who look down upon the little guy with contempt.

The government has gone out of control and continues to do so. As someone who still holds to old ideas of what liberty is and its role in free societies, this pains and grieves me. There is little to do though, for now the masses rest only a little while longer, but the lion is in the streets, its in the open square, yet as a door turns on its hinges, so do the lazy masses wishing for sleep in their dream world. Perhaps someday we will all awake and understand again, or perhaps we will, like one man once warned his own generation away form doing, let this current world built on centuries of struggle and the blood of freedom fighters, be plunged into a thousand years of darkness.

Just my 2 cents.

Loptr - 19-6-2015 at 07:17

Quote: Originally posted by KesterDraconis

So Tdep is Explosionsandfire on Youtube? I'm a big fan of the channel! (MrLittleLawyer on Youtube) Yes, I recognized the laboratory.

On this issue I have to agree with Zombie however. People these days wish to live in utopian safety, and will more quickly rely on government action to achieve that end than themselves and their own responsibility.

Now, I would like everyone to interpret the following remarks properly, in context of my situation. I know MANY police officers, the reason for my youtube name is because my father is a lawyer working for the government. I've met and know (by that I mean talk often with) so many LEOs I can't count them all. I've sat in a lounge room with several of them more than once listening to stories about drug arrests and more.

Almost all have treated me fairly and kindly, but despite this I have not found reason to trust them. Rather, I've found reason only to respect them. Its sad but it is true. Any one of them would arrest me for some charge or search my house and laboratory. The very strong sense of duty which would also make them lay down their lives for me, would also compel them to attack me if ordered. Its a very blind ideal that they follow, so that even the ones that aren't pigs with power (of which there are a few) are still dangerous to the common people. Especially when they have been convinced, for example, that they are actively engaged in a war (like the "war" on drugs) or that they face so great a threat that only their duty to the state matters (terrorism).

Even my dad has trouble with understanding why the mindset of many LEOs is wrong, or why its a good thing that they won't be given military surplus anymore. It wasn't until I showed him pictures of Boston after the bombing, with police officers in full camouflage in the streets, that he quietly said "Oh...no I don't support that, they look like US army!"

The dutiful mindset of good LEOs, mixed with the pigs, mixed with peoples wish to live in utopia in this day and age, combined with politicians who only want to have power through appeasement, has lead to our current situation. A situation where nobody cares about fundamental rights, about what freedom truly means, or why its there. Rather, everything has become a massive Gordian knot of regulations and laws, and it continues to become worse. DUI checkpoints are legal because they aren't "so unreasonable an invasion of privacy" that they are illegal, even though they still are an invasion of privacy and the Constitution does not allow for exceptions, men in black coats decided to think otherwise, which is not their authority to do. The draft, effectively making every male in this country a reserve military member, supports involuntary servitude, yet again men in black coats decided that servitude that is not voluntary is not involuntary servitude.

Understand also, I have nothing against honorable judges. My father also wore one of those black coats for a while (he decided he didn't like the job after a while, I guess he didn't know what he was getting into). What I am against is dishonorable judges, liars and cheats, who are all too common in society. Men and women of power who look down upon the little guy with contempt.

The government has gone out of control and continues to do so. As someone who still holds to old ideas of what liberty is and its role in free societies, this pains and grieves me. There is little to do though, for now the masses rest only a little while longer, but the lion is in the streets, its in the open square, yet as a door turns on its hinges, so do the lazy masses wishing for sleep in their dream world. Perhaps someday we will all awake and understand again, or perhaps we will, like one man once warned his own generation away form doing, let this current world built on centuries of struggle and the blood of freedom fighters, be plunged into a thousand years of darkness.

Just my 2 cents.

This is so weird! I realized that Tdep was explosions&fire last night too, so I immediately sent him a message last night to see if it was true. lol

I recognized the bench from the picture in his videos.

Zombie - 19-6-2015 at 10:18

Tdep... You're soooo screwed. Time to relocate the Bat Cave.

Tdep - 20-6-2015 at 02:07

Wow people recognize my lab, i'm somewhat honoured haha.
Can't imagine what the reaction would have been had the police showed up when i'm hanging with friends. And Zombie, if you want to build me another Bat Cave, i'll let you teach me Constitutional rights any day of the week.

Although Wikipedia informs me I have no constitutional rights. Ah, that's probably why I never learned it in high school!

Quote:

Australia is the only Western democratic country with neither a constitutional nor federal legislative bill of rights to protect its citizens

[Edited on 20-6-2015 by Tdep]

[Edited on 20-6-2015 by Tdep]

fabio5546 - 20-6-2015 at 03:48

Why do you think they call me Zombie sir?

I've had to fight (fists or words) my entire life. You get tired of seeing abuses every day for decades, and I live a relatively peaceful life. It's all the little things like someone hitting a kid or beating a dog, and I have to pay for their welfare to support them.
The same drunk everyday at the same bar, and yet he NEVER catches a DUI. The dope dealer that doesn't get busted because he's the local deputies son. The local deputy that gets a misdemeanor charge after being caught red handed stealing from local boat storage yards.
The city commissioner that passes zoning to help friends, and gets paid on both ends to do so.
The uncle of another commissioner that builds 8 buildings on one property without a single permit.
The mother of the Chief of police that gets free asphalt on her driveway. The NEW chief that retires after 2 years, and collects a pension on MY dime.
The local hardware or IGA that sell at triple the price because the next closest stores are a 40 mile trip.

Knock Knock!
Who's there?
I KNOW my attitude sucks. I'm the one that lives with it. All day every day. Everywhere I look.

I've been looking for a venue to help correct all this crap. If anyone has a suggestion... I'm all ears, and ready.

[Edited on 6-16-2015 by Zombie]

Sorry, but NEVER EVER compare kids with dogs man! This is another sick thing in our "new society". As young couples never wanna have kids, because they want to live in Utopia (make carrer first [a yate, bentley and private airplane], then thinking about kids), they tend to see dogs with the same value as kids. This is soooooo sick and hypocritical, did you know that there are more chicken than people on earth and all males are slaughtered after birth, because they are useless for the industrie? Do you know how cattle gets slaughtered in Jewish slaughterhouses to be kosher? This is all soooo sick, but nearly noboby cares. BUT if you spank a fucking dog(even to educate - and no, it's not possible to educate a dog just talking nicely to him), people would film you on the streets and put it on Youtube or make a protest in front of your house or something. Sick sick Utopia we are creating for ourselfes!

With the rest I fully agree with with you, but this comparison, I dont like at all!!!

Funny that Explosions&Fire is your channel Tdep, I know it for a while... Thumbs up

KesterDraconis - 20-6-2015 at 14:54

Wow people recognize my lab, i'm somewhat honoured haha.
Can't imagine what the reaction would have been had the police showed up when i'm hanging with friends. And Zombie, if you want to build me another Bat Cave, i'll let you teach me Constitutional rights any day of the week.

Although Wikipedia informs me I have no constitutional rights. Ah, that's probably why I never learned it in high school!

I loved the sodium explosion videos by the way. Even if the drone footage had its problems

.

That said, constitutional rights aren't just issues of the constitution. They are truths held self evident by the people, not granted by the government or the constitution. Therefore, its not a question of whether or not you have them, you do (as every human being does), you simply choose not to accept them/lay claim them. Which you can do of course, however, you simply can't keep others from doing the same.

I mean, what freedom and rights as concepts are quite well defined, most people just don't choose to fully understand them. Hence we have people saying "France is free, Russia is free, Germany is free etc etc etc" when in fact its very hard to call any of these free societies, and truly free societies are few in number (if not non-existent, I don't really count my own country, the US, anymore) .

macckone - 7-7-2015 at 00:47

Anarchy is the only true freedom.
But it isn't stable.
Somalia and Guatemala are examples
of countries with little to no centralized
government. Of course gangs and warlords
have stepped in to fill the power vacuum in
both countries. They are unlikely to stop
you from doing anything that doesn't
hinder their agenda. Of course they may
also randomly kill you for entertainment.

Varmint - 7-7-2015 at 04:50

Praxichys:

I find it humorous (not really, let's say both typical and disturbing instead) that you state "91% of small cases are fudged in some way", and accept it as fact.

As if "fudged" is the norm so we best figure out how to roll over in the most inviting way.

The problem Zombie eludes to, the problem Blogfast mentions, the problem EVERY SINGLE PATRIOT world-wide should be worried about is the perception that "91% fudged" is acceptable and normal.

Law enforcement's edict is to "serve and protect", and that is to serve the populace and protect the populace, not act as the government's Storm Troopers.

In the US, we are specifically protected by the Constitution from unreasonable search and seizure. Well, that's the way its supposed to be, but since the sheep have decided to let law enforcement exceed its constitutional limits time and time again, what we have is the current situation where ordering glass is "reasonable suspicion".

For any US citizen, I highly suggest supplementing your knowledge of the Constitution by reading the Federalist Papers. These are a collection of notes, musings, "thinking out loud" from the framers for WHY the Constitution and Bill Of Rights are what they are, and why certain words were used in lieu of others in those documents.

Since this thread tepidly touched on the second amendment, this needs mentioning: Many legislators who portend (pretend?) to be advocates of the 2nd amendment proclaim their "unwavering support for the right to hunt and for personal self defense". Well, that may be just fine, but it has absolutely nothing to do with why the 2nd amendment exists. The 2nd amendment exists solely to provide the populace the means to take up arms against the government if and when the government crosses the bridge to tyranny.

Now there are those who will scream with horror at the very thought of people taking up arms against the government, but don't take it out on me, take it out on the framers of the Constitution and Bill Of Rights, as there can be no doubt of any kind what the intent of the 2nd amendment was. If you take the time to research, and use the Federalist Papers as your reference as opposed to the leftist evening news, you'll understand completely that "hunting" and "self defense" are so obvious as to not bear mention, but the real purpose is to take back control when the government inevitably loses control.

That last sentence above is a bit misleading, the real purpose for the 2nd amendment is to remind the government that the founders knew the natural course of government is towards tyranny, and it is almost always (since the dawn of civilized society) accompanied by the government using fear as a means of exceeding it's limitations. The problem is, the tyranny is always presented in little steps that on their own seem almost logical and dare I say warranted. But the truth is, people try not to rock the boat (as your entire post begs all to do), so we end up with incremental usurpation of our rights.

So, who dropped the ball first? A case could be made for 1934 when fear of gang violence allowed the government to take one class of firearms (fully automatic) and make them subject to taxation and approval. Now the average deer hunter, and of course the inner-city Simon Milqtoast will shout "no one needs fully automatic firearms!", but the fact is, it doesn't matter if anyone "needs" them or not, the government has no right to tax or "approve" ANY firearms purchases by the general population. The government's rights are the ones limited, not that of the populace. If I can afford to buy ammunition for a full-auto weapon, the only point of concern for the government is the additional sales tax they will be getting from my purchases, PERIOD. Yet, "safety" sold the GCA 1934 to the public, and WE surrendered our rights.

GCA 1968 forbids any new full-auto imported weapons from entering the civilian marketplace. We let them get away with that too.

Since then, the war on drugs has put tyranny on the fast track, the number of rights we now consider "negotiable" is truly mind-boggling. The interesting part is, the framers planned for this, they understood government and the populace well enough to PLAN for the eventual need for the 2nd amendment.

To many, we're very late in rejecting the usurpation of our rights, to others, the "line in the sand" will be outright gun confiscation. To others, their line in the sand will be even beyond that, when it is categorically too late to take back control. In fact those people are the ones wondering how sick I must be to actually consider the original intent of the 2nd amendment as "valid". It's those people who are an enemy to this once great nation.

Rights are not negotiable, they are codified to protect us from the government. We allow violations of those rights at our own peril. Yet there are far too many idiots willing to surrender their rights because they "don't want to rock the boat". These are enemies of the state. Don't be one of them.

Praxichys - 9-7-2015 at 10:34

A problem is that the same documents which define our rights also give us a process for changing them as necessary. We could never be progressive as a society if we were unable to amend the rules we live by. Unfortunately, that is a double-edged sword. I didn't like it when Merriam-Webster added "ROFL" into the English dictionary, but it's only a matter of time when "U" and "R" are going to be in there as acceptable alternatives for "you" and "are."

The problem is that everyone has equal vote, even the idiots. When this country was founded, only land owners could vote. I say that's a pretty damned good system, actually. At least mandate a proficiency test or something. (Oh, but that's discriminatory! Boo hoo!) I live life preoccupied with a thousand other things important to my personal well-being, voting when I can, but it is not the people against the government at this point. It's people against other people who vote for these kunckleheads that think rights are suggestions. Once in office, it is easy for a well-funded sales pitch to sway the opinion of the hapless, robotic dimwits that might comprise >50% of the vote, leaving those who can tell the difference in a helpless rage, pissing against the wind of change.

This is "progress".

Am I just getting crotchety in my age? Is this the equivalent to saying "Damn those hippies" and "Hey kids, get off my lawn?" I do agree that this country is slowly sinking to a dismal, consumer-oriented, service-industry fate. But, you can't make people read or become responsible decision makers.

Short of starting a new country, I don't see how to fix this. I am a big fan of the 2nd amendment and exercise it myself, but how many people would call you a "crazy gun nut" if you went to the grocery store and asked people if they had a problem with you owning "big, bad 'assault' rifles?"

Public opinion nowadays is mostly unresearched heresay - complete garbage - because the average moron can't be bothered to do the work it takes to make an educated decision. Have you ever read a "Food Babe" article? Do you see the drivel that spreads like wildfire on Facebook, spreading unsubstantiated rumors to the extent that manufacturers will actually change the formulation of their products to appease a false belief, which only gives them more validity?! For the money, of course! (See: Aspartame, MSG, azodicarbonamide)

Yet, the collective opinion is treated as what is best for this country. The minority that are the educated class with valid, researched opinions and hard data will almost never get the vote simply because of the numbers! I feel that we have already passed the point of no return. Heck, I have personal friends with Master's degrees, in positions of leadership, who regularly make decisions based on reality TV. I feel every day that I wonder through a wasteland of mosquitoes bouncing from one glowing, warm TV screen to another, stopping occasionally to drag themselves to work, complain about smart people, suck the blood of the taxpayers until they burst, and fall into a contented slumber, dreaming about what will happen on the next episode.

If someone has some land somewhere and you want to build the next Singapore on it, let me know. Otherwise, the best I can hope for is to keep my opinions to myself lest the public make my already challenging life difficult, maybe getting a knock on the door by a three-letter agency with a few questions about my "patriotism."

Selfish as it is, I'd rather spend my life dodging bad government policy and practicing as a chemist than fighting a huge nation to regain freedoms most people don't understand, let alone find necessary.

[Edited on 9-7-2015 by Praxichys]

aga - 9-7-2015 at 12:46

Yes, just old and crotchety, due to the fact that you're annoyed about it, and yet are not prepared to devote your life to Doing anything about it.

I'm equally guilty of this syndrome.

Praxichys for President !

Praxichys - 10-7-2015 at 05:27

What we need is a Jonestown for scientists, minus the crazy suicidal religious cult stuff. Let's get a bunch of people together and we'll take over something fertile in South America or Africa.

For kicks, we should start a google document akin to Plato's Republic, defining our version of a perfect city-state.

We could include things like mandatory language testing for immigrants, job performance-based accreditation for universities, restrictions on the right to vote, tax breaks for physical fitness, compulsory military and physical fitness training as part of PE from elementary through high school (which might make gun control obsolete since everyone knows how to safely operate one), capital punishment or deportation for lifers, great funding for education and incentive to learn or teach, something to stop people from suing each other for dumb reasons, and perhaps most importantly - mandatory education about what separates fact from fiction, how to know if data can be trusted, and the scientific method.

We could start out with the aim to be completely carbon-neutral and as efficient as possible, with new high-tech structures that take advantage of the environment for heating and cooling. Maybe make a decentralized system for utility delivery, maybe not individualized power generation for buildings but independent grids by district or something. The whole country could operate with the goal to never rely on a foreign nation for energy resources. We could hydroponically grow just enough food for everybody (with some safety margin, of course), and our primary export would be research and patents, fine chemicals, and highly engineered products for aerospace, research labs like CERN, LANL, LLNL, and Oak Ridge, and leading products for "green" energy research. Taxation would be simplistic by percentage and thus immediate, without the need to "file" taxes every year, and eliminating the need for a huge IRS. Certain tax incentives could be applied for, but the whole nation would operate on credit, kind of like bitcoin, so there would be no way to fool the system and no such thing as a tax refund - your tax is paid every time you make a transaction. Living in the city automatically makes you a user of roads, so there would be no such thing as a fuel tax or a need to register vehicles, or a DMV - it could all be covered by taxes placed on every transaction. There would be a package delivery service but no such thing as stamped mail. The internal wealth of the country would be set to a "gold standard" using various metals like platinum, palladium, iridium, osmium, solver, gold, etc.

Imagine a small city that operates like a high-walled gated community, built from repurposed intermodal containers and geodesic domes from recycled or renewable materials, small solar and wind generators everywhere, everyone nice and rational and educated, taking turns at the menial jobs and working to invent ways not to have to do them... How refreshing to help paint your house or collect trash for the city with a co-worker you can have a real conversation with about the feasibility of a citywide trash collection system or the chemistry of reflective paints.

Just dabbling on the canvas. A man can dream...

EDIT:

There should be no such thing as property tax. When you purchase the property, you own it. Period. You're not renting it from the government.

There should also be no such thing as debt. You either have the money or you don't. If you want a house, you do this crazy thing called "saving your damned money" until you can afford it. Exceptions by application only, for things like medical emergencies, and the lending is provided by the government only. There would be no such thing as a credit card or cash. Basically, everyone would be walking around with debit cards. Instead of an overdraft and associated fee, the transaction would simply be declined. There would be no problems with credit debt, repossession of cars and houses, no "housing bubble" no predatory lending practices, no student loans. Free public education would continue through university level. You can pay to go to a better, private university if you want, and you don't have to continue school past high school, but it's free if you want to (and recommended!) Of course, you would have had to save the money for it.

Maybe we could take a little lesson in communism and give everyone a small income, which allows everyone to live a very basic lifestyle regardless of income situation but unless you want to be living on rice and potatoes in the 1-room government "halfway-house" (no drugs allowed there - mandatory sobriety or punishment/eviction/deportation), you had better find a job. An even distribution of a small amount of wealth keeps everyone's head above water and gives everyone the opportunity to improve themselves. I think it would keep rock-bottom addicts off the streets and instead of jailing them, providing them with medical services they need to get help. Of course, the flat tax still applies to all their purchases and the income is so low that it really only pays for food and a room.

[Edited on 10-7-2015 by Praxichys]

Ooh - and a drug test qualifies you for the "welfare for everyone". No recreational drugs are illegal to posses, manufacture, or use, but you miss out on your communal welfare if you choose to partake. Sorry, someone has to pay for rehab for the percentage that become addicts. Since you collect once per month, you can just make a drop next month and be right back on the pay, assuming you might just have wanted to throw an awesome party or something. It's kind of a way to tax recreational drugs without monitoring their sales.

[Edited on 10-7-2015 by Praxichys]

[Edited on 10-7-2015 by Praxichys]

MrHomeScientist - 10-7-2015 at 06:02

Did you ever see Tomorrowland? ...

Magpie - 10-7-2015 at 09:17

Praxichys for President!

1. How would you deal with religion, cults, and other forms of the supernatural?

2. How about birth control or limits on the population?

Praxichys - 10-7-2015 at 11:34

Birth control: free prescription to whoever wants it. Subsidized methods need to be approved by government to avoid price gouging by pharma companies (the price of prescription is borderline insurance fraud in the USA today, when you compare to OTC supplements). Any effective method with reasonable cost would be approved by the surgeon general for prescription. Prescription criteria involves mandatory standard physical plus STD screening, every year.

Healthcare would be semi-socialized. Clinics to treat everyday bumps, bruises, and colds, everything up to same-day outpatient surgery (warts, nail removal, etc) would be paid for by taxes. Everything else involving more than an overnight stay in a hospital, and any emergency room situation, would be handled by privatized, for-profit research/teaching hospitals. (This has to be the case since fully nationalized healthcare sucks and if this is a country of scientists, we will definitely have research hospitals, probably closely associated with the universities) Health insurance would be a private enterprise and not mandatory, but if you need one of those special government loans to pay for something major, your income is severely penalized until the loan is paid. (This is not as bad as it sounds. Since debt/loans do not exist, it's not like you'll have payments to miss. You just won't be able to save until it is paid. No risk of losing houses/cars/etc.)

Family size will be uncontrolled but it will be taught in schools (much like in China) that a 2 or 3 child family is the best because it is harder to provide a high quality of living for more than 3 on the average wage. Since researchers and scientists will be so highly regarded, people will want to provide that paid-for private university experience for their children, and thus have less. I don't think it's the government's business to tell people how many kids they can have. There just needs to be a social norm established to point people gently in the right direction.

Since the main ideas here involve "trimming the fat" from existing ideas, I don't think that becoming a large country would be a good idea. With size comes complexity. A lot of research would need to be done, but trying to cap the population to a few million might be a good idea. I cite Singapore again as a prime example: They have a population of just over 5 million, but the world's second busiest port, the third highest GDP per capita, the 4th highest life expectancy, and the lowest infant mortality rate in the world.

As for religion:

As much as I would like to see a country of atheists, I do not know how possible that would be in my lifetime. Certainly there will be zero relationship between church and state - not on money, not in anthems, on flags, or in court. The government certainly cannot have anything to do with religion because inevitably someone in office is going to make a decision, intentionally or not, biased by religion.

Religion should be taught in school - but not one religion, all religions, as part of K-12 social studies. Educating people about world religions is extremely important. It will allow the people to make a choice for themselves, or perhaps understand the fallacies of such ideas at an age early enough to avoid problems with irreversible indoctrination.

If your parents tell you to be a Christian, you'll be a Christian for them. If you go to school and get a worldly view, you can make the choice to stay Christian or take your own path. Practicing religion would be embraced for the cultural richness it would provide and firsthand experience given to the curious who have learned about it in school. One can still see a Native American rain dance where I live, which is still entertaining even though everyone there knows it does nothing. It is part of our culture, but is treated with benign indifference. The goal would be to embrace religion for what it is and what it does (morals, etc) as it slowly dies worldwide through the onset of rationalism. Only the blindly aggressive followers would seek to see their religion engulf the city-state, and we do not need people with that kind of behavior in such a country. Again, Singapore: one of the most religiously diverse countries in the world, and nearly 20% atheist. Another super-country, Sweden, sets a high bar in the religious world. Read the Wikipedia article. Bottom line: You can teach your kid whatever you want, but blind followership is certainly not the key to individuality and creativity. The success of the city-state as a world science leader depends on this emphasis.

There are some very intelligent people out there who are also extremely religious, and will never change. Their intelligence is still recognized as a great asset to the country. The religious will not be prevented from holding any position of power, but as part of the checks and balances system, a committee can veto government decisions on grounds that they were made for religious reasons. Part of the culture of the city-state will be to increase public scrutiny on these issues. Realistically, a country of scientists would only make decisions on data and citable experience anyway, but this would serve as a safety mechanism against a religious takeover of government.

There will be no private schools or homeschooling for K-12, except for very, very special circumstances. Just as a military-style PE requirement exists throughout primary and secondary school, public school attendance is compulsory. This is an attempt to broaden young minds and establish good social skills, and to integrate all races and classes of society before an age where kids can tell the difference. Hopefully it will create less radicals. "Radicals" in the sense that they operate on dogma; individualism, creativeness, ingenuity, inventiveness, and supra-paradigmal behavior (eccentrism?) will be highly encouraged.

Further, a reduced population would require neither senators nor representatives. The people themselves will be free to suggest any idea to a panel of leaders, and online voting will take place.

Banks will not exist since loans do not exist. Everyone's accounts will operate like a cross between a Bitcoin wallet and a PayPal account, on servers managed by the treasury. Your card will serve many functions. It will be your legal identification, your debit card, and your driver's license. You swipe it to vote electronically. You swipe it to pay for things. You can turn the card off or on immediately using a webpage, in case of loss or theft. The card is nondescript, containing no numbers (maybe) or photos or any identifying information. The card only carries a number on a secure RFID or magstripe card which is the password to relevant information in a database somewhere. A cop who needs ID can read it with a PDA, a store can bill your account with a swipe on a computer, but anyone who steals it has no more information than is on a hotel key without the government-awarded RSA key, which grants limited access by industry. (For example, withdrawal/deposit access from a merchant, or photo access for law enforcement)

Questions? Keep 'em coming. More later - I'm having a lot of fun with this.

battoussai114 - 10-7-2015 at 19:04

AND I JUST MOTHERFUCKING LOST A GODDAMN FREAKING ASS HUGE WALL-OF-TEXT POST :mad:

You know what, screw it!

Tl;Dr version of what I wrote:
Glad it worked out for you OP... overall I'd be on the Praxichys line of action as I'm too lazy/busy to bother fighting the system and (failing to) show them my rights, it sounds good the "I'll sue them, enforce my rights and show who the boss is" speach, but in real life its not very likely to happen. Overall I'd rather go through some botherations of laws I don't totally agree with over trying to change the laws and probably getting in jail and having to suffer in order to create a better world as it usually happens to freedom fighters and pretty much all nice people who take their niceness soo far that it bothers the wrong people. Yes, it is selfish but I've been disappointed way to many times.

[Edited on 11-7-2015 by battoussai114]

[Edited on 11-7-2015 by battoussai114]

Praxichys - 12-7-2015 at 21:12

An update; why not?

1. There shall not exist such a thing as a landfill. 100% recycle rate. Germany has had mandatory trash sorting for years and it works just fine. Metals, glass, plastics, paper and cardboard, and compost/food waste. There will be small, separate cans for each. There could be a rotation, so "compost" is picked up every week, but the other 4 categories rotate by once a month to reduce complexity. You get paid if your can is present at the curb and properly sorted as judged by the pickup driver. RFID in each can lets the truck electronically scan. Pickup companies can be private.

2. There will be no such thing as a grocery store with plastic bags. Either paper, or reusable. Seriously, the contribution to urban blight from these things is ridiculous.

3. No smoking in/around public structures. Similar to CA and MI. It's just better that way.

4. Auto insurance mandatory, as in the USA, however, there will be no such thing as a "no-fault" state. Dashcams not mandatory but highly encouraged, and monetarily incentivized.

5. Go ahead and submit that dashcam footage of assholes littering from their car windows, especially cigarette butts. Littering fine will be administered swiftly. Have some damned respect for your city. I drink beers but I don't go throwing the tops on your lawn. Heck, maybe intentional littering should be punished by a few hours of mandatory community service picking up roadside trash.

6. Smog testing is a waste of time. Let the people with crappy cars drive them. Since the place will be totally energy-independent, most cars will run on biodiesel, ethanol, electricity, or biogas anyway. Petroleum fuels will eb scarcely available.

7. Prisons and punishment:

The main idea here is to trim the fat. The USA has the most incarcerated population in the world, per capita. It's idiotic and mostly a product of the war on drugs. It costs >$50k per year to house each inmate, a colossal waste of taxpayer money. There are several types of prisoners who are unacceptable to house. They will be given two options: flee the country (i.e. be given a number of days to arrange foreign travel), or be executed. If no country will accept your fleeing, looks like you're out of luck.

1. Repeat offenders. People jailed 5 or more times. Death might be a good motivator not to be a repeat offender. Clearly something is wrong with the ability to learn from your mistakes. Go try again in another country.
2. People sentenced to life in prison without parole. They're a waste of money. At 50k per year, it will cost the state $3M to house a single lifer for 60 years. An execution probably costs a few hundred dollars, and the rest of that $3M can stay in the pockets of the people, or be put toward education or something. I think a lot of the "second chance" crap in the USA gives would-be offenders peace of mind that the punishment is negotiable, which undermines the aversion to the crime they would otherwise have. It doesn't need to be a tightrope walk, but we can't afford to be soft either.

Being in jail will not be a cakewalk. I don't know what happened to chain gangs, but they will be a big part of prison. They will prove incredibly useful trash sorters at the recycling plants, painting city infrastructure, etc. Sitting in a cell teaches nothing about successful reintegration to society and the workforce, and workers would be allowed to earn pay which would accumulate as savings, accessed only on their release. There will be no such thing as a commissary, no conjugal visits. You are in prison as a punishment. Your accounts will be frozen on entry and unfrozen on exit with the deposit of your earnings. Inmates are not allowed to smoke or possess cigarettes in prison. Everyone gets exactly the same provisions, carefully rationed per person on a weekly basis, only just enough to keep clean and healthy, to curb the illicit trade of goods and services behind bars.

Varmint - 13-7-2015 at 03:32

Wow Praxichys, give you enough time and I think you'll be right back where we are now with regard to nanny-state oversight of one's life.

You started out describing a utopia that would get rid of all the wrongs introduced in our nation's last 100 years, but then you suddenly jumped the shark and all of that went away.

Our nation became the greatest in the world because of the framers and their brilliance in giving the people power and limiting the reach of government, looks like you are prepared to follow the same broken path that got us where we are now.

Nobody wants the Erie canal to catch fire again, so yes, there is some post 1900 legislation that makes sense, but the bulk of it is nation killing trash law written by those without vision who only know how to overreact.

ewjaad - 13-9-2015 at 18:19

Tl;Dr: 3 police showed up looking for meth because of ebay glassware, happy with backyard science explanation, Australian police are level headed lads.

[Edited on 31-5-2015 by Tdep]

wtf how did they know you got chinese glasswear from ebay...

NedsHead - 14-9-2015 at 06:24

Quote: Originally posted by ewjaad

Tl;Dr: 3 police showed up looking for meth because of ebay glassware, happy with backyard science explanation, Australian police are level headed lads.

[Edited on 31-5-2015 by Tdep]

wtf how did they know you got chinese glasswear from ebay...

The package would have been stopped by customs and they notified the local police to investigate

Tdep - 14-9-2015 at 06:31

Oh hey it's my thread! Yes, customs do screen packages and it would be something they're looking for.

A bit of an update while i'm here: it seems this is a common occurrence in Aus. Another member here had a very similar experience to me, with the police taking particular disliking to the mercury in his element collection but nothing much coming of it.
Another guy I know in Qld had it happen to him too. Except he received a pretty unfriendly phone call a few days before they turned up and questioned him. They also sounded like they questioned him a bit harder then I was, but I think that comes down to the particular person, how they're feeling on the day and if your place smells like hell's arsehole or not.

Expect the police if you're buying glassware from overseas in Oz, but don't be afraid of them. We gotta beat this meth thing, if only getting rid of meth was as easy as getting rid of the person running our country

NedsHead - 14-9-2015 at 16:24

if only getting rid of meth was as easy as getting rid of the person running our country

you haven't seen the news this morning have you? there's a new goose running the country

j_sum1 - 14-9-2015 at 16:45

Quote: Originally posted by NedsHead