Woman sues DEA for impersonating her on Facebook without her knowledge - Polidicks

The source only has a video. [url]http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/10/08/nr-dea-fake-facebook-page-callan-balko.cnn.html[/url] So when can we abolish the DEA?

I don't feel like abolishing the DEA but this is still a pretty shitty thing to do.

Wouldn't anybody else be charged for identity theft in this situation?

[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;46217046]The source only has a video. [url]http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/10/08/nr-dea-fake-facebook-page-callan-balko.cnn.html[/url] So when can we abolish the DEA?[/QUOTE] When the country is run by edgy teenagers.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;46217214][QUOTE=FurrehFaux;46217046]The source only has a video. [url]http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/10/08/nr-dea-fake-facebook-page-callan-balko.cnn.html[/url] So when can we abolish the DEA?[/QUOTE] When the country is run by edgy teenagers.[/QUOTE] I feel like we apply the term "edgy" too often, and sometimes end up criticizing people who actually have good ideas because it'd be too disruptive to the status quo. I feel the DEA sucks serious ass and ought to go.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;46217214]When the country is run by edgy teenagers.[/QUOTE] explain how its edgy in anyway to want an agency gone?

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;46217214]When the country is run by edgy teenagers.[/QUOTE] yeah, wanting to stop the DEA from controlling peoples' right to put whatever they want into their own bodies sure is edgy

More information [quote]WASHINGTON — The Drug Enforcement Administration set up a fake Facebook account using photographs and other personal information it took from the cellphone of a New York woman arrested in a cocaine case, to trick her friends and associates into revealing incriminating drug secrets. The Justice Department initially defended the practice in court filings but now says it is reviewing whether the Facebook guise went too far.[/quote] [quote]In a court filing in August, the Justice Department contended that while Arquiett didn't directly authorize Sinnigen to create the fake account, she "implicitly consented by granting access to the information stored in her cellphone and by consenting to the use of that information to aid in ... ongoing criminal investigations."[/quote] [quote]A staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation — a civil liberties organization — Nate Cardozo, said the government's rationale was "laughable." "If I'm cooperating with law enforcement, and law enforcement says, 'Can I search your phone?' and I hand it over to them, my expectation is that they will search the phone for evidence of a crime — not that they will take things that are not evidence off my phone and use it in another context," Cardozo said,[/quote] [quote]"Basically, when you strike that kind of deal, you kind of have to play by the government's rules," Friedman said. "This is not the ordinary situation in which the person walking down the street can have their identity stolen by the government," he said. "She was involved in a criminal investigation."[/quote] [url]http://www.policeone.com/cyber-security/articles/7645071-DEA-agent-sued-over-fake-Facebook-page-in-drug-case/[/url] What a fucking mess

this is disgusting, i said this previously but god damn it i love my country our government though is in need of a fix up....

[QUOTE=Medevila;46217421]once you legalize substances that build dependencies production is no longer mom & pop/cartel, you're going to see corporate exploitation of that- it's already happening to marijuana, granted it's more analogous to big tobacco do you really want a corporation to be able to make someone slave to its product[/QUOTE] We're already slaves to corporations anyway, it's a hell of a lot better than being a slave to the cartels and fueling the murder of innocent people.

[QUOTE=Medevila;46217481]until the 1920's when the FDA stepped in people used to buy opiates/cocaine from Sears & Roebuck as readily as tylenol, it was a public health crisis we'll see where things end up with marijuana, but I don't think marijuana is dangerous enough to be a good case study.. tobacco & lung cancer is probably the best contemporary example[/QUOTE] But back then it was a health crisis when the FDA [I]wasn't[/I] regulating anything. It would have been much better to regulate the purity instead of outright banning it.

in any case the DEA is such a broken agency that tossing the budget money into a volcano would be more productive than giving it to them

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;46217214]When the country is run by edgy teenagers.[/QUOTE] Just because you're a closet reactionary apologist for abuses of power doesn't mean everyone who gives a shit is edgy.

This really, really is bullshit. I hope she wins. It's not just a matter of identify theft, by using her as a front or cover operation to catch drug dealers and shit, they're putting her at risk of being targeted by dealers, distributors, kingpins, etc. It's like reverse witness protection.

[QUOTE=Medevila;46217881]it's hard to say, you can't underestimate the power of marketing fostering an "it's not harmful attitude" ex again being tobaccos cigarettes are fucking nasty and kill nearly half a million people every year[/QUOTE] Entirely subjective to the drug being sold and how it's administered. Serotoninergic psychedelics like LSD and psilocyn are almost impossible to overdose on and cause no physical harm (although the psychological harm potential is still there if not mentally prepared). Opioids, when used in moderation, can be enjoyed with hardly any ill physical effects other than constipation and physical dependence after long periods of use. Even so, most of these drugs are placed in schedule I, meaning they have no accepted use at all, and people are put in prison for long periods of time for just possessing these substances. The only way to ensure the safety of the masses is to educate them on how to use them and regulate the purity so people know what they're getting.

Why can't we at least decriminalize purchase and use? [editline]12th October 2014[/editline] (of all drugs)

[QUOTE=bitches;46218004]Why can't we at least decriminalize purchase and use? [editline]12th October 2014[/editline] (of all drugs)[/QUOTE] Even meth, cocaine and heroin?

[QUOTE=Griffster26;46218050]Even meth, cocaine and heroin?[/QUOTE] When you haven't personally experienced the effects of horrible drugs, It's really easy to say they should be legalized/decriminalized.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;46217214]When the country is run by edgy teenagers.[/QUOTE] Using the word edgy to describe ideas you don't agree with is stupid, edgy describes something that's trendy. Anti-government ideas *can* be edgy but this obviously is not [editline]12th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Griffster26;46218050]Even meth, cocaine and heroin?[/QUOTE] These drugs would be a lot less dangerous if our government made them, it's when somebody in their basement starts making it that it becomes really dangerous.

[QUOTE=cody8295;46218095] These drugs would be a lot less dangerous if our government made them, it's when somebody in their basement starts making it that it becomes really dangerous.[/QUOTE] Meth, cocaine and heroin are always going to be deadly.

[QUOTE=Griffster26;46218116]Meth, cocaine and heroin are always going to be deadly.[/QUOTE] Heroin is just as deadly as regular pharmacy opioids. It only gets deadly when you start sharing and re-using needles. I'll agree with you on meth, since it causes degradation of the dopamine system in the brain, but cocaine isn't nearly as deadly as the public would have you believe. Edit: Cocaine in the hydrochloride salt form (the kind you snort, not smoke), that is. Crack is wack.

As someone that has done all 3, I'm not sure I'd be inclined to say one way or another. If I'm not mistaken, the incidence for addiction is much higher for nicotine than meth, cocaine, and heroin but that very well may be due to the ease of use. I mean, it definitely shouldn't be available in places like corner shops or gas stations but the problem does seem a bit overblown to me. Like I said, I've done all three supposedly life ending drugs and I turned out just fine. I wouldn't recommend it, but if someone wants to put something in their body, who's to say the government can tell them not to? Portugal has had drugs decriminalized for 12 years and while the problem hasn't necessarily gotten better, it didn't turn the country into a chaotic mess as was predicted by many. [url=http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-decriminalization-in-portugal-12-years-later-a-891060.html]This article[/url] has some interesting information on the topic.

[QUOTE=Medevila;46218241]That's not true, they're totally different alkaloids you're not going to get a heroin high no matter how many vicodin you pop[/QUOTE] Almost all morphinan-based opioids have a similar mechanism of action by acting on the mu and delta opioid receptors in the brain. The highs being different from each other are completely based on how the user perceives it. Edit: Diacetylmorphine (heroin) is also rapidly metabolized into 3/6-monoacetylmorphine and then into plain 'ol morphine, so you're getting the same high as if you were to shoot up straight morphine after the 10 minute rush has run its course.

The worst thing about drugs is that people don't know the consequences of them and how to avoid these consequences. There will be outcry when they feel the effects of this and not to mention the burden of society as a result. People wont be able to stop because of addiction, and also build up a tolerance, which means a high potential of OD when someone tries to up the dosage to try and recreate that first time. People will continue to harm themselves because of this, addiction especially, which can already be seen in smoking. Even a popular drug like MDMA is wildly neurotoxic unless you use antioxidants and keep your blood temperature low, the last things to be thinking of at a place like a party and when you're young. You can also end up building a tolerance to drugs used medicinally, opiates are what I'm thinking of, where you could have such a tolerance that wont go down no matter how long ago you (ab)used the drugs, meaning next time you're in the hospital room from an accident you might be clenching your teeth in pain because your pain meds aren't doing half a good a job they're supposed to. Then people will like to mix drugs, like a strong upper and downer (eg: meth or cocaine with heroin) which can be easily abused and result in an OD. A good example of this happening already is caffeine and alcohol, which has people going overboard with both because they don't feel they have reached their limit. People will ride that super intense euphoria (or whatever particular effect you're trying to achieve) to the max without realizing the harmful effects high dosages of both are having until they OD. Not to mention the heart effects it can have when used often. Also drugs would lower a societies standards. The inevitable abuse of drugs will damage peoples mind and body, forcing them (or the governments country if you live in a country like Canada) to spend money on health care all of which ultimately lowering their own potential (even throwing them into a hole they can't get out of, since they don't have the money or personal power to do so, not to mention addiction doesn't go away and people would do an awful lot to get their drug fix) as well as that of the countries they live in. These are all I can talk about right now. I'd love for any of this to be wrong since legalizing drugs would be great otherwise. TL;DR Drug will get abused irresponsibly with people not realizing/caring about the effects. I'm for the decriminalization of possessing and creating and possibly buying drugs, but not selling since your average joe will not be able to handle drugs in my opinion. I don't feel this way for all drugs, weed being one example I'm for legalization, but outright legalization of all drugs? Not a good idea. Maybe I have less faith in people than I should. [editline]s[/editline] Well this looks all over the place, but I'm too lazy to improve it.

[QUOTE=Starlight 456;46218067]When you haven't personally experienced the effects of horrible drugs, It's really easy to say they should be legalized/decriminalized.[/QUOTE] Stabbing yourself has terrible effects, and people know not to do it. Decriminalize and tell everyone "it fucking sucks" and anyone who does it'll figure it out. At least, I hope. Am I putting too much faith in this?

[QUOTE=gk99;46218358]Stabbing yourself has terrible effects, and people know not to do it. Decriminalize and tell everyone "it fucking sucks" and anyone who does it'll figure it out. At least, I hope. Am I putting too much faith in this?[/QUOTE] Absolutely. Drugs are illegal and people still do them despite being told they fucking suck.

[QUOTE=supersoldier58;46218343]The worst thing about drugs is that people don't know the consequences of them and how to avoid these consequences. [/QUOTE] Which is why we should educate people on how to use drugs instead of just throwing them out there and saying "here you go". [QUOTE=supersoldier58;46218343] Even a popular drug like MDMA is wildly neurotoxic unless you use antioxidants and keep your blood temperature low, the last things to be thinking of at a place like a party and when you're young. [/QUOTE] That's debatable. When used over and over again, MDMA [I]is[/I] neurotoxic to the dopamine system, but again, we should educate people on how to use it. [QUOTE] You can also end up building a tolerance to drugs used medicinally, opiates are what I'm thinking of, where you could have such a tolerance that wont go down no matter how long ago you (ab)used the drugs, meaning next time you're in the hospital room from an accident you might be clenching your teeth in pain because your pain meds aren't doing half a good a job they're supposed to. [/QUOTE] Your tolerance will always go back down to what it was before you started using, it's your brain's way of maintaining homeostasis. Not getting the same high as the first time you used it is entirely psychological. [QUOTE] Also drugs would lower a societies standards. The inevitable abuse of drugs will damage peoples mind and body, forcing them to spend money on health care (or the governments country if you live in a country like Canada) all of which ultimately lowering their own potential (even throwing them into a hole they can't get out of, since they don't have the money or personal power to do so, not to mention addiction doesn't go away and people would do an awful lot to get their drug fix) as well as that of the countries they live in. [/QUOTE] We don't really know what would happen to society because a full-on legalization hasn't been attempted in this day and age. We can only speculate what would happen. However, by seeing what happened with portugaul after decriminalizing all drugs, we can make an accurate prediction as to what would happen here in america (i.e. crime, overdose, etc. would go down significantly). A large majority of overdoses are caused by the wildly varying impurities in clandestine-made substances. That means one batch of heroin could be a lot more potent than another, depending on what it's cut with. Letting the government regulate the purity would eliminate that risk.

[QUOTE=supersoldier58;46218343]The worst thing about drugs is that people don't know the consequences of them and how to avoid these consequences. [/QUOTE] worst thing is that the average person knows fuck-all about recreational drug use, or medicine in general. hell, most drug users are misinformed themselves. and personally, i'm more concerned on how corrupt the pharmaceutical scene is right now.

[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;46218418]We don't really know what would happen to society because a full-on legalization hasn't been attempted in this day and age. We can only speculate what would happen. However, by seeing what happened with portugaul after decriminalizing all drugs, we can make an accurate prediction as to what would happen here in america (i.e. crime, overdose, etc. would go down significantly). A large majority of overdoses are caused by the wildly varying impurities in clandestine-made substances. That means one batch of heroin could be a lot more potent than another, depending on what it's cut with. Letting the government regulate the purity would eliminate that risk.[/QUOTE] And what makes you think that newly legalized drug industries wouldn't take the chance to lobby any potential regulation away, like the tobacco industry did for centuries?

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;46218814]And what makes you think that newly legalized drug industries wouldn't take the chance to lobby any potential regulation away, like the tobacco industry did for centuries?[/QUOTE] That's what the FDA is for, to handle the regulation of drugs. We already have a multitude of consumer protection acts, most of which a legal drug industry would fall under. We're not in the 1800s/early 1900s anymore.