The Fourth Amendment says: "No Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United...
Arsenic is a poison. Lead is a poison. Cyanide is a poison. Tylenol becomes toxic at a certain threshold (like every other substance on the earth for that matter).
Sure, it is toxic to your liver in large doses. That isn't why Tylenol 3 is Schedule II while pure Codeine is Schedule II. The difference is in dosage. Tylenol 3 tends to come in doses of around 5mg Codeine to 300-500mg Tylenol. You get T3 when you have a tooth taken out, or maybe some minor stitches. You are also only given a few pills.
You get pure Codeine when you break a bone or stick a pencil through your eye. Or one of the stronger codeine-derivatives (oxycodeine, etc). These come in larger doses and are more prone to abuse.
Hence Schedule III.
I'm no fan of the DEA or the schedule system...but the "Government" isn't poisoning anyone. That's pure FUBAR and true tin-foil-hattery. Its a classification system for the abuse potential of perfectly legal drugs.
People get prescribed ratios of 100:1 APAP:hydrocodone (750/7.5 for example) - it's idiotic from a health and safety perspective. If you need opiate painkillers such as hydrocodone or oxycodone, the extra APAP is unlikely to be of much benefit, and you can always just take some APAP on the side. The APAP is there purely to "prevent" abuse.
I'm not suggesting the "Government is poisoning people" as a conspiracy, I'm suggesting the same idiotic politics and ideas at play during alcohol prohibition are still alive.
Yes, but in rare cases. Acetaminophen is not the easiest thing in the world for your body to deal with. But this is technically correct and in the 99 percent case you're correct so this is kind of belaboring the point.
Nevertheless, I thought it was worth mentioning.
It might be a stretch but..
"LSD was one of the materials tested in the MKUltra program. The final phase of LSD testing involved surreptitious administration to unwitting non-volunteer subjects in normal life settings by undercover officers of the Bureau of Narcotics acting for the CIA." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra
If the government release a virus and it cause damages, government might be found liable. Still, an out-of-court settlement is not exactly a predicate, so its hard to know what would happen.
From some quick researching, it seems the government in the US is more and more prosecuting the dealers, or even the person who gave someone the drugs if there is a death. You give your friend Bob some methamphetamine, and Bob dies, you're more than likely getting charged with second degree murder if they can prove you are the source.
For quite a while. Law enforcement have installed physical surveilance and tracking devices since as long as they have existed - and unsuspecting innocents have been caught on those tapes and recorders.
It's also a question of whether those tools are illegal - there may be laws against them , but the government can get special permissions
Let's say that there was a store in a neighborhood that was known to sell child porn. No judge would sign a warrant that gave police permission to put a GPS device on every car in that neighborhood to track whether they ever visited that store (and they may have visited but bought only legal merchandise). So why is it different if you do it on the internet?
A better one would be 'Would a judge give a warrant to allow the FBI to place a GPS tracker automatically on everyone who visited a store that was known to sell child porn?'
The answer to that might be yes.
From the article:
Freedom Hosting was a provider of turnkey “Tor hidden service” sites — special sites, with addresses ending in .onion, that hide their geographic location behind layers of routing, and can be reached only over the Tor anonymity network. Tor hidden services are used by sites that need to evade surveillance or protect users’ privacy to an extraordinary degree – including human rights groups and journalists. But they also appeal to serious criminal elements, child-pornography traders among them.
Some people have compared malware with guns. This is to me a very bad comparison, since guns actually have legal usage like hunting or self defense.
A better example would be a under cover cop, selling real drugs to real people with the intent to impress a local drug cartel. It has to my knowledge never happen, but it would be interesting to know if the cop could be held liable if someone dies from a overdose from those drugs.
Let say that a police virus spreads out of control, and infects millions of computers. What if this specific firefox exploit get copied by a botnet, and is used to execute credit card stealing software on unsuspected users. How liable can the police become when millions of people are effected? I really have no clue.