I wrote on Friday about how random sobriety checkpoints were not only unconstitutional searches, but were also ineffective.  The only reason that police organizations support them is because it allows them to randomly search for other things (drugs, people without licenses, etc) without needing probable cause.  They're simply taking advantage of people being afraid of drunk driving, to leverage more power for themselves which they normally would not be allowed to have.

Of course, drunk driving is not the only scare tactic that police organizations use in their attempts to get around the 4th Amendment.  In Washington D.C., they're using terrorism as an excuse to randomly check people's backpacks:

Metro officials announced today that they will begin randomly inspecting backpacks, gym bags and any other containers that riders carry with them onto the bus and rail system, in an effort to deter possible terrorist attacks.
...
The inspections will take place when transit police determine that circumstances -- such as an elevated threat level -- warrant heightened vigilance. They will not be announced ahead of time. Inspections will be conducted by five to eight specially trained Metro Transit police officers and a police dog trained to sniff for explosives.
...
In the searches, transit police will choose a random number ahead of time, such as 17. Then they will ask every 17th rider step aside and have his or her bags searched before boarding a bus or entering a rail station.

Police said the inspections would take between 8 to 10 seconds. Those who refuse will not be allowed to enter the system with their carry-on items but will not be detained.
...
If transit police find illegal items such as drugs, the item will be seized and the person will be arrested. But Metro officials today emphasized that the purpose of the search is not focused on drugs or contraband.

This is essentially the same as a sobriety check point.  There is no evidence to suggest that this will have any effectiveness.  What if the terrorist is the 16th individual in line, and not the 17th?  Oh well?  More importantly, this would only catch stupid terrorists.  If they have a bomb in their bag, and are stopped by the police, they are allowed to refuse the search, and walk away.  So all the terrorist would then have to do is wait half an hour, or go to a different train station and then try again.  The odds are with him that he won't be the 17th individual (or whatever random number they choose) the second time, and so his attack will still be successful.  The cost of failure for a terrorist attempt is zero, while the cost to us for trying to stop terrorism is high, and we have to be perfect and lucky every time.  It just doesn't make sense.

At the same time, we will have pulled individuals away from other jobs where they might be more effective.  Those people manning the checkpoints would do better looking for suspicious behavior or detering crime that is more common on train systems like theft.  But of course, if we happen to catch someone with drugs in their bag during our illegal searches, we will arrest those people.  But hey, we're really doing it to fight terrorism, not drug use, so that makes probable cause requirements go away by magic.

Via Reason.

It seems that the British are attempting to accomplish the technological and political feat that the Stasi were never quite able to do in East Germany, and create a total surveillance state:

Ministers are considering spending up to £12 billion on a database to monitor and store the internet browsing habits, e-mail and telephone records of everyone in Britain.

GCHQ, the government’s eavesdropping centre, has already been given up to £1 billion to finance the first stage of the project.

Hundreds of clandestine probes will be installed to monitor customers live on two of the country’s biggest internet and mobile phone providers - thought to be BT and Vodafone. BT has nearly 5m internet customers.

As Jacob Sullum points out, the UK already has the largest number of cameras per capita.  Because George Orwell, author of 1984, was born in England, many people like to compare these types of news items to his famous book.  But to be honest, I don't think that goes nearly far enough, nor does it have the correct impact.  1984 was a fictional story, and many people can simply say, "but we'll do it better."

Instead, I prefer to compare this to a real life endevour by a government to spy on its people... the East German Stasi.  The East German secret police were increcibly good at what they did, especially given the technology they had at their disposal at the time.  They monitored millions of hours of telephone calls (mostly international ones), and monitored (by some counts) half of all regular mail correspondence, both foreign and domestic.  They had machines designed to unseal and reseal envelopes after inspection.  They even went so far as to collect "the smells" off of people in case they needed to be tracked by dogs.

Of course, the East German's also knew they were being spyed on, which led in many cases to a distrustful populace that was often times willing to report (many times erroniously) on their neighbors in order to divert suspicion from themselves.  We should also remember that between 150 and 200 people died in escape attempts from East Berlin alone.  Hell, was the Cold War not in part fought because we had to battle against the "Evil Empire"?  How does it honor those who fought and died in that undeclared war if one of the greatest Western Empires turns Evil themselves?

Congratulations MI5 ... you just turned yourselves into the Stasi.

It's stories like this that make it no surprise that the William Ayer's "domestic terrorism" story has no impact:

A George Rogers Clark High School junior arrested Tuesday for making terrorist threats told LEX 18 News Thursday that the "writings" that got him arrested are being taken out of context.

Winchester police say William Poole, 18, was taken into custody Tuesday morning. Investigators say they discovered materials at Poole's home that outline possible acts of violence aimed at students, teachers, and police.

Poole told LEX 18 that the whole incident is a big misunderstanding. He claims that what his grandparents found in his journal and turned into police was a short story he wrote for English class.

"My story is based on fiction," said Poole, who faces a second-degree felony terrorist threatening charge. "It’s a fake story. I made it up. I’ve been working on one of my short stories, (and) the short story they found was about zombies. Yes, it did say a high school. It was about a high school over ran by zombies."

Even so, police say the nature of the story makes it a felony. "Anytime you make any threat or possess matter involving a school or function it’s a felony in the state of Kentucky," said Winchester Police detective Steven Caudill.
...
"It didn't mention nobody who lives in Clark County, didn't mention (George Rogers Clark High School), didn't mention no principal or cops, nothing," said Poole. "Half the people at high school know me. They know I'm not that stupid, that crazy."

On Thursday, a judge raised Poole's bond from one to five thousand dollars after prosecutors requested it, citing the seriousness of the charge.

Emphasis mine.  He will now more than likely be entered into a wonderful national database, as a potential terrorist... all because he wrote a short story about zombies.  I had a grade school teacher who once asked the entire class to write a scary story the week before Halloween.  I wrote my story about zombies too (does that make me a terrorist?).  If she were to do the same thing today, would she be arrested for inciting terrorism, or giving aid and comfort to terrorists?  Do I need to be worried that a company I work for will think I'm a terrorist because I once posted this video by Jonathan Coulton about zombies overrunning an office?

Is Jonathan Coulton a terrorist?  (Cue angry email from Elliot because Melinda has the song stuck in her head again).  Via Radley Balko.

Another small county has decided to beef up their arsenal by buying a used Armored Personnel Carrier, and converting it for SWAT team use.  This one is in Georgia:

Don’t be surprised to see an Army tank rolling down a street near you.

The Cobb County police department has refurbished a donated Armored Personnel Carrier for officers to use in SWAT situations.

The vehicle, which retails for $500,000, is a Light Armor Vehicle that was used by the U.S. Army in Panama. The county paid $45,000 to upgrade the vehicle for police use.

Equipped with thermal sensors, computerized tracking devices, night vision, tear gas launchers and other gadgets, the all-black six-wheel unit can hold up to nine SWAT officers.

In case you're wondering, the population of Cobb County is less than 700,000 and they had a total of 36 murders for the entire county last year.  I made this demotivator for the occasion:

Via Radley Balko.

This story about a doctor specializing in pain treatment really got to me:

The popular perception, particularly among board examiners and federal regulators, is that chronic pain patients are "legal drug addicts" and their physicians are "pill pushers," Noblett said. Opioids are addictive, and in the past decade, painkillers such as OxyContin have become more abused and used recreationally, a hot party drug for kids who have increasingly become overdose victims. Cutting up time-release pills for quicker rushes or mixing them with alcohol can be lethal.

But for Noblett and other chronic pain patients, oxycodone is a miracle drug when used correctly. Now the federal government is cracking down, and the state medical board is following that lead in Texas. The medical board, which got in deep trouble a few years ago for its lax treatment of corrupt and incompetent doctors, has changed its tune — so much so that one national doctor’s group believes it has gone overboard in the other direction, suspending and removing doctors’ licenses without cause. Caught in the crossfire are the patients.

"There is a huge difference between a drug addict and a legitimate, bona fide chronic pain patient," said Noblett, who sustained severe back injuries in the Vietnam war that gave him decades of agony. "A drug addict takes medication in order to cop out, to escape. A pain patient takes medication so that they can get back on their feet and be a productive member of society and support and provide for their families."

Take the time to read the whole story.  The parts about the Vietnam vet who led the charge fighting for his doctor was probably the most touching, and the saddest in the end.  This is the War on Drugs^TM at it's absolute worst, and is costing real innocent people the ability to live their lives to any reasonable degree.  Since this doctor lost his license, 4 of his patients have committed suicide because the pain they deal with is so bad, and there are no other doctors in their area willing to risk prescibing the pain medication they need.

This is not an isolated case either.

This time in New York.  A naked man was perched precariously on a fire escape, holding only a florescent light bulb as a weapon, and was ranting (I'm not making any of this up), when police tased him, causing him to lose muscle control and fall 10 feet of the fire escape railing.  He later died in the hospital due to the fall.

What did the police think was going to happen when they tased him?  Could they non anticipate the danger that he would fall off the fire escape?  If you go to the story, you will see a picture of him standing on the railing (they blurred out portions thankfully).

Poor training, and poor understanding of when and how to use a taser are obvious factors here.  Two officers involved have been placed on administrative leave pending an investigation.  Taser International makes these things seem so harmless, that they are being deployed in all the wrong situations, and used far too frequently.  These are not stun guns, but they're being treated that way.

One of the important founding traditions of this country is that of seperation of military, civilian and police powers.  In fact, one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights is specifically dedicated to this:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Most people today don't worry about a soldier knocking on their door and demanding to be given food and shelter for an unspecified period... but there was a time in our history where this was common place.  It was common place for them to kick you out of your home while they use it.  Others are perhaps more familiar with the Posse Comitatus Act.  Posse Comitatus was passed after the Civil War, and was intended to create a "wall of seperation" if you will between civian policing and the military.  It says that except by a specific act of Congress, the military are barred from acting in a law enforcement capacity.  Changes were in fact made to this in 2006, as well as the Insurrection Act, that would have made it even easier to break down this wall, but thankfully they were repealed a year later.

The reason for all of this is simple.  The police are tasked with serving and protecting the people, us.  The military is tasked with destroying the enemy, them.  We train the police, or at least ought to, not only how to stop and investigate crime, but also what limits they have in order to protect our civil liberties.  Of course in practice the police often times don't respect those liberties, or view them as a hinderence to their job, but in theory they are supposed to.  The military on the other hand have no such training.  Their job is to accomplish whatever military goals they are ordered to, with minimal losses on their side, and if possible the other side as well, but that's a secondary consideration.

In times of National Emergency, we depend on the National Guard... citizen soldiers.  They are called upon by state governors to help, mostly in the case of a natural disaster like major floods or hurricanes.  Their time on station is limited, and they are often times trained specifically for this task.  Of course, the goal of having a seperate National Guard is lost on many people these days, as guard units are Federalized more often to serve in foreign combat zones.  They are becoming less and less citizen soldiers, and more into regular army with all of their inherent problems when they are deployed at home.

So what is all this leading up to?  Well, it seems that the Defense Department is doing away completely with the idea of only using the National Guard at home, and starting next month will begin deploying active duty army forces at home.  No... seriously:

The 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.

Now they're training for the same mission - with a twist - at home.

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.
...
It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas.

But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.
...
In the meantime, they'll learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone and more than likely will not be shot at while doing any of it.
...
The 1st BCT's soldiers also will learn how to use "the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded," 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.
...
The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and, beanbag bullets.
...
The brigade will not change its name, but the force will be known for the next year as a CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF (pronounced "sea-smurf").

The Consequence Management Response Force?  I didn't realize George Orwell wrote for the Army Times.  Maybe their first "training mission" will be in Chicago.  Or perhaps they'll start being used in drug raids.  And Sea-Smurf?  Really?  Are they going to wear Blue Helmets?

It's one thing to have the legal framework in place such that you declare marshal law (we've had that for more than a century).  It's another to train and make so many plans for something we intend to be such a rare event to this extent.  This type of planning and deployment sends the wrong signals, and is often times used as an excuse to use forces anyway at a later date when its not appropriate.  That's how the misuse SWAT teams began.  Cities justify their existance by talking about the need to stop rare armed stand offs and terrorist attacks, and then all of a sudden they're being used to serve search warrants on non-violent suspects, because as long as we have them, we might as well use them.

It concerns me that we choose to federalize more and more of our National Guard units for foreign deployment.  They are the units that ought to stay home in case of national emergency.  It seems stupid to me to send our National Guard units away, and then use regular army units here.  That is exactly backwards of how it should be.

This is some potentially fucking scary shit.  Via The Agitator.

A new standard phrase in my arsenal has became "When everything is an emergency, then nothing is an emergency."  Saying that something is "super critical" or an "emergency" is supposed to raise its importance above tasks... in order to set priority.  But when you call everything an emergency, then no tasks are made to be more important compared to the others, and thus nothing is an emergency.

This is how we're beginning to treat the word "terrorism".  Take for example, this case in Roanoke:

Two Pembroke teenagers have been charged in connection with a series of playing cards that were defaced with threatening writing and left at stores in Christiansburg and Pearisburg -- a gesture police said the teens admitted had been inspired by this summer's Batman movie, "The Dark Knight."

Justin Colby Dirico and Bryan Eugene Stafford, both 18, admitted to leaving cards that bore handwritten messages inside the Pearisburg Wal-Mart, according to police Chief J.C. Martin.

Martin would not say how they identified the suspects but said the teens admitted Tuesday during police interviews they were responsible for the cards, which they patterned after elements of "The Dark Knight." Both were charged with conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism.

These are two kids who were playing a really bad, distasteful prank.  They've been charged with terrorism.  This is a charge that has often come to mean decreased civil liberties for those who are charged with it.  We've been promised that we'd only use this for the worst of the worst, because we have no choice, and the consequences are that dire.  Unfortunately, as is always the case, when you give the government an inch with your civil liberties, they take a mile.

When everything is terrorism, nothing is terrorism.  Via Hit & Run.

If the claims in this lawsuit prove to be true, this is an extremely troubling misuse of paramilitary police forces in Milwaukee.  Apparently the timeline unfolded along these lines.  Approximately 9 days before a no-knock raid was executed against a Franklin house, the sister of the homeowner alleged that her son (the home owner's nephew) was threatened by the homeowner and had illegal weapons.  The Milwaukee Police, without consulting Franklin police, nor interviewing the nephew, got a no-knock warrant for the house.  The husband, apparently thinking his house was being robbed, got a handgun and called out to find out who was there, and was shot by the police.  After the arrest, they were then detained without counsel, and the woman, who has a heart condition, was denied medical treatment.

What get's me here is the 9 days between the threat and the SWAT raid.  If this couple was found to be so dangerous as to require the use of a SWAT team and a no-knock warrant, why on Earth would they wait nine days?  And more importantly, why did they never contact the Franklin police or interview the nephew during this time?  The Franklin police could have verified whether the couple had previous issues in the community which the sister alleged, and surely you'd want to verify the validity of the threats with the boy before embarking on an incredibly dangerous paramilitary operation... wouldn't you?

In Britain, a helicopter over flew a house with an infrared camera and detected that it was "too hot", so naturally they suspected that the house was a "grow house" for marijuana:

But when embarrassed officers searched Mrs Huseyin's house they found the glowing effect was caused simply by large amounts of heat escaping through the roof.

Mrs Huseyin, who has been a PCSO since March 2007, said: "I was absolutely gobsmacked when I realised the police had come to search my house. When I saw the squad car I thought it was colleagues just popping in for a cup of tea.

"I saw the police car pull up and I knew the sergeant. She recognized me when I answered the door. She was shocked and said three times, 'This is your house?'

"They showed me the footage from the helicopter and I couldn't believe it. They said if I hadn't been in they would have broken the door down to get in."

The Cambridgeshire Police helicopter had been flying over on an unrelated job when its infra-red camera picked up Mrs Huseyin's glowing home.

That's all it takes these days.  No abnormal activity.  No complaints from the neighbors.  Just a heat signature that is "too hot" and boom, you are being searched.  What surprises me the most, given that this is in the UK after all, is that they didn't cite her for having a home with substandard insulation.  Isn't that a crime against the environment... almost worse than growing drugs?

Via Boing Boing.

This is one of the stupidest "security measures" I've ever heard of in my life:

Yankee fans are seeing - and turning - red over a ban on sunscreen, which Stadium security guards say was widely expanded in the last few weeks.

Security guards collected garbage bags full of sunblock at the entrances to Yankee Stadium over the sweltering weekend, when temps hit 96 degrees and the UV index reached a skin-scorching 9 out of 10 - a move team officials said was to protect the Stadium from terrorism.
...
The team contends that sunscreen has long been on the list of stadium contraband, but there is no mention of it on the Yankee Web site.

That's right.  They banned sun screen, at an outdoor stadium.  To quote one doctor:

Dermatologists said that, security concerns or not, leaving 56,000 fans unprotected from potential skin cancer is "very dangerous."

"This is especially bad for children, as their younger skin is particularly sensitive," said Dr. Babar Rao, a specialist at the Skin and Cancer Center of New York. "Sunblock needs to be reapplied every two hours, even if you are not swimming in the ocean or pool."

So why on Earth would they do this?  Is this to mimic the airline ban on liquids and gels?  That ban by the way does absolutely nothing to protect our safety as no one has yet to find a credible way to take down a plane with such liquids.  But I digress.  This isn't an airport we're talking about.  So why on Earth would they do this?

The Stadium does sell 1-ounce bottles of Arizona Sun SPF 15 for $5 - a huge markup that makes its beer seem cheap.

Oh.  Well... now it makes sense.  Luckily, after this article came out, the Yankees reversed course.  Via Bruce Schneier.

This paper by an Ohio State political professor puts an all new perspective on what it costs to protect us from terrorist attacks.  It's makes the following points:

1. The number of potential terrorist targets is essentially infinite.
2. The probability that any individual target will be attacked is essentially zero.
3. If one potential target happens to enjoy a degree of protection, the agile terrorist usually can readily move on to another one.
4. Most targets are "vulnerable" in that it is not very difficult to damage them, but invulnerable in that they can be rebuilt in fairly short order and at tolerable expense.
5. It is essentially impossible to make a very wide variety of potential terrorist targets invulnerable except by completely closing them down.

With the following implications:

1. Any protective policy should be compared to a "null case": do nothing, and use the money saved to rebuild and to compensate any victims.
2. Abandon any effort to imagine a terrorist target list.
3. Consider negative effects of protection measures: not only direct cost, but inconvenience, enhancement of fear, negative economic impacts, reduction of liberties.
4. Consider the opportunity costs, the tradeoffs, of protection measures.

Summary provided by Schneier on Security.  Even the Air Force is getting in on the act:

The U.S. Air Force has been trying to use counterterrorism funding to pay for "comfort capsules" that will allow government VIPs to enjoy "world class" travel on military transport planes, according to reports.
...
Air Force commanders tried to convince appropriators to let them reassign more than $16 million to the project from the "Global War on Terrorism," according to the Post. Lawmakers said no, but the paper says officials still used $331,000 in counterterror money to pay for cost overruns associated with their first-class cabins.

And people wonder why terrorism isn't taken seriously... because our government doesn't even take it seriously.

It seems that not once this weekend, but twice, the New York Police department conducted wrong door SWAT raids on innocent people, which terrorized them, threatened their very lives, and destroyed their homes:

The NYPD is admitting it was wrong when officers broke down the doors of two apartments in the Bronx during a pair of misguided drug raids.

They found nothing, and it turns out both homeowners were innocent.
...
Homeowner Jerry O'Keefe: "I couldn't believe what was happening is all, it just came out of the clear blue."
Eyewitness News reporter Stacey Sager: "They just beat down your door?"
O'Keefe: "Yeah, beat down my door and threw me on the floor."

And that was the beginning of O'Keefe's harrowing experience with the NYPD. He says last Friday, narcotics cops beat in his door so hard that parts of it broke to pieces. Then, they slapped cuffs on his wrists and threw him to the floor for at least 25 minutes.

The victim, Jerry O'Keefe is 69 years old by the way, and recovering from prostate cancer.  That's right, they threw an old man to the ground for half an hour.  Of course, I'm sure the police would never do such a thing without a mountain of evidence right?

It was a confidential informant who allegedly lied. Police say that three separate times, the drugs from his alleged undercover buys were really drugs that were hidden under his clothing. Cops were fooled, and because of it, two local residents were traumatized.
...
On Saturday, when Eyewitness News began questioning cops about the story, they adamantly insisted there were undercover drug buys in both apartments.
...
Now, after repeated calls to the NYPD, their story has changed. They now tell Eyewitness News that they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there were any undercover buys in the apartments, just a confidential informant who allegedly lied.

This informant was also used in other cases that will now have to be reviewed as well.  It constantly amazes me that the police will initiate brutal, life threatening tactics like this, solely on the word of a criminal who has every reason to lie in order get a lighter sentence, or to stay out of jail completely.  This is how people think it's appropriate to fight the War on Drugs.  Of course, don't fear for members of SWAT teams if they aren't able to go after potential non-drug offenders like Mr. O'Keefe.  They're also used to arrest purse snatchers.  So much for the outright lie by the police that heavily armed military style units are only used against the most dangerous offenders.  What's next?  Jay walkers?

Links via Radley Balko.  Inspiration for the post title from Patrick.

I decided to head out to Drinking Liberally again this month, because really... it's a good excuse to continue my drinking habit in a socially acceptable way.  There were lots of new people there I got to meet, a new blogger, and good conversation.  Being a libertarian in a group like that (or with my regular Drinking Right buddies) makes it easy for me.  People can usually find half my arguments palatable, especially with alcohol in their systems.

One of the major conversations I had was regarding the War on Drugs, which also covered illegal immigration and prostitution.  The conversation really centered around what these three things have in common... a black market.  When it was discovered that I am in favor of complete drug legalization (not just pot), the first question asked was, aren't you afraid that addiction will increase?

It's a valid question.  And I do think that addiction would more than likely increase (though more so on the lower end of the drug scale with pot, rather than with harder drugs).  But the reality is, the vast majority of crime that occurs with the War on Drugs has nothing to do with drug use.  This idea that coked out addicts are committing all this crime is a convenient myth perpetuated by many drug warriors.  Not that those types of crimes don't occur, but the vast majority of crime has nothing to do with drug use, but rather with control of the black market.

So when I'm asked about the potential increase in drug addiction, I simply answer that as a society, it's easier to help addicts, then it is to deal with the decline we've encountered in our society caused by murder, gangs, and grand theft, that is directly cause by the black market in drugs, which only exists because people have made drugs illegal.

Only an idealistic fool would say it's possible to have both no addiction, and no black market crime.  So which would you rather have?

You may recall later last year that I blogged about the 9th Circuit upholding as reasonable, a search in which a 13 year old girl was stripped, exposing her breasts and genital areas, while searching her for ibuprofen based solely on a tip from a teenager that was in trouble for something else.  I lamented that it was the Drug War^TM gone out of control, and that I would have simply decked the school officials involved had I been that child's father.  Well, in a miraculous bit of common sense by the 9th Circuit, the case was appealed before the entire court, and reversed:

"Directing a 13-year-old girl to remove her clothes, partially revealing her breasts and pelvic area, for allegedly possessing ibuprofen, an infraction that poses an imminent danger to no one, and which could be handled by keeping her in the principal's office until a parent arrived or simply sending her home, was excessively intrusive," Justice Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote for the majority.

The majority found flaws in the school's logic that a tip from another student justified the action.

"The self-serving statement of a cornered teenager facing significant punishment does not meet the heavy burden necessary to justify a search accurately described by the 7th Circuit as ‘demeaning, dehumanizing, undignified, humiliating, terrifying, unpleasant [and] embarrassing."

"And all this to find prescription-strength ibuprofen pills."

The fact that it took this long to get a correct ruling just shows how stupid the people who fight the drug war have become.  Via Nobody's Business.