Comment Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score 1) 757
The DEA doesn't think he's running a meth lab, they think people who run meth labs are buying his product to use.
And he should be punished for what other people may or may not be doing with the components of his device?
The DEA has started keeping a much tighter rein on the active ingredient in his product in order to keep it out of the hands of the aforementioned meth labs (just like they did a couple years back with buying decongestants using psuedoephedrine). His response was:
He was supposed to pay $1200 for a license to handle this chemical and refused.
Why should he have to pay $1200 for a license to use a legal chemical to make a legal product? Sure I can understand an application fee but $1200 is a bit much.
He was asked to keep tabs on who bought the product to the extent that he would report "suspicious" bulk purchasers. He refused.
First of all keeping track of customers costs money and makes you ensure no one(but the government of course) can access this data. If its leaked he could be held liable. Second I have a right to privacy as a consumer. The government should never be able to force a company into keeping records.
The DEA asked him for proof that he has security where his product is made to keep people from stealing the active ingredient. He sent them a picture of his dog sitting in front of his garage.
Again the government has no right forcing a person or business to use any type of security measure to protect they're possessions. If his products get stolen the only person thats affected is him, no one else.
He also does not appear to be able to tell the difference between the DEA and the TSA, as the article points out. This does not suggest he is good at dealing with bureaucracy
Really who isn't?
