Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username/Email:
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 1,980
» Latest member: Rachels
» Forum threads: 3,505
» Forum posts: 84,972

Full Statistics

Latest Threads
MYLESMEDS.NET
Forum: Suggest IOP's
Last Post: bromster
12 minutes ago
» Replies: 439
» Views: 94,298
Is Kr@ tom a legitimate s...
Forum: IOP General Discussion
Last Post: thegreaseman
14 minutes ago
» Replies: 6
» Views: 180
Well, that's about what w...
Forum: US Reviews & Feedback
Last Post: Livework
1 hour ago
» Replies: 2
» Views: 94
Anyone had local PO seizu...
Forum: IOP General Discussion
Last Post: thegreaseman
2 hours ago
» Replies: 11
» Views: 167
Forgiveness... then what?
Forum: Family, Friends & Relationships
Last Post: thegreaseman
2 hours ago
» Replies: 25
» Views: 3,415
Don't Talk...
Forum: Legal Issues
Last Post: thegreaseman
2 hours ago
» Replies: 3
» Views: 44
Hi From A New Member
Forum: Welcome
Last Post: thegreaseman
2 hours ago
» Replies: 14
» Views: 124
Tracking
Forum: IOP General Discussion
Last Post: texasoutlaw
3 hours ago
» Replies: 2
» Views: 97
Introduction
Forum: Welcome
Last Post: texasoutlaw
3 hours ago
» Replies: 16
» Views: 119
Hiiii, from a newbie.
Forum: Welcome
Last Post: texasoutlaw
3 hours ago
» Replies: 9
» Views: 40

 
  McFadden v. U.S., 576 US _______ - Supreme Ct decision re knowledge of status of RC
Posted by: jimtje - 07-26-2015, 04:35 AM - Forum: Legal Issues - Replies (6)

Hey guys, since everyone might have missed this I figure this is something interesting for some people. It doesn't directly deal with the issue of whether the Analogue Act requires all 3 elements to be fulfilled or just one in order to obtain a conviction, although nearly all precedent have stated such. This one clears up as to whether the seller of the RC needs to know as to whether the RC they're selling is a "controlled substance". Obviously, this only applies to the US.

Also, I realize that this really only applies to Schedule I and II substances, but since emergency scheduling is popular now as proving all 3 elements has been difficult for AUSAs, you never know and it'd be good to know.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14p...8_k537.pdf

"The question in this case is how the mental state requirement under the CSA for knowingly manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to distribute “a controlled substance” applies when the controlled substance is in fact an analogue. The answer begins with §841(a)(1), which expressly requires the Government to prove that a defendant knew he was dealing with “a controlled substance.” The Analogue Act does not alter that provision, but rather instructs courts to treat controlled —————— subject to seizure at customs. United States v. Ali, 735 F. 3d 176, 188– 189 (CA4 2013). The Government presented such circumstantial evidence in this case, and neither party disputes that this was proper. Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 7 Opinion of the Court substance analogues “as . . . controlled substance[s] in schedule I.” §813. Applying this statutory command, it follows that the Government must prove that a defendant knew that the substance with which he was dealing was “a controlled substance,” even in prosecutions involving an analogue."

What does this mean for you? Not much, yet, but essentially the Supreme Court reaffirmed the scienter element of the Analogue Act - the state needs to prove that you knowingly possessed or sold a substance that is scheduled I or II or an analogue which is treated as such, instead of just the effects. The Analogue Act generally (but not in all circuits) state that the state needs to prove: 

a) Drug is chemically similar to a Schedule I and II substance
b) Drug has similar or great effect than its Schedule I or II analogue
c) Drug needs to have been made with intent to imitate the effects of a scheduled substance. (Almost all j/x requires all 3, so it's incredibly hard to convict non-vendors).

The decision makes c more stringent: the defendent has to know the item is scheduled either by knowledge or action. The government will be more acitive on posting more emergency temp schedule I orders, but of course  But this does mean that vendors would need to not only know and intend the effects but also that it is an analogue for the US to secure a conviction. He doesn't need to know what it is, just that it's scheduled Previously, just reasonably can infer that it is trugs,   to know what it does.

This could easily be precedent about a case against our situation by expanding the Analogues Act (which is almost impossible to enforce on individuals, but they did reschedule some Schedule IIIs to IIs so really watch out ) or just do a lot more temp schedules. If you use RCs or anything that's not blister backed, check federalregister.gov. You'll have a chance to comment on it before they make a final ruling. 


Most importantly, make sure whoever you're dealing with knows what they're doing. Hope all goes well for everyone.

Print this item

  Lebanon's Hezbollah leader says Iran will not abandon support after nuclear deal
Posted by: IceWizard - 07-26-2015, 12:11 AM - Forum: World News - No Replies

Sat Jul 25, 2015 2:13pm EDT

BEIRUT (Reuters) -
The Lebanese Hezbollah group believes it can still count on Iran's supportbfollowing Tehran's nuclear deal with worldbpowers, leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said on Saturday.

In his first public remarks since the agreement
was reached this month in Vienna, Nasrallah
said he was sure Tehran would confound critics who say it would end support to Hezbollah. "We deal with every trust and complete assurance over this Nasrallah said in ceremony to honor sons and daughters of fallen Hezbollah fighters. "Iran's relationship with its allies is based on ideological grounds and come before the political interests,"

Nasrallah said. U.S. sanctions against three Hezbollah military leaders whom Washington said were involved in operations in Syria would have no impact on the group, Nasrallah said.
"We have no investment accounts..these
measures will not change things either way,"
Nasrallah said. The three leaders - Mustafa Badr Al Din, Ibrahim Aqil, and Fu'ad Shukr - were named for their role in coordinating or participating in the group's support for Assad's government in Syria's civil war, the U.S Treasury said.

It also included a businessman in Lebanon who was sanctioned for procuring weapons for Hezbollah and shipping them to Syria. The new sanctions following the nuclear deal and Washington's continued designation of
Hezbollah as a terrorist group showed that U.S. policies have not changed toward it, he said. "The United States is the Great Satan before and after the deal," he said.

Nasrallah said the targeting of Lebanese
businessmen was meant to undermine
Lebanon's economy and said monetary
authorities should not cave into U.S. Treasury
efforts to blacklist local businessmen.

The Treasury said it had taken action in June
against Hezbollah front companies. U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of
State John Kerry have said they are troubled by support from Iran for regional proxy groups such as Hezbollah. Nasrallah said his group was proud of Tehran's financial backing, which allowed it to stand up to Israel and U.S. policies in the region.

"The support we get from Iran is enough,"
Nasrallah said. Hezbollah's support has been crucial to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad in the four-year-long Syrian conflict.


(Reporting by Suleiman Al-Khalidi; Editing by
Angus MacSwan)

Print this item

  WWE terminates contract with Hulk Hogan; wrestler sorry he used 'N-word'
Posted by: IceWizard - 07-25-2015, 12:14 PM - Forum: World News - Replies (2)

Published July 24, 2015
FoxNews.com

The WWE killed its contract with the
wrestling icon on Friday, a rep for the
organization told FOX411.

"WWE terminated its contract with Terry Bollea (aka Hulk Hogan). WWE is committed to embracing and celebrating individuals from all backgrounds as demonstrated by the diversity of our employees, performers and fans worldwide."

The WWE would not comment as to the
reason it booted Hogan, but TMZ reports the wrestler was fired for using the N-word to describe a man involved with his daughter, Brooke, in a leaked transcript of a sex tape that is the center of a multimillion dollar lawsuit with the gossip site Gawker.

Following the WWE's announcement, Hogan apologized for the remarks he made. His lawyer said Hogan resigned from the organization "because he didn't want to
put them or his family through this."

"Eight years ago I used offensive language
during a conversation. It was unacceptable
for me to have used that offensive language; there is no excuse for it; and I apologize for having done it," Hogan told People magazine.

"This not who I am. I believe very strongly that every person in the world is important and should not be treated differently based on race, gender, orientation, religious beliefs or otherwise."

According to the transcript obtained by Radar Online and the National Inquirer, Hogan said on the tape, referring to his daughter: "I mean, I’d rather if she was going to f--k some n----r, I’d rather have her marry an 8-foot-tall n----r worth a hundred million dollars! Like a basketball player...I guess we’re all a little racist. F--king n----r."

Initial news reports indicated the wrestler
was kicked out of the WWE for comments
he made during a 2012 radio interview in
which he, again, uses the N-word. In the 2012 interview, Hogan's interviewer, DJ Whoo Kidd, asks him: "You've been saying 'brother' for years, any black guy ever say, 'Yo, you my n----r, you my n----r Hulk."

Hogan responded: "Well Booker T used to
say that to me on TV and you know, every
time I pull up YouTube there's that famous
thing that Booker T...goes, 'I'm coming for
you my n----r." He added, "They're all calling
me n----r and then I started saying it and you know, I always said it but now all of a
sudden I get heat when I said it."

DJ Whoo Kidd told FOX411 he was not
offended by Hogan's use of the N-word in
the 2012 interview. "It was never used in a hate way...as long as he’s not using the n-word in a hateful way he doesn’t deserve to be fired," the radio personality said. Hogan, 61, has been removed from the WWE website.

When you search for Hogan on the site, he is no longer listed on the WWE Hall of Fame page, and all of his merchandise has been removed from the WWE shop.

Print this item

  Weird News
Posted by: Charon - 07-24-2015, 11:21 PM - Forum: World News - Replies (1)

only in NJ are these the up to the minute news breaks. but, did he have a plan? he charged, what six phones or four? just: only in NJ.

Intruder Hides Under Bed in New Jersey Home for 3 Days: Cops

Updated at 1:42 PM EDT on Wednesday, Jul 22, 2015

A man who broke into a New Jersey home stayed under a bed in a spare bedroom for three days before he was found, police said.



Jason Hubbard broke into the home on Ellenel Boulevard in Spotswood by walking through an open door as the homeowner was taking out the garbage, according to police.


Authorities say he walked into a spare bedroom and stayed under the bed for three days. While he was there, he charged his four cellphones using an electrical outlet under the bed.


Three days later, on May 10, the homeowner heard a noise in the bedroom and found Hubbard. It wasn't clear if or when he planned to rob the home.



Hubbard was charged with criminal trespass, burglary and theft of services. It was not immediately clear if he had an attorney.


http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Int...c=obinsite

THE link. so what now we tell kids that yes, there is a distinct possibility that a monster may be lurking under ur bed. i so want to understand

Print this item

  Empathy is Deemed to be a Choice
Posted by: Charon - 07-23-2015, 10:19 PM - Forum: The Lounge - No Replies

Empathy Is Actually a Choice

JULY 10, 2015



Gray Matter

By DARYL CAMERON, MICHAEL INZLICHT and WILLIAM A. CUNNINGHAM


ONE death is a tragedy. One million is a statistic.

You’ve probably heard this saying before. It is thought to capture an unfortunate truth about empathy: While a single crying child or injured puppy tugs at our heartstrings, large numbers of suffering people, as in epidemics, earthquakes and genocides, do not inspire a comparable reaction.

Studies have repeatedly confirmed this. It’s a troubling finding because, as recent research has demonstrated, many of us believe that if more lives are at stake, we will — and should — feel more empathy (i.e., vicariously share others’ experiences) and do more to help.

Not only does empathy seem to fail when it is needed most, but it also appears to play favorites. Recent studies have shown that our empathy is dampened or constrained when it comes to people of different races, nationalities or creeds. These results suggest that empathy is a limited resource, like a fossil fuel, which we cannot extend indefinitely or to everyone.

What, then, is the relationship between empathy and morality? Traditionally, empathy has been seen as a force for moral good, motivating virtuous deeds. Yet a growing chorus of critics, inspired by findings like those above, depict empathy as a source of moral failure. In the words of the psychologist Paul Bloom, empathy is a “parochial, narrow-minded” emotion — one that “will have to yield to reason if humanity is to survive.”

We disagree.

While we concede that the exercise of empathy is, in practice, often far too limited in scope, we dispute the idea that this shortcoming is inherent, a permanent flaw in the emotion itself. Inspired by a competing body of recent research, we believe that empathy is a choice that we make whether to extend ourselves to others. The “limits” to our empathy are merely apparent, and can change, sometimes drastically, depending on what we want to feel.

Two decades ago, the psychologist Daniel Batson and colleagues conducted a study that showed that if people expected their empathy to cost them significant money or time, they would avoid situations that they believed would trigger it. More recently, one of us, Daryl Cameron, along with the psychologist Keith Payne, conducted an experiment to see if similar motivational factors could explain why we seem more empathetic to single victims than to large numbers of them.



Participants in this study read about either one or eight child refugees from the Darfur region of Sudan. Half of the participants were led to expect that they would be asked to make a donation to the refugee or refugees, whereas the other half were not. When there was no financial cost involved in feeling empathy, people felt more empathy for the eight children than for the one child, reversing the usual bias. If insensitivity to mass suffering stemmed from an intrinsic limit to empathy, such financial factors shouldn’t have made a difference.

Likewise, in another recent study, the psychologists Karina Schumann, Jamil Zaki and Carol S. Dweck found that when people learned that empathy was a skill that could be improved — as opposed to a fixed personality trait — they engaged in more effort to experience empathy for racial groups other than their own. Empathy for people unlike us can be expanded, it seems, just by modifying our views about empathy.



Some kinds of people seem generally less likely to feel empathy for others — for instance, powerful people. An experiment conducted by one of us, Michael Inzlicht, along with the researchers Jeremy Hogeveen and Sukhvinder Obhi, found that even people temporarily assigned to high-power roles showed brain activity consistent with lower empathy.

But such experimental manipulations surely cannot change a person’s underlying empathic capacity; something else must be to blame. And other research suggests that the blame lies with a simple change in motivation: People with a higher sense of power exhibit less empathy because they have less incentive to interact with others.

Even those suffering from so-called empathy deficit disorders like psychopathy and narcissism appear to be capable of empathy when they want to feel it. Research conducted by one of us, William A. Cunningham, along with the psychologist Nathan Arbuckle, found that when dividing money between themselves and others, people with psychopathic tendencies were more charitable when they believed that the others were part of their in-group. Psychopaths and narcissists are able to feel empathy; it’s just that they don’t typically want to.

Arguments against empathy rely on an outdated view of emotion as a capricious beast that needs to yield to sober reason. Yes, there are many situations in which empathy appears to be limited in its scope, but this is not a deficiency in the emotion itself. In our view, empathy is only as limited as we choose it to be.

Daryl Cameron is an assistant professor of psychological and brain sciences at the University of Iowa. Michael Inzlicht is a professor of psychology, and William A. Cunningham is an associate professor of psychology, both at the University of Toronto.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on July 12, 2015, on page SR12 of the New York edition with the headline: Empathy Is Actually a Choice. Today's Paper|Subscribe


For most neuroscientists, this is just a bad metaphor. But it’s still the most useful analogy that we have.



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/opinio...udDev&_r=0

Print this item

  Migraines and Headaches
Posted by: Kittycat - 07-23-2015, 07:38 PM - Forum: IOP General Discussion - Replies (130)

Please post remedies and information regarding, best treaments, types of headaches you suffer from, stories and any other related headache issues or questions.

Amin, if this is in the wrong place, feel free to move this thread.

Print this item

  Except me as member of this board.
Posted by: Dagger - 07-23-2015, 06:29 PM - Forum: Welcome - Replies (66)

Big Grin Tongue Huh Not sure I want to be a member of a board that would except me as a member.

Print this item

  Suggest an UK vendor
Posted by: Charon - 07-23-2015, 02:38 PM - Forum: UK & Rest Of The Europe Reviews & Feedback - Replies (92)

please, use this thread, or make another in our UK area, to suggest an IOP from that area.

Email vendors get suggested in the fifty posts and over area that covers both USA and UK.

Print this item

  Iran eyes $185 billion oil, gas projects after sanctions
Posted by: IceWizard - 07-23-2015, 11:18 AM - Forum: World News - No Replies

Thu Jul 23, 2015 5:41am EDT

By Shadia Nasralla and Maria Sheahan

VIENNA (Reuters) -
Iran outlined plans on Thursday for the rebuilding of its core industries and trade links in the wake of a nuclear agreement with world powers, saying it was targeting oil and gas projects worth $185 billion by 2020.

Iran's Minister of Industry, Mines and Trade
Mohammad Reza Nematzadeh said the Islamic Republic would focus on its oil and gas, metals and car industries with an eye to exporting to Europe after sanctions have been lifted.

"We are looking for a two-way trade as well as
cooperation in development, design and
engineering," Nematzadeh told a conference in Vienna. "We are no longer interested in a unidirectional importation of goods and machinery from Europe," he said.

The United Nations Security Council on Monday endorsed a deal to end years of economic sanctions on Iran in return for curbs on its nuclear program. S

anctions are unlikely to be removed until next
year, diplomats say, as the deal requires
approval by the U.S. Congress. Nuclear
inspectors must also confirm that Iran is
complying with the terms of the deal.

But many European companies have already
signaled interest in reestablishing business in
Iran. Iran's deputy oil minister for commerce and international affairs, Hossein Zamaninia, said Tehran had identified nearly 50 oil and gas projects worth $185 billion that it hoped to sign by 2020.

In preparation for negotiations with possible
foreign partners, Zamaninia said Iran had
defined a new model contract which it calls its
integrated petroleum contract (IPC).

"This model contract addresses some of the
deficiencies of the old buyback contract and it
further aligns the short- and long-term interests of parties involved," he said. He said Iran would introduce the oil and gas projects it has identified and the new contract in
international markets later this year.

Deputy Economy Minister Mohammad Khazaei
said Iran had already completed negotiations
with some European companies wanting to
invest in the country.

"We are recently witnessing the return of European investors to the country. Some of these negotiations have concluded, and we have approved and granted them the foreign investment licences and protections," Khazaei
told the conference. "Even in the past couple of weeks we have approved more than $2 billion of projects in Iran by European companies," he said, without naming the firms or providing further details.

Nematzadeh said Iran aimed to join the World
Trade Organization once political obstacles
were removed and would be interested in
preferred trade deals with Europe and central
Asian countries.


(Writing by Christopher Johnson; editing by
Jason Neely)

Print this item

  Iran pushes nuclear deal as U.S. lawmaker aims to stop it
Posted by: IceWizard - 07-22-2015, 11:25 PM - Forum: World News - No Replies

Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:13pm EDT

By Bozorgmehr Sharafedin Nouri and Richard
Cowan

DUBAI/WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
Iran's pragmatist government tried on Wednesday to sell its nuclear agreement with world powers to hardliners at home, just as a U.S. Congressional leader promised to do "everything possible" to sink the deal.

With both Tehran and Washington facing stiff
opposition to the accord, U.S. Defense
Secretary Ash Carter arrived in Saudi Arabia in
the hope of reassuring leaders there who fear
their arch-rival Iran will make major mischief in
the region.

Last week's agreement was a big success for
both U.S. President Barack Obama and Iranian
President Hassan Rouhani. But both have to
promote it to influential hardliners in countries
that have been enemies for decades.

In Washington, the Republican speaker of the
House of Representatives, John Boehner, was
deeply skeptical. "Members of Congress will ask much tougher questions this afternoon when we meet with the president's team, and because a bad deal threatens the security of the American people, we're going to do everything possible to stop it," Boehner said.

Secretary of State John Kerry, Treasury
Secretary Jack Lew and Energy Secretary
Ernest Moniz were scheduled to hold briefings
for lawmakers in the U.S. Capitol. House and
Senate debates and votes to approve or reject
the nuclear agreement are expected in September.

A warm glow following the Vienna agreement -
under which Iran accepted curbs on it nuclear
program in return for an easing of sanctions that have crippled its economy - is fading. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the highest authority in Iran, told supporters on Saturday that U.S.
policies in the region were "180 degrees"
opposed to Tehran's, in a speech punctuated by chants of "Death to America" and "Death to
Israel".

The government that negotiated the deal also
talked tough on Wednesday in an apparent
attempt to blunt attacks from opponents,
including in the powerful Republican Guards. Abbas Araqchi, a deputy foreign minister, said
Iran would do "anything" to help allies in the
Middle East, underlining Tehran's message that the deal will not change its anti-Western foreign policy.

Araqchi, Iran's senior nuclear negotiator, also
told a news conference that any attempt to re-
impose sanctions after they expired in 10 years would breach the deal.

He was referring to a resolution endorsing the
deal passed by the United Nations Security
Council on Monday. This allows all U.N.
sanctions to be re-imposed if Iran violates the
agreement in the next 10 years.

If Iran adheres to the terms of the agreement -
signed with the United States, Britain, China,
France, Germany, Russia and the European
Union - all the provisions and measures of the
U.N. resolution would end in 10 years.

However, the world powers told U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon earlier this month that after 10 years they planned to seek a five-year extension of the mechanism allowing sanctions to be re-imposed.

HAVOC IN THE REGION

Tehran's support for regional allies, including
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Houthi rebels in Yemen and the Lebanese Shi'ite militia Hezbollah, has alarmed Saudi Arabia, the leading Sunni power in the Middle East.

But Carter said before his trip to meet Saudi
King Salman that he aimed to discuss American strategy on countering "Iranian aggression" in the region, as well as the fight against the Islamic State jihadist group.

So far Riyadh's response to the nuclear deal
has been lukewarm public praise, coupled with
private condemnation. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, a former head of the kingdom's intelligence services, cautioned last week that it would allow Iran to "wreak havoc in the region".

Carter is expected to present Obama's
argument that the deal will make the United
States and its allies safer by removing the threat of a nuclear Iran.

This is the same message he gave during a trip this week to Israel, which also opposes the agreement. Israel on Wednesday pressed U.S. lawmakers to block the deal, with Ambassador Ron Dermer meeting privately with a group of about 40 House conservatives.
Kerry said he would seek to reassure Gulf Arab officials at a meeting in Qatar in the next two weeks that Washington will work with them to resist Iranian influence in the region.

"We have negotiated a nuclear deal for the
simple reason that we believe if you are going to push back against Iran, it's better to push back against an Iran without a nuclear weapon than with one," the pan-Arab newspaper al-Sharq al-Awsat quoted Kerry as saying.

(Additional reporting by Phil Stewart, William
Maclean and Noah Browning; writing by David
Stamp; editing by Giles Elgood)

Print this item