USA Today may not be the most prestigious of newspapers but it’s what gets shoved under my hotel room door each day. Today there is an opinion piece about Illinois’ decision to end the ban on re-imported medicine.

Because medicine is sold in Canada much cheaper than it is in the USA, it was cheaper to buy it from Canada than locally. This re-importation was banned by the federal government, ostensiby because of safety fears about buying drugs from un-regulated foreign pharmacies.

USA Today says, “firms sell products to other countries for much less. That’s unfair.” In the Opposing View column on the same page, William Hubbard says, “imported drugs not approved by the FDA may be unsafe.”

Both miss the point. The reason US pharmeceutical companies sell drugs more cheaply in Canada is that they are forced to by Canadian government price controls. That’s unfair. Safety concerns are just a cover: the real reason for the re-import ban is a justifiable measure against what is effectively dumping of cheap drugs on the American market. Pharmeceutical companies should be allowed to sell their products for whatever price they want because they are their products.

Even so, I don’t agree with the re-import ban. If companies don’t like Canada’s price controls there is a simpler solution: don’t supply drugs to Canada. All the ban really achieves is to allow companies to sell drugs to Canada at a reduced profit margin, protecting them from losses caused by re-import. Remove this protection and the choice to not supply Canada may be cost effective — that might change Canada’s attitude. It could therefore be said that the re-import ban protects Canada’s price controls.

On the other side of the page a Canadian writes to say that Canada’s socialised medicine has not inhibited the development of drugs there. On the contrary, he boasts, “it is mandated by law in Canada that a certain percentage of revenue earned by drug companies be spent in Canada for pharmeceutical research.”

Riiiiight. Telling people how and where they can spend their profits won’t discourage them at all. Canada is not a socialist hell hole…

Posted by Rob Fisher as Authorised Theft at 6:23 AM EDT

158 Comments »

Much as I’m suspicious of those who proclaim, “things were better in my day”, I have come across some evidence that childhood may not be all it once was.

I wonder what this sign achieves given that it must be impossible to enforce. Perhaps it gets children used to the idea that there is a greater authority out there, and that having fun is somehow naughty. And I can’t help but spare a thought for poor little Johnny who gets a ball for his tenth birthday.

Here’s another:

It says, “please do not allow children to stand inside of climb on trolley”. This time the spoilsport is a supermarket rather than big local government, but the effect is similar. I remember riding in the trolley when I was small and it was a lot of fun. Was this sign put here out of fear of litigation, because a customer complained about dirty shoes inside the trolley contaminating food, or because someone saw a child having fun and thought something had to be done about it?

Both of these signs are from my new Signs of Our Time photoblog. It’s an attempt to record attitudes as expressed in the signs people put up, and an excuse to have one of those new-fangled camera-phones.

Posted by Rob Fisher as General at 11:05 AM EDT

2 Comments »

Paul Marks talks about gold plating, the process by which British civil servants take an EU directive and bulk it up a bit.

Examples are tossed about, supposedly a Directive on slaughter houses that started off as about 8 pages in Brussels (EU HQ) was turned in to about 7 pages in France - and about 97 pages in Britain.

No surprise that almost all of the little local slaughter houses closed down.

[…] The little places may not have understood the paper work or been able to afford all the special people the regulations insisted they have (such vets - mostly from Spain) - but they did the job better. “Oh the wicked supermarkets” (they get the blame for destroying the “local food” from “local farmers” system that the media claim to love) “and now on to our next story about the need for more regulations concerning such and such”.

Indeed, the main thing putting me off of starting a business is the knowlege that I’d have to hire a large staff just to deal with the legal and regulatory matters.

The more general point is that in a environment with lots of regulation large corporations are the fittest and therefore survive, while small businesses die out. The irony is that the anti-capitalists who hate big business so much are the ones always clamouring for more regulation.

In another article, Paul Marks notes that the flooding in Cornwall was more likely caused by a government ‘reclaim land’ scheme than global warming… And I particularly enjoyed Julian Morrisson’s take on global warming in the comments section:

- it’s bunk
- but if it isn’t, it’s overblown
- but if it isn’t, it’s mostly harmless
- but if it isn’t, people will cope
- regardless, property rights trump all.

Posted by Rob Fisher as Authorised Theft, Enviro-Mentalism at 7:17 PM EDT

3 Comments »

Big Blunkett is up to his usual tricks again. This time he wants to make it easier for police to arrest anyone they feel like.

Home Office minister Hazel Spears tries to reassure us. There will be a “necessity test” for arresting people. It will only be possible to arrest someone for littering if, say, the officer suspects he has given a false name and address. He might suspect this if, for example, the perpetrator does not produce his ID card on demand. Surely the home office wouldn’t be laying the groundwork for compelling people to produce ID cards on a whim, would they?

And as well as permanently putting everyone arrested on a national DNA database whether or not they are charged with an offense as currently, he wants police to drug test everyone on arrest, too, whether or not they were arrested for anything to do with drugs. I imagine this is so that we can deal with all these people who take drugs but otherwise lead a perfectly benign and productive life.

Blunkett also wants “civilian wardens” with power to search people for weapons. Think of the jumped-up self-important jobsworth toerags who’ll apply for that job and then enjoy thinking up excuses to search people.

And then there are new proposed powers of search. Not only would police be able to search any property the suspect has had access to (presumably including that of innocent friends and relatives), but they would be able to come back as many times as they want for as long as they want.

It all sounds a bit oppressive to me. Still, at least this Rockall Times article is just satire, right?

Michael Portillo has more thoughts about David Blunkett in the Sunday Times. Thanks to ThePresentOccupier for links and cynicism.

Posted by Rob Fisher as Civil Liberties at 7:36 PM EDT

4 Comments »

When I heard what sounded like someone smashing a car up at ten past twelve last night, I called the police. At half past twelve they appeared, looked around, asked me which way the perpetrators had gone and left.

What this demonstrates is that unless the police catch the crook red handed what they mostly do is gather evidence. What they mostly don’t do is show up in the nick of time and save the day. This isn’t necessarily a criticism of the police. I’ve already argued on these very pages that it’s impossible for them to provide that kind of service.

It’s a shame I could do nothing more than run off and call the police. After all, I caught the crooks red handed. And perhaps they would have thought twice about what they were doing if they were likely to be challenged by passers by.

Posted by Rob Fisher as Self Defense at 9:38 PM EDT

7 Comments »

I was in a nightclub with friends at the weekend when a huge fight kicked off. Half of the dance floor ran away to hide, and the half involved in the fight ran out of the club.

As things had quietened down we stayed for another few drinks. By the time we decided to leave the police had turned up, and as we reached the door it became apparent that they were insisting on taking down people’s names and addresses before allowing them to leave.

Immediately I wondered about the legal situation. Can the police hold a person against his will and compel him to give information if he is not suspected of any crime? I would certainly rather not have my name and address on some list inside a police station associated with whatever had gone on in that club. I hadn’t seen anything, so there was nothing useful I could tell the police anyway. I didn’t particularly want to be called at some unspecified time in the future and asked questions. I could just as easily tell the police here and now that I didn’t know anything.

So instead of handing over my name and address I asked politely what my options were. The policeman was rather impatient at this. He asked if I was going to “make things difficult”. I explained that I didn’t want to give him my name and address if I could help it. He said I wouldn’t be allowed to leave until I did. I went away to think about how far I wanted to take this. Did I really want to see if he would go as far as to arrest me? On the other hand, did I really want to abandon my principles at the mere threat of arrest?

As I walked away, two rather mouthy guys walked up. They had a similar position, and argued at length with the policeman that they hadn’t done anything wrong and should be allowed to leave. They repeatedly asked if he was going to arrest them, and when he said no, they asked again to be allowed out.

Eventually he became exasperated with this and let them go. I tagged along with them. As I left the policeman asked me again if I had seen anything, and I told him no. He let me go, and I made sure to thank the guy who had done most of the talking.

So what are the lessons from this?

1. The police can’t hold you against your will unless they arrest you.
2. They probably don’t want to arrest you if they can help it because it’s too much effort and paperwork.
3. They’ll try it on anyway. You can’t rely on the police for legal advice. They’re more than happy to give the impression they have powers they don’t have.
4. Being an annoying loudmouth gets you further than asking polite questions.

Posted by Rob Fisher as Civil Liberties at 5:29 PM EDT

69 Comments »

A good friend from Norway sent me a link to this story in Norwegian. He explains:

This policeman wants to ban Rambo knives because
it was used by a guy to kill one person and seriously
injure two other people on the tram. One labour MP agrees.

The perpetrator was not really a criminal, but a mentally ill patient
who really needed treatment. He was discharged
from a psychiatric hospital 3 days before the murder.

Would they have tried banning pencils if that was the murder weapon?

Which is a very good point. As usual, politicians, eager to be seen to be Doing Something are just doing anything. Anyone who thinks about it for a second should realise that the perpetrator could have used any sharp object, and that banning one type of knife achieves nothing but one more little bit of control over ordinary people.

Posted by Rob Fisher as Civil Liberties at 9:55 PM EDT

3 Comments »

It seems Red Ken will rent out Trafalgar Square for any old bunch of loonies. I went there today hoping to do a bit of relaxing, tourist watching, and possibly fountain paddling. What should I find instead? A huge rally and some guy on stage urging me to, “come to Jesus”.

I wouldn’t mind the owners of a privatised Trafalgar Square using it for whatever they want, but seeing as its upkeep is paid for with taxes letting special interest groups continually hijack what should be a public space for everyone to enjoy strikes me as taking liberties just a bit. Whose square is it, Ken?

Posted by Rob Fisher as Authorised Theft, Imaginary Friends at 9:45 PM EDT

3 Comments »

I’ve just been watching a BBC1 documentary called Vandals Under Surveillance. It presented video evidence and told various stories about people dealing with vandalism.

One story was about an estate where houses were being abandoned because it cost too much to keep repairing the damage, and selling up was impossible. “No-one was prepared to take a stand,” said the narrator, “until the council took action.”

No-one was prepared to take a stand, eh? Perhaps, as Louise Casey, head of the government’s anti-social behaviour unit suggested, this was just traditional British reserve.

Or was it, as David Carr so delightfully put it,

the fact that private citizens are forbidden to possess so much as a toothpick and even raising their eyebrows in defence of their homes, families or communities will result in their being dragged off to prison by the very people that are supposed to be protecting them?

The council’s solution was to bring in an expert who encouraged residents to gather video evidence. She said she was just “giving people the tools”. In the end, it turned out that all the vandalism and harassment was cause by three families who were eventually evicted. So that’s justice, then.

I can think of some rather more appropriate tools for dealing with vandals, and they would have sorted the problem out much more quickly.

Update: You can listen to David Carr talking about food legislation, or read about his radio appearance.

Posted by Rob Fisher as Self Defense at 11:43 PM EDT

7 Comments »

Australian computer hardware site OCAU has a fascinating nostalgic article consisting of scans from old computer magazines. I often wonder what life was like before the Internet age, and am surprised to remember that I lived through those times!

I found one scan particularly interesting. In 1980 the British government invested £100 million of taxpayers’ money into a company called Inmos. This was to meet a, “growing need for integrated circuits used in industrial and scientific equipment while alleviating the supply problems which are inherent in reliance on imported devices.” Really? Well there don’t seem to be any supply problems now, and look what became of Inmos. That was money well spent, then.

Finally, I’m looking into building a new computer. One of the first decisions to be made is: AMD or Intel? Well over at Anandtech they have measured the performance of Doom 3 on all current CPUs. Look at these graphs. AMD is clearly dominant: its middle of the range 3500+ chip beats Intel’s top of the range Pentium Extreme Edition. I don’t expect this situation to last long, Intel are bound to have something up their sleeve. But for now, the AMD Athlon 64 is king.

Posted by Rob Fisher as Geekism at 11:17 PM EDT

No Comments »