Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Supreme Court, All Right or All Wrong? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (820)	9/15/2005 11:44:22 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3029

That is true. I read an article today that diversion of prescription drugs to illicit uses is such a severe problem the DEA is cracking down on nearly every pain specialist to the point where they are dropping out of the business. This is starting to affect things that I care about and I'm pissed about it. I'd much rather start shooting drug lords so the rest of us can live in peace.

To: sandintoes who wrote (820)	9/16/2005 12:35:31 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3029

California Pigeon Control Business Challenges Irrational Licensing Requirement September 2005 Representing California Bay Area pest control operator Alan Merrifield, PLF attorneys recently argued before a federal district court to block state bureaucrats from forcing the business owner to get a license for handling pesticides, even though he uses screens and spikes—and not pesticides—to keep birds off of buildings. PLF’s civil rights lawsuit against the state argues that the licensing requirement violates Mr. Merrifield’s constitutional right to earn a living. Under California law, anyone using non-pesticide methods to keep pigeons, rats, and mice off of a structure must obtain a Branch 2 Structural Pest Control Operator’s License, which requires an examination that tests an applicant’s knowledge of pesticide-handling techniques. Before an applicant can take the examination, however, he must complete a two-year apprenticeship learning how to handle pesticides. Mr. Merrifield, who has been in business for over 30 years, does not use pesticides. Instead, he puts spikes on buildings to keep pigeons away. Nevertheless, the Structural Pest Control Board has threatened to prosecute Merrifield if he installs any device on a building to keep pigeons away without the Branch 2 license—even though the state’s own expert witness testified that the law is irrational. What’s more, the licensing requirement does not apply except in cases involving pigeons, rats, and mice. The perverse result of the law is that if Mr. Merrifield puts spikes on a building to keep seagulls away, he does not need a license, but if he puts the same spikes on the same building to keep pigeons away, he does. Even worse, the licensing examination itself does not test knowledge of pigeons or spikes! Rather than protect the public’s health and safety, the state’s licensing law only protects businesses that use pesticides from fair competition by businesses that provide chemical-free services—and that’s not in the best interest of the public. For more information about PLF’s Economic Liberties Project, contact PLF Principal Attorney, Deborah La Fetra at (408) 732-1953, or PLF Attorney Timothy Sandefur at (916) 419-7111 pacificlegal.org