Slashdot Mirror

If we're going to assume conspiracy, put down the DEA, prisons, and drug cartels as behind it too

Not too far from the truth. Considering that the DEA has the power to declare drugs to be illegal, that they are employed to track down and arrest people who possess, produce, or sell illegal drugs, and have had their power expanded more than any other law enforcement agency because of the drug war, I do not think it is some crazy conspiracy theory to think that the DEA is part of the problem here. Nor is it crazy tho think that private prisoner operators are part of the problem -- they are making billions of dollars maintaining the largest prison population in the world.

Cartels, no -- because they have no real say over laws or politics in America, not because they would fail to push for the continuation of the war on drugs if they could.

I think the real reason is simply that too many people think

Already wrong -- alcohol prohibition was the result of stupid ideas about a drug, the war on drugs is a concerted, deliberate effort to achieve certain goals. People are fed plenty of propaganda, but the politicians and businessmen with the power to continue or end the drug war are not idiots. They know what they are doing, and they know why they area doing it, and they know that their approach is not based on what is best for the American people.

I think it is a more plausible explanation than blaming alcohol and tobacco companies (and I've heard pharmaceutical companies blamed too)

Oh yeah?

unless you have evidence that it is actually happening

Well, since you asked...

http://www.drugfree.org/about/our-partners/sponsors-supporters

Note the pharmaceutical companies. By the way, here are some of the people that alcohol and tobacco companies make big campaign contributions to:

• Richard Burr (received the most money from tobacco companies), http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Richard_Burr_Drugs.htm
• Mitch McConnell (received the second most donations from tobacco companies), http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Mitch_McConnell_Drugs.htm
• George Allen (third most tobacco company donations), http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/George_Allen_Drugs.htm
• John Boehner (fourth most tobacco company donactions), http://www.ontheissues.org/OH/John_Boehner_Drugs.htm

Alcohol is a bit different, with the top recipients of alcohol industry donations having mixed voting records on drugs -- still plenty of support for military tactics, but less opposition to medical marijuana initiatives (there is a lot more to worry about, though -- let's not forget the hundreds of other prohibited drugs).

On the whole? Tobacco and pharmaceuticals are big supports of the war on drugs; alcohol companies are supportive but less so. That's just judging by a few minutes of Googling; I am sure a deeper investigation would reveal more.

I mean, it doesn't bother you that most voters oppose legalized marijuana?

But they don't. The percentage of Americans who want it legalized has risen from 12% in 1968 to 50% in 2011.

They oppose it because they believe the lies spewed buy government, like this:

Marijuana smoke contains some of the same cancer-causing compounds as tobacco, sometimes in higher concentrations. Studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day.

They use to flat-out say that marijuana causes cancer until a study of long term users was done. Pot smokers had fewer (the difference was statistically insignifigant) cancers than non-smokers, and those who smoked both pot and tobacco had half the cancers of those who smoked only tobacco! So they weasel around with language to make it sound like pot causes cancer, when it may actually prevent cancer.

That has to be the dumbest thing I've read on here all morning.

What, that they let high school dropouts on juries? I have news for you, buddy -- the uneducated have the same rights as you and me, and moreover, that's the way it should be.

Seriously. Well, after the judge getting pissed that a juror wanted to be better informed and *gasp* used the interwebs to do so.

Ok, strike the "you and" from "you and me", because you just showed your ignorance. A juror isn't supposed to, and shouldn't, hear anything but the testamony and evidence presented in court. Anything else, even wikipedia, even the dictionary, is hearsay.

I'll give you an example of internet bullshit from an untrustworthy source trusted by many: Partnership For a Drug-Free America

What are its long-term effects?
Marijuana smoke contains some of the same cancer-causing compounds as tobacco, sometimes in higher concentrations. Studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day.

That's not just bullshit, but scientifically debunked bullshit. A statistical study was done about two years ago of long term cigarette smokers, long term pot smokers, long term smokers of both, and nonsmokers.

The researchers expected those who smoked both to have twice or more the cancers of those who only smoked cigs, and expected more cancers from pot smokers than cigarette smokers, since all smoke contains carcinogens.

What they found instead was that cigarette smokers had twice the cancers of those who smoked both (who had a far higher incidence of cancer than nonsmokers), but that those who only smoked pot actually had fewer cancers than nonsmokers, although the difference was stastically insignifigant.

If I was in court on a marijuana posession charge, I damned sure wouldn't wan tthe jury going to THAT web page with its lies, distortions, and other propaganda. Would you?

I rated the article 4 stars because it used an interrobang in the article title

Based on your interest in interrobangs, you may like the State Library of New South Wales and Propaganda Against Recreational Substance Use.

Because the alcohol and tobacco lobbies, collectively known as "The partnership for a drug-free America", pay damn good money to buy the lawmakers opinions.

You can criticize the PDFA in a lot of ways, but this isn't one of them in recent years; they don't accept money from tobacco or alcohol companies (they quit allowing that over a decade ago) and they certainly run anti-alcohol campaigns--see, for instance, http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/Drug_Guide/Alcohol

Fair enough, bad habit from too much Twittering, I suppose.
U of Maryland: http://www.healthcalculators.org/calculators/teen_marijuana.asp, Marijuana Public Policy: http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2005/study-teen-marijuana-use-in.html, Partnership for Drug-Free America: http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/About/NewsReleases/20th_Annual_Teen_Study

perhaps DRM will go the way of prohibition

I hate to break it to you, but prohibition and all the damage it causes society, from the violence of the gangsters to the huge numbers of nonviolent offenders in prison, is still with us.

-mcgrew

PS- DRM on music can never work

We all know the folly of prohibition

Apparently NOT!!!

-mcgrew

Explain Vista then.

XP was China White. Vista is "cheese" .

This is your brain on Windows. Any questions?