Slashdot Mirror

The results of the studies corroborate those of previous driving simulator and closed-course tests by indicating that THC in inhaled doses up to 300 g/kg has significant, yet not dramatic, dose-related impairing effects on driving performance (cf. Smiley, 1986). Standard deviation of lateral position in the road-tracking test was the most sensitive measure for revealing THC's adverse effects.

That would be like passing a law that makes it illegal for drug dealers to sell without a license.

Actually, that is almost exactly how the federal government banned marijuana in 1937. The government required you to purchase tax stamps for marijuana and required doctors to have a special license to prescribe it. Thing was, they refused to sell the stamps or issue the licenses so you faced stiff penalties (now increased to up to life in prison) for not complying with a law the government would let you comply with.

The best article I have found on the history of US drug laws is The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States .

Now in this case, I don't think Ohio is trying to outlaw ebay.

While this post directly pertains to its parent post, it is off the original topic so please use some discretion in replying.

That would be like passing a law that makes it illegal for drug dealers to sell without a license.

Actually, that is almost exactly how the federal government banned marijuana in 1937. The government required you to purchase tax stamps for marijuana and required doctors to have a special license to prescribe it. Thing was, they refused to sell the stamps or issue the licenses so you faced stiff penalties (now increased to up to life in prison) for not complying with a law the government would let you comply with.

The best article I have found on the history of US drug laws is The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States .

Now in this case, I don't think Ohio is trying to outlaw ebay.

While this post directly pertains to its parent post, it is off the original topic so please use some discretion in replying.

Mary Jane, probably only because it was never legal, never enjoyed the same social acceptance and is of course seen as immoral.

Party's at this guys house! He's got the good shit!

Try this for starters (hint: it was made illegal in the U.S. in 1937). Then, you can move on to this for some more history on the therapeutic uses of cannabis that were taking place centuries before the U.S. government made it illegal (or for that matter, centuries before the U.S. government *existed*)...

LSD may have been used at the Univeristy of Saskatchewan, but it certainly wasn't invented there.

LSD was invented by Albert Hoffman while he was working at Sandoz laboratories in Switzerland. It's quite an interesting story.

How can some legislation regulate what happens in the privacy of some computer within somone's home?

Politicians have always tried outlawing all sorts of things that people do in the privacy of their own homes and harm no one else. They regulate what plants you can grow or consume, what kind of toilet you can own, and even what you can use in your bedroom.

Occasionally the courts bitch-slap the politicians and strike down the most egregious of these laws, but that cannot happen until AFTER some innocent person's life has already been turned upside down.

1. The US government has a history of using its citizens in classified research wihtout their consent:
   
   "From the end of world War II well in to the 1970s, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Defense Department, the military services, the CIA and other agencies used prisoners, drug addicts, mental patients, college students, soldiers, even bar patrons, in a vast range of government-run experiments to test the effects of everything from radiation, LSD and nerve gas to intense electric shocks and prolonged 'sensory deprivation.' Some of the human guinea pigs knew what they were getting into; many others did not even know they were being experimented on."
   
   The Cold War Experiments , Budiansky, Goode and Gest,
   U.S News and World Report , January 24, 1994
2. The US government is good at keeping involuntary experiments on its citizens secret. The news media will not report it:
   
   "Suddenly, at the close of 1993, the public was bombarded with "news" about the feeding of radioactive substances to pregnant women and mentally retarded students, about the unethical irradiation of workers, soldiers, medical patients, and prison inmates, and about the government's own internal fears that these experiments had 'a little of the Buchenwald touch.'
   ...
   I am among those who persistently tried to get national media coverage of this outrageous example of government wrongdoing. To say that the media were reluctant to listen would be an understatement. The fact is that, for more than a decade, documentation was ignored and facts were misreported."
   
   The Radiation Story No One Would Touch,
   Geoffrey Sea, Columbia Journalism Review, March / April 1994
3. When the US government conducts experiments on secretly influencing human behavior, using 'unwitting', i.e. involuntary, test subjects is considered essential:
   
   "... On December 17, 1963, Deputy Director for Plans Helms wrote a memo to the DDCI, who with the Inspector General and the Executive Director-Comptroller had opposed the covert testing. He noted two aspects of the problem: (1) 'for over a decade the Clandestine Services has had the mission of maintaining a capability for influencing human behavior;' and (2) 'testing arrangements in furtherance of this mission should be as operationally realistic and yet as controllable as possible.' Helms argued that the individuals must be 'unwitting' as this was 'the only realistic method of maintaining the capability, considering the intended operational use of materials to influence human behavior as the operational targets will certainly be unwitting. Should the subjects of the testing not be unwitting, the program would only be 'pro forma' resulting in a 'false sense of accomplishment and readiness.' ' [Memorandum for the Record prepared by the Inspector General, 5/15/63]"
   
   Project MKULTRA, the CIA's Program of Behavior Modification,
   Appendix A, XVII. Testing And Use Of Chemical
   And Biological Agents By The Intelligence Community,
   Joint Hearing before the Select Committee on Intelligence,
   U.S. Senate, 95th Congress, 1977
4. The US government is currently conducting experiments to investigate the ability of modulated beamed energy, including electromagnetic, to influence human behavior:
   
   "Scores of new contracts have been let, and scientists, aided by government research on the 'bioeffects' of beamed energy, are searching the electromagnetic and sonic spectrums for wavelengths that can affect human behavior."
   
   Wonder Weapons: The Pentagon's quest for nonlethal arms is amazing. But is it smart?, archived copy

If and when marijuana is legalized, I hope that they have the sense to outlaw things like driving and operating heavy machinery while stoned.

That's why I said most things. Marijuana does not affect coordination, it does however affect attention.

You *are not* the same stoned as sober

Agreed.

marijuana affects your brain, just like alcohol

No, marijuana affects your brain in ways entirely different from alcohol.

I sure as hell wouldn't want some tweaker cruising down the freeway being distracted by some trivial thing on the side of the road while my kids were out playing.

See, it's attention. btw, tweakers are meth users.

You may be interested in a 1993 DOT report on the effects of marijuana on driving. One key quote:

"Notwithstanding methodological differences among studies, both direct and indirect evidence coverage on the conclusion that THC's effects after doses up to 300 ug/kg never exceed alcohol's at BACs of 0.08g%."

.08 is the legal limit for alcohol in many places, in other places it's .10, 300ug/kg is a typical dose of THC. I won't repeat the data summarized in that report, but they conclude:

"Of the many psychotropic drugs, licit and illicit, that are available and used by people who subsequently drive, marijuana may well be among the least harmful."

The foregoing comparisons might be misleading. THC's effects differ qualitatively from many other drugs, especially alcohol. For example, subjects drive faster after drinking alcohol and slower after smoking marijuana (Hansteen et al., 1976/ Casswell, 1979; Peck et al., 1986; Smiley et al., 1987).. Moreover, the simulator study by Ellingstad et al. (1973) showed that subjects under the influence of marijuana were less likely to engage in overtaking maneuvers, whereas those under the influence of alcohol showed the opposite tendency. Very importantly, our city driving study showed that drivers who drank alcohol over-estimated their performance quality whereas those who smoked marijuana under-estimated it. Perhaps as a consequence, the former invested no special effort for accomplishing the task whereas the latter did, and successfully. This evidence strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the former users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence.

• The idea that people would actually keep it in their own homes is not realistic, though

• Whether you agree with the justification or not, the military did a nice job of disciplined strikes. There were some accidents, but that happens.

• I believe that one of the largest tragedies of 9/11 aside of the loss of life from so many victims was the assault on our civil liberties from our own government that soon followed.

What's next? How about, "Before you sell that pot you need to put a tax stamp on it." Love that law, and it's been on the books since 1937. Search for the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Or even better, here's a link: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/mj taxact.htm
Legislators work in mysterious/interesting ways.

I couldn't agree more. The "war on drugs" has resulted market distortions that make more problems than the fix.

The drugs themselves are *very* cheap to grow and produce. A free market would result in lower priced drugs, so even if you were a listless addict, you'd need to steal less in order to support your habit. I'm also betting that most casual users would pay for the better quality of a branded product, resulting in a decent market for companies wanting to supply the average user.

I also don't like how personal liberties have been eroded by the need to enforce current drug laws. The bar for searching your person and property has decreased and the rules reporting certain banking transactions shouldn't be tolerated. Plus, the ability for the government to impound your property just for suspecting you're involved in something illegal is shameful.

Bet you didn't know the US as once "dope fiend's paradise"

Yeah, the DARE program worked really well as an example...

Seems to me that teaching this in the schools gives the kids something to rebel against later.

• most opium came from Turkey and India, not China
• in 1800 importing opium into China was forbidden by the imperial government
• despite this, many countries, particularly the US and Britain, imported vast quantities of opium into China

That doesn't make any sense. You're saying that the government just decided to ban drugs because it was a way of oppressing minorities. Why would they do that? How do they stand to gain from preventing minorities from using their 'drug of choice'?

Blacks under the influence of marijuana committed such "heinous crimes" as stepping on a white mans shadow (which was actually prohibited), looking at a white woman twice (also prohibited), and laughing at white people. By outlawing activities people you don't like engage in, you have the ability to have them thrown in jail, you discourage them from living where you do, reduce competition from jobs, open them to exploitation via blackmail, etc. In other words, you create significant power to be exploited against those people.

Read the History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States (written by a law professor) and The Emperer Wears no Clothes .

According to the second source, banning hemp under the guise of banning marijuana also elimintated competition for 80% of DuPont's products (by number of rail cars of product: plastic fibers and paper processing chemicals) and the owner of the bank that financed dupont also appointed the head of the federal bureau of narcotics and dangerous drugs. Hemp also threatened to compete with the timber industry and Mr. Yellow Journalism himself, William Randolf Hearst, had substantial timber holdings and a substantial financial stake in a new cheaper paper making process that could not have competed with hemp since a new machine had been introduced that drastically reduced labor costs associated with hemp. Also, hemp lended itself to decentralized economies whereas patented paper and plastic manufacturing processes were more profitable for Robber Barrons. It also competes with the oil industry and the pharmaceutical industry. When marijuana was outlawed most Americans (even in the unlikely event they new it was up for vote), thought it was some dangerous exotic substance from mexico that Hearsts newspapers railed about and had no idea it was a form of the hemp plant that had been a vital part of human civilization for 10,000 years. At the time it was outlawed, however, hemp agriculture was at a low point in the US because it was very labor expensive and rope was being imported from asia where labor was cheaper. But a new decorticator had been invented that reduced labor costs 100:1, just as the cotton gin had done for cotton, and the same month the federal law banning hemp went into effect, Popular Mechanics ran a story on the new machine calling hemp a billion dollar crop.

1 acre of hemp, which is 4 times as efficient as other forms of biomass, can produce 1000 gallons of fuel for motor vehicles or other uses. Biomass fuel does not contribute to global warming since the carbon produced on burning came from the air in the first place.

Hemp products are making a comeback even though you still can't legally grow hemp in the US.

There is a good article about it here. Here are a few choice quotes.

"And, sure enough, in the late 30s and early 40s, in five really flamboyant murder trials, the defendant's sole defense was that he -- or, in the most famous of them, she -- was not guilty by reason of insanity for having used marijuana prior to the commission of the crime."

"Doctor, when you used the drug, what happened?" "After two puffs on a marijuana cigarette, I was turned into a bat."

"You know what the women testified? In Newark they testified, and I quote, "After two puffs on a marijuana cigarette my incisor teeth grew six inches long and dripped with blood."

2004, and the madness still hasn't ended. Now we might even start vaccinating people so that they don't try out these demonic drugs. Jeez, someone get me off this damn planet.

Read everything with logic and don't go and turn out like Huxley.

You mean Leary right? Huxley was pretty level headed, and his book The Doors of Perception remains the best account of a psychedelic experience around.

The numbers tell a different story. In the decades before World War 1, americans were drinking about 30 gallons of beer per capita, in 1935, two years after Repeal, only 15 gallons per capita. It would take forty-five years for consumption to return to pre-WW1 levels, and then only with a significantly less potent product. U.S. Consumption of Beverage Alcohol.

While I believe NORML's stats are correct, you are justified in questioning them.

"Report of the Senate Special Comminttee on illegal drugs (2002)":

... permit persons over the age of 16 to procure cannabis and its derivatives at duly licensed distribution centre.

Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, Commissioned by President Richard M. Nixon (March 1972)

1. Possession of marihuana for personal use would no longer be an offense, but marihuana possessed in public would remain contraband subject to summary seizure and forfeiture.
2. Casual distribution of small amounts of marihuana for no remuneration, or insignificant remuneration not involving profit would no longer be an offense.

Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base by the Institute of Medicine (1999)

"The vast majority of evidence on harmful effects of marijuana is based on smoked marijuana, and, except for the psychoactive effects that can be reasonably attributed to THC, it is not possible to distinguish the drug effects from the effects of inhaling smoke from burning plant material. "

I'm not saying marijuana is harmless but studies place it's dangers less than alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. IMO it's not worth jailing someone for.

Hah. Have the book without trading. Save yer money.

marijuana does not kill brain cells or cause permanent brain damage. alcohol does. long term consumption of alcohol has shown consistent loss of brain mass (convoluted surface space). a joint is less harsh and harmful than a cigarette. all of the harmful properties of smoke inhalation can be avoided by using a vaporizer to inhale THC. THC only causes a lower sperm count while under the influence, but never after. everything the government shoves down your throat that it calls facts are lies. i hate it when it releases some dumb survery that says "ecstacy" is losing popularity. maybe, but that does reflect an accurate picture. more popular drugs are entering the market such as 2c-i. it does not reflect the drugs that they bash all day long by lies and misconception. the government is lying to you. fight thelies!

Coca Leaves

[...]The amphetamines are a large group of synthetic drugs with marked cocaine-like effects but are longer-acting than cocaine. Examples are dextroamphetamine (Dexedrine), methamphetamine (Methedrine, Desoxyn), and amphetamine itself (Benzedrine). The amphetamines are widely used to stave off sleepiness among those who work (or play) long hours, and are popular as "diet drugs" and as antidepressants. [...]

"So, you have to be a pothead to enjoy this book? And isn't that the same as a new ager?"

Absolutely NOT! Carl Sagan himself used Marijuana ....regularly! If you've ever read any of his books you'd know that he was a brilliant scientist, purely rational and logical, a true skeptic at heart. He hated the sloppy thinking and unquestioning credulousness of 'New-Agers'. Weather or not he would like to be called a pot-head I can only wonder but he most certainly was not a New-Ager idiot.

If anyone finds themselves scratching their heads, wondering why someone would think drugs should be legal, check out this link.

Highly recommended. I bet 95% of the people who read it will be shocked by at least something in it.

Cool spook toys -- all very sexy.

But what about the assassination devices -- shellfish toxins, flechette umbrellas, that sort of thing?

What about MK-ULTRA -- the covert testing of hallucinogens on unsuspecting civilians?

What about CIA/Mafia alliances?

What about Operation Phoenix?

-kgj

1830's, the horse drawn train lobby made hell for the steam locomotive companies to try and keep them out of business.

1880's-1890's The horse and buggy lobby pushed through all types of complicated laws to try and force auto manufacturers out of business. Horse and Buggy manufacters actually sued car drivers to get them to go back to using carriages.

1895, Rudolph Diesel the diesel engine and originally ran it on peanut oil. He suspsiciously died on a boat trip, and the petroleum industry was more than happy to bury the idea of biodiesel fuels and instead sell off this crap they didn't have any use for as diesel fuel.

World War II: As part of the wartime reparations, Germany was forced to give up much of its textile industry. Dupont (thanks to the U.S. gov't) got its hands on the recipe for nylon and figured out a cheap way to make paper from wood. Up till then, everything cloth that had to be durable was made from hemp. The Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence were written on hemp paper, canvas sails were actually made from hemp, official gov't documents... written on hemp. Anways, Dupont lobbied the Dept of Treasury then later on, the Fed Bureau of Narcotics outlawed it completely.Marihuana Tax Act of 1937
Someone's Masters Thesis on the whole boondogle

More recently 1970s~1980s, record companies sued over audiocassetes, 1976 tv companies sued over VCRs. 1982 The RIAA encouraged everyone to replace their old LPs and cassettes with CDs. 1990 first CD-R writers were made, 1992 Audio Home Recording Act passed. The MPAA encrypted DVDs 1996 to avoid the RIAA's mistake with CD copying. MPAA sued cause DeCSS was broken, 1998 DMCA was passed... the list of corporate interests trumping the public good goes on.

Automobile companies are currently touting a study showing that reducing weight increases the risk of death in an accident. Why is this important you say? Because removing weight is the cheapest way to increase fuel efficiency.

Now to stay on topic ;o) Intel does have an incentive to make smaller cooler chips (Centrino, Pentium M) but a technologicaly based drop in heat output would be a Bad Thing(tm) for coal/electric companies because it would point to a long term drop in demand for electricity (assuming we don't all have solar cells on our roofs in 20 yrs.) Intel has definitely showed their desire to move away from the GHz race and towards greater IPC

Most large industries are not driven by innovation, they're protecting whats theirs and (sometimes) searching for efficiency in the process. Sorry for the rant, but companies are swooping around suppressing information (that college kid's masters thesis where he mapped out most of the US infrastructure, Edward Felten's breakage of the RIAA mp3 watermarks) and you're right capitalism is too powerful, thats why we're running around in nylon running suits instead of wearing our parents hemp clothing or driving around in cars burning vegetable/hemp oil.

I swear i'm not a hippy.

The text I found was:

"Id. (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 513 F.2d 38, 39-40 (4th Cir.1975)).

[3,4] We hold that Congress may constitutionally regulate intrastate criminal cultivation of marijuana plants found rooted in the soil. We defer to Congress' findings that controlled substances have a detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people and that intrastate drug activity affects interstate commerce. Rodriquez-Camacho, 468 F.2d at 1221-22. We further hold that local criminal cultivation of marijuana is within a class of activities that adversely affects interstate commerce."

http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/DPF/visman.html

I'm not goot at using FindLaw, but I'd imagine you can find the full text there.

Your dope is taxed too. Back when the federal government had a more conservative view of its jurisdiction, it used its taxing authority to control or prohibit the sales and possession of certain drugs and firearms. They didn't think it was constitutional for the federal government to directly outlaw these items. See the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.

If you'd like to know more about our airplane technology, check for our web pages on medellin.gov.co and drones.af.pentagon.mil. For more information on cocaine, check out Consumer Reports.

Cheers, Ernie

Try reading about the Opium War sometime. It's actual historical fact, and it turns the premise of that so-called "history of drug prohibition" completely on its head.

In the past, Western imperialist governments used addictive new drugs to control populations. These drugs are very destructive, and it does not make much sense to legalize them. If we do legalize them, it is the poor who will suffer, since they cannot afford good medical treatment and the "Betty Ford Clinic".

Some test studies are also required reading, I think. You've been sucking up too much government propaganda. Haven't you ever heard of medical MJ? Marijuana doesn't have a lethal dose, doesn't cause brain damage as claimed so often, and besides short-term effects doesn't really do anything negative at all. (Smoking-related effects aside, again.)

A Drug War Christmas Carol - See this one above all else.

The Conspiracy, all joking aside.

New study about MJ and brain damage.

Do some Googling around, too. There is a LOT you need to learn about marijuana. The hemp industry, unbelievably as you have pointed out, was destroyed because of shrieking moralists, greedy industrialists, and a bevy of other cretins. The Drug War is the worst idea in the history of America, and excuse me if I sound condescending, but I'm glad I'm helping you see through the veil of lies. Most of the arguments against cannabis stem from a vicious cycle of circular logic, reaching back to the fear-mongering of Reefer Madness.

And as a final note, in a reference back to your original mention of the Assassins, I would like to point out that cannabis use is still booming in the Middle East; the Quran prohibits alcohol but allows marijuana. You can find it in almost any teahouse, I assure you. The reason cannabis is so reviled by the UN is because of the impact of religious conservatism and U.S. policy in its affairs.

You're mostly correct here. However all that's needed for safe opiate use is known doses of a pure drug. It's actually quite difficult to overdose on clean heroin, especially if one has a tolerance to it. Citation

selling devices that improve public health by reducing the harm caused by illegal substances is illegal

All the above is quite true - not only is the most dangerous aspect of relatively harmless psychoactive plants the legal trouble it can get you into, the beneficient and protective govt. actually approves and sells products that cause many known health problems. Just like 'home brew' in the basement was popular during the prohibition years of the 20's (thank you for alcohol prohibition, women voters!) so you didn't have to support the local Al Capone making megabucks off the law, today it's the closet garden.

On topic: New???? Someone in my family was giving away corn plastic stuff (like pens) for xmas over 20 years ago. Maybe this is a new formula or process.

Boy are you clueless. Go back to the 1930's and get a job with William Randolph Hearst, he's got some tabloid articles for you to write.

You know why pot is really illegal? It's because HEMP threatens the profits of the industrialists. You can make any grade of paper with it. It's the toughest natural fibre aside from spider silk. You can run a car on hemp oil. People could be growing gas in their backyards. Can't have that! Dubya's family has been heavily into oil for decades. Step up the War on Drugs! No conflict of interest here, move along.

In 1937, when marijuana was banned, the American Medical Association OPPOSED it. They had been prescribing it safely for over a hundred years.

Every scientific study of marijuana has concluded that it is substantially less harmful than cigarettes or alcohol. Very recently, a senate committee here in Canada which studied it in depth, recommended unanimously to the government that pot is far less dangerous than smoking and drinking, and should be regulated accordingly.

Perhaps, gram for gram, there are more carcinogens in marijuana than tobacco. So what? People smoke far less pot than cigarettes, because pot is not chemically addictive. I've been smoking pot regularly for about 8 years. You know how much I smoke now? A small pipe bowl when I get home from work, and maybe a shared joint when my roommate gets home. Now compare that to a smoker who measures their habit in packs per day, and is only getting worse.

"There is why pot is illegial [...] I can tell by your wording that you are a pothead"

I can tell by your wording that you make the average pothead look pretty bright.

For you cynics out there, remember that China has a History of responding to these kinds of tactics.

After all, when you are a second-class citizen, you have NO rights at all, never mind a curtailment of your freedom of speech!

What is currently being set up in the United States is a new class system, in which some people have more rights than others. DRM is part of it, but it isn't all of it. The main thing I see is an attempt to set up a society in which insiders will maintain control of the majority of the wealth and outsiders will not be able to topple them. The insiders consist of a class of people who move between the halls of Congress and the top levels of major American corporations, the outsiders are everyone else. This type of plutocracy has existed in the past in many parts of the world, and it always has disasterous results. As has been noted many times, it is a major feature of colonialism. Both the first wave which brought about the American revolution and the later wave for which brought about the Indian independance movement that Gandhi was a famous leader of.

These revolutionary movements were primarily aligned against economic concerns. That's what the British East India Tea Company was about. The preferential treatment of the British East India Tea Company by the British government was a major factor in sparking the American revolution. (I can just see Slashdot circa 177X, "I can't believe that you are getting upset about something as trivial as a tea monoply when there are som many more serious injustices in the world, have some sense of proportion!!") Of course, later the British East India Company was to turn to the opium trade to expand its interests in China. This opium trade was used as an excuse to sieze parts of China for the British Empire.

Mr. Wells, in his "Middle Kingdom" describes the origin of this first war with England: "This war was extraordinary in its origin as growing chiefly out of a commercial misunderstanding; remarkable in its course as being waged between strength and weakness, conscious superiority and ignorant pride; melancholy in its end as forcing the weaker to pay for opium within its borders against all its laws, thus paralyzing the little moral power its feeble government could exert to protect its subjects. . . . It was a turning point in the national life of the Chinese race, but the compulsory payment of six million dollars for the opium destroyed has left a stigma upon the English name."

He also says, "The conflict was now fairly begun; its issue between the parties so unequally matched --one having almost nothing but the right on its side, the other assisted by every material and physical advantage-could easily be foreseen" and again, after speaking of it as being unjust and immoral, he concludes "Great Britain, the first Christian power, really waged this war against the pagan monarch who had only endeavored to put down a vice harmful to his people. The war was looked upon in this light by the Chinese; it will always be so looked upon by the candid historian, and known as the Opium War."

Within fifteen years after this first war, there was another one, and again Great Britain came off victorious. China had to pay another indemnity, three million dollars, and five more treaty ports were opened up. By the terms of the Treaty of Tientsin, the sale of opium in China was legalized in 1858.

1. New powerful cartels being formed by the United States government with global interests and quasi judicial/law enforcement powers.

2. A new openness about the so-called rightness of imperialism by politically connected intellectuals.

3. Propaganda campaigns designed to link copyright infringement with terrorism. (And thus justify the use of force, both in the domestic and foreign spheres.)

Of course, my pure self-interest leads me to worry about the effects this will have here in the U.S. of A. not just the rest of the world. I don't want to go to jail for fixing my computer so it actually works correctly after a law is passed that requires it to be shipped broken (and stay broken!). I don't want the RIAA/MPAA to be given special law enforcement rights without any accountability under the Constitution. Basically, I don't want any of what's going on. Looks like we are all going to get it though, whether we like it or not!

Actually, that's only true from one set of perspectives. Think of it this way: Your title to the house is merely a piece of paper that says that the house is yours. All it means is that you can get men in blue uniforms with guns to show up and kick other people out of the house if you want, assuming the political climate stays roughly equivalent to what it is.

This does not mean you "own" the house, any more than having control of the police force and the ability to break into people's houses, kill them, and take their property means you "own" the house (but then, when has that ever stopped anyone?)

The War on drugs, i dont agree with it, but it makes sense, you have to prevent the population from becoming a bunch of druggies, but the government isnt arresting people for using drugs, they arrest you for selling it.

That is absolutely untrue. Look at this and this. The majority of drug related arrests are for possession, not trafficking..

I sincerely don't think almost any law should be applied extraterritorially, because each country has its own culture.

Suppose you are Spanish and have sex with a 14 year girl in Spain. Should you be arrested for pedophily next time you travel to US ? Considering the legal consent age in Spain is 13.

Should you be arrested for being a druggie addict if you smoked pot in the Netherlands, in a place where it was allowed?

Should an American who is homosexual be sentenced for 6 years in jail and 2,600 lashes next time he travels to Saudi Arabia, as homosexual acts are illegal, and subject to a maximum penalty of death?

This is crazy. The law that should prevail is the local law. I think that if a person does something another country doesn't like (like Dmitry vs US), then he should be considered persona non-grata in that country. Dmitry's entrance to US should have been refused in the airport immigration and he sent back to Russia. But not arrested.

I got the title confused with this, which is a good read on MKULTRA, but the program definitely had "Manchurian Candidate" in the title!

The machinations around the SSSCA remind me of the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, created through the efforts of big players Andrew Mellon, the DuPont family and William Randolph Hearst to protect their own business interests, which were eing threatened by technological advances in the hemp industry. Lots of history here and here. It's nice to know some things haven't changed since my grandpa was a little boy, like democracy and yankee ingenuity.

The machinations around the SSSCA remind me of the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, created through the efforts of big players Andrew Mellon, the DuPont family and William Randolph Hearst to protect their own business interests, which were eing threatened by technological advances in the hemp industry. Lots of history here and here. It's nice to know some things haven't changed since my grandpa was a little boy, like democracy and yankee ingenuity.

I greatly appreciated the anti drug war links on your Slashdot user info page. However, one of the links is slightly broken...
It looks like your link to the Charles Whitebread speech transcript needs to be revised.

According to the government's own studies (like this one), alcohol is the only psychoactive drug that has been shown to be linked to violence because of its pharmacology. Sure, some people can't handle any drug, but it is the person who is responsible, not the drug.

Roblimo, think, if you had a daughter, and we stopped the war on drugs, as you would like to see happen. Now they are everywhere. Easy to get.

When you make a substance illegal, you affectively place all control of that substance into the hands of the black market. You introduce aldulterants, you raise the prices to levels which require stealing to afford. You also make drug users feel alienated and so less likely to care if they violate societal mores. The United States has the worst heroin problem in the world, and heroin has been illegal since 1914. If you can't solve a problem in 87 years with one method, you should rethink your hypothesis and run your experiments again. Addicts who have access to cheap, pharmeceutical-grade opiates are able to be productive, healthy members of society. Our current stereotype of a "dope fiend" is a product of our drug laws, not the drug itself.

Before you spout more uneducated garbage about how effective the War on (some) Drugs has been, you should do some research.

The Consumers Union Report - Licit and Illicit Drugs (1972)
Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy
The Lindesmith Center's Online Library

The truth shall set you free.

Roblimo, think, if you had a daughter, and we stopped the war on drugs, as you would like to see happen. Now they are everywhere. Easy to get.

When you make a substance illegal, you affectively place all control of that substance into the hands of the black market. You introduce aldulterants, you raise the prices to levels which require stealing to afford. You also make drug users feel alienated and so less likely to care if they violate societal mores. The United States has the worst heroin problem in the world, and heroin has been illegal since 1914. If you can't solve a problem in 87 years with one method, you should rethink your hypothesis and run your experiments again. Addicts who have access to cheap, pharmeceutical-grade opiates are able to be productive, healthy members of society. Our current stereotype of a "dope fiend" is a product of our drug laws, not the drug itself.

Before you spout more uneducated garbage about how effective the War on (some) Drugs has been, you should do some research.

The Consumers Union Report - Licit and Illicit Drugs (1972)
Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy
The Lindesmith Center's Online Library

The truth shall set you free.

Roblimo, think, if you had a daughter, and we stopped the war on drugs, as you would like to see happen. Now they are everywhere. Easy to get.

When you make a substance illegal, you affectively place all control of that substance into the hands of the black market. You introduce aldulterants, you raise the prices to levels which require stealing to afford. You also make drug users feel alienated and so less likely to care if they violate societal mores. The United States has the worst heroin problem in the world, and heroin has been illegal since 1914. If you can't solve a problem in 87 years with one method, you should rethink your hypothesis and run your experiments again. Addicts who have access to cheap, pharmeceutical-grade opiates are able to be productive, healthy members of society. Our current stereotype of a "dope fiend" is a product of our drug laws, not the drug itself.

Before you spout more uneducated garbage about how effective the War on (some) Drugs has been, you should do some research.

The Consumers Union Report - Licit and Illicit Drugs (1972)
Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy
The Lindesmith Center's Online Library

The truth shall set you free.

Why don't you do some damn research before you open your mouth. I'm tired of people who watch dateline and eat that sh*t for breakfast.

Be your own scholar.
-M-

I was driving one of my 8 series (an M Tech believe it or not, we're talking a potential 200 MPH + ). Anyhow, on a country road we were forced to slow down (I don't speed BTW) because some loon had been pulled for speeding. Anyhow 5 minutes later, said loon is behind and harrassing me 'cause I'm only doing 30 in a 30 zone. I hope he gets banned 'cause he just doesn't understand.

• we would care about politics
• we would educate each other about politics
• we would become personally involved in local and national politics
• we would vote
• we would do everything we could to ensure that others cared about, were educated about, and felt personally responsible for the political state of our country.