Slashdot Mirror

Can't admit there's any holes in your argument can you. Let's check out the facts
1) During the taliban's rule Afghanistan was the largest supplier of poppy to the world.
2) The taliban used money generated from the sale of opium to support terrorists (al-Qaeda.)
3) Less than 6 months after the Taliban was ousted Afghanistan was miraculously exporting poppy at almost the same level as before their self imposed ban (must have been instant poppy.)

Sources
1
2
3
4
5

Just one question: Is ignorance really bliss?

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..

Despite being so offtopic, i feel i must inject.

If such studies show what you say, then care to explain why one particular country named The Netherlands (ala Amsterdam) has significantly LESS use of such drugs than even the United States. [link]

Also you may notice there some other facts such as the lower murder rate, and what i saw as the noticable level of ignorance of some American Politicians.. :)

The War on Drugs has been responsible for massive amounts of federal asset seizures. I can't remember if it was Bush or Reagan, but one of 'em enacted a law that gave the federal law enforcement agencies the abillity to seize your goods if they even SUSPECTED you were involved in some form of drug trade or possession, and they don't have to disclose the "evidence" that led them to believe you were guilty. This resulted in a lot of innocent people taking it in the bung.

I see a parallel here in recent events. The government has just come up with another way to criminalize otherwise innocent people. We already have a greater percent of the population incarcerated than any nation (but, hey, it's good for the economy!).

The scariest thing, to me, is that if the government spent as much time and money trying to educate us about drugs, rather then spend it on propaganda, we might not have so many lives destroyed. Similarly, if we spent as much time and money on finding a peaceful solution to the terrorist problem, instead of bombing the hell out of people and whittling away at US Citizens' civil liberties, maybe we could get somewhere.

Meanwhile, I'm a bit scared that my political beliefs will get me thrown in a jail. Please, you may not agree that we shouldn't be bombing Afghanastan, and you may not agree with my politics, but every single American is in danger of losing our freedoms. And that's what we are supposed to be fighting for in the first place, isn't it?

Speak out!

a bit more reality about Swedish heaven

Incarceration rates per 100,000:
Sweden:69
U.S.:519

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.

> It's not about the record companies screwing the little guys... It never has been, and I've definitely had enough of this bloody topic!

Not correct. This is definately about just what you said it isn't: namely, the record companies screwing the "little guys". But not only them--which I assume you mean the consumers--but the artists as well. The only people in the entire marketplace who are happy with the RIAA, MPAA, et. al., are the RIAA, MPAA, et. al. Both the consumer and the artist have bitch gripes with these entities; Napster is the lighting rod for brining these issues to the foreground.

Which issues? Namely that intellectual property in the digital age is a conept that needs major legal readjustments, especially in the face of the following facts:

1) MP3 and similar audio & video compression technologies allow media to be stored in a compact format.

2) The slow but steady increase in the availability of high-bandwidth services allows for distribution of these.

3) The distributed nature of the Net makes it very difficult to prosecute individual users. Centralized services such as Napster are easy targets; Gnutella & FreeNet are next to impossible to control.

The issue is whether or not these factors lead to the conclusion that the record companies are out of date. The primary purpose of a record company is as a distribution mechanism. Once upon a time it was economically beneficial for artists to work with record companies in order to efficiently distribute their works. This is no longer true. An artist can simply set up a web page with their tunes readily available; the record company as distributor has become unnecessary. With technology being at the state it is now, BMG, Sony, and all the rest are simply unneeded middleman. They are hurting, not helping, the market in this respect by impeding the free-flow of goods. (And by free, I mean free.)

The secondary purpose of a record company is marketing. Bill Hicks once said "If you're in marketing or advertising do me a favor and kill yourself. You serve no rational purpose." Definately not-PC, but there is a kernel of truth to this: namely, that marketing is about lies and deception. The desire to buy is inflated by advertisers not because of intrinsic worth, but because of chicks in bikinis, or making it look uncool, or whatever means are available that mostly do not reflect the truth of the situation. Advertising is about emotive responses; advertisers get scared whenever consumers begin to actually use their brains as a reasoning tool.

I can't speak for everyone, but this really annoys me. I do not believe people should lie unless it is absolutely necessary. That's just wrong. I don't have many scruples, but this is one that seems to be pretty workable. Since advertising is mostly based upon lying, I hold advertisers to be worthless turds as a whole. This is admittedly a crass ad hominem attack, but it is one that I find difficult to escape.

If record companies are removed from the equation, then musicians will rise to the top based upon whatever factors currently resonate with the listeners. There will be no corporate executives deciding what the market does or does not want (which happens, I imagine, quite frequently.) More variety will be available, and I cannot help but believe that this will be a Good Thing(tm). In my fantasy world, banal tripe such as Backstreet Sync and Brittney Aguillera will be delegated to Saturday morning "Say No To Drugs" propaganda.

By impeding the way for MP3 distribution channels to function unmolested, the record companies are serving their bottom line only, not artists, not consumers, not the music industry as a whole, not the market as a whole. They are an unneeded barrier towards a smoothly functioning economy. They act as a pseudo-governmental entity, using the power of their attorneys to coerce both listener and artist to do their bidding. Their lobbying of Congress is famous, their rhetoric almost religious in its tone.

The facts being what they are, there are two obvious remedies available:

1) Do not change IP laws. Step up enforcement of existing copyright laws. This will entail more law enforcement officers, perhaps even necessitating a new UN enforcement agency or something under the Department of Justice in the US.

2) Change IP laws. Allow artists control of their works to distribute as they wish. Encourage a "common carrier" interpretation of the laws insofar as Napster-ish companies are concerned. Don't panic! The world will not end EVEN IF 95% of the population downloads their songs, movies, or books of of the internet.

There are only two absolutely necessary components to music: a performer, and an audience. Technology has frequently been a means to streamline business processes. This can lead to short-term losses such as when robots replace factory workers, cow-milking machines replace udder-pullers, or spreadsheet programs make bookkeepers unnecessary. Similary, the recording industry is an antiquated business schema that only serves to hinder the relationships between artists and their afficiandos. Radical changes to IP law are unlikly, considering the fact that so much precedent exists. But changes on the edges can (and should) be made, lest we have rapant wiretapping and further swells in our prison population.

Marijuana or any drug, when used with heavy machinery can be dangerous. Marijuana, though, does not kill brain cells. Besides huffing (or other "recreational" activities which deprive the brain of oxygen) the only drug which kills brain cells is alcohol. Ask your doctor.

Cirrhosis of the liver, fetal alcohol syndrom, etc. are all dangers from drinking.

Essentially the only danger from smoking marijuana is lung irritation, and so far no studies have shown an increase in risk of lung cancer or emphysema, but bronchitis is still a danger.

The biggest problem with drugs (and a lot of other things) is ignorance, on the part of users and law enforcement. For example, an average cigar contains enough nicotine to kill several people, but I could still get one. The U.S. sends billions to Cuba, Peru, and Bolivia to eradicate their coca fields using firepower and herbicides. And still I could get as much coke as I want in a matter of minutes with just a phone call (in NYC). What a collassal waste of manpower, tax payer dollars, and lives.

Users are of course no better. Children romanticize drug use, and get far to caught up in catching highs and spending their parents money. All of our prohibitive laws regarding naturally occuring drugs (and now designer drugs) are based on the idea of protect the children, but have the effect of arresting minorities and adults while kids can pick up whatever they want in school. Except of course alcohol, you have to go outside of school to get that.

For people interested in learning more about drug laws and the problems they cause, check out the following URLs.

• National NORML
• The Lindesmith Center
• The Partnersip for Responsible Drug Information
• Columbia University NORML Shameless plug.
• Marijana Myths/Marijuana Facts a great book as well.
• Dmoz on drugs for everything I can't put in this post

Please people stay informed and don't hurt yourself with drugs or anything. Fun comes with moderation. Anyone who has gone to college (or probably high school) has seen people who have taken things a bit too far. Don't do that, but also don't castigate people for seeing things differently than you. I am a firm believer in an open market in drugs, but I know that in reality a comprimise must be reached that takes into consideration all points of view, not just my own.

Sorry for the long post, but I felt the record needed to be set straight. Carl Sagan smoked herb, cool, too bad he wasn't able to stand up for it while he was alive.