Slashdot Mirror

A good example is the FBI files on John Lennon (and the parrot that say "Right On!" during arguments)

The Washington Post has an entire section about the drug war in Mexico - Mexico at War. As does the New York Times. The BBC has plenty of coverage as well. Perhaps you're just not looking hard enough, or you're more attached to your biases than facts?

Actually, depending on the metrics used, alcohol may be considered like the most harmful drug on the streets or just below heroin and cocain. Cannabis is lower than tobacco and LSD even lower than that.

http://www.mapinc.org/lib/LancetFigure1.gif

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2010/nov/02/alcohol_more_harmful_heroin_or_c

I live here, and it is nowhere as conservative as you make it sound. We just had a CANNABIS CUP held here, for crying out loud! Cypress Hill, vape bags flying around, the works!

Except Conservatives support the fake War on Drugs. Nixon got to pick all of the members for a presidential commission to study whether hemp, marijuana, should be legalized or not. Before the commission ever made it's decision Nixon came flat out and said he'd never agree to allow it to be legalized, which is exactly what his commission recommended. Although almost all members were drug warriors "they started talking about legalization". Two more conservatives opposed to legal drugs were Ronald and Nancy Reagan. President Reagan increased the size of the war on drugs and Nancy started the "Just Say No" campaign.

The War on Drugs isn't a Conservative or a Socialist (I won't say liberal because most of those who call then that are not liberal) issue, they both support it.

Falcon

The Taliban was a client of ours until the September 11th attacks. Then we demanded that they hand bin Laden over or we'd bomb them. They demanded evidence. We sent the troops in. The Taliban never invited us, but after we finally ran them out of town, too late to stop their support of Al Qeada, the government we installed invited us to stay. Then we sent ten times as many troops to Iraq, which had nothing to do with terrorism until we split open their borders.

But here's a far more interesting tidbit. I couldn't confirm the date on the LA Times website of this article (May 2001), but it's a pretty enlightening view on how moral relativism in foreign policy is self-destructive.

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n922/a09.html

Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.

Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden.

Like to smoke marijuana legally? Move to Italy and become a Rastafarian!
-------
Rastafarians have always regarded Ethiopia as the promised land, but Italy could rank a close second after its Supreme Court ruled that smoking or possessing cannabis is not a criminal offence but a religious act when the person doing it is a Rastafarian.

Last year, the same court declared that cultivating even a single cannabis plant was a punishable offence. But now Italy's Court of Cassation has said Rastafarians use marijuana "not only as a medical but also as a meditative herb. And, as such [it is] a possible bearer of the psychophysical state to contemplation and prayer".

Release, the London-based drugs information service, said that the ruling was a European first.

The case was brought by a man in his forties from Perugia who was sentenced to 16 months in jail plus a UKP4,000 ( UKP 3,000 ) fine in 2004 for possession of 97g of marijuana. The Supreme Court said the court of first appeal had failed to consider that the man, a Rastafarian, smoked marijuana according to the precepts of his religion, which, the judges said, permits the smoking of 10g per day. Rastafarians smoke the drug, said the court, "with the memory and in the belief that the sacred plant grew on the tomb of King Solomon".

The government is livid. The judgment "shatters the laws which forbid and proscribe penal sanctions for" the use of illegal drugs, an Interior Ministry spokesman said.

Right-wing politicians were scathing. Senator Maurizio Gasparri said: "Today we learn a Rasta is free to go around with drugs. If somebody belonged to a religion which permitted them to eat their children, would they give them the go-ahead, too?"

But the verdict was received with joy at Rototom Sunsplash, Europe's biggest festival of reggae music, near Udine, in north-east Italy. "Finally the principle of religious pluralism is beginning to make headway," Filippo Giunta, president of the festival, said. "This judgment ... underlines again the difference between this substance and so-called 'hard' drugs, alcohol included."

Source: http://www.mapinc.org/norml/v08/n675/a09.htm

Canadian government is also forbidden to do illegal searches by Constitution. Recently someone got of due to the fact that he was searched on a hunch by the border guards (they had no reasonable suspicion) even though they found 50 Kg of cocaine. http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n880/a12.html of course it will probably not stand up to appeal.
Another interesting decision found while googling above is http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1988/1988rcs2-548/1988rcs2-548.html where someone got of for not being informed of his right to a lawyer as soon as customs decided to search him.
Canada's constitution is a bit weaker as whether illegal evidence is admitted is based on whether it brings justice into disrepute. Also the constitution is a bit more modern than America's as it was put into place in 1981.

The debate over whether marijuana should be recreationally legal, whether its use commonly endangers others (say, driving under the influence), and what any penalties should be is heavily clouded by this problem. It also makes the whole drug problem harder because it makes the entire drug classification system look partisan and useless, which, to some extent, it is exactly that. It results in a loss of respect for the system.

I came accross this

http://www.mapinc.org/newsnorml/v07/n307/a02.html

thought it was funny

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n1836/a09.html? 999
The link points out that spending on prisons is outstripping spending on education. So, my daughter is maybe a little safer because a bunch more criminals are behind bars. On the other hand, the school she goes to could be a lot better. I think it's a bad deal.

Consider the Canadians. They seem to be just as safe or maybe safer and yet they put way fewer people in jail. I'll bet their schools are better too.

Lots of people are killed by drunk drivers and yet we get bent out of shape by pedophiles. We really are freaked out by all the wrong things. As for how I would feel if my daughter were assaulted ... rotten. What do I think the chances are? She has much more chance of being raped by some guy at school, date rape for instance, than by some sex maniac lurking on the street. Living is a matter of taking chances. We can't live without choosing risks to take. I've made my choices. One of them doesn't involve telling my kids to stay off MySpace. On the other hand, I have pointed out to them the risks of giving out personal information.

well here's one, before Bush-Cheney slopped the trough
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/ subsidizing-big-oil.html

and another
http://www.distributiondrive.com/Article4.html

and another
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97.n252.a06.html

by the way, their average effective tax rate is lower than mine. 11% vs 17%. Oh by the way that does not include my gas taxes, property taxes or sales taxes.

Face it, Alaskans are not rugged individualists, they are welfare bums.

The USA is trying to enforce its drug laws in Canada.

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n1519/a12.html? 397

Is it so hard to believe that they might start extraditing file sharers to extort them into bankruptcy or spend time in an american gulag? Sattelite hobbyists? Other political dissenters? Anybody they don't like and put on a deck of cards???

Not just to sell it - She's in charge of the largest grow op in the universe!!

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n931/a05.html

Found good stuff on Pelican Bay.

http://www.sfbappa.org/Awards/picturestory/picstor y28.ex2.html
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n707/a04.html

"Sometimes an imprisoned gang leader writes his directives in his own urine on the back of an innocent-appearing drawing before sticking it in an envelope and mailing to an outsider. When the urine dries, the contents of the message remain invisible to the naked eye until the recipient holds the paper to heat so its secrets can be revealed.

Or messages called "ghost writings" are lightly embossed with a pointed object on the inside of a manila envelope. The envelope is glued back together, and mailed with other documents to an outside contact, who rubs pencil lead lightly over the markings so the message can be read. '"

A good example is the article here. "One hearing disclosed police invoked the Patriot Act 108 times in a 22-month period" would be a much more useful piece of information if we got a chance to see whether the cases in question did, in fact, involve terrorism.

Actually, the quote is misleading and irrelevant. Sec. 213 "Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant" does not expire. Ever. I've posted this before, but I think it bears repeating...

The US government has been trying to slip this one by us since well before 9/11. It was shot down at least three times in recent history. First it was the Cyberspace Electronic Security Act (CESA). Then the Clinton administration tried to push it through with a meth bill. When that failed, they tried to sneak in through as an amendment to a bankruptcy bill. All the while, the DOJ, led by Reno, was claiming to already have this power without any need for additional legislation in the Nicodemo Scarfo case.

Well, with the PATRIOT ACT, they finally got it. Your only hope now is to have it shot down in the Supreme Court. Both parties have been pushing for this for some time. The People had already spoken. We consistently and emphatically told them 'hell no'. It's clear that Congress has stopped representing the people.

Pay less taxes, and everyone loses.

Who loses if the United States stops paying Colombia to spray poison on innocent Columbian farmers?

What if your taxes pay for famine [cato.org], destruction of private property, tresspassing [americas.org], and assault? [mapinc.org]

If we don't fund these things, everyone loses? We have laws in this country. If you knowingly fund assault, murder, or destruction of private property, you should go to prison. If you unknowingly fund murder, but the murder you fund is a matter of public record, then you should be imprisoned for criminally neglegent homicide.

I assume that when you say you're against "all drug use, including marijuana" you're also against alcohol and tobacco, which are completely legal for adults over 21 and 18 (respectively) to buy. Because believing that alcohol should be legal and marijuana should not is an entirely indefensible position. The argument is something like "Alcohol is good, even though it can poison and kill you... but weed is bad, even though you cannot overdose on it. I believe EVERYTHING my government tells me! Reefer madness is scary!"

Even the WTO thinks United States marijuana laws are bullshit.

Taxes are not money wasted. They are the dues you pay to live in a civilized society. Education, Defense, Crime Prevention, Transportation, Infrastructure, these are all programs and benefits funded by your tax dollar.

Yeah. Where else would we get the money to spray poison on innocent Columbian farmers?

I can understand not liking income tax forms, not liking to fill out all the paperwork, not liking to deal with the red tape that comes from doing business with the government. That said, taxes are necessary to create government and, well, you get what you pay for. No taxes means no government.

Can you understand not wanting to contribute to famine, destruction of private property, tresspassing, and assault?

I think it's a crime that in the leading agricultural producing nation on earth, children are hungry.

Great. As long as you don't care about spraying poison on innocent Columbian children, you can pay your taxes with a clean conscience.

Let me set the record straight. This site has links to various recent studies on this topic.

The U.S. Government does not want you to know this, but all the studies that have been done regarding the effect of marijuana on driving show that it has very little impact on driving performance.

UK: Cannabis May Make You A Safer Driver (2000)

University Of Toronto Study Shows Marijuana Not A Factor In Driving Accidents (1999) (To be fair, this one is a "study of studies")

Australia: Cannabis Crash Risk Less: Study (1998)

Believe it or not, there's even one from the United States!

Let me set the record straight. This site has links to various recent studies on this topic.

The U.S. Government does not want you to know this, but all the studies that have been done regarding the effect of marijuana on driving show that it has very little impact on driving performance.

UK: Cannabis May Make You A Safer Driver (2000)

University Of Toronto Study Shows Marijuana Not A Factor In Driving Accidents (1999) (To be fair, this one is a "study of studies")

Australia: Cannabis Crash Risk Less: Study (1998)

Believe it or not, there's even one from the United States!

Say what you want about the greedy "rich people," they got to be that way by trade, not theft.

Most of the large fortunes you can name were reaped through amoral or unethical means.

Warren Delano (as in, Delano Roosevelt) got his money through the opium business.

Joseph Kennedy was involved not only in some shady stock deals, but later ballooned his fortune with alcohol during Prohibition.

John Jacob Astor made his initial fortune trading alcohol for furs with native americans.

Bill Gates bought QDOS from Tim Paterson for a pittance, only to license it to IBM for millions.

Of course, one could argue that these men weren't actually breaking any laws, they were simply taking advantage of the situations at hand while disregarding moral or ethical constraints that might bind us "normal" (read: unsuccessful) folk.

The only reason most of the /. crowd doesn't like the idea of jail time for copyright infringers... is that maybe the subject of smoking crack and shooting heroin(unless you're talking about Daryl) doesn't come up very often here. Most of us understand that they shouldn't be in jail either, but that's a subject for another thread or another site entirely. Copyright and prohibition both deserve the respect that they are getting now(ei: none).

"I want one, but I'm not a pro athlete, rapper or movie star, so I'll probably have to roll my own"

Dude! I think they roll their own too:

Ricky Williams
Snoop Dog
Woody Harrelson

Your only hope is to have it shot down in the Supreme Court now. Both parties have been pushing for this for some time. The People had already spoken. We consistently and emphatically told them 'hell no'. Three strikes, you're out, right? Oh no! Now the world's a different place with all the terrorists running about! Privacy is great an all, but the founding fathers could hardly anticipate terrorism! Get with the program you whining liberal pinkos! Now the FBI can sign their own warrant, sneak into your home, plant bugs and video cameras, and basically make Amendment 4 null and void.

May I make one suggestion; Would you be so kind as to change your name from FBI to KGB and give up any pretense? Thanks.

Not that we're know for corruption down here or anything, but Roger Villere is also the chairman of the Louisiana Republican Party.

There were those who thought there might have been a connection between the florist licensing thing and him, but I dunno. There was also the home inspector license thing initiated a year or two ago, and now this shit. They're always whining that they need more money.. There was the "temporary" business tax-thing that got "renewed" because they need more money. And the Stelly tax joke.

How about instead of trying to suck us dry, we try to get all these fuckers to keep their hands out of the pot ?
It's no wonder nobody wants to do business in our state.

"Casual drug users should not be arrested, but taken out and shot. The country is at war, and all who use drugs are traitors." - Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates (who started DARE) testifying before Congress.

Asher flew drugs through the Bahamas for Iran-Contra before continuing his central role promoting BushCo through ChoicePoint, DBT and the MATRIX. These evildoers are still active, unlike the ghosts of long-gone foreign regimes that haunt you, Anonymous scaredy Coward, but whose own descendants have rejected after learning the hard lessons firsthand.

Nader's running is a threat only due to a at a serious flaw - the winner-take-all system. Nader's 2000 take of a few percent in Florida was still smaller than those erased by Katherine Harris' machinations, so I'd rank voter disenfranchisement as a greater threat than a legal run by a competitive candidate. If the erroneously counted "Buchanan" votes were properly counted for Gore, the Florida electoral ballots would have been properly allocated, the national popular and electoral votes would have been synchronized, and the Constitutional crisis would never have arrived.

As for the Iran-Contra resumes of Bush's current public/private partnership for hegemony: you really should look more closely at that cancer on your party. It has taken over the brain. Poindexter, North, their druglord buddies, even Lee Hamilton the Democrat whitewasher... do they really represent you?

Hank Asher provided the unprecedentedly expensive Democrat scrubbing campaign in Florida 2000, and flew cocaine for Iran-Contra, now profiteering from domestic spying. These criminals kept the Iranians propped up, and defend them even now, as they get played by the Ayatollahs in Iran and Shi'ite Iraq building a nuclear superstate which will threaten us for generations, if we even all survive that long.

FDR, united with his party, the opposition, the American people, and substantial global allies, could wage war in both Europe and the Pacific - mainly by merely supporting Europe (primarily Russia) while leading in the Pacific. The US fought a well defined enemy, in a war novel in scale, not so much complexity. While the Bush administration seems to be unable not only to fight in both Afghanistan and Iraq, but unable to run a reelection campaign and even one successful war. And they're taking us down with them. Neither you nor I depends on the "one man" at the top of this administration, or all hope of any survival would be lost at the hands of George the Squanderer, who has never won any fair competition in his life, certainly not without help from a family fixer. 2004 won't be fixable, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Wall Street, the jobs market, or anywhere else except possibly the voting booths in November. Let's hope he screws that up as well.

While VR pain relief may work to some degree initially, once the novelty wears off, or on an off-day when you just can't get interested in its "game", you'll probably find yourself screaming with pain.

Should I ever find myself in such an unfortunate situation, may God have mercy on me and set me up with an MD who will prescribe adequate opioid pain relievers. Currently that is the only thing that works, period.

Too often these days MDs are paranoid about prescribing opioid pain killers, what with the DEA breathing down their necks. See The DEA's Disastrous War Against Pain-Treating Drugs for example. It is customary to encourage the patient to grin and bear it or to seek pain relief through alternative therapies like meditation etc.

I myself have had minor surgery were they'll give you plenty of local anesthetic during the actual procedure; then they send you home with instructions to take tylenol. When the anesthetic wears off, the pain kicks in. It is only by whining and complaining that they'll prescribe an opioid painkiller, and unless you go to the ER (and sometimes even if you do) you'll be in pain for hours more until all the paperwork and procedures are done to get the prescription filled.

Chronic pain patients are in a real bind these days. They cruelty towards them by denying them long-term opioid pain relief is unspeakable.

MATRIX is the product of the drug-running covert actors who brought us the Iran-Contra connection. Seisint is the data warehouse in Florida for these Matrix apps, started by Hank Asher. He also founded DataBase Technologies, which purged the 2000 Presidential election rolls of 57,000 voters, 95% in error, the majority of them Democrats. Prior to that, Asher flew drugs off Florida through the Bahamas for Iran-Contra. His boss was John Poindexter, director of the "doomed" federal TIA, the mother of all Matrices. A French webpage has the Seisint/DBT (translated to English) connection: Hank Asher. For extra points, Diebold's eVoting division has been run by another convicted Iran-Contra cocaine dealer.

Now the Matrix, after being rejected by Georgia for its unwarranted invasions of privacy, is making the rounds of the rest of the states which owe Bush Jr favors. Idaho governor Leavitt succeeds Governor Kempthorne, just named the previous Idaho governor, to head the EPA, as it abandons the penalty financing of SuperFund. Check your own state government for the favors it owes Bush Corp., before they sell you to the Bush cronies. Drug dealers, vote fixers, Big Brothers: these are the people we have given the power of the US government. Take a stand now, before you have nothing left to defend.

One wonders then how it is they were able to deal with crime before the advent of technology.

For instance, at the rate we're going, I fully expect to see laws against two people conversing face-to-face and in private in my lifetime. It seems to me that every argument for intrusive wiretapping technologies applies equally well to a conversation held on, say, a beach somewhere.

By the way, I hate to say it, but your faith in law enforcement following the rules here, e.g., disconnecting after realizing the call isn't germane to their investigation, is positively retro. A day doesn't pass that doesn't seen yet another law enforcement officer exposed as being corrupt.

Power corrupts you know.

I guess you missed the news that the bulk of evidence amassed against Ecstasy was bogus.

More drug warrior propaganda.

Sure, a few people have been reported as dying from the drug, but since it is illegal, and its manufacture is not regulated, these people more than likely died from adulterants.

Adulterants that wouldn't be there were the drug legal.

Hank Asher founded DataBaseTechnologies (FL), which purged the FL voter rolls of 57,000 voters (majority Democrats, 95% entitled to vote). Asher apparently flew drugs through the Bahamas for Iran-Contra, which was masterminded by John Poindexter, sleazing his way back into the Bush payroll after Bush senior pardoned him for lying to Congress. Back in the 80s, these evil bastards seemed like just the seamy underbelly of a government fronted by a demented old actor. Now they're running the show!

Federal law is ALWAYS supreme unless the Federal government doesn't have the power to legislate in a given area (which is just about never).

See the second paragraph of US Constitution, Article 6,
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."

California can "legalize" marijuana all it wants. Unfortunately, it doesn't work. The Federal government is still putting Californians in jail for growing marijuana.

His motives for going into Afghanistan were iffy, and so were his reasons. 14/19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, 5/19 Egyptian. I agree that Afghanistan was a hotbed of terrorist activity, but now that major combat operations are over, Bush has forgotten about funding the gov't there. Worse... Afghanistan is back as the number one exporter of Opium and Heroin. Here is the most recent White House / UN statements and Here is an older article with a few choice bits "The figure rose from a low of 1,685 hectares in 2001 [to 30,750] after the fundamentalist Taliban, later ousted by a US-led war, banned opium production." & "The size of the opium harvest in 2002 makes Afghanistan the world's leading opium producer"

His motives for going into Afghanistan were iffy, and so were his reasons. 14/19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, 5/19 Egyptian. I agree that Afghanistan was a hotbed of terrorist activity, but now that major combat operations are over, Bush has forgotten about funding the gov't there. Worse... Afghanistan is back as the number one exporter of Opium and Heroin. Here is the most recent White House / UN statements and Here is an older article with a few choice bits "The figure rose from a low of 1,685 hectares in 2001 [to 30,750] after the fundamentalist Taliban, later ousted by a US-led war, banned opium production." & "The size of the opium harvest in 2002 makes Afghanistan the world's leading opium producer"

Lets not forget Clinton vastly expanded the War on Drug Users.

That's not nearly as far fetched as it may sound.

The DARE program routinely obtains arrest warrants this very way. Police officers attend classrooms delivering speeches on the evil dangers of drugs. Afterwards little black "suggestion boxes" are placed at the front of the room and children are encouraged to deposit the names of friends or family members who might have a "drug problem".

Use your own imagination on where the road leads.

Or don't.

-r

of course if Ashcroft's nephew was caught growing Mount Washingtons Hydroponically in his garage, he'd probably just get off on a good behaviour bond.

See here for more hypocracy

:)

No Joke!

Diamonds Help Fund Terrorism

Are You Smokin' With Bin Laden?

Al-Qaeda Funded by 'Blood Diamonds'

Georgy, evidence actually shows that if children use marijuana once a month from the age of 13, they will NEVER achieve their potential. How can you justify your stance on weed given this FACT ?

The current war on marijuana costs the US over 9 billion USD per year plus another 1+ billion in lost tax revenue if it was legal and taxed. Legalizing marijuana would open up over 130,000 prison spaces allowing more room for real criminals. The facts are that marijuana is much less harmful than alcohol, tobacco, caffeine and acetaminophen (Tylenol).

A great example of the failure on the war on marijuana is 19 year old Webster Alexander. A undercover cop asked him for some pot, Alexander gave him some. The cop asked again and this time offerred him money in exchange. After four "deals" Alexander was arrest, never given a competent lawyer, tried, convicted and sentenced to 26 years in jail for a total of $250 worth of sales. This is more time than a 2nd degree murder, 1st degree manslaughter or a molestation conviction gets you.

Please stop spreading FUD about marijuana because someone just might believe you.

Facts and Myths about Marijuana
"Marijuana Prohibition Costs Over $7 Billion Annually"
26 years for $250 worth of marijuana.
"Teenager Dies from Acetaminophen Overdose"

> Well, to be fair, those drugs never have been legal per se, just a bit less criminal.

Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Unquestioning acceptance of the Party line? Plus good.

Read about the history of drug prohibition. It's come in piecemeal, and it's come because right thinking White Anglo Saxon Protestants want to protect niggers, chinks and spics from their own brutish, unevolved natures. If you think I'm trolling, read the link and read the quotes from eminent US statesmen.

The history of drug prohibition in the USA is a pretty repugnant one. Get back to me if and when we ever admit that, turn it around and legalize (not decriminalize) any of those drugs so beloved of Uncle Tom and his dusky skinned cohorts. We won't, because we'll always need to have a boogieman under the bed, smoking crack and planning to rape our white virgin daughters.

Yes, however most money in the U.S. has traces of illegal drugs on them. Does that mean that paper money should be illegal? By your logic it would be. Directly though, I am against companies, or anyone for that matter, making money off of emulators. They should be created and used b/c people have a genuine desire to run stuff they no longer can. I use RockNES for the simple pleasures of great old games like contra and mike tyson's punch out.

exactly, france didnt sell to Iraq until after the cold war

So you're saying that it somehow matters WHEN the selling occurred? Take a look at the US govt... their hands are just as dirty.

What about the $43 Million that the US gave the taliban in May of 2001 - four months before 9/11?

"...This is the same Taliban that the Bush administration rewarded with $43 million at a time it knew of shocking human rights violations."

To say that the administration was unaware of the taliban/al-qaeda connection would be purely and obscenely laughable.

It is a specious argument at best, that a causal relationship exists between prohibition and organized crime. The government grossly underestimated the task of enforcing the prohibition of alcohol. Today, the DEA budget is 11 billion dollars. That would have been approximately 800 million 1930 dollars. Today, we understand the magnitude of such a task.

Woah! Where should I start...A casual relationship?!? My friend, the two go hand-in-hand. You must have poor sources on this one. Further, we clearly do not understand the magnitude of the task of prohibition. "Druglords" are very smart businesspeople, and are clearly doing well enough to curb our 11 billion dollar effort.

Mayor Laguardia was arguing in favor of a repeal of the 18th amendment when he said "It would take a police force of 250,000 to enforce the Prohibition Act". I wonder how he would respond to today's police force of 650,000?

This is totally irrelevant. 250,000 was a seemingly outlandish number that he threw out as an as example. Further, as a civil libertarian, LaGuardia may have been apalled by the state of our nation and the abuse of the Rico statutes...not to mention the draconian Rockafeller drug laws which have been entirely abusive and ineffective.

Federal drug policy has been a success. Drug use has been reduced by 50% since 1982, and cocaine use alone has declined by 75% since 1987.

You must be smoking crack! Federal drug policy has been a failure since it's inception.

I'm not sure where you get your 50% reduction -- where are the data? If you are using Barry McCaffrey as a reference, the man is an outright liar.

I know of this claim about the drop in cocaine use. It's not the first time the fed has used it to parade their "results". Ronald Regan used it in his '84 campaign -- he claimed responsibility for a huge drop in cocaine. The Late 70's and early 80's were the heyday for cocaine. The reason behind the drop in usage was actually a social trend...this had nothing to do with federal enforcement efforts.

I have a perfect compromise...why don't you just not drink, smoke, or use any other substances that you choose not to use. In my house, I will smoke (and eat) the cannabis that I legally grow and drink beer that I legally brew...all in the privacy of my own home. Doesn't that sound like a reasonable compromise? If not -- please educate me on the harm that I'm doing to society...or, more importantly: Why, prey tell, it's any of your (or the fed's) business at all?

--Turkey

Apparently, just go to one of the various Internet smoke shops he shut down yesterday. You'll be redirected to the DEA (or at least that was the plan) and warned that your identity is being tracked, and that you might be prosecuted. Don't worry, I only linked an article about the whole thing above.

I'm sure glad my tax money is going to such critical uses in these trying times. Give me a break.

I think it's already happened. The best example I know is the Media Awareness Project. This is a web site that posts news stories and other media pieces related to the war on drugs-- pro or con. They have a network of folks who find such stories and post them to the site, and other folks who write letters to the editor whenever they see a story they disagree with. Odd things happen. It's interesting, for example, to see the reaction of small podunk newspapers who suddenly receive a few dozen irate letters in response to what they thought was a perfectly acceptable and innocuous editorial. Say, something everyone in the community can get behind, like "All Drug Users Must Be Shot On Sight!" It's funny, because for a few days the editors go around preening themselves in the mistaken belief that their writing was so powerful that it attracted international attention. They're invariably crestfallen and embarassed when they find out that it was just a web site that brought them their brief notoriety.

I suppose the moral here is that the web has to connect to some real-world media structures to affect those who don't rely on the web for their news.

we should totally be open to listening to alternative points of view, but is an open source conference really the proper venue for it?

As others have pointed out, it's probably the only place that open source and MS will get compared in a fair and factual manner, or at least as fair and factual as open source zealotry will allow. I doubt open source gets brought up as anything but Satanic Evilness to be Feared and Fought at MS-sponsored events.

But the point I'd like to make is that open source zealots should not oppose MS participation in open source events for one very important reason: in the disputes over the merits of Windows and open source OS like Linux, the open source advocates have the better argument. In any propaganda conflict, those who have the better argument should take every opportunity to contrast their arguments with the opposition's arguments, even if it's on their own dime.

An analogous situation can be found in the drug policy reform movement. When you visit a web site sponsored by a reform group, such as the Media Awareness Project, you'll find many links to drug war propaganda, and to the opinions of those who support the continuation of the war. But if you go to sites that support the government position, such as the Antidrug you'll find no links to the opposition. This is a reflection of the relative strengths of the arguments on both sides. Drug policy reformers want their opponents to be freely heard, because their arguments are so profoundly flawed that they help the reformers, rather than hurting.

I personally believe the same to be true of the MS vs. open source debate.

"New study shows that pot has 4xs the carcenogens of cigarettes"

What study? Do you have a reference? Some medical journal perhaps, that describes the testing methodology? Other posters in this thread have already provided plenty of references to material that refutes your claim. You can't just declare otherwise and expect us to take your word over documented, published medical research. You can't even spell rebuttal, for fuck's sake. (No, I'm not picking on your writing. I haven't even STARTED)

Hurrah... Bush is gonna throw 1.2 billion at hydrogen vehicles. I do applaud that (although it's a drop in the pond next to what they spend on hemp prohibition), but it doesn't erase history. The American government and media has still been supressing the truth about pot for a long, long time. They've been extremely successful at spreading misinformation. You're living proof.

"If Hemp is such a wonderful product then why don't the paper industries import it?"

BECAUSE THEY CAN CHARGE MORE FOR WOOD PULP BY SUPRESSING HEMP. Same reason the oil companies don't want everyone producing hemp oil.

"Truely, if there was any real use, it would be put to use."

Oh, THERE'S a watertight argument. It's obviously bad, because if it were good, it would be everywhere. That's self-fulfilling, circular reasoning. Spare me your kindergarten logic, the world's political/economic landscape is a bit more complicated than that. I've tried explaining the reasons to you, but your mind is closed to them. And as for whether hemp has any "real use", Popular Mechanics seems to think it has some real uses... about 25,000 of them. (And that was back in 1938) Renewable fuel, fibre, paper, plastics.. it goes on and on.

"Common sense would tell you that, and judging by your comments--you have none."

Thank you for the compliment. Common sense (otherwise known as "herd-think") is an excuse not to reason things out for ourselves. Albert Einstein once defined common sense as "the collection of predjudices acquired by age eighteen".