Slashdot Mirror

'Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do' by Peter McWilliams covers the effects of legalizing drugs in great detail. It also covers the social ramifications of legislating victimless crimes. http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/303a.htm

Well said, man. You might find some interesting reading material in Peter McWilliams' book 'Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do'. The overview is available online:

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/101.htm

Don't forget "use" and "possession" crimes. They should be in the top 10.

Indeed. If you haven't, you should consider reading the most excellent book on this subject, Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do by Peter McWilliams, available from amazon here and full text online here.

(That's not a referral link, I won't make any money if you buy the book from amazon via that link, I'm just posting this because I happen to think that the world will be a better place if more people read that book.)

Because heroin isn't exactly an unknown quantity. We've known that it's 100 percent addictive for, oh, centuries now.

Except that heroin is not 100% addictive: perhaps more like 10% of heroin users are addicts. And it was first synthesized in 1874 and only became popular after it was independently re-synthesized 23 years later, and was marketed as a non-addictive morphine substitute until 1910 - its addictive nature has in fact been understood for less than a century.

You know what's going to happen when you put that needle in your arm. You know because everyone else that's done it has ended up the same way.

Yeah, you might end up like David Bowie or Keith Richards or hundreds of other famous musicians, actors, writers, artists who have used heroin...for those can afford their fix and have access to the pure stuff, heroin use or even addiction is not a big deal. It's less damaging to your body than addiction to cigarettes or alcohol.

As Bill Hicks noted, "If you don't think drugs have done good things for us, then take all of your records, tapes and CDs and burn them. Cause you know what? The musicians that made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years? Real fucking high on drugs."

Which is not to suggest anyone go shoot heroin. The crap you buy from typical street dealers is cut with gods-only-know-what and may well kill you; and really, there are better ways to spend your time and money.

And yet, after decades of "tolerance" they're busy dismantling the Red Light district in Amsterdam

Again, your facts are in error. The prostitution shops were only licensed in 2000, not "decades" ago. And they're shutting down owners believed to have criminal connections, not the entire district.

I will recommend Peter McWilliams' book Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country, available online at www.mcwilliams.com.

Sadly, McWilliams became a victim of the War on (some) Drugs when his access to medical marijuana, used to treat symptoms of AIDS and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was ended; forced to switch to the ineffective Marinol, he aspirated his own vomit and choked to death.

The misinformation you are spreading is killing people. Please, cut it out.

Someone posted this link in one of my journals, and it has very compelling arguments against your stance. It's a complete book posted online.

Since we don't live in the same country, I fail to see how my health and risks affect you, and vice versa. And here I thought we were the only first world country without universal health care.

I agree with you about the cars - government should be there to protect me against manufacturers as well as burglars.

Someone posted a link in my journal http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/toc.htm
I found it interesting, and it answers the helmet question very well (although the journal topic was illegal drug use)

Some have theories as to why the Police are becoming more corrupt:

JACK NICHOLSON: My point of view, while extremely cogent, is unpopular.

LOS ANGELES TIMES: Which is?

JACK NICHOLSON: That the repressive nature of the legalities vis-a-vis drugs are destroying the legal system and corrupting the police system.

LOS ANGELES TIMES: Let's talk about acting for a minute."

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/303a.htm

I recommend that you read Ain't Nobody's Business if you do by Peter McWilliams.

I bought the hardback book when it came out and I had not even heard of it. It is that cool.

The next cool thing is...it is online and free! Here's a link:
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/toc.htm

And here's a link to the prostitution chapter:
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/306.htm

What the government did to the author was really pretty horrible. Here's a commentary about his death:

THE MURDER OF PETER MCWILLIAMS

An Indictment, Not an Obituary

Peter McWiliams, 50, best selling author, poet, photographer, publisher, libertarian crusader, medical marijuana activist, AIDS patient and cancer survivor, was found dead on the floor of his bathroom, apparently having choked to death after vomiting, for want of medical marijuana.

There will be an autopsy, but whatever the immediate cause of death may have been, he was murdered by the United States Government as surely as if they shot him. Indeed, it would have been much more humane if they had just put a bullet in his head. No one should have to go through what he suffered at the hands of his country.

When I learned of his death yesterday, I was too angry to write about it. Even now, this is being written more in anger than in sorrow. Peter is where they can't hurt him anymore, but his murderers are still at large, and if there is anything that Peter would want, it would be for us to continue to speak the truth to power, to tyranny.

Of course, if Peter did choke after vomiting it would be directly the result of his having been denied the right to use medical marijuana. Peter was a part of the roughly 40% of those patients for whom the anti-viral drugs being used to treat AIDS can cause violent nausea. The government knew this from direct observation. During at least one court appearance he vomited into a wastebasket during the hearing.

See: How the Government Helps Medical Marijuana Patients: "McWilliams vomited repeatedly in court Friday, prompting guards to keep a trash can nearby." http://marijuananews.com/how_the_government_helps_medical.htm

Dealing with this nausea is one of the best documented uses of medical marijuana, and he had also used it during cancer chemotherapy, when he actually gained weight.

None of that mattered to the judge. None of that mattered to the prosecutor. After all, these are the same people who had held him in federal detention for months on a $250,000 bail, even though he posed no flight risk, the only justification for such a high bail.

See: Peter McWilliams Still Held on $250,000 Bond; Denied AIDS Medication For Four Days!!! Two Stories http://marijuananews.com/peter_mcwilliams_still_held_on_.htm

Had he wanted to flee, he had plenty of time to do so before he was charged, but he is a world famous writer, so he could not hide. His publishing company was there in Los Angeles, and he was taking expensive anti-virals for AIDS. He really could not flee, but that did not prevent the government from violating his Constitutional rights.

Consider the lengths to which they went to keep him from raising the bail.

When his elderly mother pledged her house as security for the bail, they threatened that the government would seize her house if her son simply failed a drug test, not just if he were to flee. She would not be intimidated, but now her son is dead as the result of the conditions of the bail. These are the "family values" of America's war on the sick and dying.

See: "The federal prosecutor personally called my mother to tell her that if I was found with even a trace of medical marijuana, her house would be taken away." -- Peter McWilliams

I recommend that you read Ain't Nobody's Business if you do by Peter McWilliams.

I bought the hardback book when it came out and I had not even heard of it. It is that cool.

The next cool thing is...it is online and free! Here's a link:
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/toc.htm

And here's a link to the prostitution chapter:
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/306.htm

What the government did to the author was really pretty horrible. Here's a commentary about his death:

THE MURDER OF PETER MCWILLIAMS

An Indictment, Not an Obituary

Peter McWiliams, 50, best selling author, poet, photographer, publisher, libertarian crusader, medical marijuana activist, AIDS patient and cancer survivor, was found dead on the floor of his bathroom, apparently having choked to death after vomiting, for want of medical marijuana.

There will be an autopsy, but whatever the immediate cause of death may have been, he was murdered by the United States Government as surely as if they shot him. Indeed, it would have been much more humane if they had just put a bullet in his head. No one should have to go through what he suffered at the hands of his country.

When I learned of his death yesterday, I was too angry to write about it. Even now, this is being written more in anger than in sorrow. Peter is where they can't hurt him anymore, but his murderers are still at large, and if there is anything that Peter would want, it would be for us to continue to speak the truth to power, to tyranny.

Of course, if Peter did choke after vomiting it would be directly the result of his having been denied the right to use medical marijuana. Peter was a part of the roughly 40% of those patients for whom the anti-viral drugs being used to treat AIDS can cause violent nausea. The government knew this from direct observation. During at least one court appearance he vomited into a wastebasket during the hearing.

See: How the Government Helps Medical Marijuana Patients: "McWilliams vomited repeatedly in court Friday, prompting guards to keep a trash can nearby." http://marijuananews.com/how_the_government_helps_medical.htm

Dealing with this nausea is one of the best documented uses of medical marijuana, and he had also used it during cancer chemotherapy, when he actually gained weight.

None of that mattered to the judge. None of that mattered to the prosecutor. After all, these are the same people who had held him in federal detention for months on a $250,000 bail, even though he posed no flight risk, the only justification for such a high bail.

See: Peter McWilliams Still Held on $250,000 Bond; Denied AIDS Medication For Four Days!!! Two Stories http://marijuananews.com/peter_mcwilliams_still_held_on_.htm

Had he wanted to flee, he had plenty of time to do so before he was charged, but he is a world famous writer, so he could not hide. His publishing company was there in Los Angeles, and he was taking expensive anti-virals for AIDS. He really could not flee, but that did not prevent the government from violating his Constitutional rights.

Consider the lengths to which they went to keep him from raising the bail.

When his elderly mother pledged her house as security for the bail, they threatened that the government would seize her house if her son simply failed a drug test, not just if he were to flee. She would not be intimidated, but now her son is dead as the result of the conditions of the bail. These are the "family values" of America's war on the sick and dying.

See: "The federal prosecutor personally called my mother to tell her that if I was found with even a trace of medical marijuana, her house would be taken away." -- Peter McWilliams

Off topic, but I noticed your opinions were rather aligned with mine and thought you might enjoy this book if you haven't already read it :

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/f01.htm

It's called "Ain't nobody's business if you do" and I thought I'd pass it along.

(posting AC to avoid karma.)

Archangel_Azazel

Proj. Gutenberg is great, but (sticking to books that are not found in mysterious warez channels!) there are two other good choices I've hit lately and recommend:

1) manybooks.net (not .org, as I'd remembered it ;)) -- just downloaded quite a few childhood favorites (Bobbsey Twins!), but not everything on it is old; for instance, I look forward to reading The Hacker Crackdown, which B. Sterling kindly allowed them to host.

2) Scribd -- http://www.scribd.com/ unbelievable assortment; I think it's been called "YouTube for PDFs," and if not, there just called it that.

There are also quite a few random ebooks out there hosted online by their authors or with their permission; I *think* Baen has lots of books like this online. In the Beginning Was the Command Line used to be up, though it looks like Harper Collins has changed Cryptonomicon.com to be just a plug for the book by that name. (Nothing wrong with that, though! Good marketing.) Read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, PDF from https://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml, and Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do from http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/ This last is not a downloadable eBook, but rather the entire content of the (compelling!) book online; that (I assert) is a good argument for the OLPC XO.

However, my XO came in the mail yesterday, so you can count me biased if you please ;) I got it in large part as an eBook reader, and so far I am very impressed with its capabilities. The keyboard is small (tiny!), but it beats the one on the Kindle, and it beats the one (that isn't) on the Sony even worse ;) It also has a color screen when you want one, and all the other goodies that the XO comes with.

timothy

> For example, is it legal to shoot heroin in your house? How about meth?

It sure as hell should be.

How about "victimless" or "consensual" crimes should be legal in your own home? In fact, how about we just get rid of consensual crimes altogether?

I presume that the courts consider tasers as occupying the same rung in the ladder of escalating force guidelines as pepper spray.

Considering that stunguns are potentially lethal, I hope not.

If you want consciencious yet capable officers, you have to pay for them. Force your local politicians to fire and prosecute consistently and have them pay officers enough to attract educated individuals who want to positively affect their communities.

Absolutely (as I recently argued here); and I would add, get rid of laws that educated and intelligent individuals will find odious to enforce.

You're not gonna be gentle and polite to someone who could potentially hurt you.

And yet, you expect the suspect to be gentle and polite to a bunch of guys with guns and clubs who are members of an organization known for beating people to get their jollies, and who are punching him in the face?

they are trying to do a very difficult and dangerous job.

Yes, they are - dangerous not just to the police, but to all of us, when we can be the targets of harassment or brutality by incompetent cops. And many people trying to do that job, are not suited to it, cannot do it compently.

We should have fewer cops, pay them very well, and set very high standards for them. (We can only do that, of course, by giving them less to do...get them out of messing with people's private business, and a reduced force will have plenty of time to chase actual bad guys.)

The fact that a job is difficult doesn't mean we should let incompetent people do it.

I would accept that a person generally has a right to control their own body, until they show that they are incapable (murder, theft, public intoxication?, etc.) of self-control.

Non sequitor. Murder, theft, and disruptive public behavior are not examples of controlling one's own body.

Obviously one can lose rights by engaging in criminal behavior. I took that as an unspoken axiom, but in case there's any ambigutity: competent adults have certain absolute rights, including self-defense, controlling their own bodies, freedom of belief, etcetera. People who demonstrate incompetence by engaing in behaviors that significantly violate the rights of others, or credibly threaten to do so, may be placed under close supervision (including incarceration, probation, and parole) and have those rights restricted to the degree necessary to protect the rights of others. Since they are not "competent adults", this does not alter the proposition that "competent adults have certain absolute rights".

Both of these [drug purity and anti-intoxicated driving laws] seem to contradict the word "absolute" in your initial statement of faith.

Not at all. Threatening my safety by getting behind the wheel when you're not fit to drive is not an example of controlling your own body. Nor is fraudulantly selling impure drugs (or food or anything else).

Is it true, in spite of extensive experience with banning other products and pretty solid economic theory, that legal prohibition doesn't decrease drug use?

Drug use, sitting home getting drunk/high/stoned/tripping/whatever once in a while, it ain't nobody's business if you do. Extensive experience and pretty solid economic theory shows that drug abuse is increased by prohibition; prohibtion drives people towards more concentrated (easily smuggled) drugs, removes assurances of purity (increasing the risks of poisoning or overdose), encourages unhealthy usage patterns, and shackles the free-market forces that would lead to the development of more pleasant and less harmful drugs.

Jack Nicholson - "My point of view, while extremely cogent, is unpopular"

LA Times - "Which is?"

Jack Nicholson - "That the repressive nature of the legalities vis-a-vis drugs are destroying the legal system and corrupting the police system."

LA Times - "Let's talk about acting for a minute."

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/303a.htm

>> And so what? Why is it any of their business what you choose to put in your body?

> Aww Jeez, not this shit again.
> Anyone spouting "ah kin put wut ah like in muh body" crap has never been addicted to anything, and never had to have friends,
> family and loved ones suffer with the side effects of that addiction.

What about the late Peter McWilliams, he went through several addictions and STILL came out for legalization:
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/toc.htm

The thing is, he understood that our freedoms as Americans are more precious than safety from drugs. Drug abuse is a social and medical problem, not a criminal one. And as he shows, there aren't really ANY valid reasons for making the substance abuser a criminal.

And the final irony is that McWilliams died not from the drugs, but because the courts took the drugs away from him!

You have to trust in the institution, and fix the broken individual people that pollute it.

The institution by its nature is broken. The very nature of a full-time professional police force with special authority is problematic enough, especially with increasing militarization of policing in the past few decades; so long as on top of that they're tasked with enforcing unethical drug, vice, and other "consensual crimes" laws, police forces are broken by design.

Peter McWilliams, a very entertaining and insightful writer, died as a direct result of the courts taking away his medical marijuana.

Damn. I didn't know he had passed.

Everyone should read his book Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Country (available on-line at the link, or at the usual dead trees vendors).

People are not dying for a lack of pot.

Peter McWilliams, a very entertaining and insightful writer, died as a direct result of the courts taking away his medical marijuana.

Granted, he was suffering from AIDS and lymphoma, and would have died eventually anyway, but he could have lived long enough to make a bigger difference in this world. Not to mention that the people who knew him and loved him didn't want him to die as he did.

Who knows how many non-famous people out there have suffered similarly?

--For those who want to "protect" themselves from actions by a fellow citizen by granting additional powers to the government: consider the worst that the citizen can do to you, then consider the worst the government can do to you with those additional powers.--

Someone once said...and I've quoted them before but it fits...

"Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither"
(I will admit that I believe that is the "short" version of that quote...someone may feel free to correct me.)

If you're interested in reading more about the government and such, as well as a few different viewpoints... try Peter McWilliams' website, particularly "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do."

A.A

Yet, alcohol is perfectly legal. They even serve it in bars, where people drive to. Read about the differences between being under the influence of alcohol and cannibis.

The drug laws are there not for the concern of people's health, it's a concern for money.

As for legislating morality, I think it should be kept basic. As long as it doesn't interefere with another unconsenting person or their property then it's fair game. Yes, there are people who are going to argue the minutae of that statement, and honestly, This author explains it very well and all his books are available online, check them out if you'd like.

A.A

If they know that jail time will not occur unless they assault someone, then being told "You can't go here", "You can't leave town", "You must be home between 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM" are all things that they can just ignore, unless you plan to chain them up or have a cop follow them everywhere.

Your pretending that someone taking pens from the office (which I agree you shouldn't do) is the same as robbing a house or stealing a car is nonsense. I won't be responding to whatever you post next. You aren't going to convince me that crooks should be allowed to run free.

You might find this interesting. It doesn't advocate no punishment for nonviolent crime, but it does make a strong argument for removing penalties for "consensual crimes". With it, I agree.

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/toc.htm

A law only works, if a majority adhears to it. As soon as no one listens, the expenses of enforcing it become to high.....
Prohibition in the U.S.A. from 1920-33

"You are the one who, in the face of all that, is still shouting about it being unconstitutional."

Well, me and U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins.

Don't be stupid. Laws have been passed and found unconstitutional before. So have parts of this one, already, and I believe that a challenge to certain other parts would be successful as well. Hell, even Amendments to the Constitution have been repealed when they turned out to be oppressive and wrong. The only way this law would survive a real Supreme Court hearing is if Bush packs the SCOTUS with the ultra-conservative puppets that he so clearly wants to.

Just to set the record straight, that's NOT all you're saying. You're also saying, in so many words, that people who oppose PATRIOT Act are people "who don't think we are in danger from terrorists" and aren't "Normal Americans" and that as a result terrorists have "Americans like you on their side". You are essentially stating that my (and others') opposition to the unconstitutional and oppressive PATRIOT Act makes us unpatriotic, unAmerican, and a danger to America. Just like Goering said.

No, sir, the real danger from America comes from you and your sheep-like ilk. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin. Doesn't get more American than that.

A very good book on the subject of consensual crimes laws in the US is the following : http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/

There's a lot of money to be made in gambling and porn, so why not allow those customers, or complete the needed regulatory thingimagigs to allow them to act as a payment system for those industries.

A few reasons:
(1.) Regulating something has the habit of making most people think that the Gov't is approving of said action.
(2.) It's another example of the Gov't trying to tell you what you can and cannot do with *your* money. (albeit in a round-about way.)

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/ A very good read on the consensual crime laws in the US.

• Pay off the national debt in less than ten years.
  
• Reduce personal income taxes by more than 75 percent.
  
• Allow the Pentagon to purchase 23 wrenches, 16 office chairs, and 243 paper clips.
  
• Send every man, woman, and child in the United States a check for $2,000 each year.
  
• Finance three rounds of congressional pay raises.
  
• Pay everyone's doctor, dentist, phone, and utility bills, as well as pay for gasoline and repair of every car in the United States.
  
• Send a check for $217,000 to every high school graduate for furthering his or her education or for starting real life.
  
• Spend sixteen times more money on education than we currently do.
  
• Send every person over 85 years old a check for $165,000 with a note saying, Hey, congratulations!

• Pay off the national debt in less than ten years.
  
• Reduce personal income taxes by more than 75 percent.
  
• Allow the Pentagon to purchase 23 wrenches, 16 office chairs, and 243 paper clips.
  
• Send every man, woman, and child in the United States a check for $2,000 each year.
  
• Finance three rounds of congressional pay raises.
  
• Pay everyone's doctor, dentist, phone, and utility bills, as well as pay for gasoline and repair of every car in the United States.
  
• Send a check for $217,000 to every high school graduate for furthering his or her education or for starting real life.
  
• Spend sixteen times more money on education than we currently do.
  
• Send every person over 85 years old a check for $165,000 with a note saying, Hey, congratulations!

Nice... I agree that people are responsible for themselves.
I also agree with the grandparent, in that making drug use illegal is a major contributor to the "high costs of drug abuse" the government and media love to quote.
Apparently, the lessons offered by Prohibition are too hard for politicians to absorb...

I suggest you read a good book about this.

I can't speak for Douglas Adams but Chuck Jones' entire enterprise is handled by his lovely daughter Linda who literally busts her butt to run everything. That's hardly a "staff". Chuck would have been content to never have drawn another cel or market anything but thank heavens Linda suggested it.

Timothy Leary is another good example of dedicated fans who keep the site running after he died and an even better example is Peter McWilliams who put the entire text of all of his books online before he passed on. I recommend Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do. The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Country.

Frankly as far as data and death are concerned most of you /.ers reading this should be concerned with one thing: finding a porn erase buddy and give them a housekey and all of your passwords. The idea is that if you die unexpectedly your porn erase buddy will go into your machine, clear your machine of all the pornographic files. In addition you can also have him/her to clear out your conventional meatspace porn so your Momma will still highly of you even after you're gone.

I can't speak for Douglas Adams but Chuck Jones' entire enterprise is handled by his lovely daughter Linda who literally busts her butt to run everything. That's hardly a "staff". Chuck would have been content to never have drawn another cel or market anything but thank heavens Linda suggested it.

Timothy Leary is another good example of dedicated fans who keep the site running after he died and an even better example is Peter McWilliams who put the entire text of all of his books online before he passed on. I recommend Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do. The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Country.

Frankly as far as data and death are concerned most of you /.ers reading this should be concerned with one thing: finding a porn erase buddy and give them a housekey and all of your passwords. The idea is that if you die unexpectedly your porn erase buddy will go into your machine, clear your machine of all the pornographic files. In addition you can also have him/her to clear out your conventional meatspace porn so your Momma will still highly of you even after you're gone.

I mentioned this elsewhere... if you haven't seen Peter McWilliams' book Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do, it's a great read, and available to read online for free, in its entirety, at his website. There are chapters upon chapters about gambling, drugs, and other consensual crimes, and how they came to be crimes. I read the book way, way back when it came out in print ten years ago, and I've never been the same since.

Prohibition came into being because the wealthy people wanted it?

Well, of course not all the wealthy people wanted Prohibition, just the ones who were convinced that alcohol was the cause of (and not the solution to, as Homer points out) all of life's problems. I think Henry Ford is a good example.

The late self-help author Peter McWilliams wrote a wonderful book called Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do, and it has a great chapter on the Prohibition movement, which the author posted online in its entirety before he died, along with all of his other books. Check it out... it's a cautionary tale whose lessons we would do well to review in our present age.

Most Libertarians I know fall into "liberal" and "conservative" categories. The liberal-Libertarians prefer the Libertarian party because they support its strong ideals in opposing all forms of regulating "consensual crimes". That is, they oppose the thought of government regulating morality. An outstanding book on this topic is called Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do. The constituents of the Republican Party, still having ties to the Religious Right, often like to use government as a tool to push their moral beliefs on other people rather than using their own eloquence and example to influence how others might lead their lives. By doing this they do a disservice to both the government and their own moral codes. Although I feel historically this has been more of a Republican than Democratic fetish, the Democrats seem to be trying to catch up what with that whole pathetic Political Correctness movement and with constituents such as Lieberman crying foul on the content of games and music in the media. So anyone who was attracted to the Democratic Party because they were against moral regulation from the government are increasingly better served by the Libertarian Party.

Also, the isolationist philosophy of the Libertarian Party appeals to Democrats who feel that the government is spending too much money on the military and we are causing others to hate us due to excessive meddling in other countries' affairs. You can read some pretty eloquent arguments against the recent war on Iraq on the Libertarian Party's home page.

Of course, the conservative-Libertarians support the Libertarian party because of things like oppositions to gun-control, lower taxes (to the point of obliterating any income tax), and drastically reducing government regulation of businesses. The "who is the government to tell me how to live my life" focus of the liberal-Libertarians switches to the "who is the government to decide how our money should be spent" focus of the conservative-Libertarians.

I put the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in quotes when describing the 2 forms of Libertarians because actually it's all the classic conservative philosophy of keeping government as small as possible taken too its logical conclusion. Unfortunately, the meaning of "conservative" has been bastardized over time.

My 2 cents,
Tyler

Some people on death row have been exonerated by DNA evidence which wasn't available when they were sentenced. That is not a technicallity.

Personally, I think it's morally wrong to risk killing even one innocent person. I can accept that many people have a higher threshold for wrongly killing people, though. What's yours? 1 innocent in a thousand people executed? 1%, 10%, 50%? 99%? Seriously.

I could maybe live with a system that had a very high standard of proof, such as good DNA evidence, and no factors which cast doubt. More guilty people would be not executed, but that's the best we can do unless we have time machines that can go back and see what happened. If we stopped throwing people in jail for most consensual crimes, that would free up a lot of resources to deal with murderers, rapists, and psychopathic CEOs. Canada is looking at reducing penalties for small amount of marijuana, but I couldn't see the US backing down in the War on Drugs.

Hey, wait,

1) fat guys do get some
2) Christians can be bad guys
3) Programmers save the world every day! :-)

I liked it.

Other cool stuff: I just finished Mary Doria Russell's "The Sparrow" and it's sequal "Children Of God." Jesuit's initiate first contact. Even though I'm an atheist, the exploration of faith involved is quite intense and interesting, if a little condesending.

Just started Neil Gaiman's "Neverwhere," it's really good even though I'm 60 pgs into it, "American Gods" was excellent.

Verging on Sci-Fi, one of my favorite authors is David Foster Wallace, "Infinite Jest" is the work I'm talking about here; it's not sci-fi in even a liberal sense of the terms, but it involves some ideas explored first in sci-fi, but a little different. Not to mention it's simply wonderfully written. It's a massive book, but the language propels you through it.

Also, I know it's a sci-fi question, but I finished "On The Road," the classic novel by Kerouac (I know I misspelled that), it's highly excellent. As well as "Unbareable Lightness of Being" by Kundera. Non-fiction? "Ain't Nobody's Buisiness if you Do" by Peter McWilliams (available for free on-line) and "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlossinger (spelling on that one, too). "The Future of Ideas" by Lessig is an interesting read, as well.

In my opinion, the situation here in the "land of Freedom" is worse. Banning pre-trial publicity is one thing. Preventing a defendant from using his chosen defense is another and far worse thing.

A sad example is the case of the late author Peter McWilliams, who was charged with conspiracy to grow marijuana. He was charged under federal statutes, because the state of California had legalized the growing of marijuana for medical purposes. McWilliams was therefore under the impression that he would be permitted to do so. His publishing company gave an advance to another medical marijuana activist, for the purpose of writing a book on the subject of medical marijuana. The activist rented a big house and filled it with different strains of marijuana, ostensibly to experiment with different strains and their efficacy for different conditions. Though McWilliams himself did not grow any pot, he was arrested and indicted for conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance, because of the advance.

Now the story becomes pretty ugly. The prosecutors petitioned the court to prohibit McWilliams from mentioning anything about medical uses of marijuana, and the judge granted the motion. This effectively prevented McWilliams from making any defense at all. Since he was a medical marijuana user himself (he had AIDS and cancer) the injustice of this seems even more unAmerican.

Because he was prevented from offering the only defense he had, he was obliged to accept a plea bargain, and he was hoping to get house arrest. Though at the time of his indictment, he was in fairly good shape, with a low viral load and his cancer in remission, he was denied the use of marijuana as a condition of his bail (he was frequently tested). The medication that had kept him alive caused severe nausea, which he had treated by smoking pot. He was able to make bail (being such a dangerous criminal) only because his mother and other family put up their houses to guarantee his adherence to the terms of his bail. He was told that his mother would lose her house if he were to be caught smoking pot, so he abstained. His condition rapidly deteriorated, and he died before he received his sentence. Readers of this forum might find McWilliams' work of interest because he adhered to the free information ethic-- making his books available online for free. My favorite book of his is Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do.

History seems to be repeating itself. Long-time drug policy activist Ed Rosenthal has been indicted on similar charges and like McWilliams, has been informed that he will also not be allowed to mention medical marijuana in his defense.

Contrast this ferocious adherence to the official line here in America with a similar situation in Canada. There a judge ruled that the blanket prohibition of marijuana is illegal because it made no provision for those who felt they had a medical need for the drug.

Much of this dismal contrast in the fairness of the two country's judicial proceeding derives from America's size. It has become too big for democracy; the government's power is unchallengeable. In Canada, it's still possible for the people to influence their government.

At least according to Google, The only source anybody lists for that quote is Peter McWilliam's book "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consentual Crimes in Our Free Country". The online edition (it's in a yellow box, find for "vatican") atribbutes it to "THE VATICAN", with no details about who exactly said it or when, and the book doesn't appear to have any footnotes.

--
Benjamin Coates

The problem I have with this sort of monitoring is it requires interpretations on the part of the reviewer. What should matter is whether I am creating a hostile work environment and whether I am doing my job. End of story. Mess up on either of those and you should be out the door.

These sorts of issues are very similar to consensual crimes where the government wants to monitor what you do between consenting adults.

• Russ Kick's Outposts & Outposts 2
• Re/Search Pranks
• From Chocolate to Morphine
• How to Get High Without Drugs
• A gift certificate to Good Vibrations
• Exhibitionism for the Shy by Carol Queen
• Screw the Roses, Send Me the Thorns
• The Herbal Abortion Handbook
• Electroshock Scorpion 200
• ASP Baton (check local laws)
• The Whole Earth Review
• Hakim Bey's T.A.Z.
• Drawing Down the Moon
• Ain't Nobody's bussiness if you do

The war on drugs is a misguided attempt to force a very narrow moral viewpoint on millions of people. Just as prohibition in the 20's failed to stop anyone from drinking, the war on drugs has not stopped a single person from doing the drug of their choice. The war on drugs has created an extremely lucrative (and tax free) global business. The war on drugs has made crimminals of millions of people who, mainly, are harming only themselves. The war on drugs has created more violent crime than any other human activity of the last century. When's the last time there was a bloody shoot out over the beer trade?

The war on drugs cannot be won. The war on drugs CAUSES violent crime. The war on drugs gives a sure source of income to any illegal endevour. The war on drugs has jailed millions of people who's only crime is to not use a state sanctioned drug. The war on drugs should end.

The war on terrorism is a completely different story. While the civil rights abuses of the USA government are alarming, the fact remains that unless stopped (killed) terrorists WILL KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE ON PURPOSE. Terrorists are evil, plain and simple. Terrorists should be hunted down and eradicated. And I am glad that the Americans have taken on the job of wiping out terrorists. It would be nice if the american's would pause for a moment to consider why they are the most hated nation on the planet, but this is secondary compared to the importance of wiping out terrorist vermin.

Good info on the American 'Noble Experiment'
PROHIBITION: A LESSON IN THE FUTILITY (AND DANGER) OF PROHIBITING

Tell me again, what's wrong with catching criminals? I'm lost here. I always thought that catching the "bad guys" was a good thing

Yeah, but "catching the bad guys" is only a small part of what law enforcement does in America today. Most of the people who are currently in prison (over 2 million now, up from 1 million in 1990) are there because they did something that the aristocracy and/or religious leadership disapproves of, not because they harmed another person or another person's property. The law books are cluttered with unconstitutional garbage from every Tom, Dick, and Jerry Falwell who has come along in the last couple of hundred years. The "so help me God" that was recently tacked on to the Presidential Oath of Office is a fairly innocuous example, and the Drug War is a vicious example. Even so, we are only jailing or killing a small minority of pot smokers, rave dancers, migrant farm workers and their families, homosexuals, alternative political party members, etc.

The reason that it's controversial every time the cops get a new toy is because the new toy will result in a greater percentage of innocent people being arrested for peacefully, responsibly, and consensually gambling, having sex, using certain medicines, holding certain beliefs, having certain customs, enjoying certain kinds of art, etc. while they enjoy their God-given and Constitutionally recognized freedom. People who would have been left alone a year ago, or two years ago, or 20 years ago are being arrested today because of new technologies. If you are currently arresting 10% of the pot smokers, and new technology enables you to arrest 20% of them instead, that's hundreds of thousands of people who are going to get arrested, lose their homes and jobs, etc. because they smoke a little pot on weekends. Of course, you can only arrest as many as you can build prisons for, so new technologies like facial recognition also help to drive new prison growth.

If facial recognition in public places catches on, the authorities will be careful to fill the first hundred successful arrests with murderers and rapists, and the first hundred rescues will be missing children and old people and dogs. Then when the press dies down, they'll come for the peaceful ones by the thousands. It's way, way too easy to arrest peaceful people than violent people in great numbers, guaranteeing more funds for more toys and cops next year, and screw the Constitution and any sense of fair play, tolerance, or basic respect.

I recommend that you read Peter McWilliam's "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do", which is a definitive look at consensual crimes in America. Get it at your favorite bookstore or look at it on the Web:

Peter McWilliams' Web Site

They can't throw everyone in jail.

They can try.

Sure dupe. Just as soon as *you* get a clue.

My fucking doesn't cause any objective harm to you or your property, unless it's your tender and unwilling ass I'm poking.

My sucking doesn't cause any objective harm to you or your property, unless it's that big ol' lollipop your mama was pacifying you with.

My smoking doesn't cause any objective harm to you or your property, unless I'm puffing my cancer-stick an enclosed airspace shared with your unwilling lungs.

My toking doesn't cause any objective harm to you or your property, unless I was bogarting your last smoke.

You, dear Dwonis, need to do some remedial reading. Please go hustle your pert little ass over to [Peter McWilliams'] website, and read Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do. It'll do you a world o' good.

I'm obliged to point out that Peter McWilliams is now deceased, killed by the repressive minority twats who insisted he choke on barf rather than supress his vomit reflex by smoking weed during his last ailing years.

When you call "War on Drugs," it always affects other people. Gettaclue.

--

So, here's my link--Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do, the best defense I've seen yet as to why all controlled substances should be legalized, for the sake of all. And you should also see how his fight to try to increase the freedom of Americans ended--in his death, due to persecution by the DEA--he was not allowed to smoke marijuana, to allieviate the aforementioned nausea so he could ingest and keep down his AIDS medication.

And considering that you complain that his links are inaccurate... you totally and utterly fail to cite any sources, whatsoever. "Steady rise of alcholism [sic] among young drinkers"? What about all drinkers? Just because college students seem to be getting into binge-drinking a bit more recently, doesn't mean that we're going to be a "nation of alcholics [sic]."

Heck, I think this could work. Back during the US prohibition, many cops looked the other way. It was only when people started getting 'whacked' that law enforcement really started to crack down. Probably the same will happen here. Oh the governments will cry foul, but will secretly love the way out. They are being caught in the crossfire of those who voted them into office and those who financed them.

(please forgive my comparison of apples and oranges (consensual crime and quasi-crime))

The best book on the absurdity of consensual crime is Peter McWilliam's "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do."

You can [read the entire book online]. It's very thought-provoking, and stands a good chance of significantly changing the way you've been programmed to think.

Free your mind, AC. :-)

--

You can put this down as "victimless crimes" or more precisely "consentual crimes". Every crime that doesn't result in harm to another human being (or his/her property) should be eliminated. How can a free society permit government to dictate what we can or can't do with our own bodies, minds and souls? If my actions upset you then don't watch! One day I will be tried for a consentual crime and on that day I will preach until it is thrown out of court or I am put away for contempt.

What about welfare for the the druggie who can't hold a job? What about the cost of medical care for him when he overdoses? There's my tax dollars at work.

How much do you suppose it costs to keep someone in a prison?

According to Peter McWilliams, $29 billion is spent annually to catch and incarcerate "drug possessors, users, manufacturers, and traffickers" - that's your tax dollars at work.