Slashdot Mirror

I disagree. The USA has some of the highest prison populations in the world, made up of mostly drug related offenses. Three strikes and your out, and all that.

Yeah -- I hear where you're coming from. Our prison population (per capita) is an outrage and is the highest in the world. Many states still have draconian drug laws (like NYS's Rockafeller laws). Anyway -- you're totally right, the drug war is absolutely deplorable, brought upon by the moralists who consistently confuse ethics with their relegious morality (the former can be legislated, IMO, the latter cannot). Even worse are the ratios of prison population among certain ethic/racial groups as well as by economic class. That's not ok. I wouldn't argue this point for a minute.

However, I've worked with a company who provides essential services to prisons for several years, and I'm beginning to understand a little about how different prison systems work here (each state is completely different from the next). Believe it or not, the standards that US prisons have to live up to are probably some of the highest in the world. Also, although the definition may have detiorated, we are still guaranteed due process. This goes a long way towards making a pretty fair system (innocent until proven guilty, trial by a jury of your peers, Miranda rights -- including the right to an attourney...even the 8th amendment). Now, it's not completely fair, but the rights we're granted (altogether) are unique -- and it is one of the fairest in the world (setting aside, for a moment, the racial bias in our prisons).

My point about the drug laws not being that bad can be argued either way...however, for possession of cannabis (in most states, anyway) attitudes are changing -- it's even being dropped from a simple misdemeanor to a civil citation...like a traffic ticket, walk away from the cop, pay the fine via mail. More importantly, when comparing the laws in general -- you have to look at what the penalties really are. What's worse, a year in a Chinese prison (hell, even countries like Isreal are hardcore), or a 3-year stretch in an American prison? I believe that the 1-year in China is far harder time. American inmates really do have far more rights, and the quality of life is way higher. Did you know that the only Americans who are guaranteed mental health care are those who are incarcerated? Just a small example of the myriad of rights granted to American inmates that most other countries just don't have.

Anyway, it's an intersting argument, because (like I said) I could really argue it either way. But fundamentally, (and here comes my hardcore outspoken opinion that will surely incite flames) I still believe that so-called "soft" drugs should be legal and sold on a market regulated similarly to alcohol and tobacco, while "hard", addictive drugs should be subsidized by the government and given away to addicts (violent drug-related crimes will drop to nil, while these people will be able to actually hold down a real job while maintaining their habit). Our drug policy is so horribly misdirected and so anti-freedom, I'm actively participating in the movement to change it. It's long overdue.

actually medical merijuana isn't smoked.

all it is is a pill derrived from the same chemical found in the brain, delta-9 THC, which concequently is the active ingredient in marijuana.

I repeat: YOU DON'T SMOKE MEDICINE!!!

in fact, people in NORML are trying to use arguments like the peyote case(PDF) to get the courts to listen to the case

and for those who want medical marijuana now, please remember the Thalidomide "Wonderdrug" that caused wonderful newborns to have wonderful birth defects

> Hopefully a channel like this can stick to what it was meant to show. Remember TLC? Didn't that used to stand for The Learning Channel? When did it become The Trading Spaces And Other Non Educational Crud Channel?

With Ann Druyan on board, it might work.

I think that the late Carl Sagan should be a more exemplary choice of a "Civic Scientist".
For those among the slashdot readership who are not wholly familiar with Dr. Sagan's
TV series (Cosmos); it's worth buying on DVD cold.
He's written a great many books for the layperson. The last of which, Billions and Billions, approach
subjects such as religion, politics, environmental concerns, family planning, etc.
He was a member of NORML, frequently spoke out against nuclear weapons production,
and was a diehard liberal to his last day.
-jcw

You're confusing "getting your voice heard" with "getting your way."

Smoking pot may not be legal, but most people have probably at least heard of NORML and know that there are some groups out there that support legalization. Pot is legal in some states for some purposes (though posession is still a federal offense), and there are a number of well-known politicians who support broader legalization. By the way, when was the last time you bothered to write to your state and federal representatives to tell them how you feel on this matter?

The ERA hasn't been in the news in a while, but it was a huge political issue in the 70's and early 80's. It doesn't take all that long to change a law or even to amend the Constitution, but it can take a very long time to change society to the point that it's ready for the legal change. It'll happen, but slowly.

It really isn't that difficult to be heard, and even to get others to speak along with you. Start by mobilizing yourself. Vote. Find out who your representatives are, and tell them what you think. Talk to your friends and show them how to write to their reps, or just get them to sign a petition. Write to the editors of your local newspapers. Build a web site explaining your views and providing some resources. These things really do count, and your voice will be heard. The more you do, the louder your voice and the more people you'll influence. If what you express makes sense and other people agree with you, they'll start coming to you for opinions, leadership, etc. But you have to start by doing something.

You may not get your way, but you'll get your point across.

The Members of the RIAA (lables) are the for-profit companies. The members are who really own the copyrights, IP and Artists.

Suing the RIAA for anti-trust would be like suing NORML for being the only real marijuana activist group or suing the American Medical Association (AMA) for being the primary association for doctors.

Professional and Trade Associations have become an intregal and pervasive part of our political landscape. It's a shame that most people don't even realize that they exist. Assocaitions are so pervasive that there's even a California Christmas Tree Association.

This was in Michigan. You could say I got off easy. I could have spent year in jail and been fined up to $2000. I was "lucky" to get 45 days and $1000 fine plus court costs and lawyer fees.

Michigan Law

Umm.

Critical Mass... So you think that the 60+% of the current adult population that has smoked weed and thinks it is "more or less" harmless than alcohol isn't an important statistic?

Ok, so you don't think that they have organization against the laws? What about groups like NORML? You mean to tell me that they haven't done anything to move towards the legalization of marijuana and growing hemp products?

However, RIAA can do things that EFF can never do. RIAA is a political action committee and can give money to congressional election campaigns; EFF is a 501(c)(3) charity and cannot.

What EFF needs to do here is follow the example of NORML: set up a parallel organization with separate accounting, except make it a PAC instead of a charity. NORML routes lobbying through the PAC and advertising through the charity. Donations to NORML Foundation are tax-deductible; donations to NORML PAC aren't.

Well, assuming I accept that marijuana poses a significant risk during driving, the proper solution would to make DWI illegal, and not just posession. However, the point is moot, considering that the evidence does not support the hypothesis that marijuana intoxication poses increased risk of having an accident. Citations found at NORML.

That's a hell of a lot, considering only 20 million Americans smoked pot this year.

I agree that pot should be legalized, but you have to recognize that so long as the majority of the US is against it, the US government is going to try very hard to keep Canada from doing it.

unless you can point out a possession sentence that warrants years in jail.

Here's a guide to marijuana laws, by state. The current page is Texas, where you can get a year for 3oz and 2-10yr for 5lbs (possession). Any sort of sale will put you away for more than a decade. Hawaii is just as bad, but most states are more lenient. If you want a pot-friendly state, Colorado seems to be the place to be - mostly fines for possession.

Note that these laws are apparently for pot only. Do a google search and see if you can find out what cocaine possession will get you.

"first off, your a knee jerking moron looking for an excuse to smoke pot."

Well, I'm not going to descend to your level, but I will say this: I don't NEED an "excuse" to smoke pot. I enjoy it, that's all. It has no noticeable adverse effects on my health, in stark contrast to cigarettes, which I quit a number of years ago. Furthermore, this discussion really has nothing to do with my own personal choices, although I'm sure you will tell yourself I am completely biased and unreliable, despite all the objective studies and research I have made direct reference to.

The other reply already answered your points on legality and usefulness pretty thoroughly, so I won't go there. The point is, hemp cultivation is suppressed by the United States. The evidence is everywhere, if you do some objective research instead of just attacking people's positions because you don't like what they say.

"You can certianly create a car that would operate that way, but if you dump a gallon of the stuff in your ordinary car, ity will not work. Do you kow anything about agriculture? how many acres would a person need to get the 10 gallons a week they need to get to work?"

*Sigh...* You're either not very good at abstract reasoning, or you're being deliberately dense. I never said a gasoline engine would run on the stuff, nor did I claim that running a car on what you could produce in your backyard would be feasible. You're interpreting what I say very narrowly. All I was saying is this: Hemp is a renewable fuel source that anyone can grow very easily. Large scale domestic cultivation could provide for all or most of our energy needs, and totally reduce air pollution and dependance on foreign oil. Most non-toxic, environmentally friendly products made with hemp back in the 30's (like paint and varnish) have since been replaced by toxic oil based products. We're literally choking our planet in the name of industrial profit.

"less harm full does not = harmless."

Never said it was harmless. Just about everything can be abused. But alcohol, which is far worse than marijuana, required a constitutional amendment to be prohibited. Why? Because, constitutionally speaking, it's not the government's place to dictate what we are allowed to do with our bodies in private, as long as we're not violating someone else's rights. Land of the free, remember? Or do you want a future like the one in "Demolition Man", where everything bad for you, from salt to "fluid transfer", is illegal?

"People smoke far less pot than cigarettes"
"perhaps because it is illegal?"

I wasn't talking about overall usage, I was talking about individual usage. You think a pot smoker sitting in his basement bases his intake level on its legality? "Oh.. I want another joint, but I better not, because it's against the law!" I think not. People smoke less pot than tobacco because the effects of pot last longer than a cigarette, and it's not physically addictive. Sometimes when I am out of town, I go without pot for weeks, and barely even notice. No cravings.

But, since you brought it up, let's talk about overall usage and legality. Marijuana consumption in Holland has decreased 40% since it was legalized in 1976. Consumption in every single state that has decriminalized it has decreased. This argument was over a long time ago.. the facts are easy to find, here's one reference.

"but it is addictive all the same, very powerfully addictive."

EVERYTHING enjoyable can be addictive. Video games. Sex. Chocolate. Coding. We going to outlaw everything that makes you want to do it again? Or are we going to encourage moderation, and responsible usage? As for how marijuana compares to other substances, go here, and check out the charts at the very bottom of the page. Marijuana is at or next to the bottom of every scale, even below caffeine.

Criminalizing it just drives it underground, makes it harder for us to spot people who DO have a real problem, that need help. (There will always be a certain percentage of abusers, just like alcohol. Do we help these people, like AA, or throw them in prison and destroy their life even further?) And statistically (see above), criminalization tends to INCREASE usage.

"well that shows how bad cigerattes are, not how good Pot is."

It DOES show how good pot is, RELATIVE to cigarettes. What do you think comparisons are for?

"you seem to think if it was legal, it would threaten the big companies out of some profit, when in fact, the tobacco industry would make a ton of cash"

Who the hell is talking about tobacco companies? You keep trying to turn this into a smoking issue. This is mainly about oil/petrochemicals, timber, and fibres such as cotton. These commodities would be seriously devalued if a cheaper, superior alternative (hemp) developed into a major industry. But when this was poised to happen in the 30's (because a machine to automate hemp processing was invented), the oil and timber players saw an opportunity to sabotage the hemp industry before it even got started... through media hype, bribery-- er I meant special interest contributions, a biased committee, the false promise that industrial hemp cultivation would not be affected by a "tax act" on marijuana, and not a shred of scientific medical evidence whatsoever.

Thankfully, the White House Drug Czar's office has seen fit to, again, buy *two* of these overpriced ad slots to propagandize about the evils of marijuana. What a perfect way to spend my tax dollars, thanks guys!

NORML.org has a page up about this huge waste.

iluvpr0n.

Yeah, silly. Over 700,000 people were arrested nationwide last year on marijuana charges. How wonderful that we've used so many law enforcement resources getting those dangerous, evil, demented potheads off the street, huh?

He probably behaves pretty calmly in NORML circumstances, though. :)

Check out this article.

Dude top-ten lists aren't funny, THEY SUCK! And you don't even have ten, you have SIX. And you spelled "audience" wrong!

NO MORE TOP TEN LISTS!

...used to track e-mail to/from NORML members.

We sound like the marijuana activists. Yes, the arguments make perfect sense, but no one other than us is interested.

Unlike the norml groups we have a wonderful, free alternative.

So fuck 'em, use linux.

We sound like the marijuana activists. Yes, the arguments make perfect sense, but no one other than us is interested.

Unlike the norml groups we have a wonderful, free alternative.

So fuck 'em, use linux.

However, recently the ad which appears for marijuana changed to NewScientist.com, a science journal which has been publishing much more balanced and thorough information on weed, some of which advocates that weed is less dangerous than alcohol. Also the top result is NORML, a legalization-advocacy group. (This is probably not due to tampering w/ the search engine, but is interesting)

I believe that The Powers That Be within Google have taken the more moderate, academic drug stance, as opposed to gov't-sponsored propaganda. Google's pretty influential, Internet-culture-wise. Food for thought.

(Offtopic, sort of, i know, but I saw a Google story and had to run with it!)

smoke a joint

Actually the world seems to be swinging in the other direction. The first cannabis cafe has opened in England since they reformed their drug law in regards to marijuana.

According to a poll taken by the U.S. government which was referenced on NORML, nearly 77 million Americans admitted to smoking marijuana within their lifetime, and 20 million of those within the last year. For the sake of error, let's add an extra 5 million to the previous total of 77 million to compensate for the amount of Americans that were afraid to even admit using the drug, thanks to our government's continuous anti-marijuana propaganda.

So, do you still think "drug" use isn't common?

Are you kidding? Check your laws. In many areas, mere possession of (never mind "manufacturing") more than a certain (relatively large) amount of ganga can bring a life sentance, in many cases a "mandatory minimum." Never mind the "3 strikes" laws some states have. If you already have two offences, and you shoplift a donut, you can be put away for life.

Because we have become such a disgusting Global communitiy of useless consumers an attack on a SUV auto sales makes a small impact.

What really needs to happen is to attack and critisize and pressure EVERY wasteful auto dealer.

That would cause a change. That is what it takes before it is called a revolution.

We certainly have the technology for plentiful free energy. How many laws are on the books requiring a home to have some sort of solar power? How many corporations do you know who voluntarily save energy even though it will cost them more money? How many billions of dollars are spent bribing politicians in order for a corporation to continue its wasteful practices?

Stop supporting GAS you ignorant people. If you stop buying it. It will stop being important. What if GOD is unreasonably strict? We are all fucked...

Some other things to support
www.greenpeace.org
www.norml.org
www.disclosureproject.org

This is a good question, and I'll see if I can answer to you, and your peers, satisfaction.

Let's see... Well, I linked to Sakura ("that child", my daughter) because I wanted to show that I do indeed have a daughter.

A lot of the time, people who are fearful of sex, "stretched bodily holes", any threat to their authority/concept of decency, children learning the truth about sex, and Harry Potter, suggest that people who are into unrestricted Internet access don't have kids of their own.

I want to show that that is not the case. When Sakura can hold a mouse and click links, she can look at any page she wants to. Oh no! What if she sees porn on the Internet?! Since she's already seen hentai (I'd link to something better, but fear the slashdotting...) on the TV/VCR (she doesn't bat an eye), she shouldn't be all that surprised. I don't think the better resolution will have a huge affect on her.

You may believe and teach your children that sexual material is harmful, evil, and fearful; I, however, will not.

According to this, the gateway/stepping stone theory has been shown as false.

-HobophobE

http://www.norml.org

Join NORML!

After reading this, I couldn't help but reply to the blatant lie about Marijuana killing brain cells simply by saying that in absolutely no study has it been shown to do this. Marijuana itself causes less damage than alcohol (the smoke, however, is another story). Before you post something perhaps you should check your facts, rather than quoting propaganda. If you'd like to do that you can look at the NORML website For a more comprehensive review you can always check out the studies themselve (some of which are listed on teh NORML site)

D.A.R.E. is a great program in ways. Kids need to know that using hardcore drugs is going to end up being very very negative... even death... lieing to them by saying things like pot are going to kill them, make them steril, etc. are just going to revers the effect ... once they find out you werent truthfull about one drug, it's "fu**k of DARE, hello crack"... ya see? As far as the war on drugs... did you know that under Clinton's Administration, over 3,470,545 people have been arrested for marijuana offenses... a drug that no matter how hard you try, cant actually harm you?! ... ugg. Stop spending the money on the war on drugs and spend it on giving every household in the states at least one computer & a email account... much more would come from somthing like that... ... I gotta stop this now, cuz I'm getting pissed off.
-- BryGuy

NORML

Libertarian Party

Ways I've heard of (nah, I'd never do this, especially number three!) to deface "Just Say No!" signs include:

1. If you've got room, make it "Just Say NoRML!" (NORML being the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws).

2. If less room/time, try for "Just Say KNoW!" -- adding the "K" and "W" which drug-warriors find refreshingly-annoying.

3. (My personal favorite, and there's probably some sort of HTML-god way I could do this, but I don't even feel like trying.) This takes the least space/time, and involves merely quickly adding a tiny, subscript "2" below the "N" in "NO," thus revealing the odd admonition to "Just Say Nitrous-Oxide!" but only to those of us who are chemically-initiated, and we generally tend to snicker and leave it there. Nitrous Oxide, or "laughing gas," is one of the most powerful (legal) mind-altering substances available, but few drug-warriors seem to know its chemical symbol.
JMR

Note: While "just saying nitrous" may keep one out of trouble with law-enforcement authorities better than experimentation with other substances such as cannabis, nitrous oxide has a number of dangerous properties which limit its safety and therefore its usefulness as a recreational drug. (Weed's safer, IOW.) The short-duration of nitrous IS a convenient feature, and brings to mind features one would ask for in an "ideal" recreational drug (unless that's Viagra!).

www.norml.org

...he's completely right-wing except for his stance on drugs...

Another point to be made: IIRC, Gore admitted to experimenting with marijuana in the past. Clinton "didn't inhale." It's pretty well-known that Bush was quite the party animal back in the 70s. Yet these hypocrites want to send marijuana users to jail. The fact that these (and many, many, many more) politicians have smoked marijuana in the past should be evidence to them that smoking a joint is no more dangerous (less, in fact) to one's health and wellbeing than smoking a cigarette or having a drink. Browne openly admits that he tried marijuana in the 60s. For me, this says, "I'm not just a politician in some white building in Washington, I'm a real person too."

Note that Browne's site has a banner for NORML.

He is also planning on cutting social security calling it a big mess when in reality the administration costs of running it are a fraction of private insurance companies pay. Social Security also pays out worker's comp and disibility. Where will these people go?

It's not as if Browne is going to take all the money in SS and stash it for himself. SS as we know it needs to be phased out - it does not work. I tend to side with Bush's plans for SS, or at least a derivative of those plans.

He is competely against universal healthcare, which most wealthy nations are handing out like flyers, except we can't seem to get it right. I hope no one voting for Browne is getting federal grants and loans for college, cause it ain't going to be there much longer.

Both of these can be privatized. But again, I wouldn't support a sudden cut of such programs, they need to be phased out.

I'm going for Nader because he want's the federal government to work especially with publically funding elections, establishing a living wage, and providing universal healthcare to 80-100 mil uninsured Americans.

Nader want to tax the hell out of people who actually work and make money, and then give it to the poor. The thing is, the working poor (I don't give a damn about the poor who are able but unwilling to work) would have more income for things such as insurance if businesses are investing rather than saving (thereby offering jobs). Call it trickle-down economics if you want, but a Robin Hood-esque plan of taking from the rich and giving to the poor doesn't work in my book.

He also plans to establish a 'none of the above' options in elections so people like Katz and company don't sit out but voice their protest and force another election if no one gets a decent majority.

Nader is riding the wave of people jaded by the political process. My interpretation of the meaning of elections is to vote for the person most qualified for the job.

Its like Forbes and his flat tax, a scam to keep rich people from paying taxes.

Your statement is misleading; the rich still pay taxes (more than the poor). A flat tax simply doesn't discriminate against those who are wealthy. Does not a person making $200,000 a year pay the same tax for a bar of soap that a person making $15,000 a year pays? If I'm a a lower-class worker, the non-flat tax is a disincentive to working harder; I'll only end up having to pay a disproportionately larger amount in taxes.

Yes, I did miss this - do you have a URL?

The human body doesn't produce alcohol...

The human ability to tolerate and detoxify alcohol appears to be associated strongly with the historical use of alcohol in different parts of the world; Native Americans have a notoriously poor resistance to alcohol and alcoholism, for example. This is likely associated with the lack of selection in their history. On the other hand, I've heard nothing about geographic disparities in cannabinoid receptors (though it would not surprise me should something turn up).

This is a general principle. We've either acquired or exaggerated the ability to detoxify nitrosamines and other carcinogens which are often formed when meat is cooked. The conclusion to be drawn is that humans and/or the ancestors of humans have been living on cooked meat for a long, long time.

If you want to continue this conversation in a little more real-time environment...

At the risk of being moderated offtopic, I'll give you two. I will do so because I believe that this is the most important issue and the mainstream candidates simply won't discuss it. Small tax cuts and boosts to social security just do not impress me when Bush and Gore will continue to have peaceful Americans thrown in jail for doing nothing wrong while others are forced to live in fear. They mean nothing to me when the first and fourth amendment are being stripped and property can be seized at will. So I cannot vote for any candidate who supports the war on drugs.

If you care, you can vote for:

• Although his site doesn't seem to think it's important enough to even list it as one of "the issues", Ralph Nader has called for major changes to the drug war. In particular, he wants to support marijuana legalisation, calling to change our "self-defeating and antiquated drug laws."
• Harry Browne the Libertarian Party candidate, has vowed to pardon all nonviolent drug offenders on his first day as president. His explanation of his views on drugs is most impressive.

Some other Jive-talking Turkey wrote:

You won't see any citations. The Pro-Drug culture never supplies scientific data to back up their claims.

Oh yeah -- and the Drug-War propaganda is any better?

I can't believe that you'd say this. In the United States, the federal government requires permits for research of any substance labelled a Schedule 1 illegal drug (yes, including cannabis). They are only granted if the permit granting agency can be assured that the study will never show the substance in a positive light. Its hard to come up with this stuff...at the same time, the government doesn't have any real data either.

For example: In their anti-cannabis campaign, they've consistently talked about how today's cannabis is x amount stronger than 60's cannabis...which is completely unsubstantiated as there was no standard testing of the THC content of cannabis in the 60's. The plant matter that they're comparing is indoor grown, organic, hydroponic, high-grade, hand manucured sinsemellia (no seeds) to old ditch-weed.

You tell me which orange (or insert your favorite plant) would be better -- the one carefully grown, or the one in the ditch. Its flawed data from the start.

Whether or not the data is properly scientific -- this example of "scientific data" is irrelevant. It only serves to scare people and curry public favor for the "war on drugs". It doesn't matter how much THC is in cannabis.

That's like saying that beer is dangerous -- but Vodka is deadly and therefore, since this Vodka exists, we need to intensify our enforcement efforts. If I drank 10 beers -- I'd be just as drunk as if I had 10 shots of vodka. If I smoked a great-big Bob Marley of low-grade pot -- I'd be just as high from smoking little joint with some high-grade Vermont organic. So what? So this is the same propaganda that we were fed to support alochol prohibition in the 30's. That didn't work...drug prohibition doesn't either.

It doesn't mean that we need to step-up our enforcement...which we already have, about 8 times...but it doesn't help, it just wanes away at personal liberties -- slowly turning our great country into a police state...which accounts for about 1/25th pf the world's population, but 1/4 of the world's incarcerated population.

On a related note: Under the Clinton administration, more pot smokers have been arrested than any other executive administration (see this link ) since Nixon and his controlled-substances act.


By the way, do you have ANY scientific data to suggest why cannabis should be illegal?

Its always sounded to me like a circular argument:
Why is it bad?
Because its illegal.

Why is it illegal?
Because its bad.




In any case, the anti-cannabis stuff really reduces the overall credibility of you anti-drug people who just can't admit when they're just plain wrong (even a little).

But how many people will end up in jail for exploring their own minds? How many people will be victims of violent crimes due to drug law (not drugs)? How much orginized crime will stem from our high demand for drugs, and lack of legal provisions?


Just some stuff to think about.

`(a) PROHIBITION ON DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO MANUFACTURE OF CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCES-

`(1) CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE DEFINED- In this subsection, the term `controlled substance' has the meaning
given that term in section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)).

`(2) PROHIBITION- It shall be unlawful for any person--

`(A) to teach or demonstrate the manufacture of a controlled substance, or to distribute by any means information
pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture of a controlled substance, with the intent that the teaching,
demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime; or

`(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the manufacture of a controlled substance, or to distribute to any person,
by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture of a controlled substance, knowing
that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that
constitutes a Federal crime.

`(b) PENALTY- Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or
both.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of chapters at the beginning of part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
inserting after the item relating to chapter 21 the following new item:

some good sites and thoughts on drug reform in general...

NORML
smokedot
Students for a sensible drug policy
Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico

just to get started at least -- have fun.

I would have to disagree. My greatest coding is the result of marijuana. I find myself to be a lot calmer and tolerant when dealing with complicated algorithms. My creativity boosts ten fold yeilding more robust code, and I even find myself writing notes on scratch to reduce logical errors (as opposed to the bad practice of starting right off with the keyboard). My motivation is also greatly increased. Weed has accompanied me on most of my all nighters, and I have to force myself to call it a night as this thing we call time becomes a burden.

On the otherhand, I become irratable if I attempt to code drunk and the task becomes an unbarable job, instead of an intruiging enjoyment.

I've not attempted to code on acid, and I stray from most other drugs (the only thing I can do on n2o is excessive analization, and better understand the link between our peripherals and conciousness as "reality" becomes amazingly trivial)

So as a person who fits the mold of "hippie" physically as well as mentally, and as a computer junkie, I am proud to say THC and CPU go hand in hand.

Support NORML, and help rid FUD.

If we organized, could we get ~50 million votes for our candidate? Not that we should elect Rob, but maybe it is time for a tech party.

I think a "tech party" might be a little too limited in scope. But I do think that Slashdotters could have a lot of influence--not necessarily with politicians directly, but with the people they deal with everyday--based on their ability to understand issues and communicate with others about them.

Coming up with a common candidate that most of us support would be helpful. When election time rolls around and people in RL want to talk about candidates, it would be nice if all of us had something to say that would help "our" candidate.

I'm not talking about Slashdot picking an "official Slashdot candidate." I'd rather see the readers moderate up the best explanations of which candidate would help our combined causes the most. Also, the best answers to opposing views would be nice as well. A couple articles a month on Slashdot that specifically debate candidates would be really nice IMHO.

The fact is, I can debate the relative merits of different technologies all day long and never run out of breath. But when it comes to politics I run out of steam rather quickly. I learn more everytime I read people's arguments here on Slashdot, which helps to an extent.

The key here is this: if we (readers of Slashdot) work together to find the candidates we agree on and learn how to formulate our best arguments, we can then educate others. I'm not implying that everyone here needs to be more well-rounded when it comes to politics...just that I'm not the only one here that might be lacking.

If we could all debate politics as cleary, and with as much fervor as we debate technology, we would make a difference.

numb

PS: Some issues that influence my vote:
EFF and NORML

If we organized, could we get ~50 million votes for our candidate? Not that we should elect Rob, but maybe it is time for a tech party.

I think a "tech party" might be a little too limited in scope. But I do think that Slashdotters could have a lot of influence--not necessarily with politicians directly, but with the people they deal with everyday--based on their ability to understand issues and communicate with others about them.

Coming up with a common candidate that most of us support would be helpful. When election time rolls around and people in RL want to talk about candidates, it would be nice if all of us had something to say that would help "our" candidate.

I'm not talking about Slashdot picking an "official Slashdot candidate." I'd rather see the readers moderate up the best explanations of which candidate would help our combined causes the most. Also, the best answers to opposing views would be nice as well. A couple articles a month on Slashdot that specifically debate candidates would be really nice IMHO.

The fact is, I can debate the relative merits of different technologies all day long and never run out of breath. But when it comes to politics I run out of steam rather quickly. I learn more everytime I read people's arguments here on Slashdot, which helps to an extent.

The key here is this: if we (readers of Slashdot) work together to find the candidates we agree on and learn how to formulate our best arguments, we can then educate others. I'm not implying that everyone here needs to be more well-rounded when it comes to politics...just that I'm not the only one here that might be lacking.

If we could all debate politics as cleary, and with as much fervor as we debate technology, we would make a difference.

numb

PS: Some issues that will influence my vote:
EFF and NORML

If we organized, could we get ~50 million votes for our candidate? Not that we should elect Rob, but maybe it is time for a tech party.

I think a "tech party" might be a little too limited in scope. But I do think that Slashdotters could have a lot of influence--not necessarily with politicians directly, but with the people they deal with everyday--based on their ability to understand issues and communicate with others about them.

Coming up with a common candidate that most of us support would be helpful. When election time rolls around and people in RL want to talk about candidates, it would be nice if all of us had something to say that would help "our" candidate.

I'm not talking about Slashdot picking an "official Slashdot candidate." I'd rather see the readers moderate up the best explanations of which candidate would help our combined causes the most. Also, the best answers to opposing views would be nice as well. A couple articles a month on Slashdot that specifically debate candidates would be really nice IMHO.

The fact is, I can debate the relative merits of different technologies all day long and never run out of breath. But when it comes to politics I run out of steam rather quickly. I learn more everytime I read people's arguments here on Slashdot, which helps to an extent.

The key here is this: if we (readers of Slashdot) work together to find the candidates we agree on and learn how to formulate our best arguments, we can then educate others. I'm not implying that everyone here needs to be more well-rounded when it comes to politics...just that I'm not the only one here that might be lacking.

If we could all debate politics as cleary, and with as much fervor as we debate technology, we would make a difference.

numb

PS: Some issues that influence my vote:
EFF and NORML

At the high school i go to (Classen SAS in Oklahoma City) we have a web filter on all of the speed demon 486 internet terminals at our school, it is called WebSense, and like many others, it has a list of "bad" sites that you are not allowed to go to. I tested this web filter out, and several cracker pages were blocked, alright, no problem there. But bugtraq and rootshell were also blocked, and that annoyed me just a little. But what really ticked me off (and suprised the heck out of) me was that norml.org and aclu.org were blocked! NORML (national orginization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) and the ACLU (Americal Civil Liberties Union) were blocked! god forbid that some unsuspecting high-schooler wander into one of those pages and start thinking for himself!

Part of the lies surronding Cannibus is that is worse for your lungs than smoking cigarettes. I will attempt to counter this completely false view.

War on drugs drones state that pot is three times worse for your lungs than tobacco. Where do they get this idea? From the fact that marijuana has 3 times the tars as tobacco. This is true but there are LESS Aromatic Hydrocarbons (known to be carcinoens). Also... being both a cigarette smoker AND a pot smoker i dont smoke 20 joints a day but i often smoke a pack or more of cigarettes a day. So... if the input level is lower then you can't claim that the 3x amount of tar makes it 3x worse for you. Another issue is that most tobacco is LOADED with chemicals from your friends at phillip morris or wherever. If you know where your weed came from then you should no exactly what is on it.. fertilizers, pesticides, additives. Do you know whats on that tobacco you just smoked? I sure dont.

Point is... everything is fraught with dangers... red meat increases cholestorol and fat.. more heart attacks... but I don't go around screaming DONT EAT THAT STEAK. You can get in a car and die 5 minuets later from a drunk driver. You wouldn't say.. DONT RIDE IN A CAR!! If it is something that you enjoy or need (and there are legitimate medical uses for pot) you should be able to do it regardless. there is an excellent reference on many more myths and facts about pot here: http://www.norml.org/canorml/myths /mythidx.shtml

Use Your Head
Enjoy your stone...

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.

Absolutely. Open source will continue with or without Red Hat. As long as we have freedom of speech, we'll have open source.
I personally think that Red Hat will do reasonably well. The primary factor behind the success or failure of a tech product is not it's underpinning, but a basic level of ability to meet consumer demands combined with savvy marketing.
Open source naturally evolves to meet it's users needs. Both growing commercial involvement and increasing grass roots efforts are accelerating this evolution.
(sorry, couldn't resist the grass link!)

Red Hat has shown they they are quite skilled at marketing - having (for better or worse) appropriated the largest portion of the media's attention to the open source movement. I'm fairly confident that they'll be a player for many years. Thankfully, the nature of their product insures that they are not the only open source entry into the market - even if they are the largest.
As long as Red Hat manages to control costs and continues to get advertising and media coverage, they'll pull a profit - how big is the interesting question. I don't think it'll be huge, but it'll be there.

The greatest thing about open source is that you can't kill it. No matter how hard it's detractors try, it won't go away. It's the achilles heel for Mr. Bill - a competitor that can win, but can not lose. No matter what investors think, it'll be hard to beat Red Hat, and impossible to beat open source itself.