Slashdot Mirror
Just Say No To Reading About Drugs
First, as always, you can read the bills yourself by going to Thomas. Key in "methamphetamine" or "bankruptcy." Here's a direct link to the Bankruptcy Reform Act, and there's a link to HR 2987 in a submission below. Places like DRCNet aren't too happy about the bill, but neither are civil liberties groups -- the EFF has a nice overview of the whole situation in their last newsletter as well.
Vince Beiser writes: "New story from MotherJones.com: Speed Limit: A bill banning Internet sites that publish or even link to drug-making information looks set to sail through Congress -- to the dismay of free-speech advocates. Read the story." Mother Jones has also recently published an update to this story. If you only read one link off this story, it should be this one.
wrenling writes: "Right now HR 2987 is before the House Judiciary Committee. The bill is marked as an anti-methamphetamine proliferation bill. Without getting into discussions of whether or not drugs should be legal, attention needs to be drawn to the rider that is attached to the bill which according to the ACLU would allow the following:
Free Speech is at Risk. H.R. 2987 would also allow the government to order Web sites censored and shut down without any due process of law and without any notice given to the website's owner. One provision of the bill would allow agencies like the FBI to make judgment calls on the intent of online statements regarding drug use -- a power usually reserved for the courts. Internet service providers would then be ordered by law enforcement to take down any of these statements within 48 hours -- without notifying the Web site owner -- or be considered in violation of the law.
It's not only things like DMCA we have to watch out for, but for little riders on other legislation that, if enacted, could be used to further grant the United States government censorship powers."
Eric the .5b writes "Do we geeks really care, and do we geeks really matter?
The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, described here and here, is still in committee in the House as we speak. A similar bill sailed through the Senate last year, and if this goes through, the two should be very easy to reconcile into a final version and get made into law.
- This bill,
- HR 2987, would:
- Allow police to search your home or business without so much as notifying you that you are under investigation or that such searches have taken place for as long as six months,
- Allow investigators to make copies of your documents and computer files without ever notifying you,
- And make it illegal to distribute information about how to make any controlled substance, to merely link to Web pages giving information on that or drug paraphenalia, or to even just describe how to find such information.
If we want to do something about this, we have an excellent opportunity. Both the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary (members listed here) are working on this legislative abomination. If you see your House representative (if you don't know your representative, like most of us, use the look-up) on either of these lists, contact him or her. E-mail or snailmail them if you like, but faxes and phonecalls will probably make the best impression. Be polite and very nonthreatening, but make it clear that you vote, and that you don't like this bill. Be sure to mention the title and number (The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act and HR 2987). Even if you don't see your representative on the lists, it couldn't hurt to bug the chairpersons of the committees. Lastly, pass this info around to anyone you know who might care. The more displeasure the representatives hear, the less attractive doing anything but killing this bill will be."
How is it that it is okay to inject totally
non-related riders into bills in this fashion?
Shouldn't this kind of behavior be disallowed?
What about cross-referencing these riders?
It must be a nightmare keeping track of
what rider was in what totally unrelated bill.
It's the governmental equivalent of spaghetti
code. Someone please explain why our legistlative
bodies haven't put a stop to this kind of thing?
In any case, I'm expecting the ACLU to pounce on a challenge to the bill as soon as the ink dries from Clinton's signature. Additionally, this type of bill may strongly reform the concent of riders; two completely different concepts should not be allowed on the same bill.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Not to mention, alcohol is arguably one of the more destructive drugs out there: Consider drunken driving, alcohol-related domestic violence, chronic illnesses related to long-term alcohol consumption, and the stress put on social-welfare institutions and family structures due to the effects of alcohol addiction. Yet when we tried prohibiting it in the US, we created a huge wave of underground crime and fomented disrespect for the law, so we had to prohibit prohibition.
Are we learning yet?
"How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
But no, let's proceed to label them illegal. In all caps, no less. You sound just like the director of the FDA in the early 80's who, when ordered to reclassify pot to lessen federal penalties, adamantly refused. When asked, on camera, why he disobeyed a federal judge, he replied, "Because it's evil."
Do you know how marijuana became illegal? Do you have any idea why?
Hemp was once a major crop in the US, and the flowers were considered a useful herb, similar to Goldenseal Root, Ginko Biloba, or Cod Liver Oil. Hemp was primarily used to make textiles, paper, and vegetable oils. It is hardy, disease resistant, grows fast, and grows anywhere. Washington and Jefferson grew it on their estates, and not because they wanted to smoke it.
Over the course of just one decade, though, nobody farmed hemp anymore. Why? Because in the 1920's timber owners needed to sell their trees to papermills. Hemp was in their way; the timber owners included some of the biggest and most vicious capitalists of the era, while the hemp lobby were just the last in a long line of farmers. Marijuana was subjected to an intensive and pervasive smear campaign in the media and on Capitol Hill. And it worked. by the late '30s, all newspapers were made of dead trees, everyone knew about "the evil weed," and hemp farming was a federal crime.
So, the only thing evil about marijuana is how and why it became illegal. Go chew on that for awhile.
I can see the fnords!
That's not entirely factual.
h tml
Only Papaver Somniforum poppies produce opium. There are many other flavors of poppies you can obtain that do not produce opium.
Eschscholzia californica (california poppy)
Romneya coulteri
Calochortus
All of these do not produce opium.
A quick search turns up a few interesting links on opium extraction:
http://www.lycaeum.org/drugs/Opiates/
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/opiates/opiates.s
Opium producing poppies are not technically illegal. You can grow them in your garden without problems. Flower shops often sell them in gift baskets. Harvesting them for ingestion, however, is quite illegal. Opium is a schedule 1 substance.
-- "Religion is for those who fear hell, spirituality is for those who have been there."
The best way to contact the appropriate lawmakers is to show up on election day.
The reason why bullshit like this even makes it to the floor, let alone passed into law, is because people don't take responsibility for their government. Politicians live and die by the vote, they care about nothing else and will respond to nothing else. They know which segments of society vote and which don't. Those who don't are going to get the short end of the stick from those who do. Representational democracies only work if those being represented hold the people representing them accountable for their actions. Not voting does nothing but give more power to special interest groups and left/right wing zealots, because those guys ALWAYS vote.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
According to the American Booksellers Association, the case is heading to trial on July 26. Tattered Cover has their own website, of course, but I can't find any reference to the pending legal action.
This is not, of course, the first time Tattered Cover has been involved in a constitutional battle. Back in 1985, in Tattered Cover, Inc. v. Tooley, 696 P.2d 780, they got part of Colorado's criminal code that criminalizes the display of sexually explicit materials struck down as violating the state's constitutional guarantee of free speech.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
You guys (and I mean "guys" in a purely unisexual sense) remember the Communications Decency Act, don't you? Let's assume this bill passes, and let's further assume that the President signs it. Where do we go from here? I'll tell you, in three simple words: the Supreme Court. Obviously, there are many things about the American legislative process that are completely and totally fucked up. The ability for lawmakers to attach totally unrelated riders and to insert completely irrelevant legislation in the middle of other laws is something that has been abused for decades.
Still, the founding fathers were wise enough to envision something like this happening. That's why they established the system of checks and balances that every high school government student is obligated to learn about. If this law passes, and if it is used to violate the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens, there can be no doubt that it will be in front of a judge faster than you can blink your eye. This is what happened with the CDA. When was the last time you heard anything about the CDA?
Anybody who observes politics these days has to have a certain amount of cynicism. Still, I have faith that the system will work as it was intended to. There are elements in both the left and right wings of American politics that would like to conveniently ignore certain parts of the Constitution, but they cannot make the Constitution go away. The First Amendment should prohibit schools from actively organizing prayers and it should protect my right to speak my mind and voice unpopular opinions about the government. The Second Amendment should guarantee my right to own reasonable firearm if I so desire. The Fourth Amendment should protect me from unreasonable search and seizure by agents of the government. And so forth.
If the legislative and executive branches of government try to pass laws that ignore any of this, the judicial branch will jump all over that shit as is their duty. Call me a hopeless idealist, but even if this bill does pass, I don't see any reason for us (Americans) to worry.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Papaver Somniferum - opium poppies, are also used to produce the poppy seeds used in bakeing (poppy seed cake, poppyseed rolls etc.). While the grocery store poppy seeds are generally rendered infertile (dried w/ heat or roasted), you can find viable papaver somniferum seeds for sale in some specialty seed catalogs.
... even if there were no drug laws opium would still only be farmed in the 3rd world. Note that boiling the pods for a medicinal opium tea is both a historical remedy and much, much easier.
...
My understanding is that scoring and scraping poppy pods is rather labor intensive
I have heard that the dried poppy pods used in flower arrangements are also papaver somniferum, and that grinding those pods in a coffee mill will also make a decent tea, but 'decorative' plants, not intended for human consumption can have all sorts of wierd stuff. But I guess if you're desperate enough to ingest stuff from a crafts store
- bridgette
Here is what heppened.
For a long time Democrats ruled the congress. They kept putting their pet projects as riders and the republican presidents pretty much had to either sign or scrap the whole bill. Usually of course you attached your pet project to cancer research bill or something and when the president vetoed it or you opponents objected you got to yell Mr. So or so is against cancer research! (exactly what George W. Bush did to McCain).
All this time the republicans yelled and screamed that they wanted a line item veto so that the president could veto just the riders and still let the rest of the bill pass. Then in a brilliant move at the end of the Bush presidency the democrats smelled a winner in Clinton and they passed the line item bill even though for years they were against it.
Surprise surprise the republicans now got to be on the receiving end of the shaft (so be careful what you ask for boys). So they challenged the law and the supreme court bailed them out by declaring the thing unconstitutional (not surprising how many republicans on the court).
OK the long and short of the story is that riders exist, the pres can do nothing about them, the American people are stupid and don't give a damn. Worse yet Americans are so stupid and gullable that when George W. Bush tell them that John McCain is FOR breast cancer and actually wants their mothers and sisters to get cancer they all nod their heads in agreement and say "it must be true cos I saw it on the tee-vee".
War is necrophilia.
Riders are often slipped in as political compromises, with assorted legislators saying things like "My constituents couldn't care less if the US government stops supporting cheese prices, but they are really concerned that women in the armed forces are allowed to have abortions, so while I would hesitate to vote to eliminate cheese price supports, I would gladly vote 'yes' on a bill which prevented women in the armed forces from having abortions." So you end up with the 1998 Dairy Farmers Deregulation Act, which makes dairy farmers happy at the expense of taxpayers and the cheese-buying public, but oh-by-the-way makes having an abortion grounds for a dishonorable discharge from the Air Force.
It's like Ben Franklin said---people who respect the law and love sausage should never see either one being made.
--
This is not my sandwich.
What part of "well regulated militia" don't you understand?
It looks like you don't understand it.
When reading historical documents you have to keep in mind that the language drifts with time. Different meanings of the same word become predominant, phrases fall into disuse, and so on. There's an entire specialization of history (called "historiography") dedicated to understanding documents in the version of the language in which they were written.
"Well regulated" is a textbook example of the effect. While "regulated", standing alone, occasionally meant "controlled by law or authority", it more commonly meant "adjusted/tuned". The phrase "well regulated" always meant the latter.
A "well regulated clock" kept good time. It didn't have a special section of the legal code dedicated to it. A person with a "well regulated mind" thought clearly. He wasn't a graduate of a mind-control program. A "well regulated shotgun" had two barrels that shot in the same direction, rather than diverging. It wasn't subject to 30,000 laws on everything from barrel length to whether it could be possessed within a mile of an elementary school.
And a "well regulated militia" was one that fought well, not one that was under the control of the government.
But that's just the start. The phrase "well regulated militia" was a special term of political debate. It referred to that portion of "the militia" (i.e. every adult male who owned or could borrow a gun and was in a condition to fight) that wasn't in a special relation to the government.
The armed land forces of the country were divided into three parts: The "standing army" (full-time employees who did nothing but soldier), the "select militia" (part-time employees who soldiered in times of need, under command and control of the government), and the "well regulated militia" (everybody else who could fight).
And according to the writings of the Founders, the well regulated militia was explicitly supposed to be not under the control of the government. And it was explicitly supposed to be large and talented enough to easily defeat all the other branches of the military combined if it ever came to a conflict.
Because the primary purpose of the well regulated militia was as the last ditch insurance that the government remained the servant of the people, rather than usurping the people's authority and becoming their master.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Well-regulated, back in those days, meant the same as "well-oiled" (figuratively, of course! :p). It had nothing to do with laws.
Funny how this comment is in an article about drug prohibition. It didn't work with alcohol, it isn't working with drugs -- Why do you think guns would be any different?. It's not like criminals won't be able to get guns any more. The prohibition of guns would only keep them out of the hands of lawful citizens.
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
But which bill number do we reference when writing to our representative? I know the bill is labelled HR 2987 but as the story mentions, it's now been grafted on to the "Bankrupcy Reform Act", which is known as HR 833. So, if it's been "grafted", does that mean that the original bill number has gone away, and the bill has become a part of the one on to which it was grafted? If so, shouldn't we be using the bill number of the one which it was grafted on to?
Which is the proper bill number? H.R. 2987 or H.R. 833? Can anyone help?
Free Hans!
Sure no one's going to complain about information about drugs -- that's shouting fire in a theater, right? So next it'll be... say... offensive or "adult" topics and you won't be able to find information on birth control or abortion. Then it'll be sites critical of the government, and we'll be abut where China is today. By that time the people will be begging for it, too.
Your best bet is to mail your congressman and tell him that if he votes for this you will not only not vote for him in the next election, you'll make a sizeable donation to his opposition. Even if "Sizeable" for you is only a few bucks, that'll get his attention. Especially if you can get a few thousand of your friends to write similar letters to him.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
For instance, it is fairly well known that the U.S. was not paying it's U.N. fees for quite some time. However, if you dig a little deeper, you'll find out why we weren't paying. Apparently the Republican dominated Congress was insisting on an additional "provision" in the legislation that would've payed that bill.
This provision, in a nutshell, stated that the U.S. would not provide economic aid to nations or foreign agencies which provided abortion as part of women's health care.
As far as I know, Clinton refused to sign this bill as long as that provision was attached. Thus, leaving our U.N. bill unpaid. Now, whether you agree with abortion or not is not the issue. The fact is that this had NOTHING to do with the U.N. fees, and had no business being part of that bill.
Politics is downright nasty. But a great deal of this is possible because of voter apathy and ignorance. If the public would get more informed and more active, then maybe politicians would start representing us, instead of pulling b.s. like this.
So in addition to calling your Congressman, pass the info to a friend or two when you see stuff like this. And ask them to spread the word. Every little bit helps.
Best regards,
SEAL
Actually getting addicted to anything is EASY. You just do it alot. Its really that simple. Its JUST as easy to get addicted to alcohol as ANY other drug.
The difference is addiction potential. Alcohol is right up there with many other drugs. Its withdrawl is just as bad as most anything too.
Many drugs (LSD, Cocaine (yes cocaine - no physical withdrawl syndrome and that includes crack) etc) are LESS addictive than alchol because they have no withdrawl syndromes and/or do not reinforce the action (I dunno about you...but after a 12 hour LSD trip I have NO desire to do it again right away...takes at least a week before I am even willing)
Bottom line: Alcohol is a drug, just like any other. Whether it is worst or better is a matter of personal opinion and values.
Personally I can't hardly drink the stuff due to a medical condition (can have a little now and again). So for me, marijuana is much safer (less likely to aggravate a stomac condition that could lead to eventual cancer) - its all drugs, and its all a matter of personal values.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Lets rule out saying anything negative about the governments and large corporations. It only leads to anarchy.
Once you start on a slippery slope, how do you stop?
Fight Spammers!
The ACLU has it's take on this issue, along with an easy way to fax your representative with a customizeable form letter.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
OOG NOT FEEL GOOD.. OOG REALLY FUCKED UP RIGHT NOW BUT HAVE SENSE HE IS NEEDED ON SLASHDOT!!! OOG CHECK NEW STORIES!!! OOG STONED AS SHIT BUT WILL TRY TO HELP A BIT ANYWAY!!! OOG KNOW LOTS ABOUT CAVE-DRUGS!!! OOG FIND FUNNY POINTED PLANT WHEN LOOKING FOR MAMMOTH TO EAT, AND LEARN HOW TO CULTIVATE IT SOLELY USING INTERNET SOURCES!!!
OOG SUGGEST YAHOOKA.COM!!! YAHOOKA.COM VERY GOOD RESOURCE, LINK TO MUCH INFORMATION ON CAVE WEED!!! OOG GROW ALL HIS CAVE-WEED HIMSELF NOW!!! OOG LINK TO GUIDES OOG USE TO LEARN HOW TO GROW CAVE WEED!!! MAYBE OOG GO ON TO DOMESTICATE OTHER PLANTS LATER, INVENT CONCEPT OF AGRICULTURE AND BUILD BASIS OF CIVILIZATION BY ALLOWING CAVEMEN TO LIVE IN ONE STABLE PLACE WITHOUT HAVING TO MOVE!!! BUT OOG TOO BUSY WITH CAVE-DRUGS AND CLUBBING CAVE-HO'S!!! OOG JUST GOING TO GET REALLY FUCKING HIGH!!!
SINCE OOG HIGH, OOG WANT TO APOLOGIZE IF INFORMATION NOT HELPFUL!!! OOG NOT READ STORY AND COMMENTS!!! OOG TRY NOT BE LIKE MOST SLASHDOT POSTER, WHO READ HEADLINE AND THEN POST!!! OOG MAY BE STONED OFF ASS, BUT OOG NOT WANT END UP LIKE SIGNAL 11!!!
OH NO, OOG'S SUNDIAL SAY IT ONLY FEW MORE HOURS TIL 4:20!!! OOG MUST GET NEXT BATCH OF CAVE-WEED READY TO SMOKE OUT!!! ARRGHHH OOG NEED CAVE MAMMOTH AND FRITOS TOO... OOG GOT CAVE-MUNCHIES BAD!!!
OOG THE OPEN SOURCE CAVEMAN!!! OOG BREAK HEAD WITH OPEN SOURCE CD!!!
If somebody in Amsterdam decided to put up an informational website using, how would the us search engines keep such links out? Hard to filter on words like 'speed' and 'crack'. What about netnews posts? Text files in gnutella? Freenet? Sealand? Enforceablilty sounds like something that politicos in question haven't considered. It is bad karma to pass laws you can't enforce consistantly. Politicos should be reminded of this.
Another argument against censorship is that even if you disagree with the material being censored, censorship is like painting over the termite-holes. No matter how bad you think drugs are, the problem is that people look for them, not that they exist. Convincing people that they need to be responsible is the right solution. Give them enough rope to hang themselves, and one way or the other, they'll learn to respect rope.
Course, that last statement applies to many fields. Anybody want to set up a website along the lines of Mr. Cranky , but rating politicians instead? Or a place to read legislation converted into 'everyday language' - can't be harder than explaining computer code in everyday language. Politics is o so very dry. Somebody should do something about that.
But opium can be distilled from the garden variety poppies found in flowerbeds accross the country. Breeds of poppy differ in strength, but all contain morphine. To harvest, take a pin or a razor blade and make thin cuts around the bulb of the poppy. Do not cut all the way through, just scratch the surface so that sap begins to ooze out. The sap will be milky white. Now wait for 12-24 hours. The sap will have become thick and gooey and black. Scrape the sap off with a spoon or razor blade. This is raw opium. You can extract the morphine out of this, and refine it into heroin if you have the know how, but I just do the raw opium. The safest way to do this is by smoking it. Another good method is to drop the opium into strong lemonade, stir and gulp. Warning, opium is very bitter tasting. Don't do this with a large quantity however, since you may OD. The opium high can best be described as a general sense of well being. Pain, fatigue, appetite and sexual desire are suppressed. Concentration is much easier. You can code like the devil himself.
Some people combine the opium with hash when smoking it. I think this is a mistake as the opium high is far superior to being stoned and should be enjoyed as much as possible.
Have fun and try not to get caught.
--Shoeboy
I believe in what I'm doing. Very much.
For what I believe in, Sen. Feinstein would have me imprisioned for up to 10 years.
Before her dreams can become reality, I will be making all of textfiles.com downloadable in one huge file, for everyone who wants to save the site to have. Maybe the big smackdown won't come this time, maybe not the next time, but I am sadly coming to the conclusion that one day it will. Thanks for your help.
From a purely legal perspective; if it is illegal to publish and sell a book about manufacturing illegal drugs, perhaps it should also be illegal to publish it anywhere.
Personally, from an ethics point of view, I think I see no problem with publishing such information.
If the government (the people) want this information to be taken correctly, they must use their own counter-information. THe best way to do this is with *real* information.
Not 'Weed makes you go nuts and kill people a-la reefer madness', but real scientific information.
ONe major problem with the war on drugs is that, although the war on drugs gives kids sociological facts, it does give them little scientific facts.
Illicit drug papers give them many true scientific facts, but without the appropriate details.
Educate the kids. Educate the public. Don't just tell them 'this is bad for you'. Tell them why. After all.. the internet is here.. fuckin use it.
"if you don't know your Representative, like most of us, use the look-up... Be polite and very nonthreatening, but make it clear that you vote, and that you don't like this bill."
If you voted you'd know who your representative was. Not that contacting them and lying about it wouldn't be a good idea. But be sure to follow up on it by showing up at the ballot box next election day and voting based on how they vote on this bill.
If more people did this and took responsibility for our government, then bills like this would never see the light of day and everyone who cherishes the freedom this country was founded on would sleep a little easier at night.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
MASSIVELY IMPORTANT CENSORSHIP ISSUES ASIDE, you're delusional.
You say you're "clean" - not a drug user. You then admit to using alcohol and being addicted to caffiene. You also admit your parents are nicotine addicts. That makes you at least a second-generation part of the problem.
Problem #1: all illegal drugs are lumped together, as if their effects, risks, and potential harm were all equal. Legal drugs don't enter into the discussion. There are quite a number of illegal drugs that are less injurious than many legal drugs - the legislated morality is the only difference. In this case, while methamphetamines appear to have been singled out, the specific provisions that are at issue here are not restrained to a specific drug.
Problem #2: The Internet as made real information available to millions, and allowed many to make intelligent, personal decisions based on fact, not propaganda. As with anything else that fights hypocrisy with facts, when the facts are against them, the media will be perceived as a threat.
Problem #3: As long as substances are prohibited on moral or political grounds, rather than on scientific or public health grounds, hypocrisy is going to be the worst enemy of the "war on drugs". And all the erosion of privacy and other rights and freedoms will remain even when they eventually admit that the war has been lost.
"Are you gentlemen aware that shirts are being made from hemp, which are then being boiled down for the resin by teenagers who then mix the
residue with alcohol to create marijuana?" -- Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey, proving once again that he's either the stupidest or most dishonest man in America today (quoted in last week's Wunderland Weekly News )
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
Well I certainly see your point. Yes, alot of drug problems ARE personal. I have seen people go down that path. However...throwing a person in jail doesn't exactly solve their problems...it just garauntees that they lose any job they had and makes it hard to get another one later. It garauntees to make their life worst.
As for personal drug use. I kno wplenty of people who use drugs socially. Alcohol, pot etc. I can personally attest to having some of my fammily relationships strengthened by drug use...the bond that comes from smoking a joint with someone. Time spent together.
How about Ken Keasy? The man apears to be about in his 90s last I saw him interviewed. He says he still uses LSD today. He said "I never would have been able to write that well (one flew over the cucues(sp?) nest) without it"
The thing is...you never see on the newspaper or on TV "Guy smokes pot, eats pizza" or "man drops acid, finds god...joins the church to help others"
(not that I condone joining churches, I am an atheist, but a friend of mine dropped some acid once, and ended up deciding he disliked his life and joining a church because of it and finding "god"...much longer story than that but thats the "executive summary")
All in all...I have come to realise that its not about "drugs", its about relationships with drugs. ANY drug can be used safely, and without problem, by a person with a good relationship with drugs.
There is a HUGE difference between a person who NEEDs to start the day with a drink (or a toke, or any drug) and a person who sometimes has a drink...or a toke...or a line.
Its not about willpower. Its not about addiction. Its about outlook. Its about the relationship. It is about recognizing and accepting why one is using a drug. I drink coffee to be more alert at work. I can make it through a day of work without it.
I drink a beer with a friend because its fun...its part of the recreational activity for the evening...not because I need beer to feel good.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Every day we see more of these blatantly unconstitutional laws churning their way through the guts of congress. Nearly all will later be overturned when they finally reach the supreme court, but not until after huge amounts of time, money and energy have been wasted on them and people's lives or businesses have been wrecked.
All elected U.S. legislative, executive and deliberative officials are sworn into office with a vow to uphold and defend the constitution. Voting for laws that are later determined to be unconstituational is a clear breach of office and public trust and must be made punishable by impeachment.
Night
I shouldn't even bother answering, but I can't help it. That is some of is the purest, most unadulterated BS I have heard. Let's think about this - the US has the weakest gun control laws in the civilized world, and the highest gun death rates in the civilized world. Anyone see a connection here?
They do not keep guns away from criminals any more than drug laws keep heroin away from junkies
- That applies only to the highly organized criminals who can get guns smuggled in from out of the country. It's with the common hoods that this makes a difference - they're not going to be connected to international gun cartels, but they sure can find the one gun shop in (twenty? thirty? I dunno) that looks perfectly honest on paper, but is willing to sell guns without criminal record checks. Get rid of gun shops, and only a tiny minority of criminals will be well-enough connected to find guns.
- Most of the people killed with guns are not killed by criminals, but by perfectly honest, upstanding citizens. They are killed by their families, because someone gets drunk and angry, and grabs the gun out of the gun closet. Or because they go downstairs for a glass of water in the night, and someone mistakes them for a burglar
All the gun nuts I hear call up Switzerland as an example of a country with lots of guns and no gun violence. But Switzerland has some of the most draconian gun laws in the world. You basically can't own a gun. That's not your gun in your house, it's the government's gun, and you don't take it out without filling out a week's worth of paperwork. The gun is kept locked up, unloaded, and there are inspections regularly (That's right, government agents come into your house to inspect their guns, and you have no right to tell them to go away) and if they find that you have been using the guns without due process, you lose the guns. Furthermore, nobody gets a gun in their house without going through lengthy training, and passing it, and going back regularly for refresher courses.What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
On the subject of drugs, I should start by mentioning that I spent a great deal of my life Straight Edge. Meaning, no drugs, no alcohol, no cigarettes, no meat, no cheese etc. In later years I have loosened up on alcohol, but drugs is something I still will not touch.
So perhaps I can take a somewhat outsider perspective on the drug war. First of all, anyone who claims marijuana has no ill effects has never walked into a university dorm. I know it does have effects. But, so does alcohol. So does red meat.
The governments of Canada and the US both feel, for some ridiculous reason that they have a duty to protect us from ourselves. We may have liberty, but we're not given the credit to make decisions for ourselves. Is that freedom?
Point being, drugs may be bad for your brain. I don't think many people will disagree. But what I need to know, what is the arbitrary decider that makes marijuana more dangerous (Reefer Madness!) than alcohol? I've never seen a stoned individual beat his wife, or drive his car into a group of people. On the other hand, we've heard of alcohol-influenced wife-abuse and drunk drivers.
I have no interest in partaking in legal or illegal marijuana, but I don't support states throwing people with personal use marijuana in prison for 20 years, while Budweiser's customers are applauded as "Real Americans/Canadians etc."
I don't like either drug users, or alcohol abusers, particularly, but freedom is not about liking people, it's about allowing everyone the freedom to do as they will, as long as they don't infringe on others rights.
On a side note, Straight Edge kids in Syracuse NY are branded are terrorists. Many are investigated. Somehow, NOT drinking is a crime in the United States. Not eating meat is a crime, but alcohol abuse is as American as Apple Pie.
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
If you are a medical practitioner dealing with drug treatment, it is important for you have information about illegal drugs. Including how people prepare them. Otherwise you won't be able to talk to your patients, and people in treatment centers won't know what they need to look for and take away from their patients.
Are doctors to be banned from learning how to do their jobs?
(This is not so far-fetched. For much of the 1900's it was against the law for physicians to explain anything about birth control to their patients. Reflect on that for a bit...)
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
I consider myself a 'clean' geek. I used to be 'clean and sober' until the age of 25, then I discovered that Sam Adams and Guinness were not like the other beers, but that's another story.
Anyway, as a 'clean' geek, I do not use any type of drug, and tend to not be around in person when they are being used. However, this Bill scares the crap out of me for the following reasons:
1. It's embedded, like a virus, on a completely unrelated piece of legislation. I see this as perversely unethical, and think that the sponsors of this Bill should be tarred and feathered in the Grand Old tradition reserved for anti-social hoodlums. The idea that some members of Congress expect to slide this regulation right under the noses of their peers, assuming that the latter are either asleep or too stupid to notice, is systemically offensive. The audacity of this should result in the Bill's sponsors excommunication from the political arena.
2. The speed with which society turned on smokers (I don't, both my parents puff 2 packs/day - it's an addiction, not a habit) means that no single substance is safe. All it takes is a few well placed comments by the right people, and your food coloring of choice, additive, flavor enhancer or whatever is likely to single you out as some depraved addict.
3. I NEED my morning coffee. I WANT my afternoon JOLT. I CRAVE my evening tea. (See #2)
4. I feel that (even though I do not partake of the bounty of Mother Nature to the same extent as others) no person really has the right to impose their standards and morality on what weeds a person adds to their diet in the privacy of their own home. Certainly, there are complications with operating heavy machinery and the reliable functioning safety critical professionals, but we've addressed these problems vis a vis alcohol already. Make being 'clean' a condition of employment where it's required, and let people make up their own minds.
5. To paraphrase Voltaire: 'I do not agree with what you're saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' This is a FREE COUNTRY in name, and if this sort of Bill (see #1-#4) passes, it will be the height of hypocracy, and an embarassment before the rest of the world - like we really need to be laughed at again...
I'd keep going, but it would be redundant. This is a very huge issue, not just due to drugs but due to the doors it opens to the 'holier than thou' and the means by which it is being delivered into the Law of the Land. Disgusting!
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Kent Brockman: With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States congress.
Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of --
Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?
[everyone boos]
Speaker: Bill defeated. [bangs gavel]
Kent Brockman: I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
As you all recall because you all follow these events as closely as I do, the Supreme Court just handed down US v. Morrison, which reaffirms the proposition recently stated in US v Lopez that Congress has no business regulating anything that does not stem from an enumerated power in Article I or any of the amendments. Specifically, Congress isn't allowed to claim that anything that substantially implicates interstate commerce is regulatable as such; it actually has to be a form of commerce to qualify.
As if there weren't enough 1st amendment grounds for striking down the censorship provisions of this act, I suspect Congress would be hard pressed to demonstrate that nonprofit speech as such is a form of commerce, and this bill doesn't specify that the speech must be conducted through interstate channels to qualify.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
This is *not* an either-or question. Many of the critics (including myself) agree that drug abuse is a major problem that needs to be fought with the full strength of our society -- but we feel that the current approach is the most fucked-up way to do it and that the person who thought it up must be... stoned!
:-) I often think election results are crazy, but I would rather have a hundred stupid referendums than a government that considers itself above the voters who elected it.
Some quick examples:
1) Why on earth are we willing to spend *billions* of dollars incarcerating something like half of our prison population on minor drug charges - to say nothing of the immense social disruption in "supplier" countries - while treatment centers are so cash starved that an addict who really wants to stop must be put on a months-long waiting list?
2) Speaking of prison populations, why do we have an inverted policy that guarantees users and low-level dealers will serve 20-years-without-parole (to the point of giving violent criminals early paroles in order to free space for the smuck caught with an ounce of pot at the airport), while mid-level dealers with information to trade can negotiate lighter sentences?
3) Why do we have an official policy of convincing our children that they can never, ever trust someone in authority to tell them the truth? As one local critic (and county commissioner) observes, kids are *not* going to believe the horror stories about how bad horse is if they were told that one toke on a joint will make them insane, yet they took a toke and the hit was lighter than their first cigarette. That's why E is a problem today - many researchers thought it might have a valid medical use but the Feds knee-jerked yet again and declared it without any legitimate use. (The same thing can be said about LSD, btw). There's now some evidence that E *might* cause long-term problems, and definite evidence that street users need to be careful about heat exhaustion, but the authorities have lost all credibility so the message isn't getting out. Not only that, they are actively hostile to DanceSafe telling ravers what's really in their pills and what the consequences of them taking it will be.
There is no cold calculus that tells us you should see three friends die of overdoses to equate two units of civil authority, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a very real tradeoff here. I don't know where the line is, but I get *very* worried when the government tells me that I can't get the information necessary to make an informed decision in the voting booth.
But then again, I am a hard-ass on this. Were I President, I would have immediately called a press conference to announce that I had relunctantly accepted Barry McCaffrey's(sp?) resignation after he made some comment about the stupid, ignorant voters in California and Arizona passing state referendums contrary to the national drug policy. (The fact that he offered no resignation wouldn't stop me from accepting it
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
- well-regulated does not mean what you think it means - in the military parlance of the time, it meant effectively equipped and trained;
- it doesn't matter - you're paying more attention to the comment than the code. The form is not "If X, then the law is Y", it's "Because X, the law is Y"; it doesn't matter whether X holds or not, the law is Y and X is just a comment, and
- it doesn't matter because constitutional or not, strong gun control laws fail. Always. Repeatedly. They do not keep guns away from criminals any more than drug laws keep heroin away from junkies or porn laws keep Penthouse away from kids; and they prevent law-abiding citizens from defending themselves, leaving them reliant on the police. You know, like the New York City police who stood idlely by and allowed over 50 women to be sexually assulted in Central Park a few weeks ago. Do you think something like that could have happened in a state with concealed carry legislation? One bystander with a handgun could have stopped that whole thing very quickly, probably without firing a shot.
Absolutely incorrect. A militia is almost the polar opposite of a standing army.The idea of the founders was that there would not be a standing army of significant size, but that ordinary citizens would be sufficiently armed and competent ("well-regulated") to repel an invading army. That's why military appropriations are more limited than others ("To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years").
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
But that's beside the point. If a law read "A well-educated populace being necessary to the security of a democracy, the right to keep and read books shall not be infringed," this would in no way allow the government to define a well-educated group of people and restrict possession of books to them.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
They couldn't get much harsher. That's part of the problem. There are some obvious things like prison overcrowding, but also more subtle things you wouldn't notice, such as 20% of African Americans being ineligible to vote due primarily to felony drug laws. Being convicted of a felony now also carries the penalty of being ineligible for foodstamps for the rest of your life (except in some states who have opted out of that, such as New York). Poor people are targeted much more, due most probably to ineffective legal defense, and denying them foodstamps, while they're poor, seems awfully strange to me, felon or not.
Stiffer penalties you say? At least consider the consequences before you add yet another racist, class-biased penalty to drug laws, besides the possibly naive notion that these things will help prevent drug use.
For the record, my personal opinion is that jailing people for drug use is a blatant human rights violation. Addiction is considered by almost everyone in medical professions to be a medical problem. We don't put people in jail for having AIDS, do we? Treat it as a medical problem, not a criminal one. Who knows, it might even just work.
I think most drugs are disgusting and I truly wish they didn't exist. I've had my own experiences with them, and many people close to me. My girlfriend is a cocaine addict, though she's been clean for about a year now (notice I used the present tense; you're never, ever a "former addict," it's for the rest of your life). However, despite my general disgust, I don't forsee any good coming out of this war on drugs no matter how stiff you make the penalties, and no matter how much of a police state you make it. Users will use. Help them stop, don't punish them when they learn from their mistakes.
72656B636148206C72655020726568746F6E41207473754A
> But to be a part of an "anti-anti-drug movement"
> is just too much. I've seen way too many lives
> destroyed by the horrors of real drugs.
However the anti-war on drugs movement isn't necissarily about just legalizing drugs so everyone can get smashed.
The idea is to change the focus from "prohibition" ie just saying "drugs are bad and you goto jail for having them" (which is, many times, a fate MORE harmful than the drugs alone ever were) over to educating people.
Many of the problems associated with drug use are a direct result of prohibition and black market economics. I am talking about adulturated drugs. I am talking about "turf wars" between rival drug sellers. I am talking about misinformation that is being given out by users and dealers alike. Even the fact that people are injecting heroine is a product of prohibition. Prohibition has driven the price up so high that IV injection is the only cost-effective way to use it.
Only through legalization and regulation can we reduce the harm associated with drugs. Prohibition has been PROVEN time and again to only drive problems underground and make problems worst.
It happend with Alcohol in the 1920s. It is happening today. There will ALWAYS be drug users. Its been part of human culture since the begining of time. You can't change human nature and society by handing down laws from "on high".
That is exactly what prohibition tries to do. That is exactly why it fails.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
> So you don't think weed laced with opium can
> lead to regular opium use which can lead to
> Heroin?
I get the feeling your are either mis-informed or a provocateur. NOONE is going around selling "weed laced with opium" to anyone without telling them.
Why? Simple its just NOT economical. Weed is an incredibly cheap drug (as far as street drugs go). Lacing it with opium would raise the cost to the seller...which means he would have to somehow justify his price increase.
While theoretically your scenario is POSSIBLE. It is highly IMPROBABLE and in my experience (I am a drug user and know alot of drug users) it simple does NOT happen outside of the most isolated of incidents.
Also...were it legal...this wouldn't happen. See those who believe in legalization also believe in some form of regulation...much like medicine is now. Force them to put quantities and ingredients on everything.
> You don't think that E laced with coke leads
> to regular usage of coke? Don't tell me
> that it doesn't and don't point to studies.
> I've lived it and the story is the same
> everytime.
hmmm the more I read from you, the less I believe that you have "lived it". Dealers don't just go around randomly lacing things...and they don't go doing it for the purpose of "hooking" people.
They do NOT need to create more demand...they get PLENTY of buisness as it is. Secondly, coke is not physically addictive (only mentally) so "laced E" would not produce a real cocaine addiction.
Again, lacing would be illegal if drugs were legal and regulated. Just like it would be illegal for bayer to put acetominiphen (paracetamol for the brits) without adding it to the ingredients label.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
for two reasons.
1) I am a drug using geek. I think it's pretty hypocritical for people to be "anti-drug" and then go out and get hammered on a saturday night. Yes, we geeks really care! Why? Because there is a substantial cross section of geek culture that also participates in recreational drug use. Be that Alcohol, Marijuana, Mushrooms, or whatever. The anti-anti-drug movement has come so far, why stop fighting? Anyone who agrees with me needs to show their true colors and say something about it!!
2) Most importantly, this is a freedom of speech issue. It's illegal to own fireworks where i live, yet you can find all sorts of information about making them and using them on the internet. Why aren't sites like these being banned? Marijuana is legal in several countries around the world (Most noteably, the city of Amsterdam). There is even a bill to allow cultivation there. So - what's the difference between fireworks and drugs? Simple - drugs are unpopular so the politicians think they can get a bill passed to censor sites like the Lycaeum. IT'S STILL CENSORSHIP!!!
I don't care if you're a geek, a hippy, or a fundamentalist christian....this isn't just a drug issue. If you don't fight censorship wherever it rears its ugly head - you'll find that, when it comes time for you to be censored yourself, there's no one left to fight!
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Last I looked at the Constitution of the U.S., prior restraint on publication was not allowed. I seem to remember the First Amendment referring to "no law," not "any law that is restricted to drugs, child pornography, infant baptism, etc."
What this means is the government is not supposed to prohibit anyone from publishing information, only that if the publication is not protected by the First Amendment (Holmes's "crying fire in the theatre") then the police can arrest you. A few of us oldtimers can remember the Pentagon Papers case, where The New York Times and The Washington Post had to go to the Supreme Court to establish their right to publish those papers, which the federal government claimed would violate our national security.
I would like to learn from anybody in the Denver area who could tell me what happened in the Tattered Cover Bookstore case. A few months ago a squad of police arrived there with a search warrant to go through their credit card records. They said they had found a receipt concerning a book on how to produce illegal drugs, at an empty methamphetamine lab.
The owner refused the police demands and got a writ from a court to stop the search. But I never heard what happened afterward. Her argument was that such a search would invade not only her rights as a bookseller to preserve privacy of clients, but also the right of the public to buy and read books no matter what. Perhaps if the issue pertained to web pages and ISPs then some computer geeks would make more noise.
It appears that this new attempt to amend the law is an effort to strengthen the hands of the police in such a case. I hope it is rejected by Congress. But I don't have any faith in their ability to read and understand the Constitution. If it passes, then I hope it is challenged by brave people like the owner of the Tattered Cover bookstore in Denver.
written by john Perry Barlow, co-founder of the EFF. Probably more relevant than ever. The original NY times article is here
Amendment 1
Congress shall encourage the practice of Judeo-Christian religion by its own public exercise thereof and shall make no laws abridging the freedom of responsible speech, unless such speech is in a digitized form or contains material which is copyrighted, classified, proprietary, or deeply offensive to non-Europeans, non-males, differently-abled or alternatively preferenced persons; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, unless such assembly is taking place on corporate or military property or within an electronic environment, or to make petitions to the Government for a redress of grievances, unless those grievances relate to national security.
Amendment 2
A well-regulated Militia having become irrelevant to the security of the State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms against one another shall nevertheless remain uninfringed, excepting such arms as may be afforded by the poor or those preferred by drug pushers, terrorists, and organized criminals, which shall be banned.
No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, unless that house is thought to have been used for the distribution of illegal substances.
Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, may be suspended to protect public welfare, and upon the unsupported suspicion of law enforcement officials, any place or conveyance shall be subject to immediate search, and any such places or conveyances or property within them may be permanently confiscated without further judicial proceeding.
Amendment 5
Any person may be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime involving illicit substances, terrorism, or child pornography, or upon any suspicion whatever; and may be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, once by the State courts and again by the Federal Judiciary; and may be compelled by various means, including the forced submission of breath samples, bodily fluids, or encryption keys, to be a witness against himself, refusal to do so constituting an admission of guilt; and may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without further legal delay; and any property thereby forfeited shall be dedicated to the discretionary use of law enforcement agents.
Amendment 6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and private plea bargaining session before pleading guilty. He is entitled to the Assistance of underpaid and indifferent Counsel to negotiate his sentence, except where such sentence falls under federal mandatory sentencing requirements.
Amendment 7
In Suits at common law, where the contesting parties have nearly unlimited resources to spend on legal fees, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.
Amendment 8
Sufficient bail may be required to ensure that dangerous criminals will remain in custody, where cruel punishments are usually inflicted.
Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others which may be asserted by the Government as required to preserve public order, family values, or national security.
Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, shall be reserved to the United States Departments of Justice and Treasury, except when the States are willing to forsake federal funding.