Slashdot Mirror
"Traffic"
The so-called War on Drugs America has waged with itself and various other parts of the world for more than a generation is one of the greatest policy disasters in recent history. Nobody with more than two brain cells believes this "war" is being won or can be won. Each year, more technology and money gets thrown into the fray, more people end up in jail, the courts are clogged even more, and more drugs come into the country, where significant numbers of Americans, young and old, use them. Understandably, the United States is a laughing stock on this issue.
That few politicians dare to seriously reconsider alternatives to this catastrophe is a commentary on the wretched state of our corporatized, two-party, big media-sponsored political system. Drug policies barely surface in the presidential campaign beyond moral posturing, which shouldn't be that much of a surprise; little else of substance did either.
It's in that context that Traffic is a bracing look at the mess.
It's a pretty amazing movie, too, another worthy addition to the strong holiday line-up -- Crouching Tiger, Hidden DragonL, O Brother, Where Art Thou, Unbreakable-- that made last months' movies far more interesting than those of the preceding eleven.
If Traffic is dazzling at times, it isn't uniformly so -- the story is told in three interwoven parts, each with a distinct cinematic look, pace and style. There are an astounding 129 speaking parts in the 147-minute film, adding to its documentary, fast-paced feel. The first is shot in gauzy brown, the second through blue filters, the third in crisp, bright sunshine. Soderburgh shot the film himself, pseudonymously, often using hand-held cameras. When it works, it really works.
One story centers around two Mexican state troopers (Benicio Del Toro and Jacob Vargas) drawn into the shadowy world of the Mexican cartels. The second focuses on the ponderous, naive policies of a newly-appointed American drug czar, played by Michael Douglas, whose daughter just happens to be turning into an addict, and the third centers on a wealthy San Diego housewife (Catherine Zeta-Jones) who struggles to keep her lifestyle after her husband gets arrested by the DEA and umasked as a drug lord.
Don Cheadle and Luis Guzman are terrific as DEA agents sticking their fingers in the dike. (The movie points out that once NAFTA takes full effect, Mexican trucks will be able to enter the U.S. as freely as they traverse their own country, and any pretense of halting drugs at the border will be gone).
The movie can be powerful, riveting at times, and its all-encompassing style captures the futility and hypocrisy of America's political posturing about drugs and law enforcement. But it stumbles over the drug- czar plot. Douglas is convincing as a politician over his head, but when his bright, preppie daughter (Erika Christensen) gets drawn into freebasing so that he can see the light, the movie turns clunky, predictable and heavy-handed. But never for long. The end result is a brilliant movie, tossed somewhat off-kilter.
Traffic relentlessly drives its potent message home: as a nation, we are in total denial about our failed drug policies. There's no realistic way drugs can be stopped by conventional law enforcement, or by much-touted new monitoring technologies (planes, satellites, computers, money-laundering databases). There is no widespread system of treatment, nor is there a rational political climate in which truth can be approached. So the druglords get richer and the jails get more overcrowded, and we end up waging a war against ourselves. Beyond that much-needed message, Traffic is also cinematically dazzling -- murky, ragged and colorful; shrouded by intrigue and betrayal, sudden violence and futility.
all wars in progress on this planet are fueled by drug money
Am I the only person who gets confused between these two guys? I keep picturing Jon Lovitz when I read a Jon Katz article. It's especially fun the read Katz's movie reviews in the style of Jon Lovitz's "The Critic."
It almost makes them bearable.
Bullshit!
"No one has the right to be publicly intoxicated"?! Says who? If you commit a crime, meaning you violate the rights of your fellow human, then it is irrelevant if you are wasted or not. Increasing someone's sentence for being intoxicated during a crime is nonsense. In fact, because your wits are more about you when you are sober, the sentence should be greater when you are NOT intoxicated and have committed a crime.
Public safety is NOT a right. A lot of middle- and upper-middle-class people seem to think they are somehow entitled to be safe. Well, guess what sucker, you aren't! There is only one absolute in this exitence. It's not God, it's not Love, it's not Happiness. It's Death. We all die. No exceptions.
Since when does mere intoxication negatively affect someone's life forever, as O'Reactionary seems to imply? My life is far better with more knowledge, even if that obtaining that knowledge requires risking my health or life. It's like Adam and Eve. They were right to eat that apple. God was wrong to tell them what they could and couldn't do. Lucifer is the hero in that story. I've been intoxicated, but I'm not an addict. I was a real uptight young christian republican until I started experimenting with, not just drugs, but with new ideas. I am no longer a christian or a republican, or an affiliate of any religion or political party, and I'm a lot happier for it.
As for O'Reilly, he can believe what he wants, but if he, or anyone else, tries to prevent me from experimenting with my own body and mind, as long as I'm not dragging someone else into it, especially a minor, then I will defend myself as I would against any attacker.
Fuck him and anyone who agrees with him. It's an imperialist viewpoint.
Opium was outlawed to deport chinese. Pot was outlawed to deport mexicans. Cocaine was outlawed to jail negros. The drug war creates jobs for people who are otherwise unemployable. The drug war can not end, where will those unskilled loafers find jobs? No where. The drug war is a beast that feeds upon itself. Perhaps some day it will end, but not any day soon. (read: not in our lifetimes)
Do you currently work in support of the drug war? If yes, then get yourself some skills and find a real job, you are nothing but a drain on our economy! You put non-violent criminals in jail and we pay the bill for it! Create something instead of destroying the lives of others.
Sure, drugs destroy lives, but ask the kids of the 20 something guy in jail for life for selling 3 ounces of pot how his life is doing.
Another problem with the drug war is when the children of the politicians get arrested they are not charged the same as the rest of us. Why look at our good president Bush, arrested for DWI, never loses his license. If that was me or you, we'd be walking or taking the bus for a year.
The drug war causes more damage then good, it is as simple as that.
since the users at least of "psychedelic" drugs tend to be more politically liberal than average
Most conservatives I know are cokeheads... Think there's a causative relationship here?
They didn't go away. They just sell drugs now (among other things) instead of running booze. They don't run booze because it is legal and therefore no longer profitable.
Well, I think this is a little paranoid to asssume that the government's sole purpose is to make our life's worse. Despite what some people think, the government still basically does what the American people tell them to do, and the general consensus is that John Q. Taxpayer doesn't want crack in their neighborhood, just go around and ask your neighbors.
I hate to be a spoiler, but here goes... You guys don't know what kind of genie you are letting out of the bottle if you legalize drugs. Lets start by looking at two legal drugs; EtOH and Tobacco. Look at how much just those two drugs cost our health care system every year... so much that we are suing the bejeesus out of the tobacco companies to recoup the losses. Does anyone doubt that alcohol companies will be far behind? (I disagree with such suits, BTW) Also consider the cost from DUI/DWI deaths and injuries, and all the crimes people commit when they are drunk... it's a lot of moolah.
Now, let us extrapolate that same concept to Cocaine and Heroin. In addition to their mood/emotion altering properties, both can kill you with a single dose (don't give me that crap about how it doesn't happen... I work in an ER, boys... and IT DOES happen). Cocaine is the #1 cause of heart attacks in young men, Heroin is the #1 cause of endocarditis (if you don't know what that is, it's bad, and it kills people... trust me... you don't want it). You want to legalize these drugs? How about all the extra health care costs when use rates increase? The legalization argument loses strength when you realize that all that "tax money" that we would make will get eaten up by treatment costs.
You need to take obligatory/mandatory health care out of the picture if you want society to make money off drugs. However, you also have to be willing to put up with people dying in the streets for lack of medical care. Is society going to look a dying man in the eye and tell him to go to hell, just because he is/was a smoker/user? In the altruistic society that we live in now, it is, in fact, illegal to refuse a person medical care... all they have to do is show up at the hospital (all that "uninsured don't have health care" crap is exactly that... crap).
Look at the big picture. We already have our hands full with lung cancer, cirrhosis, etc... you want to add more to the pile? Don't look at legalization as some kind of panacea. I am as big a proponent of freedom as anybody, but when the costs to society are so potentially astronomical, you need to go slowly. I'm not saying legalization in some form might not work, but the devil is in the details, and you damn sure better consider all of them.
OK, I'm done... Flame on.
> And if a drug user has a choice between taxed,
> legal dope/crack/heroin, or untaxed illegal
> dope/crack/heroin, which will they choose?
> Probably more than a few will choose the
> untaxed, illegal stuff.
why they fuck would anyone do that when the legal
taxed stuff is both cheaper and safer than the
illegal untaxed stuff?
you could tax drugs at several thousand percent
and they'd still be cheaper than the current
black market price. they'd also be of a known
and regulated quality/purity.
the current prices of illegal drugs are
artificially inflated BECAUSE they are illegal.
they cost hundreds or sometimes even thousands of
times more than they would if they were legal.
the black market would dry up because it wouldn't
be able to compete on either price or quality.
who buys methanol-poisoned bathtub gin at
inflated black-market prices now when you can buy
cheap, taxed, and quality-controlled gin?
i don't use marijuana or heroin or coke or pretty
nearly any other illegal drug. but i sure as
hell wish they were *ALL* legal and regulated.
i'd *love* to be able to walk in to my
neighbourhood chemist and pay tens of thousands
of times more than the production cost (say $1)
for a hit of acid - i'd know how strong it was
going to be and, even more importantly, i'd know
that it was actually lysergic acid diethylamide
rather than some unknown amphetamine-derivative:
lsd is fine for my high blood pressure problem,
but amphetamines can be extremely dangerous for
me.
hell, i'd pay $5 or even $10 for that.
and if i ever wanted to experiment with other
drugs, i'd much rather be able to buy them from
a legal, regulated source where i'd know exactly
what drug i was purchasing and exactly what dosage
it was.
both are unstopable and inevitable
the main difference is that drug crimes have
property seisure laws in their favor which
provides the turely proactive vice squad with
the ability to self-fund.
if computer crimes were handeled in the same
manner, you can be damned sure that your local
police department will spin-up technically on
what it takes to track down computer criminals
now, for the kicker... of course you're never
going to get rid of drug use; however, the problem
can be managed in a scalable way as long as
enforcement is allowed to self-fund off the fat
of the land (so to speak). the same could be
true for computer crime.
A couple of personal observations:
Most drug dealers are so fscking stupid that they
deserve to be in jail. Go short out your motorola
and put in in diag-mode, scan on some of the cells
where you might expect drug trafficing to be
taking place. Any detective on his donut break
can kank the stupider drug dealers without
breaking a sweat. They fscking tell you when
and where they're going to be and how much they'll
have with'em on their cell phones! How fscking
hard can that be?
In the USA's current state, more of the population
should probably be incarserated. There's a lot of
shit on the streets because there isn't enough
room for them in jail.
When property seisure laws took effect, pot should
have been made legal as a fair trade of liberty
for liberty. Though I'm a non-user, I'm quite
convienced that pot is less harmfull than most
legal drugs (over the counter, prescription or
age restricted). I'd espically rather be around
a pot-head than a drunk, at a party or on the
street.
Whenever vice squads go public with a bust and
dollar figure are placed upon the street value,
I believe they should also have to disclose the
amount of money recovered via property seisure.
...and of course, this *is* the country with a
reformed crackhead as its' president. God Bless
fscking America, Land of the Ironic Double
Standard(tm)!
I'm sorry, but you need to get your facts straight. In Belgium and in the UK cannabis is certainly NOT legal. In The Netherlands (where I live), cannabis is legal, however you are only allowed to have 5 grams with you, if you have more they see you as a dealer (and thus you can get arrested, it's only legal to sell cannabis in coffeshops).
:)).
:)
/. account - i normally never post on /. but i just had to comment on this - if you want to comment on this privatly send a mail to ti@liquidxtc.nl )
As a matter of fact, in belgium (don't know about the UK), they are still very hypocrit about drugs. I attended a big rave in Belgium a few months ago, and went there by train. About 1 minute after we passed the Belgium borders, belgium police started picking out people in the train, and were body checking random people for drugs. (And whoever had any drugs at all with him, could come with the police to the police station).
The funny thing about this all was, that when we finally where at the rave in Belgium, A LOT of people where using drugs. In a bad way. I never saw so many 'going bad' on drugs (and now I'm mainly talking about xtc/mdma/speed). Seems that another disadvantage of drugs being illegal is that the quality of the drugs also get worse (xtc/mdma is not legal in The Netherlands, however it's easy to get it, and the quality is good -- know your dealer
However I indeed think a lot of countries should radically change their drugs policies. I've got a respectable job, and al that, and just sometimes I use cannabis, or use some xtc. Just for my pleasure. And I know about alot of other collegues that do so aswell. Aslong as you can control yourself, it's ok to do it, IMHO.
Handle it like alcoholics. Use it with care. Don't use drugs and drive. Don't use drugs when you're feeling down. Use them when you feel like it.
End off off-topic preach about my view on drugs
(p.s. I'm posting this AC as i do not have/need a
Where you read "we all HAVE to agree" (which is not what the poster said in the first place) try substituting "we all need to agree on a mutually-acceptable, if not personally optimal, compromise."
Since when did we all need to agree on anything?
My point in this is that we -- humankind -- cannot and will not agree on such issues as this. Better not to try to come to a societal decision (and let individuals think for themselves) than come to a group decision which infringes on individual liberties -- which any group decision, when enforced upon all individuals (including those who did not agree), will do.
Is it the libertarian position that drug users should be imprisoned?
Of course not. But I don't think any sort of government-enacted compromise (effectively what you're supporting) is necessary or appropriate.
I'll pay via the emergency room costs and crime, thanks. Or, rather, (ideally) those using the emergency room services (or their insurance companies) will pay for them. Presuming that law enforcement is done effectively, those commiting crimes will pay for them as well. Use of heroin will, like smoking, be just another thing that jacks up one's insurance rates. As for the crime, I'll deal with it -- after all, it certainly won't be worse than right now (when heroin is relatively expensive), and right now it's not that bad.
If no other reasonable solution is available and some level of public costs is found to be entirely unavoidable, heroin can be taxed (as tobacco is now) to pay for the costs created by its use, likely without raising its end price above its current level. The point is that the folks who pay for the results of their action should be the people who chose to take the action -- the heroin users -- and not the public as a whole.
We can come to a compromise involving the amount of and kind of services to provide without infringing on anyone's liberties.
I don't like offering government-funded "free clinics" or other such public services, the simple reason for which is that they aren't free, and indeed that they're paid for involuntarily. Needless to say, these objections don't apply to privately funded charities, private clinics and the like.
In short, the reason I prefer a hands-off position is that I'd rather that my rights be infringed by my fellow man (eg. the thief depriving me of my property without my approval) rather than by my government (well, once again, depriving me of my property). The first of these is much easier to stop; the latter is rarely even recognized as wrong.
[btw, I usually don't take quite this extreme a position -- but It's Late And I'm Tired].
... because it's profitable. Not just for the drug dealers but for those waging the "war". Look how much money is being thrown at "fighting" this "war". No doubt 1/3 to 1/2 the budget of any state or local law enforcement agency is justified by the "drug war". Don't forget forfeiture. That's been highly profitable for law enforcement. Then there's the orgy of prison building and the dizzying incarceration rates that have turned the US into a defacto garrison state. Tens of thousands of federal, state and local bureaucrats whose positions exist because of "drug war" money are firmly entrenched.
Does anyone else see a conflict of interest here? If the "drug war" is ever won, that would seem to obviate the need for all this outlay of funding. This is the why the "drug war" is inherently corruptive. It has corrupted many levels of our government. It has corrupted virtually all law enforcement agencies. To the extent our military has become involved, it has become corrupted. They are all addicted to this "drug war" funding and have a vested interest in keeping the "war" going.
I am not optimistic about the prospect of this "war" ending. There are too many people making lots of money off of it.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
Okay, lets say that all drugs were legalized. Do you think the current distribution scheme is just going to go away?
Seen many bootleggers recently?
When Prohibition ended, the illegal alcohol trade essentially disappeared. There's no reason to believe anything different would happen for currently illegal drugs.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Wake up to what? What happens on your street is not my concern. What happens in my house is not your concern. I'll pick up the trash on my (public) street and holler at the next door kid when his 'music' intrudes past my walls. As for murders and such on the street, it is your responsibility to clean it up on your street. Unless you're a renter, and then you can move....
Amen!
While it is true that kids ARE impressionable I never started smoking cannibas until I was 21 years old. I was always around it, some of my frineds always smoked it. I tried it here and there, but it just didn't do anything for me. When I got into my senior year of college I began to feel a lot of stress. Classes were harder, I had to worry about leaving the educational institution, the only way of life I've known since I was 5. I found that it creates a wonderful stress releaf, and allows me to relax at night after all my work is done. No, I don't NEED it to relax, but it allows me to leave school at school and forget my stresses. And another note, go to any high school in the United States and ask kids what's easier to get, marijuana or beer? What do you think you will hear? Marijuana can be bought out of people's homes, out of their cars, at school, anywhere where anyone has quantity they want to give up in exchange for cash. Due to government regulation The only place you'll find alchahol is at a store where they will certainly NOT sell to underagers. Alchahol was a real pain to get in high school. We generally only got it when someone's older brother was home from college.
-- Object known as a camera. Vintage uncertain, origin unknown. - Twilight Zone
Long story... now a simple question: Who do I turn to in this clear case of being fucked over?
Maybe you should talk to a lawyer. Maybe you're well and truly screwed -- a lawyer can tell you. If you've got a case, a lawyer can tell you that, too.
Make me aerodynamic in the evening air
Do you have any PROOF??????
You can't, at least in British Columbia, brew your own beer and *sell* it, Ditto for wine and, I'm sure, for tobacco. The no-selling rule works for some other countries/provinces/states, where possession of personal amounts is not prosecuted, but sale remains illegal.
As for driving, we need something that reduces the amount of vehicular manslaughter that's happening on our roads -- and, in my opinion, *EVERY* so-called accident with a fatality is out-and-out murder-through-carelessness or -idiocy. Let's start treating it as murder.
I think reaction time tests are a fine idea. Let's get the sleepy-headed drivers and addled seniors off the roads. But let's also back it up with some drug testing, to really discourage people from driving drugged. After all, we don't want people to think that a little coke to tweak the reflexes is a good idea!
[Footnote: You might think you're a better driver when stoned, when the reality is that you're a better driver when you relax. You don't need a drug to do that: you need the common-sense to recognize that you choose your attitude. Mellow out. Calm down. Recognize that in the long run, it's all just small shit. It'll save your life, if not from a traffic accident, then from stress-induced heart failure or ulcers!]
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I simply don't have the strength to rant about this topic again, so I'll let others do it for me. The only thing I would do is point out a possible solution. The only way to change the system is to CHANGE the system. Vote Libertarian. At least they have the common decency to spell out how they really feel about every issue under the sun. Read the War on Drugs policy :)
I can't believe I'm actually advocating a political party... and on slashdot no less... I must be mad. Oh well, Monday is a good day to be mad.
Hell is being intelligent in a world full of idiots.
I am going to go on a short rant about why I
disagree with the critics and some other people, who hype this up as a good movie. So without further adue, here is my rant...
Let me start off by saying that I have seen a lot of movies, and I dont usually go in for hollywood bullshit. That doesnt make my opinion any more valid than anyone elses, but I keep my movie collection to mostly Hong Kong Cinema because most of it is complete bullshit and they dont try to hide it. It is fantasy. Anyway, onto this pile of beatle dung...
I wont bore you with the details of what this movie is all about. In general, the idea, I think, was to cover different angles of the modern drug smuggling trade. While perhaps a worthwile endeavour, there was absolutely no story in it. I have a major problem with the director of this movie, Steven Soderbergh. Aparently he thinks that he is the non-union mexican equivalent of Oliver Stone who should be keel-hauled or something. I mean, Out of Sight was great, but this? It may play well to art critics but I swear, if I see one more of those movies where the director tries to build tention by doing massive close-ups of the eyes and sweaty face, as well as attempt to build drama by using a shaky camera with different color filters, I will personally shove the director into the ass of a female alpaca in heat and then ship them to the alpaca mating colony on an island off Tiera Del Fuego, which incidentily is where I sent John Stienbeck when he
pissed me off...
Anywho... It is sufficient to say that this is one of those movies. It is not that this was bad or anything, but I sat through Dracula 2000, and this movie, "Traffic" was worse. A 2.5 hour epic of drug lectures, family values and healing, and drug cartels that you never see do anything interesting. To top it off, the different story lines almost come together, but not quite. The investigators in this movie couldnt make a case if they had a billboard with the answer strapped to the cieling of their bedroom. Oh yeah, and dont let me forget the innocent wealthy Soccer Mom turned drug overlord played by Catherine Zeta-Jones.
Before this movie, I never realized that everything in Washington DC has a blue tint, everything in Mexico has a yellow tint, and
everything else is normal. Oh... Wait... They dont have tints. WOW. Now, Im not entirely certain why I havent heard this sort of review anywhere else. The people I saw it with felt the same, as well as most of the people walking out of the theater.
I suppose that the state and politics of the "War on Drugs" was appropriately shown, when they werent focusing on one family problem or another. Unfortunately, that can be better done with a documentary. I learned absolutely nothing from this movie, and I doubt anyone else did either. It was about as entertaining as a staring contest with the mexican staring frog of southern Sri Lanka. The characters lacked definition which is a shame, because some of their performances were actually good, like Benicio Del Toro whom I cant wait to see in Snatch.
None of this explains to me why critics like it and why the people on IMDB gave it an 8.7 (last I looked). I read their comments and it seems like they were watching the same movie but pulled something completely different out of it, something that wasnt the presuasive urge to vomit. So in short, I dont recommend this movie as it happens to suck. Oh well.
Can this please be modded up, as the urls are informative. Danke.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
It's a damn shame that he was trying to follow California's law on growing medical marijuana, and the Fed's threw him in jail and effectively killed him by not giving him his AIDS treatments on their necessary schedule.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Not if you're doing your job and getting them put away for real crimes.
On the other hand, the drug users you fill the prisons with from your street are keeping me from being able to keep the murderers from my street in prison and away from the rest of us.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Go see what drugs are all about, eh? What, mobs, high prices, overdoses, etc.?
Well, here's some news for you, buddy...every single one of those is caused by the WoD. Now, admittedly, not all overdoses are because of drugs being laced, but most are...and if drugs were legal, you'd know exactly what you were getting...cause you'd be getting it from a pharmacy instead of a street dealer. Just like with the prohibition in the '20s and '30s, the drug mafia wouldn't exist if drugs were legal...just like Al Capone wouldn't have existed if alcohol had been legal at the time.
So now, why don't you give some facts, instead of just spewing out all that DARE propoganda, you stupid fuck.
My plan is to pimp before they realize I'm a jackass. Hit 'em hard and fast.
Well, first of all, weed has no known side effects except for being bad for the lungs...and that's only if you smoke it (hell, any smoke going into your lungs can't be GOOD for them).
Second of all, the government should not be allowed to regulate what we put in our bodies. It's like making suicide illegal...what's the point? It's my body, so it's a victimless crime...and if you commit a crime while on a drug, ok, so they put you in rehab, and then you get put in jail for that crime. Why should you have your life taken away from you for doing something you find pleasureful, that is in no way harming anyone else?
Prohibition doesn't work, plain and simple. It didn't work in the '20s and '30s, and it doesn't work today. Do you have any idea how much easier it is for minors to get marijuana than it is for me to get alcohol? It's insane!
My plan is to pimp before they realize I'm a jackass. Hit 'em hard and fast.
Er, that should be "Do you have any idea how much easier it is for minors to get marijuana than it is for them to get alcohol? It's insane!" (Well, I guess me would work too...after all, i'm still a minor).
My plan is to pimp before they realize I'm a jackass. Hit 'em hard and fast.
Uh, the last time someone I know was busted for smoking up was over christmas vacation, a couple weeks ago. There have been at least 5 others that I know of in the last year, and those are just in my grade (there are 90 kids in my grade).
My plan is to pimp before they realize I'm a jackass. Hit 'em hard and fast.
Sorry, buddy, but the kids *already* have access to that shit. The solution isn't to make it harder for them to get it: that's been tried and has failed.
Amen to that...it's actually easier for me and my friends to get weed than alcohol. That's right...it's easier to get the illegal drug, than the legal -- and regulated -- one. Wanna know why? It's because you can buy alcohol in a store, so there are no kids making alcohol at home...no "alcohol dealers" who don't care who they sell to...because the people with the knowledge and resources to do it don't need to...because they're old enough to buy it in a store.
My plan is to pimp before they realize I'm a jackass. Hit 'em hard and fast.
I'm confused - I though a post had to contain "insight" to be marked "Insightful"? Or is it opposite day again in moderator-land?
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Well, sure, because they stopped shooting people in the head :) Seriously, if you consistently maintain the death penalty for a crime, then of course the rate of occurrence of that crime will decrease and stay fairly low. If you let up the pressure, drug use will creep back up. As far I know, nobody's really tried a long-term policy of shooting drug addicts in the head, so we really don't know that such a policy wouldn't be successful. That's not the current policy in China, I imagine; it was just employed when the Communists first got into power.
Not that I'm advocating such a plan, I'm just pointing out that you can't say it doesn't work if it wasn't tried consistently.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Turn to the legislative body that irresponsibly created this "Joint Responsibility" clause. If they do not correct their oversight by fixing the law, then turn to whoever gives them their power, whoever they are accountable to. If they are accountable to no one (which is likely the case), then there is little hope for you, but taking it to the public wouldn't hurt.
You're not going to get sympathy from the judge, because it is quite probable that you really were in violation of the rules, and that's all the judge cares about. (Next time, bring your x-ray specs!)
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
And it's not even allowed to be prescribed - wheras heroin and other Class A drugs are.
Before reading it, I believed that "light" drugs, like marijuana should be decriminalized, while "hard" drugs should remain illegal. The book makes an excellent argument as to why they should just *all* be legalized, and truly shows the absurdity of the anti-drug propaganda.
Oh, and a special note for our RIAA/MPAA friends. I read the book online, but liked it so much I *bought* a copy of it... Hmm, kinda like all those CDs I bought cause I first heard the groups on Napster...
-Wintermute
Alcohol is a drug too. Should be relive that crap!!!!!
Accidents and OD's are god's way of sorting out stupid people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have to say this is one of the more insightful comments I have ever seen on slashdot in 4 or so years.
:)brP
give this guy a 5. I see stupid jokes with high mods all the time, I know there are moderators out there with votes to kill.
EOM
When you think you can get public support for a bill providing a prison sentence for spitting on the sidewalk, then we can talk about implementing the "Asian approach".
--
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Drugs cause problems. Prohibition makes those problems worse.
--
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Last night Bill had a little segment on the WOD. I watched him battle it out with a guy who was for drug reform and legalization.
It seemed that Bill was caught up on the fact that drugs are a social thing and usually done to get high with friends. Sure drugs destroy lives. But so do car crashes. This image of a crack-out junkie coming to rob you is only here because we prohibit drug use. There wouldnt really be many junkies out there who rob to get money for drugs. If drugs were regulated the junkie could get his drugs at a decent price and screw his own life up as he wishes. If he starts getting violent then he should be arrested. If he causes harm to property he should go to jail. We should not, however, put people in jail b/c they use drugs. Maybe we should try to get them to go to rehab.
Bill did make many good points, and he does on his website. It's too bad he fails to understand that no one is ever going to be able to control millions of americans who choose to use illegal drugs. Sure we can't control it or stop it but we can fight it, right? Wrong! We need to educate people about drugs with facts, not government propaganda and violence. That just breeds more violence and more corruption and more problems.
I found his last point before he stopped the show to be very very funny. He said "If I were the drug czar we'd have no drug problems in two years!"
My god, what a pathetic man. Drugs are here to stay aslong as there is a demand for them. Too bad he can't get this through his thick skull.
So I can't brew my own beer in BC. What is their reasoning behind that... I'd like to know if you know.
Now maybe I have a hot temper, but if weed helps me drive better then why the fuck can't i use it? Give me just one good example as to why if pot helps me relax and perform better while driving I should not be allowed to do it? Driving should be based on performance... not your state of mind!
Even if people start thinking they should use some coke so they don't get pulled over for being tired who cares? Well I don't care that's their choice... so long as they can keep control of the car and perform well under the influence.
And yea, I have tried to calm a bit while driving... it's just hard to do. I duno, maybe it's like clinical depression. You can't tell someone to get better and be happy. They need some type of drug to make them that way. But of course it is ok when a child is hyper... he just gets some ridilin. Cheers.
yea, we're all being tracked and should shortly have our front doors rammed in so we can be arrested :) Only in America, baby!
Have you seen this movie? Maybe it will show you why our WOD is stupid.
And prozac is a mental cruch. It's just an accepted one. As well as too many other legal drugs.
Who are you tell me what I can and cannot do in my free time?
If I choose to decide to take 10 hits of acid and go for a long drive and I wind up killing someone then I should be in jail.
I should not be in jail for using drugs unless I cause a violent crime, damage property, etc.
To comment on this "non-direct" crap... You don't die directly from the drugs or indirectly! You die b/c a decision was made to take a drugs and go drive. You are dead b/c someone was stupid. Well if stupid people cause all these deaths why don't we start testing people on how stupid they are and put them in jail? That would solve the problem, huh? Get this through your head -- SHIT HAPPENS no matter what... that's life. Don't threaten my private life b/c your brother died from some junkie driving too fast b/c he had to go suck some dick for crack b/c of an addiction(sickness). If he had means to get drugs legally he wouldn't need to go out sucking dick anyways. Or he could just go to rehab to get some help.
You are using the logic that b/c drugs cause deaths or accidents directly or indirectly then they should be illegal. So by that logic cars, guns, sex, eating, smoking, drinking, etc etc etc LIVING...should be illegal. I thought most people already learned from alcohol prohibition. I guess most have not.
People abuse their driver's licesnes don't they? People get them suspended and don't care. They just drive to work the next day like nothing happened.
I think you are missing the point. Before the 20's there were similar problems with alcohol as there are today. People were getting violent from alcohol, causing accidents, tearing up families, etc. Then came along prohibition. They said "ok, lets solve the problem by banning alcohol." Well, shit hit the fan and for the time that it was prohibited more damage was done than good. That is the point with our drug war. More damage is currently being done, and more lives are being ruined, and more people are being robbed in our current state.
We need to realize that all drugs currently listed as illegal are NOT evil dangerous go shoot your neighbor b/c im high type of drugs. Go do some research on medical marijuana. Drugs can be used to explore the mind, to relax, to help sick people. It should be my right to put what I want into MY body aslong as I am not hurting anyonse else.
I agree, violent drug offenders need to be behind bars. Imagine this as hard as it may be... you probably know a few drug users in your life. You probably don't know who they are b/c they hide it well enough. And who does it harm, no one but the user--if that even.
How about this. Since you must agree that driver's licenses are a good thing when driving. Perhaps we need this type of thing for drug use. A license to use drugs. You'll go to a class that educates on proper use and risks. Maybe even a class that tries to get you to not use them, but still gives facts and education. Then once you have your license you can go buy drugs legally. If you don't have a license you can't buy any. If you miss-use drugs or get caught selling you get a fine or a suspension on your license or even rehab. But like I pointed out earlier, people will still drive with or without a license... and the same would hold true in this scenario. But! This would still be better than our current situation. Instead of shooting people up and tearing apart more lives than drugs do in the first place, we need to bring a better social plan for drugs to the table. We need to look at alternatives b/c lives are being ruined day by day.
Substance abuse and addiction is not a problem that is going to go away by putting people in a jail. What, do you think there are no drugs in jail? Don't be so blind. If there is a demand there will be a supply. Addiction needs to be treated as an addiction not as a crime.
I think your statement that most people cannot drink responsibly is untrue. Plus, what do you consider responsible? Going out drinking and not killing or harming anyone? I also think that the majority of people use drugs resoponsibly... or atleast don't harm others while using. You dwell on the bad aspects, the things you only know. Like I said earlier, many people use drugs and no one is the wiser. How can we say that all drug users are bad? We can't and shouldn't. People drive around recreationally all the time. We don't try to stop them b/c they may get into an accident and kill someone. The governement, you, or I cannot control a majority of what goes on in this world. It is full of beings that do what they want when they want... for the most part. Drugs are here to stay, death is here to stay, accidents are here to stay. Trying to control every aspect of this world is insane. Yes, we can try to prevent... but the WOD is NOT preventing anything but legal use of substances. People can get drugs easier than they ever have.
And you know what's sad? The war on drug is just a billion dollar industry that breeds violence and corruption. By now the war on drugs is so messed up that I don't think the gov'ment even cares about helping drug users anymore. Politicians just need to keep this thing going to save jobs and to take bribes and the like. They don't care if some normal guy who lives his life without harming another person gets busted for drugs... drugs are bad mmmkay, put him in jail he's bad. Yet he never harmed a person in his life. It's all about the power and the money. The american public needs to wake up and dispose of all the government propaganda about how drugs are so evil. This WOD needs to stop!
Good point. I agree. Anyone with a drug license would probably be discriminated against even though they shouldn't be.
The mob may be around, but they no longer go around shooting eachother over bad alcohol deals like they did when alcohol was prohibited. If we decriminalized drugs and the government regulated them why would the mobs need to deal drugs? They wouldn't! Plus the mob does many other illegal things. The mob isn't here because of the WOD they just help compound the problems with the WOD.
Sure he realizes that the WOD is not helping, I give him that. Drugs can be addictive, we should treat this as an illness, not a criminal activity.
Let me make a point...
The fact is money affects everyone. 99% of crime can be traced back to money related issues. About 99% of all physcial abuse is due to money problems. The only reason I go to work everyday is because of money. Every business man trying to make a buck is addicted to money and should be jailed b/c money causes social problems.
Get the point?
i'll 2nd that
> I've looked at alcohol prohibition. Alcohol was legal in this country to begin with. The genie was out of the bottle, and we tried to stuff it back in.
So what are you saying? Drugs have always been illegal or didnt exist before 1970? The genie was always in the bottle before drugs were illegal? There was no problem in the first place? Well if there wasn't a problem then why did they start a WOD? Obviously there was a problem... obviously they wanted to solve this problem... obviously with drug statistics as they are this solution to our problem isn't helping. Not only does it help little, but it also takes away personal freedoms. The WOD destroys more lifes than drugs do. It breeds corruption and violence.
> Simple facts of life: Intoxication is a hazard to society. Period. End of story. Intoxication serves no purpose, and it puts other lives in danger.
You STILL try to base your whole argument on the assumption that intoxication has no positive purpose in society. It's not a simple fact of life that intoxication or drugs are a hazard to society. You are being too simplistic. Maybe it's a fact of YOUR life. Maybe you can't see any positive influence, but if I'm not harming anyone but myself. I have the right to do what I want! Once I harm "society" then you may jail me for my crime. Plus, there are many other hazards to society that are not illegal.
> Smoking affects only one individual, with the exception of secondhand smoke. Smoking does not intoxicate a person. If you want to die of cancer, that's up to you.
Smoking pot, tripping, etc. when done at my home in private affects only me. Not society. What part of this can't you understand? I don't believe you have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do in the privacy of my home... thank you. This is not about drugs, this is about personal freedom and choice. You even said "If you want to die of cancer, that's up to you." Well, if I want to sit at home and do drugs that's up to me... not you or society.
>You are not given any presonal liberties that hurt other people. I am not given the right to fire a gun into the air in a crowded neighbhoorohod.
Legalizing drugs is not giving anyone a personal liberty to hurt people. If drugs were legalized there should be a law against public intoxication... kind of like there is now. It seems like in your brain you have this idea that once someone becomes intoxicated they are going to damage society or some other person. Not every one who uses drugs is a freaked out junkie looking to shoot someone. Please, understand this.
> If you don't beleive in the damage of intoxication, then re-read my original post. The statistics are there. I don't beleive in collateral damage.
If you dont believe in collateral damage I bet you don't eat any meat, drive any cars, drink any alcohol, buy any products that through manufacturing cause pollution...etc etc. Get you head out of your ass! Just because YOU(or the government) can't find a positive reason for using drugs doesnt mean you(or the government) can take away the right for me to put what I want in my body in the privacy of my own home.
What? Apples n Oranges? My point was that anything and everything has a bad side and a good side. Death... as evil as it may be is a good thing too. Religion... as good as people may think it to be has its bad sides to it. We can't take away personal freedoms b/c someone gets hurt every once in a while. Life happens, shit happens. You base your whole arguement on the assumption that drugs are all bad for society unless used for medicinal reasons. There are a lot of things that have no benefit to society that aren't illegal. What kind of positive things happen to society b/c of smokers? Drinkers? Should we go back to banning alcohol?
Now let me ask you... how do you know drugs serve no practical purpose in society? Because of horror stories you've heard or all the government propaganda? I believe LSD provides a very practical purpose. Exploration. Maybe you are sold on what you beleive to be true, but I'd like to explore my mind and how I react to certain chemicals. I also believe pot provides a practical purpose. Stress reduction. How many stoners are out looking for fights on the town or showing off their car like all these drunk dumbasses? Ecstacy can be practical b/c it can show you love and affection. They use to prescibe MDMA(ecstacy) as medicine... which you kind of touched on a bit. Have you ever heard of the late comedian Bill Hicks? He said something like... "If you don't think drugs have done any good in your life, why don't you go home and burn all the records and cd's that have enhanced your life over the years... cuz you know what?? reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeealllll fuckin high on drugs" Now maybe you don't listen to music, or maybe you don't listen to music that has influenced you in some good way. Hell maybe you listen to Michael Bolton, he's probably a coke head anyway. The point is that drugs are bad but can be good, all you've heard over your lifetime is how bad drugs are. Get a clue! Just because they don't serve your needs or this society's doesnt mean I can't do them in the privacy of my own home. Drugs have touched your life in more ways than one, some good, some bad. You probably don't even know all the countless times drugs have affected you.
Now I haven't heard of a heroin user breaking out a needle to loosen up either. You know why? Because it is illegal to use heroin. Why in the hell would any heroin addict who uses it recreationally to chill out call his local news so they can spread the story around so that everyone knows he's doing it just to prove to you that there are people in this world who can use drugs responsibly? All of these ill side-effects get magnified because of the WOD. Crime, poverty, addiction, etc etc.
The same exact thing happened when alcohol was prohibited... We had problems in society caused by alcohol. So we banned alcohol. The problems still exsisted and got even worse in most cases. I bet it even helped some people. Finally they came to the realization that prohibition is causing more harm than good and ended it. Do you understand that? If not then you should start reading some history on drug laws and why they were even made laws in the first place. Some of it may even surprise you. Especially b/c you like to think we should ban things that hurt society or have no positive influences. The politics that went into making hemp illegal was all about money. All the bad evil stuff you hear was just used to make the public support the ban. I'm sure you've heard of the company who faught for hemp prohibition. Go do some research.
And by legalization we aren't advocating kids use drugs. We aren't telling anyone to use drugs. Do we as a society advocate smoking and drinking? Not really. Atleast not to kids. I would like to see an industry regulated somewhat like alcohol and tobacco. I consider smoking bad, I don't smoke, but I am not going to ask everyone to stop smoking b/c my mom got killed by some jackass trying to light a cig in his car and lost control of his vehicle. That was his stupid ass mistake, and it's unfortunate that someone lost their life but society cannot control this ever, it's a part of life! And when you try to control it with a war on whatever... well I think Ive made my point... look at alcohol prohibition if you still fail to see it.
I agree, reaction time may be slower as well as decision making. I also would agree that driving needs higher standards. I would suggest a reaction type test or impairment test be done. You have to pass it 2 out of 3 times or something. If you are driving badly, you need to pass this test or you are too tired, too stoned, too whatever to drive. You should be off the road. But drugs are not the root cause of most of the traffic accidents around. It's stupidity and carelessness... like you said. It's hard for humans to take the blame. So we blame it on drugs/cell phones/etc. The drugs/cell phones aren't what is causing the car crashes, it's the stupid people using them that cause these so called "accidents."
:). Driving stoned I do no more than 5 over the limit, never cut anyone off, tend to follow cars with a fair amount of distance between them and me. I also don't get road rage. Again, this is just personal and how it works for me. Of course there are people out there who shouldn't drive while stoned. I wouldnt suggest driving stoned but I wouldnt make a law that you can't. I'd make a law that says if you can't pass this standardized reaction/impairement test then you are not legal to drive.
:)
This is just personal for me, but I'm sure it's true for many other people too. When I'm not high and I drive I tend to go atleast 10-15 over the speed limit and weave in and out of lanes to get around cars b/c I want to get off the road and home or whereever. Plus I tend to get bad road rage
Again, I agree that we need to have government regulated drug shops or some type of regulation. However, I don't agree with not allowing your own cultivation. People can grow tobacco. Hell, and sharing it with your friends isn't a big deal. Why can't I grow a little pot and share it? Same with alcohol. By no means am I saying we shouldn't have regulation.
And yes, decriminalization is VERY important if we are going to try to control this problem. I think, if atleast we can agree on that then we are getting somewhere. Cheers.
"And the same can be done for drivers stoned, high or otherwise doped-up. And for drivers who are putting on their makeup, chatting on their cellphone or otherwise abusing their driving privileges."
Here is a well done study on driving under the influence of pot. I think we need to pull drivers over when they drive out of control. Not just because they are under the influence of some substance. At least not pot. It's been shown to actually make drivers drive more cautiously.
"Caught selling drugs on the street? Mandatory jail-time and a massive fine. Caught growing your own? Mandatory jail-time and fine."
I agree that if you are caught selling on the street there should at least be a fine. On the other hand if you are growing for your own personal use and consumption, or just to give to friends then you should be ok. People make their own beer all the time. We should be able to grow a plant that is naturally here on earth!
I think you've touched on some major points concering legalization or decriminalization, but I think it needs to be refined in a few places as I have pointed out above. Cheers.
If the War on Drugs is so absurd, why is the U.S.A. wasting millions of dollars on such a futile war?
Simple. Money and Power. This money being "wasted" is your(taxpayers) money not the governments. Why should they care if it's wasted they still get power and control.
I'd like to hope the WOD had good intentions by trying to help people. It's too bad it has turned into a big joke that the american public still supports b/c of constant propaganda. Drugs are bad... mmmkay!
Do some research, you will find that infact the government has been lying to you, and here is a study done in New Mexico recently that even tells us this. This study was commisioned by the govener of New Mexico. Cheers.
I've been sober with them some time. Majority of membership is Christian in this country, not all. There is no management.
The worst drug problem they would accept someone with is alchoholism. Incidentally, you also have to convert to christianity to get help, but that's another rant
I do not know what town Bastian lives in, but I do not want FUD to scare anyone away from seeking help. I am active with a few treatment facilities in my area (Detroit) and they invariably support the AA and NA programs. I know several agnostics, Jews, Muslims, and one Buddist that have found recover through a higher power, but not a Christian view of God.
I would like to point out that penicillin, though controlled, is legal. Perhapse some controlls would have to be placed on certain drugs, similar to controlls placed on alcohol and tobacco. One point mentioned in the movie remined me of my days in high school (small town in Texas); pot, heroin, cocain, and LSD were all more available than cigarettes and beer.
I do not agree that there will be significantly more addicts. Those who are interested in aquiring drugs already can. I could see a temporary spike in usage from those who believe everything legal is good and everything bad is illegal and opiates are terribly addictive.
I never became interested in narcotics. I used many illegal drugs when alcohol was not available. I went through the D.T.'s when I was 25 years old. I know several people who are addicted to heroin or crack cocaine that have also recovered. The legality of the action was never the issue.
In short, it may be best to say decriminalize all drugs. That looks at a group of chemicals that are currently considered criminal to possess or to use.
This movie sounds great to me. Does anybody know if and when it will be presented in Germany? What will it's title be?
Methadone's primary aid in getting off dope is that it completely eradicates physical withdrawl which is very uncomfortable (but, contrary to what you said in your post, never fatal
i have had friends that have said otherwise, hmmm. maybe it just feels at if, it is fatal...
the more i think about what they said, i would restate very uncomfortable, as FEELING as if it was fatal, or extremly uncomfortable.
nmarshall
The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..
nmarshall
The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..
--Colonel Burr 1783
MarijuanaNews
DRCNet
Smokedot
Now, please educate yourself, come back, and lets have a nice discussion.
"Avast! Prepare for the rodgering!" THWACK! "Arrr.. me nards.."
"This is the way it has always been and always will be." No, you apathetic lump of coal, it does NOT ALWAYS HAVE TO BE LIKE THIS.
Progress, scientific social and other, has a purpose: To find that which makes our lives better, and to avoid that which does not. Do you HONESTLY think that the blending of races and cultures that happens here in America could have happend during the Dark Ages?
Things ARE improving, albeit slowly. This is our fault. We can change it if we want it.
"Avast! Prepare for the rodgering!" THWACK! "Arrr.. me nards.."
Actually, a deal where farmers could grow a few acres of weed or coca and then sell it to the government for processing would be *great* for the farmers...Thing is, there'd probably have to be some kind of government regulation of potency/THC content.
Once again, I'm in basic agreement with JonKatz. Nice upgrates on the Katzbot, guys.
But I thought that one of the most important things about this movie is the way it deals with the addicts; Douglas says in his final speech that the "War on Drugs" is in many cases a war on family. *That* seemed to me to be the essence of the movie; drug addicts aren't criminals. They're exactly the same as alcoholics, or smokers, or shopaholics. What the War on Drugs has done, in addition to criminalizing the sale and traffic of drugs, is criminalize addiction, which is nothing more than a health problem.
Actually, it came in under Johnson and Nixon.
The Drug War is one of the last vestiges of institutional racism in our country. A black or hispanic kid with pot is something like seven times as likely to do jail time as a white kid with the same amount of pot.
It benefits the prison industry; people busted for drug possession - a nonviolent crime - do serious time for it.
It benefits politicians by allowing them to make sententious, self-aggrandizing statements about "cleaning up the streets." Never mind the fact that both major presidential candidates, Bush and Gore, did drugs; when a rich white kid does it, it's a "youthful indiscretion," or an "experiment." When a poor minority kid does it, it's seven years or more in jail.
I live in the Netherlands and my countries relatively relaxed views on drugs are already causing these side effects. No habitual strip-searches but I do think Dutch travellers are more carefully watched already.
Many of our neighboring countries (Germany, France) have protested against dugs policies. The French government coined the phrase 'Narco Etat' (sp?) (Drugs State).
I used to live in Rotterdam, which is visited by a lot of drugs tourists from France. This is very unpleasant because it creates a small industry of small time criminals who try to intercept anyone with French license plates and escort them to a drugs dealer for a cut of the action.
But that's nothing compared to all those drug starved Americans travelling to Amsterdam for the 'Coffee shops'.
Legalization is good (IMO) but let's do it all together, please...
Regards,
Xenna
[rambling rant warning! :> ]
;^) . That's what we geeks try a lot -- help people with their problems... so, I
Traffic (which I saw) tells it like it is -- the problem is not the drugs -- its the fact that, given the opportunity, people want to feel different. It just so happens that a million generations of plant evolution plopped certain molecules into their 'operating system' that just so happen interact with molecules in our bodies that make us feel different. Random code essentially. Looking at it this way it sure ain't the codes fault, and how can you blame the person who wants to run that code? When someone runs M$ windoze, do we lock them up? No, we try to help them with their problem
Ask Slashdot:
Is there something intrinsically 'nerdlike' that we as a community can start that attacks the problem we can see from this thread, in a unique way?
This is 2001 already and it is high time (pardon the pun) that we as geeks (technology-savants) try do more to make changes in our world.
Is that not our history and perhaps even destiny?
Computer 'jobs' like programming are all about creation, making something new that makes a difference (if only to the bottom line of that corporation you work for), using that 'secret-knowledge' to make the bits fly to make the world a better place.
Katz is always hinting at a "hidden power" that we as a community have because of the ability to look at things differently and generally be pretty open to ideas.
Obviously there has been a lot done to help the cause of 'The Truth' -- the very internet, web, browsers, servers, irc, etc. and all that have created a medium to disemenate the truth, but I have this feeling in the back of my mind that there are things that can be done that can be more pro-active. Something that would spawn bunches of OS projects.
Any ideas of 'something' that goes beyond regular activism, something only the geeks can even try.
A computer/technological approach to helping our society deal with the truth without fear. People are afraid of computers and we help them break down that fear... How can we help people not fear change?
p.s. I guess this all might just be a pipe dream!
Oliver's Law: Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
It's cost is certainly prohibitive as compared to other alternatives - as well as to it's former cost when there was a strong viable market in hemp goods. Should that market once again arise (and that requires much more production capability than exists today) prices will again fall to competitive levels.
Here's hoping that happens soon!
But it'll be a fairly calm one. Promise.
[Note to moderators: I am voluntarily relinquishing my +1 for this post. I KNOW it is offtopic.
Very few things bother me more (and I admit I'm making assumptions here; feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) than people in comfortable jobs at high salaries saying "poor people are lazy."
First, we need to define "poor." The poverty level for a family of four is something along the lines of $16K/year, IIRC, and for a single person it's around $9K. I am single, make considerably more than that, and still don't have all that much spare cash, though I by no means consider myself "poor."
I don't make lots of money, but I do have a comfy desk job. And people who do work that is more physically demanding than mine (moving heavy things or just plain old standing around all day like most cashier-type jobs require) generally get paid LESS than I do. I know what the usual next statement is here: "Well, they should get some skills and move up in the world!"
Perhaps so. But someone's got to work the checkouts and the assembly lines. Someone's got to move the heavy shit and clean the buildings. And while these people might not be the most intellectually-oriented or career-minded in the world, it is unfair IMHO to call them lazy when they are spending their days in much more physically active ways than I do. (And if you live in certain areas -- Ithaca, NY comes to mind -- you almost literally have the stereotypical "PhDs pumping gas" problem.)
And how much money are they making? Around here, probably $7ish an hour for most retail-type jobs, maybe $8 for factory work if they're lucky (and much of that is temp) -- unless they've been there for years and years, which most people my age (23) have not for obvious reasons.
Now, let's look at living expenses. Say there are two people with such jobs trying to support a family -- after taxes, maybe they've got $2000 a month. A two-bedroom apartment is going to run probably $500/month or higher around here, utility bills will be at least another $100 a month unless they have real good insulation or are very good about energy conservation, child care can run $100 per WEEK, cars eat lots of money and so does health insurance. And these people still have to eat!
There are subsidized programs out there to cut these expenses (I work for one), but a lot of people either don't know about them or don't want to use them because of the stigma. And if those that do make use of these programs are included in your "don't spend money to help the lazy", then you've got the wrong people.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
If you're traveling some place cold, you don't rely on one jacket; you wear several layers to keep you warm. The problem here is we have a single heavy jacket that isn't doing its job and that now has lots of holes worn in it.
First of all, "drugs" as a whole are not necessarily bad. And I do find it ironic that the same society that thinks marijuana should be illegal has no problems pushing Ritalin on little kids and various anti-depressants on women. "Drugs" are bad; "medicine" is good. And don't get me started on unnecessary prescrptions of Viagra....
Second, all drugs are not created equal, and they don't have all the same effects. They also don't have the same effects on different people.
Third, the urban legends surrounding drugs have gotten insane (there is NO STRYCHNINE in acid! NONE! There is no sane reason to add it, and the amounts that could make it onto your average blotter wouldn't affect you anyhow!) and are being quoted as fact to people who should know better. It's difficult to get truly accurate information about the REAL risks of drugs because of these bullshit scare stories.
Fourth, the violence and many of the other deaths associated with "drugs" are really a result of the drug trade. Dealers getting into turf wars. Police shooting someone (who may well have been innocent) in a drug bust, which just happened where I live. A heroin addict ODing because of variations in the purity of what's available. Crack cocaine, which exists for the same reason moonshine became popular during Prohibition. Et cetera. Also, people who commit crimes with victims often use their incapacitation by drugs as an excuse for something they wanted to do anyway.
So what should we do? Like I said, several layers:
1. Immediate decriminalization of small quantities of any substance for personal use. A vast reduction in sentencing for all other possession/sale charges.
2. Market research, if you want to call it that, followed by a sensible plan for selling recreational drugs legally (tax the hell out of 'em and you get rid of the debt, and they'll probably still be cheaper than they were illegally), and a plan for rehabilitation centers that cater to actual need -- not this "you've smoked pot four times, you must be an addict!" garbage.
3. The replacement, when possible, of drug testing with impairment testing. I don't give a damn whether someone is impaired by alcohol, legal medication, currently illegal drugs, or lack of sleep. That person is still a hazard behind the wheel!
4. Long-term studies of the real risks (and benefits) of use of various drugs. A sensible education program about same. No scare stories, but an honest assessment of the risks involved.
5. NO opportunities to use impairment by or addiction to drugs as an excuse for any other form of illegal behavior. You chose to take the drug, you abide the consequences of your actions under the influence of that drug. Also, selling to minors should still have consequences similar to selling tobacco or alcohol to minors, IMO. I know kids will get it anyway to some extent, though. But it's not like they don't now.
All very simple. Personal use of recreational substances should be legal; hurting other people or damaging property while under the influence, or stealing to get more, should NOT. Personal responsibility, folks.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
Responsible people are perfectly capable of using alcohol (or other drugs, at least those that aren't extremely addictive) responsibly.
If irresponsible people are not, that is the fault of their own irresponsibility (or perhaps, their own genetic predisposition to addiction). It is not the fault of the substance. And while people are dying from "alcohol related" incidents, those incidents are not the fault of the substance itself, they are the fault of the person who chose to misuse the substance.
As has been said multiple times on this thread, should we outlaw cars because people get killed in accidents, or outlaw the Internet because bomb-making advice and kiddie porn shows up in some places?
Trust me, I've dealt with my share of the results of irresponsible alcohol use. I've also seen many people use alcohol and other drugs responsibly: daily pot smokers graduating from college with honors, a fraternity (mine) organizing buses to and from a music festival so that people wouldn't drink and drive, and people who get obnoxious when drunk (who in my experience are usually only slightly less so when sober) thrown out of parties when they wouldn't stop propositioning someone who was clearly not interested.
If you think you can't or shouldn't drink, that's your decision. But don't force it on the rest of us. I drink -- on weekends and not every weekend. I have NEVER driven after more than two drinks in five hours, I have taken keys away from people, and I don't make a drunken nuisance of myself by overindulging and puking all over the place. I don't use any other drugs because it's not worth the potential consequences for me at this time, and because being in places where people are smoking large quantities of anything makes me phyiscally ill.
Yes, I know some people who have fucked their lives up, badly, with assistance from alcohol or other drugs, or who seem to be in the process of doing so. However, I can honestly say that every single one of them had problems as it was, and decided to drown or smoke away their problems rather than meeting them head-on. If it wasn't drugs it would be something else. There are always going to be fucked-up people in the world.
Put another way, would you outlaw milk because some people are lactose-intolerant?
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
Legislate widely but enforce selectively.
Is there a better description of the Drug War than that?
The two most common things in the Universe are dark matter and stupidity.
When the communists came to power they took all the drug addicts, pushers, users etc etc, lined them up in a square and shot them in the back of the head. Drug use dropped overnight.
Not that I'm advocating it, just noting the lengths people will go to when they are actually trying to WIN a war on drugs, rather than get lots of money to spend on FIGHTING a war on drugs.
Gav
"There's no such thing as data that can't be manipulated"
Every Government needs to motivate it's people in some way. Being lazy, people are best motivated by fear and/or hatred. Therefore a "sensible" Govt gives the people someone to hate and the economy booms.
See:
- Hitler in the 40's - Jews
- America in the 50's/60's/70's - Communism
- Russia (Same period) (The wife (Muscovite) has just made me change this to USSR (Maybe CCCP is better honey)) - Capitalist pig-dogs
- Tribalism, wherever it is - Other tribes
&c, &c, &cNow, the US Govt (And most of the rest of the world (I'm writing this in Amsterdam, so that's all right then) have hit on this wonderful combination: Drugs.
They have people to hate (Addicts AND Pushers), they have someone to fear (Pushers, drug lords, smacked out robbers killing granny for her pension etc) AND they pick a segment of the population that is (a) Less productive economically anyways, and (b) Too stoned to get all riled up and uppity.
You have to admit it's a pretty sweet deal...
Gav
"There's no such thing as data that can't be manipulated"
No, it's not legal in the UK. But you try and find someone that actually gets arrested for an amount that can even be justified as "I'm a really heavy smoker, gov"
Gav
"There's no such thing as data that can't be manipulated"
My solution is this: Mary Jane and Sex for Money are legal, but if you commit another crime like Robbery, Murder, Kidnapping, et cetera, then your punishment is doubled or tripled, i.e. dealt with very severely. You are ultimately responsible for your actions.
As I see it with the WoP and the WoD, you are paying for it anyway, you might as well eliminate artificial, inflated, and wasteful barriers to entry.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Hmm. . . youre right. There does seem to be a lot of myth surrounding methadone.
Does the long time methadone takes to leave the system really make quitting harder? I've been told with pot people claim it isn't addictive (it is, it's just that the withdrawal symptoms aren't the kinds of things people tend to notice) because the slow rate at which it leaves a person's system greatly reduces the withdrawal symptoms. Do you know of any truth to that?
Also, what methods are better than methadone at helping people to get off opiates? It seems like if methadone weren't that good nobody would use it.
Sir, it is obvious from your aimless rant that you know much more about drug issues than us. For some reason, though, you are keeping aloof. Pray, share your wisdom with us that we may all become wiser and, as you put it, "wake the fuck up."
Which reminds me. . . I read in a report to congress from the early 1990s the official estimate from the pentagon about what it would take to put a dent in the inflow of drugs. The number that came back was pretty damn big and was itemized into personell, tanks, supplies, funding, etc, and I can't remember all those numbers, but what really dumbfounded me was that the estimate for the force necessary to merely put a dent in the flow across the US-Mexico border alone was equal to about 1/3 of our entire military force.
It's hard to translate that ideal (which is a concept that I agree with in theory) into real life. 2 months ago I was attacked by a friend's roommate. He was stoned and on speed and decided that I was somehow involved in this conspiracy against me, and attacked me with a bottle and then a hickory stick. I have a scar on my right bicep that tells me that drugs don't always affect just the user of the drugs.
It's kind of like speed limits on roads. It's not that going faster always directly harms people, it's that when you're going fast it's easier to lose control and hurt someone.
Methadone treatment doesn't work that way, so it has to be handled pretty carefully to work. That's why any data on how methadone clinics work that is taken from an actual methadone clinic is useless - none of them have enough funding to correctly control the procedure of getting off junk.
I'm no expert, but here's my understanding: Basically, methadone is an opiate that doesn't get you high, so that you can take it on a regular schedule and it will take care of the physical craving while the addict can take care of all the psychological craving. Sort of a "divide-and-conquer" approach to getting off opiates. The other side to it is that sine the methadone dosages are controlled by doctors, the addict can get off the physical addiction in a manner that doesn't involve heroin fits, which can be fatal.
I had never heard of Naltrexone before. I had heard of drugs that make you sick when you drink, but it sounds like Naltrexone is a really great thing. I'm curious, though - it sounds like it would be less effective for type II alchoholism, which I always understood to be not at all related to the pleasure of drinking - do you know?
It's more commonplace with nurses. Doctors aren't too inclined to raid the drug cabinet since they are first in line when it comes to people who have to answer for missing drugs.
One popular scam is for the nurse to keep half of a dose for herself and mix the part that goes to the patient with saline solution to bring it up to volume, which is part of why morphine tends to be administered to patients via the IV machines where you push a button and get a little bit (provided you aren't pusing it too frequently.)
The biggest reason, though, which I find interesting, is that they do it that way instead of with shots because the patients tend to take less morphine when they have control over when they get it and how much they get, so there is less risk of addiction.
USDOJ drug and crime facts 94 says this:
"Overall, 10% of Federal prison inmates in 1991,
17% of State prison inmates in 1991, and 13% of
convicted jail inmates in 1989 said they committed
their offense to obtain money for drugs. Twenty
percent of Hispanic State prison inmates said they
committed their offense to get money for drugs,
compared to 15% of white inmates and 17% of black
inmates. Twenty-four percent of female inmates
said they committed their offense to get money to
buy drugs, compared to 16% of male inmates.
Inmates incarcerated for robbery, burglary,
larceny, and drug trafficking most often committed
their crime to obtain money for drugs. Inmates
who committed homicide, sexual assault, assault,
and public-order offenses were least likely to
commit their offense to obtain money for drugs."
Another USDOJ survey says this:
1993 High school seniors reporting they could
obtain drugs fairly easily or very easily
Marijuana 83.0%
Amphetamines 61.5
LSD 49.2
Cocaine powder 45.4
Barbiturates 44.5
Crack 43.6
Tranquilizers 41.1
Heroin 33.7
PCP 31.7
Crystal metham-
phetamine (ice) 26.6
Amyl and butyl
nitrates 25.9
--
So some questions are:
Will legalization increase the proportion of people to whom drugs are available? (yes)
Is the decrease in drug related violent crimes worth the increase in citizens doing stupid things to themselves? (normative - you the viewers at home get to answer)
Would the legalization of said drugs decrease their stigma and increase use? (yes)
What effects would increased positive drug meme's have on the american cultural locus? (normative)
Is liquor a good example of potential effects of cocaine/crack, etc? (no idea)
Since the United States is not a world unto itself, does anybody have any studies on the effects of legalization of any of these drugs on their respective nations - whether social or economic?
Does anyone really care or do they just view it as a sort of cultural selection akin to natural selection except it isn't about genes - more about class and social interactions. In other words - if someone wants to be a druggie and ruin their life on crack/cocaine we should just let them smear themselves out?
You're probably talking primarily about weed use - and I don't see it as that bad - but what about other drugs? Although, even weed, E, and some of our legalized drugs are just easy ways out and can and will still ruin lives.
See I'd like to make a decision one way or another, but I don't find the evidence thus far convincing either way.
"When I was in high school, drugs were easy to obtain. They were as close as the guy in the next locker. Alcohol was much harder to get. You had to stand in front of the liquor store and ask people coming in to buy it for you."
Yeah, but consider smokes. Outside of any high school there are tons of kids smoking. Even when it is legislated that anyone selling to minors is a criminal offence it still happens -- the kids just get poor fake ID's and the shop keepers look the other way and have an easy way out.
How would legalization of pot be different than this? If you made it harder for them to get it there, they would just get it elsewhere (i.e., from a friend or the designated drug dealer).
As for the unavailability of alcohol, I never really experienced that. At parties it's just there - and if we needed any someone a couple of years older would definitely provide.
Given, it's a lot more convenient to just get pot from a friend at school, but there's not much difference if kids have stores right across the street selling pot (which I assume would be the case, as they sell the current legalized drugs at several - in a particular case, 3 stores within several hundred yards).
"You must also consider human nature: We always want what we cannot have"
Well, I'd generally assumed it was more peer pressure than rebellion. Anyway, I found this while doing some web browsing:
"In 1976, the Dutch decriminalized marijuana consumption, although possession and small sales technically remained illegal. The level of use actually declined after decriminalization. Indeed marijuana use in the Netherlands is substantially lower than in countries waging a "war on drugs," including the United States and, at least until recently, Germany. Among Dutch youths aged 17--18, only 17.7% used marijuana at least once in their lifetimes, as opposed to 43.7% of Americans. Only 4.6% of the Dutch had used marijuana at least once in the past month, as opposed to 16.7% of the Americans. While indicating clearly that prohibitionist laws do not prevent the use of drugs, these statistics also tend to show that legalizing now-prohibited drugs, at least marijuana, does not inevitably cause an increase in use"
Obviously this quote is in favor of your argument. Of course this web page gave no sample size or methodology, so I have no idea how accurate this information is.
"I think that the government needs to learn that you cannot legislate morality [..]"
Um, partial slip up - I know this is out of context of what you're trying to say - but say what? The whole point of our legislative and judicial system is to uphold a moral standard. This goes all the way back to the smallest hunter gatherer societies.
But yes, back in context, I agree that victimless crimes don't deserve their current penalties - especially for relatively harmless drugs like marijuana.
However, I'm not so sure I agree when it comes to harder drugs. Teenagers are apt to do stupid things despite all their claims that they are just small adults; Legalized crack/cocaine is IMO readily available crack/cocaine. Further, the end of the war on drugs would mean increased domestic availability. Would funds diverted to drug education really help? In many problem areas they can't even teach how to properly read or write, let alone help kids understand the affects of drugs.
"It would also help if people were more informed about the true nature of these drugs. There is a lot of misinformation out there."
Agreed.
"Yet all I hear from our gov't. is that pot makes one slothful and stupid. I think this is bunk"
Well used in moderation I'm sure that pot can add to your well being. Unfortunately if you smoked up every day you would start running into problems. I've had weed several times, and while I could maintain my composure, everything was funny - and I certainly could not do anything intellectual.
Anyway, I made a point of excluding pot out of the argument in my original post. Can you make the same arguments for crack or lsd?
"There is a certain portion of the population that is just going to make stupid decisions and there is nothing anyone can do about it"
I'm still not sure I agree with this. Evincing helplessness makes it seem so black and white. According to the statistics I posted, not even half of students could (at least easily) get ahold of harder drugs. I believe that in that case it is a victory - even if the ultimate objective before enlightened assesment of reality was that it isn't possible.
That isn't to say that there aren't more effective methods that are morally acceptable to you.
Last question: What the hell do druggies mean when they say LSD or other drug "opens their mind"?
:-).
Doesn't LSD just give you sudden changes in mood/emotion and fucked up perception? I've never taken LSD so please tell
>>ex: states that have the death pentalty in the US have violent crime rates that easily dwarf the violent crime rates in states without it
erhm, that is assuming cause and effect that noone can prove. For all we know it is effect and cause (ie perhaps the people from that area are more disposed towards violence... this comes out in their crimes and their laws). Any numbers stating certainty which is cause and which is effect are generated by people with an agenda.
If you really wanted to prove which was cause and which was effect, you'd have to go back in time and watch the history of the area very carefully. And not just generally, but individually as well.
Accept that what we're doing now isn't working, and let's see if we can't do something about it. But assuming that capitol punishment is causing a higher rate of violent crimes is silly at best.
Failure is not an option.
Failure is not an option.
It comes bundled with Windows.
i don't know what you are complaining about. this is the way it always has been and always will be. all you can do is get the most money and power you can and use it to make yourself happy. because nothing else matter's, and there's no 'greater good' and we aren't headed to some sort utopian society where things like thinking for yourself and being intelligent are as important as looking good and being 'nice'.
well it's not a troll. i honestly believe it. as for progress, i don't know that i really believe that the point is to make things better for everybody. and the blending of culture in america is more give up your culture, join our non culture. the civil rights movement was a great thing but it's being fought tooth and nail, and i don't think its that farfetched that the government reverts to overtly racist and discriminatory policies.
This movie has nothing to do with geek culture at all. Hardly "News for Nerds". I don't read slashdot to see this kind of stuff, there are movie websites devoted entirely to the analysis and review of films. Slashdot is not one of them.... someone put a leash on JonKatz already.
Kspett
Kevin "Cash Money" Spett
Ignore your rights and they go away.
There was an excellent series on the "War on Drugs" in the Ottawa Citizen in the past year.e x. html
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/national/drugs/ind
Verbing wierds language --Calvin
I get so sick of hearing this Libertarian bullshit. I myself am Libertarian to an extent, but come on, be realistic.
So, how's this for you then. Along with all government subsidized drug treatment and other shit you don't want to pay for, lets get rid of prisons and stuff too, some people don't want to pay for them and shouldn't have too. So now we have a few hundred thousand violent criminals running loose, and one of em happens to pop a "cap" in your ass, leaving you completely paralyzed and unable to do anything. So, not only did you get shot because you didn't want to pay for something that was for the common good of every man, woman, and child in the country, but you also won't get any help from the government to help out your dumb paralyzed ass. In fact, you don't even have a hospital to go to because they closed those down too. But there is that privately run hospital that costs an arm and a leg, but you have great medical insurance so no big fucking deal... Oh wait, shit, your medical insurance company just went belly up, you have no way to pay for having that bullet removed from your ass. Now the doctors there a pissed because they're not going to get paid, so they drop you out on the sidewalk in front of the hospital.
Congratulations, you are paralyzed, have stitches in your ass that will never be removed because no one will help you(even your local church won't help you because, shit, your not a Catholic, and you wanted evolution to continue being taught in schools, well they say, that'll teach that heathen), you're freezing your ass off because it's winter and you have no coat, your fucking starving because, well, duh, you can't fucking move to put any food in your mouth, but, you DID stick to your Libertarian ideals which is the important thing.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
to tell people what they can and cannot do, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. This alone is reason enough to decriminalize drug use, consequences be damned, it's simply not ethical. People get killed all the time driving cars, playing sports, riding bikes, but that's their risk to take. If we criminalize drugs, why shouldn't we criminalize potato chips? Way more people eventually die of heart attacks and such because of a poor diet than drugs will ever kill. Smoking? Should that be criminalized? Mountain climbing? Skydiving? Bungee jumping? All these things are extremely dangerous, way more dangerous than drugs like marijuana, and there's no more reason to do them than marijuana, should they be illegal too? Should we even be allowed to make any decisions for ourselves?
Have you ever used alcohol? Have your friends or family? Should you/they be sent to prison, after all alcohol IS a harmful drug, much more harmful than marijuana. How can you justify marijuana criminalization while at the same time not supporting alcohol criminalization? Maybe I'm assuming too much, maybe you do support alcohol criminalization....
Stop pretending you know what's best for others.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Legalize drugs, sell them in drugstores (pun intended) and let IBM's OS/2 department market them.
Home Page
No, it's like demanding that chamomile tea be made legal to buy from the corner grocer. I don't know why you're dragging the NHS into it.
"I get me brain medications from th' National 'Ealth!"
Where you read "we all HAVE to agree" (which is not what the poster said in the first place) try substituting "we all need to agree on a mutually-acceptable, if not personally optimal, compromise." This is the nature of society. And name-calling ("groupthink") does not constitute a rebuttal.
What the hell are you disagreeing with, anyway? Is it the libertarian position that drug users should be imprisoned?
My point in this is that we -- humankind -- cannot and will not agree on such issues as this. Better not to try to come to a societal decision (and let individuals think for themselves) than come to a group decision which infringes on individual liberties
But leaving it up to individuals is a societal decision already. One which I happen to support, but I think there's a compelling group interest in having some level of treatment/services publically available, whether it's needle exchanges or methadone clinics or whatever. If we don't pay for those, we'll be paying in other ways -- emergency room costs, crime (a broke junkie will steal even if heroin is cheap and legal), etc. Or we keep it all criminalized and pay even more for all these prisons and court systems.
Those are the three choices. There's no ignoring the issue because there's no way of not paying for it. I'm for the first, you seem to be for the second. We can come to a compromise involving the amount of and kind of services to provide without infringing on anyone's liberties. The pro-criminalization folks... well, fuck 'em.
Saw two movies last weekend -- 'Requiem for a dream' and 'Traffic'. Both were about drugs and drug abuse, but Requiem was a far better piece of work in every comparative way.
Besides at almost 2 and a half hours, there were stretches where they could have cut stuff and no one would have noticed.
Traffic isn't bad, but Requiem is so much better.
I think I agree with you, if you are saying that the War on Drugs is a bad thing.
I saw this movie last night, and I didn't like it very much. I expected more substance, as in character not drugs. None of the characters ran too deep. The whole story was predictable. The acting was pretty good, except for micheal douglas' speech near the end--that was bad.
I suppose my problem might have been that I couldn't relate to anyone in the movie. Except the kids doing drugs, having meaningless conversations about society--that reminded me of college.
I thought it was slightly humorous having Steven Bauer play the american drug lord (ref: scarface). He should have had a bigger role.
I yawned a few times in the movie, and got twitchy in my seat. Some people left the movie early. All signs of a mediocre film. It just didn't click with me.
I'm not sure what movie to compare this to. Maybe The Perfect Storm. They both had a documentary quality to them. Traffic less so, but still there.
I think it is worth a matinee price on a day where you have nothing to do.
--Scott
Not to mention Smokedot the best one of all, also runs on slash.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/traff05f.h tm l
..and potatoes while you're at it..
It's very interesting that drugs are legal or illegal depending greatly on society's impression of these drugs rather than their actual medical effects (long and short term) on the human body.
I for one reckon that tobacco and alcohol are up there in the seriously addictive / dangerous to others when somebody's on them category (just think of drunk driving and cancer through passive smoking).We consider it acceptable for society to deal with the mess created by tobacco, alcohol, caffeine.. mebbes we should do the same for other drugs, or at least take a more rational view of what drugs are 'good' and which are 'bad'.
'No man is an island', you can be as libertarian as you want but we all have to get on with other humans - and that means looking out for each other and agreeing how to deal with chemicals. I think education and societal support is a lot better than throwing people into prison.You ever disagreed with a hard core coffee drinker first thing in the morning? scaryyyy!!
However, when drugs are legal, they are less "risky".
Purity goes up (or at the very least, any impure fillers are inert... like the buffers in tylanol) with no nasty imputities (like benzine which is commonly found in coke - for no other reason than the US has made exportation of the proper solvents very hard)
Also, addicts can, and do, live normal well-adjusted lives! The real barrier to this is NOT their addiction, but the cost of the drugs. When drugs come down to reasonable prices, outside of the black market, people can afford their habbit. (there was a study in switzerland a few years back that provided people with reasonably priced heroin to see the effect on their lifestyles - within a few months there was a 60% drop in the ilicit incomes of the participants - among other changes)
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Has anyone else noticed how bad movie previews are getting for some movies? I went and saw Miss Congeniality w/ the lil lady and there was a preview for The Wedding Planner with Jennifer Lopez & Matthew McConaughey. The whole plot is given away right there. Same thing happened with what lies beneth. I thought that movie was a great thriller. However, if you saw the preview you knew that HF was the bad guy. Total crap. Just my 2cents. Oh and more on topic, I didn't think trafic was ALL that great but ive seen worse.
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
I agree with you, but I should point out that drugs are _not_ legal in the Netherlands (nor in Belgium or the UK as far as I know). It's just that you're not prosecuted for taking soft drugs (like cannabis) as long as you abide by a few reasonable and simple rules. This way, excesses can still be swiftly dealt with.
Aggravated assault is far less harmful than murder, should we legalize it too?
The UK has not legalised cannabis, it is still a controoled substance here. What with the state of our political system/the media here at the moment, I shouldn't think this will change any time soon.
That's a very good good point; you can be prescribed heroin - which has no benefits - in order to get over your addiction to it, whereas you cannot be prescribed cannabis - which does have some benefits - under any circumstances. This is a great example of the government's inability to look at the issues in depth, and instead just continue plodding along and pandering to all those Daily Mail readers who throw their arms up in horror at any mention of cannabis, whilst they sit there reading with a gin in one hand a cigarette in the other.
IIRC, (someone correct me if I'm pulling this out of my ass) potency can be somewhat standardized by the spacing of the plants (closer together = more potent?) given a known seed source.
And don't forget the hemp! Theres a whole industry waiting to happen arround it.
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
this measure lost, while I don't remember the margin it lost by, I do remember the long list of groups that were opposed to it. I don't think you can use this item to support your point.
------ Work is so much easier when you don't
The USA is spending money on it bcos the majority of US citizens agree that drugs are a Bad Thing. Whether you believe that the government is acting to enforce the will of the ppl, or whether you believe that the government is merely doing it to try to curry votes, is immaterial.
Cross-reference to Prohibition, brought in bcos the majority of US citizens believed that alcohol was a Bad Thing - for this they even had a referendum, so we know absolutely that a majority agreed with it.
Grab.
- Gun and Law Enforcement Equipment Manufacturers.
- Drug Testing companies.
- For-profit rehab facilities.
- Alcohol and tobacco.
- People who have bought the propoganda.
There are others that benefit, and evils that I haven't seen touched yet:However, something I haven't figured out: Is there a tax break if your company is over a certain size, and you do pre-employment drug testing? It seems like evey company (unless they're a mom & pop operation, and some of those even test) does urine testing anymore. What are the costs of pre-employment drug screens? I have to imagine there's some kind of tax incentives, because no business in their right mind would spend money on something like that unless there was the major possibility of legal liability or unless there are even bigger tax benefits to doing so.
We have been slipping down this slope for a long time. Price (and people committing real crimes to afford drugs), impurities, and over doses due to varying potency are really caused by the prohibition of drugs. Remember: In the 20's, methenol (which causes blindness and death, among other things) was mixed into any kind of ethynol to keep people from being able to drink it. Our government was so gung-ho on prohibition that they would rather people DIED then to be able to have a drink of ethyl alcohol.
There is also the self-fulling prophecy that you can't achieve anything if you use drugs. We have drug testing to keep drug users from being able to work. We have laws in place to keep anyone who has been convicted of a "drug crime" from receiving federal tuition assistance, so drug users cannot get education. With every budget our government passes, there is more money set aside per capita to prosecute and imprison a person then there is set aside to educate them.
If drugs are really a dead end, it's only because the road has a police barricade.
--
--
Intelligence is definitely a recessive trait.
"Drugs kill people and releasing a movie that falsely depicts the efforts to curb the influx of these lethal substances as hopeless most certainly won't help."
Drugs don't kill people. However, drugs can kill people; just as cars can kill people. Drugs don't kill people, but irresponsible drug users do kill people, as well as drug turf wars, but not drugs.
There are two trains of logic you can take as I see it. You can either think "Ok, but if drugs didn't exist, you wouldn't have any problems. So lets law-enforce drugs into non-existence and then we won't have any drug related deaths at all." This thought seems to logically call for our country to ban drugs and try to enforce that ban. The problem with this system is that it just doesn't work. There is just way too much money in it for a fraction of our taxes to pay people to keep out -- not to mention our privacy would have to be altogether forfeited (oops, just mentioned it didn't i).
The second train of thought is the same one that the government has taken with cars. Cars are dangerous. They are big hunks of metal that we humans drive extremely fast because we are impatient. They are basically big weapons. They can rip the head off of a person with very little effort. With all of this danger, the government said "woah... we have to do something about this," just as they said at some point with drugs (but probably for an entirely different reason). To reduce the danger of drivign cars, they decided the best thing to do was to educate the public as well as possible, and implement a few limitations to keep things doubly safe. This policy has pretty much been a success. I feel somewhat safe when i'm out driving around. While car accidents (and deaths) still occur, the rules have done a good job of lessening the danger. So why not take this approach with drugs? It is clear that the WoD won't be won by the US, meaning that people won't just stop wanting to use drugs. If people are going to use them either way, why not do what you can to make it more safe? It almost seems like the government doesn't really care about us *sniffle* *sniffle*. I would be interested in hearing a US official give a good answer... What could they say?
Anyways, by showing the hopelessness of the current drug efforts, my guess would be that the creators of "Traffic" are trying to lead its viewers (after they are 'persuaded' that the current method is hopeless) to ask questions like "What else be done to fix these drug-related problems?"
My post for the year.
You're trumpeting your total 3r33tness.
How quaint.
I fart in your general direction, neubee.
Use screen instead of your shit macros and GUIs, honey-child.
Relapses happen all the time, regardless of whether the treatment was done in a for-profit or non-profit center, or gov't run facility. If anything, based on the presumption that legality would increase the potential for # of addicts, I'd gather that they'd _support_ legalization.
The only reason that they'd support prohibition would be the theory that when the drugs are illegal, it gives another reason why the addict should not use it.
This is a 2000 movie as it came out before the end of the year in NY/LA to get in on the Academy Awards that will be coming up in a few months.
Absolutely GREAT movie, by the way, I saw it last night.
Bill
Silly question: why didn't everyone die a century ago when they were legal?
With rare exceptions, they're all dead now.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
I highly doubt this, unless "as freely as they traverse their own contry" means that the Federales can inspect them at any time.
Anyway, aside from that I plan on seeing this movie soon. Maybe someday people will wake up and realize that this stupid policy needs to go.
Until then, I'll probably stay in Canada, where you can actually walk down the street minding your own business and smoking a (technically illegal) joint without having the SWAT team appear...well, most urban places anyway. :)
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.
And what's more absurd is how the government ended up killing him by denying him medicine.
I'm still quite pissed off about that.
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.
It is better than what you hear else where. If you don't examine other news sources other than the 6pm news, you know nothing.
It is that simple. Please don't follow those links so that I can simply call you a bigot and ignore you.
It will save me time.
"Drug related crime" is a misnomer, "prohibition related crime" is the more accurate and correct phrase.
As explained in the book, the title comes from a song that has the lyric, "It's nobody's bussiness if I do, and it's nobody's fault but mine." Kinda sums up the whole mess.
Quoting Bill Hicks? Very good, very appropriate.
I thought that too, but then Benicio Del Toro's character was involved in a conversation when he said that the drug czar's cell phones were dumped every 12 hours. I assume that Catherine Zeta Jones was involved in the drug cartel enough by that point to understand wire taps.
Like sex? Read and write about it! Indecent Blogging
I'll admit, this movie can be seen as pointing out the futility of the drug war.
Many people as well have also mentioned this to me. The problem is, so many people are saying "this is a failure" without saying what a viable alternative is. Being critical without an idea for a solution is the worst possible thing. Simply saying
"There's no realistic way drugs can be stopped by conventional law enforcement"
Does not mean we should do nothing, or that what we are doing isn't working. This is like running an experiment without a control group. It is akin to wearing a jacket in the arctic and still getting cold. You don't say "This jacket was supposed to keep me warm" and take it off.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the current drug policies are by any means sane or realistic. What I am posing is: What are the alternatives (Are there warmer jackets)? Would a drug-legal society be the option? Do any Slashdoters from regions with different policies care to comment?
---Lane
What's the point of moderating?!
It is "loosely based". In particular, the tv series was about heroin trafficking, whereas the movie is about cocaine. However, the idea and style is similar. At least, that's my understanding.
Care about freedom?
I'd rather be lucky than good.
> Will legalization increase the proportion of people to whom drugs are available? (yes)
When I was in high school, drugs were easy to obtain. They were as close as the guy in the next locker. Alcohol was much harder to get. You had to stand in front of the liquor store and ask people coming in to buy it for you.
> Would the legalization of said drugs decrease their stigma and increase use?
You must also consider human nature: We always want what we cannot have.
It would also help if people were more informed about the true nature of these drugs. There is a lot of misinformation out there. For instance, I am 33 years old and have been smoking pot regularly (about once a week) since I was 12. I had a 3.9 GPA in physics for my B.S. and am about to get my PhD (I am all but dissertation) and work at NASA doing computational fluid dynamics. I also might add that I am not the only one in the physics dept. that smokes. Yet all I hear from our gov't. is that pot makes one slothful and stupid. I think this is bunk.
> Is liquor a good example of potential effects of cocaine/crack, etc?
This is kind of a loaded question. When you prohibit a substance such as cocaine, the drug tends to increase in potency, thereby maximizing profits for the black marketeers. The native Columbians have been chewing coca leaves for centuries with no ill effects. One other danger of prohibition is that there is no regulation on content or potency. Differences in potency and adulterants are usually the cause of death by these drugs.
> Does anyone really care or do they just view it as a sort of cultural selection akin to natural selection except it isn't about genes - more about class and social interactions. In other words - if someone wants to be a druggie and ruin their life on crack/cocaine we should just let them smear themselves out?
I think that the government needs to learn that you cannot legislate morality, patriotism or religion. What I do in my little dungeon is my own business as long as I do not intrude on the civil rights of others. Similarly, the government cannot save us from ourselves. There is a certain portion of the population that is just going to make stupid decisions and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
>
You're probably talking primarily about weed use - and I don't see it as that bad - but what about other drugs? Although, even weed, E, and some of our legalized drugs are just easy ways out and can and will still ruin lives.
I think the number of ruined lives would actually decrease. There are people who have been put in jail for very long time (30 years) for nothing more than passing a joint at a party (not smoking, not selling, but passing). The only country that has more people in prison per capita is Russia. This is an absolute outrage and I wish the stupid American people would wake up.
foo
1) Release all political prisoners (i.e., nonviolent drug offenders).
2) Consolidate the remaining prisoners. This will leave many prisons empty.
3) Take all the drug warriors like McCaffery, Lott, Hatch, Helms, etc. and put them in the empty prisons.
4) Define the outside of the former prisons in step 3 as "prison".
5) Define the inside of the former prison as "America".
6) Now "America" is "drug free" and all the "drug offenders" are in "prison" and everyone is happy.
> Yeah, but consider smokes. Outside of any high school there are tons of kids smoking. Even when it is legislated that anyone selling to minors is a criminal offence it still happens -- the kids just get poor fake ID's and the shop keepers look the other way and have an easy way out.
Smokes are not a good comparison since they were actively marketed towards children and were easily avaiable through vending machines. Also the penalty for store clerks was minimal. This is beginning to change in the US. Alcohol is similar too in this regard.
> Um, partial slip up - I know this is out of context of what you're trying to say - but say what? The whole point of our legislative and judicial system is to uphold a moral standard. This goes all the way back to the smallest hunter gatherer societies.
Whose version morality do we legislate then? Mine? Yours? Bill Clinton's? Ralph Reed's? The best we can do is to take morality out of the equation and simply provide protections from one another. Killing or raping my neighbor violates their civil rights and therefore warrants a law against it. My 1/4 Oz. a year marijuana habit does not.
> Well used in moderation I'm sure that pot can add to your well being. Unfortunately if you smoked up every day you would start running into problems. I've had weed several times, and while I could maintain my composure, everything was funny - and I certainly could not do anything intellectual.
Moderation is the key to life, no? Get drunk every day and see what happens. I think the end result would not be much different. In fact my brother smokes pot many times a day. He is pretty dysfunctional. I've had some of my most profound thoughts when I was stoned. Evidently, Carl Sagan did too. I agree though that I would not want to work on any mathematics or coding though.
> Anyway, I made a point of excluding pot out of the argument in my original post. Can you make the same arguments for crack or lsd?
Since crack can kill you instantly, I think it would be a bit dangerous to sell it. I think I would handle that more like methadone. In fact, I used to smoke a lot of crack when I was around 18. One day I took some mushrooms and I realized the error of my ways and I never smoked it again and returned to college and got my degree. I think LSD and mushrooms can really open your mind in some ways. That said, I do not know how we could distribute it because it can be very dangerous too if people were to drive on it. Perhaps a "tripping spa" or something where you could remain in a controlled environment for 8 - 12 hours?
> I'm still not sure I agree with this. Evincing helplessness makes it seem so black and white. According to the statistics I posted, not even half of students could (at least easily) get ahold of harder drugs. I believe that in that case it is a victory - even if the ultimate objective before enlightened assesment of reality was that it isn't possible.
So far, I have noted that nobody can help my brother. He's been through it all. No law can help him save him from himself. He has a lot of friends that are just like him too. Many of these people are just beyond help and warehousing them in jail does no good. He's been there, done that and it just made him worse.
The war on drugs destroys individuals and families. It is also responsible for well over half the drug-related deaths. If the US govt spent 1% of the money they spend hunting down 'evil' dealers on education there would be far fewer ODs etc. And if they actually legalised drugs and enforced some standards, we wouldn't get bullshit rat poison & glass in our recreational drugs - not to mention fools selling $60 headache tablets masquerading as Ecstacy at raves...
Thread's getting old, but I figured I'd reply to you.
... :)
... :)
Saying that LSD "just" causes sudden changes in mood/emotion and fucked up perception really doesn't give justice to the fact that it causes sudden changes in mood/emotion and fucked up perception
Even if the changes it induces have no real intrinsic value (debatable), it does tend to put you outside of yourself, or outside of your normal mode of perception. That can be a very useful thing for someone who's thought-structures have somewhat calcified. For the very same reason, it can be a very dangerous drug when used by someone with psychotic tendencies. When those walls come tumbling down, some people simply can't handle being thrown that particular curveball.
Now, as to the drug causing changes in mood/emotion, I wouldn't really go that far. It really changes your thinking and perception at some fundamental level and that's what causes whatever changes in mood/emotion a person experiences, in my opinion. It really has everything to do (as Tim Leary was fond of saying) with set and setting. That is, the mind set you have going into it (attitude, expectations, etc) and the setting (rave, talking with the cops, relaxing on your couch at home, with friends, with strangers, etc.)
By the way, it's generally a much better experience if you're in a relaxed environment (e.g. not interacting with people who you have to keep the fact you're tripping secret from) and, at least until you're "experienced", having at least one sober trip-sitter to help give you a sounding board back to "reality". You know, to help keep in check those rising feelings of paranoia or what have you.
Not that I've ever taken any such illegal substances, this is all hearsay
It is a remake, in the same way that horrible movie "Point of No Return" was a remake of La Femme Nikita.
Point of No Return was a virtually shot-for-shot remake (not as close as the Psycho remake, but close). Traffic is half the length (or less) of Traffik, a series of six one hour episodes (minus commercials), so I doubt it can be a shot for shot remake. Not to mention Traffik was a made for TV miniseries with much less production value (I'd imagine) than Traffic.
Just because one movie is an adaption of another doesn't always make it bad... look at LA Takedown/Heat... or Seven Samurai/the Magnificent Seven... or Yojimbo/Fistful of Dollars. In all of these films the directors kept basically the same plot as the original (in the case of LA Takedown?Heat, they used the same script and director even), but in each case the second film was very different from the first. I imagine the same holds true for Traffik/Traffic. I'm going to try and track down a copy of the original...
Josh Sisk
I was under the impression it was more "loosely based on", rather than a remake.
Josh Sisk
Actually tobacco is much more likely to kill its users than either cocaine and heroine (although it is close in the case of heroine). However if both drugs were legal we'd probably see those rates go down.
This was touted as an unusual movie, and whilst superficially it had a certain veneer of Anti-War on Drugs, it fell into appalling stereotypes and failed to explain. Stereotypes: Lets see - Corrupt Mexican Police, Army. Mexico portrayed completely negatively. Heroic american DEA (note complete lack of corruption), and belief in their job. Black ghetto kids (plus the intentionally shocking doped out white girl and black drug dealer sex scene). Victim is Poor Rich White Kids... Explanations: Hmm, why are black ghetto's like that ? Because of the drug trade (not because of economic decline and ruin of blue collar communities). Why do mexican's grow drugs etc (easier than working as cheaper labour for NAFTA factories). It's only redeeming feature is about the unwinnability of the war, as opposed to be the wrong war... Most disbelievable role - Katherine Z-J-D turning from society lady not knowing anything to become hardened drug lord... Winton p.s. And if Mexico does induce a washed out pallour as portrayed by the fscking hand-held camera I'm not visting :). Cliched.
Reminds me of the McBain movie in the Simpsons where he's fighting a drug lord who is threatening to market a new drug "ten times more addictive than marijuana!" Rather ironic swing at the whole anti-drug thang...
the sick thing is that the 19 billion a year that is spent on the war on drugs is miniscule to what is made each year, by both sides, because of the drug trade. the technology that is needed to basically completely win the war on drugs would cost very, very little. the rest of the money (the other 17 billion) could be used to re-vitalize the us public education system (which is probably the worst funded [and as a result worst performing] public education system in the civilized world). higher education tends to lead to less moronic drug use (which also leads to less moronic drug use related problems). legalization would also eliminate the prolem, and free up a lot of money, which again, the schools would benefit from.
education is the key. smarter people tend to not turn into the drug crazed lunatics that are often pictured whenever legal narcotics are spoken of.
.brad
Drink more tea
organicgreenteas.com
flesh eating ants records
Tobacco ban didn't work because of multiple reasons... tobacco shouldn't be banned - just nicotine. We just need a better way of enforcing the ban on substances that ruin innocent peoples lives, like the children who are addicted to crack when they are born, or who grow up with a 50% higher chance of lung cancer.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
The reason harsh punishments don't work here is because we can't enforce them. Our damn legal system is so full of BS that people know they can get off on a technicality or plea insanity. Everyones insane! You still have to pay the consequences. Capitol punishment does work, when executed properly (no pun intended). But that's a little off topic. I guess the point is, if we actually punished the criminals, instead of spending 5 years thinking about punishing them, we'd be farther ahead.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Your points are well taken.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said, "people will do stupid things, regardless". And I agree, let's use those billions of dollars for something better. But, I find it interesting that you are for giving it to the "poor". Trying to fight lazyness with money is almost the same as trying to fight stupidity.
<Off Topic>
Now, I'm not talking about 3rd world countries that have people who work 18 hours a day for $4/day... let's send the money there. But the vast majority (there is an exception to every rule, please no reactions) of poor people in the US are lazy - they need help, but when they get help most would rather beg than take up a job. Have you ever offered a homeless person a job in the US? For a decent wage? When you make over $10/hour with a cardboard sign on the street, why get a real job? Give your money to people who really need it, in coutries with bad economies...
</Off Topic>
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Yes, but they don't have an indulgent culture like ours. Sure, weed doesn't hurt every once in a while (although I don't recommend it), but that doesn't mean that it won't screw you up eventually. We can't balance our alchohol, our weed, or our nicotine. I've seen so many lives ruined by many "levels" of drugs, not just hard drugs. I've also seen businessmen make blatently poor decisions, ruing their company, with everyone going "what happened to him?" Cocaine. It's sad and horrible to see what such things do to people. People are so defensive about weed, only because they like it and it's sooo poppular, which blinds them from the facts IMHO. At the same time, I don't think that it's something that the governemnt should regulate, kuz it's a lot better than nicotine! It's bad enough that we should spend millions of dollars tracking "weed criminals"... we could be doing a lot more productive things with our money, and let the people who want to make their brain a littler slower do so. But when it comes to super addictive stuff like cocain and nicotine, I say ban it and enforce it, because this indulgent culture can't stay away from it.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
For a more sober take on this movie, check out ScreenIT's review. Warning: Not for the easily offended.
One of the best of the year.
Don't you mean "Better than most of the films out last year", or maybe "One of the best movies of the year, unless any better movies come out in the next twelve months"?
That was a joke, by the way.
Michael
...another comment from Michael Tandy.
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
Many of you have commented along the lines of "Prohibition just makes more criminals".
In Scotland, we have the infamous "Isle of Skye Toll Bridge", a privately-owned road bridge. It costs nearly £6 to cross it in a car, by far the highest road or bridge toll in Europe, if not the world.
Now many people have crossed and refused to pay. This turns out to be a CRIMINAL offence, like dealing drugs or armed robbery. This is slightly disproportionate, considering most road traffic violations are covered in civil law (speeding etc.)
Just my 2p worth...
I meant "small amount of people who abuse drugs" that should be no more than 20%
The only way to win the drugs war is to legalize them. Earth is already way overpopulated. Drugs are a good way to get rid of that small amount of people who use drugs. The less people their is, the less pollution is produced.
Think about it, in a way drugs are good...okaaaaaay!
This war on drugs is a waste of time. It's useless and it doesn't work. It's like throwing water at a gasoline fire.
Drugs are a real profit source for gangsters, mobsters, and other criminals. With this rich profit tap, these cockroaches of society thrive and grow.
So how about let's legalize it instead? By legalizing it we're taking away the underground's air supply. They will no longer be able to compete. Remember prohibition and how that backfired?
And once it's legalized, the government should choke this industry like that way the cigarette industry has been choked. Put huge taxes on drugs, make it hard to buy without proper id, limit its promotion, sue them whenever we can and should. But the strategy is, choke it enough so that it's as weak a market as possible, but at the same time, don't choke it to the point where it again becomes profitable for mob bosses to take over.
That my friends, is the magic bullet to this beast. Now all we have to do is REALLY WAKE UP and do something about it rather than "out of sight, out of mind".
Er, that's not true. A license was granted to a BC farmer to grow marijuana legally. Thus the laws against non-medicianal use, growing, posession remain. But unless you're really stupid and open about it, or unless you're wanted by the Americans, then it's probably not to difficult to do anyway. Most police forces, courts, and even some politicans here understand that much better then the Land of the Free (tm).
Elected politicians cater to the whims of the people (and the occasional corporation that gives them a truckload of campaign funding) so that they can stay elected and in power. So, as long as the public thinks, "Drugs bad, jail for druggies good," politicians will be unwilling to Do the Right Thing and end the drug nonsense.
What about all those appointed (not elected) bureaucrats, such as those in the DEA? They'd lose their jobs, and they'd have to go on the lecture circuit or work at Seven-Eleven.
We can't forget the thousands and thousands (millions?) of police officers nationwide, either. Since drug-related "crimes" are a big part of the police business, a lot of them would lose their jobs, too.
If the public changes its mind, the politicians will make the right noises. However, the 'crats and the cops will not go quietly.
- Chris
I agree with much of what you stated. The war on drugs is about money. The Cartels know that legal drugs means an end to their business. The police know that legal drugs means an end to the money flow. What money flow you ask? The seized money from drug busts and the seized property currently allowed under civil asset forfeiture laws. I've said for many years that the drug war is a failure and that the authorities know this. Why don't they back down? Because of money, power, and bureaucracy.
What would we give for empirical data regarding health care? Everyone has their theory about what the results would be of sweeping health-care policy change, and yet it is all speculation...
Then look at the drug war, where there is HUGE empirical data from Prohibition on what happens in American when a potentially-abused substance is banned, and not a single politico in the two major parties gives it a thought. (Libertarians may now stand up and wave...) Here we are, 75 years later, facing a redux of the heyday of organized crime, witch hunts and illegal importation and we still think our policy is correct! Sheesh...
Nonperiodic Central Trajectory
That statement then must be properly applied to those who use it without knowing what the hell they are talking about, like you.
wow - after reading that, maybe you should reexamine your thinking - you really don't understand Objectivism - but you are angry about something...
No, its that its useless to have a State Policy that hunts down drug users... rather that freedom from drug use starts in the mind of each own person... i.e. that each person has personal liberties, etc.
------
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
I'm confused. "Point of No Return" and "La Femme Nikita" are practically the same movie. Same director, same story, same shots. One is French. The other, English.
IMHO, if one is horrible, so is the other.
Defecation occurs.
It is apparent to me that morality can not be legislated.
Right right... that's all part of the plan. Part of the reason that the drug war has lasted this long is that it has somehow been turned into a morality issue as if I'm more moral while I drink and smoke cigarettes than Robert Downey Jr simply because my drugs are legal.
That said... I do agree with you. Our government should stop trying to legislate morality. It's a lost cause and simply tramples over the rights of non-criminals.
Here's a question. Is it immoral to break the law?
Defecation occurs.
You mean they don't? Take a look at this.
Hemp fiber is sold. It's not advertised. Why?
Defecation occurs.
Repeat every generation, year, day..?
The only way to stop it is to make people so afraid of possessing it. Otherwise the greed factor kicks in. People typically do things for two reasons. Fear of punishment and hope of rewardToo much time spent in the "Torture the animals laboratory" ?
weed related accidents(fear is also a motivation factor for drug use)
???
See, for example, http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~droopy/drughist.html (sample quote:)
This and other lies colored the view of two generations about drugs and explains much of the present situation. Political parties are now as bound by these attitudes as they ever were - the path of least effort is not to question the status quo.However, some countries in South America are apparently no longer prepared to go along with this facade. In fact the president of Uruguay, Jorge Batlle has recently come out in favor of widespread legalisation. See:
or the original story (in spanish) at--
.sigs: Just Say No!
(bear with me and read this through before you label it offtopic)
Just think about it...
In the dark ages in europe, the people had many woes. Illiteracy, poor sanitation, short lifespan, but among the chiefest of their troubles were oppressive authoritarian government - princes and lords. The princes and lords caroused and hunted all day, and the peasants payed the price. In that twisted system, a farmer's young daughter could be raped by some lord looking for some fun, and if the farmer protested he'd be fed to the lord's dogs. Whenever the lords started a war, the peasants were sent off to die in it. If a peasant's family was starving, he had to work on his own stark and unprofitable plot of land; if he went into the neighboring hunting preserve and shot a deer to feed his crying babies, he would be hung for his crime. If a lord's profits were down, he could always sell some "freedmen" into slavery.
Have you ever wondered WHY these lords and princes got away with this? It was only in the 18th century that the French lords were overthrown, and that was after they had mostly ceased their oppressive behavior. AFAIK those resonsible in Britain and Germany were never punished by any uprising by the people. Do you want to know why?
Witches. You can blame it all, on witches. Did your cow die? Witches did it. Was your baby stillborn? Witches again. Were your crops a failure? Those evil witches, how dare they!
The lords and the church sponsored these superstitions, which caused the people to misdirect their wrath. The lords and clergy were the REAL source of their anguish and misery, but they were led to believe witches were responsible, and so the lords went free, while the witches were treated to all the pent-up frustration and rage of the people.
There was of course, the additional side bonus of the fact that whenever a "witch" (usually some wandering stranger who couldn't provide a background, or some poor non-Christian) was caught, tortured, and killed, the government inherited all his and his family's property. Then the witch crazes began, where people turned in everyone around them out of fear, and the witch hunters appropriated all they owned for the lords. But when someone was foolish enough to declare they had seen the local lord or bishop at the sabbat, they were never believed.
These witch superstitions were SO strong and so well-accepted that even when some europeans created colonies in the New World, where they would theoretically no longer be under the direct control of those lords, they perpetuated their beliefs and more witch hunts occurred.
Now, there were other means the lords used to stay in power, like keeping the population in ignorance *coughdaytimeTVcough*, but in all, this misdirection tactic has been the most useful tool for authoritarians, ever.
Drug users, gun owners, teenagers, and "hackers" (actually crackers but for the media's stupidity) are our modern-day "witches". The populace is being so expertly distracted with these non-threats that they are failing to notice how they are being sold down the river.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
What the fuck is a "Usian"? There is only one country with the word "America" in its name.
---
"You just stranded one of the world's greatest leaders in San Dimas!"
Bob Fucking Costas. Does anyone else hate that motherfucker?
You forgot one biggie... Besides all the extra cash flow going towards idiots that already have more cash than they know what to do with, the War on Drugs is primarily an attack on civil rights. Why else would the Constitution in the US and the Charter of Rights in Canada not matter a damn when you can be randomly made to pee in a jar to prove that you are, indeed, drug free, at least at work, anyway. I'm pretty damn sure that one of the primary rules the justice system in Canada and the States follows is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, so being forced to pee in a jar means the PTB are assuming you're a junkie, and you now have to prove otherwise. That's just the start of it. There's other stuff going on such as what would otherwise be illegal search and seizure, wiretapping, overzealous border checks, all the extra surveillance cameras required just about everywhere to patrol streets to try and prevent addicts from stealing to get cash to pay the Mob's high drug prices...and then there's Three Strikes You're out! I think the attack on civil rights is more important to the PTB than extra cash for large corporations, since that can be done by simply brainwashing us all with television!
I understand it is based on an english sitcom titled Trafikk. I really enjoyed the movie, It will hopefully become a film that changes the way the War on Drugs is percived, maybe even end it's lunacy. Just say NO! has never worked. By the way let me be the first to say the joke, just say no to John Katz!
Get up in the morning, have a warm cup of coffee... and a beer. Get to work, chug a beer before going into the office. Start working, have a couple of quick beer breaks. Lunch, with several beers.
And so on...
The reason tobbacco companies got so large is that they convinced people that smoking isn't a habbit. It's a lifestyle choice.
Personally, I occationally smoke while I'm drinking. When I'm sober I don't crave nicotine at all. My general point is that nicotine is hardly what I would call 'super addictive'.
What we all seem to be focusing on is that the movie shows us the futility of our current war on drugs, but what we seem to miss is the briliance of this movie. It does show us a solution. We constantly see cops taking out drug dealers, or attempting to, and in either situation, cops also get hurt and in the end, nothing is different. Leave the dealers alone, and they will take care of themselves through their rivalries. What we also see is Michael Douglas's character realizing what the true solution is: treat the customers, not the buyers! If we spent more money for drug education and rehab centers, rather than fighting the dealers themselves, we would get much better results. Fight the ignitors, not those who supply the fuel.
The movie is too long, and that makes it horrible. You keep checking your watch. Some comments feel like _I_ fought a drug war" and "So I know your watch says 1:30, but is that A.M or P.M." Predictable in too many places too.
Want to see every step I took to start my company? http://www.rowdylabs.com/blogs/pitchtothegods
The Internet Movie Database has a page dedicated to this excellent movie. Very useful if you want to know more about the movie, instructor or actors.
- "Liberals"
- "Socialists" (I don't know if the average Usian using this term as an insult would know a socialist if one liberated, by hand, for the people, his or her means of reproduction...
- The French
- Gun owners
- Gun control advocates
- "Hollywood Liberals"
- Hillary Clinton
- Katherine Harris (new in, straight in at number 8)
- Everyone else in Florida, especially those in Palm Beach county
- Rednecks
- Yankees
- The IRS and the employees thereof
- Hate groups
- People who are hated by hate groups
I don't think they need the drugs users and pushers on the list. Ironically, speaking seriously for a moment, the dealers seem to be treated by friends and collegues of mine as a mysterious group of people everyone would really like to know one of. Go figure...--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
This is insane. You people are all insane. Simply stated, using any drug for recreational purposes may have negative side effects. The United State of Arm-ChairiKKKuh seems to rely on an individualist mentality for enforcement of responsible drug use. (IE, BANG! BANG!! NOW YER IN GaOiLL!!!) I prefer to see a country with support mechanisms available to those that want and/or need 'em. ArmChair-ica still hasn't accepted that some people get a bit beyond their ability to control or regulate their own intake. The method to the madness is punishment, rather than help. Extreme addiction is an affliction of sorts, rather than a punishable crime. Wanna further alienate the addictive personality?? Persecute it. Way to Go. Clap, Clap.. Christ, d00d, you're in one of our sister (ex?) common-wealth countries. YOU sound like yer from armchair-ica.
These thoughts are mine only. Company ain't come up with a mandatory disclamer yet.
Hmm, how to rectify the situation . . .
Oh yes, the magic words! That'll at least get me +2 "funny"!
Here it comes;
"Imagine that as a Beowolf cluster!"
--------------- Delete Windows before you mail me
Roger Ebert must be some sort of drug fiend.
You've managed to write an entire article that can be summed up as, "Look at me! I'm a Libertarian!"
--------- In Ignorantia Iacet Mors
A couple points to ponder:
1) Drugs are addicting.
2) Drugs are deadly.
3) Drugs are Illegal.
Remove #3 and I think we've solved the problem.
For Example:
If hundreds of people were dumb enough to get addicted to drinking bleach... Let them!
The people who are leading the war, are also helping to stop it! By giving their own soldiers more "bleach" to help them fight. Something to think about...
-- Kleptotherapy: Helping those who help themselves.
search for it... 3 CD's though... could they have made it any longer? Bleh...
-=Redir
Gee, I'm sorry I offended your fragile sense of an ego. Next time I am involved in a traffic ticket accident, I'll get the cops to follow me. Then once they are surefire on my tail, I'll lead them to your place. I'll be sure to drive something really really big, and crash right into your house, into your living room when your computer resides and I'll run over you and while your blood seeps out of your joints and veins, I'll jump down and tell you to clean it all up, because it happened on your turf.
What you don't seem to get is that for the most part, we all leave in the same place, and if you think YOU are free from harm just because you live in your security-enforced private neighborhood, you're wrong.
Censor yourself from the garbage all you want, but remember that you can't censor what is directly in front of your face: Me.
Seeka
I'm not too sure how many people in here are actually affiliated with drug culture, I'm not really one of them, but I do realize the impact it makes on society... Everybody wants to sit at home with their family, dog, and white picket fence, but never looks outside to see someone getting murdered, raped, or assaulted. There should be a big wakeup of society as a whole, but I don't see it happening.
Since this is a film, you don't generally watch it unless you're interested in the subject manner... Therefore, those that have already known the truth will watch it. Those who haven't won't.
Seeka
Take a look at the nicotine patch indistry and the millions of dollars people spend trying to kick the habit. I would say that it is highly addictive.
The names and locations have changed but the plot is essentially the same, almost every character has a counterpart, it uses the same pseudo-documentary-style, and the overall message behind it is the same.
Also, the mayor of London,England, Kenneth Livingston has also said he will legalise cannabis when he is inaugurated.
I am quite well travelled, and what I have learned is that in all countries, certain laws are prosecuted more than others. Also, when something is banned, it takes on a glamarous appeal far more than it would were it to be legal.
As an example, 'magic mushrooms' are completely legal in the UK. End result, nobody is interested in them. I say, tax all the recreational drugs according to how much damage they are likely to do. As a libertarian, I do not care whether you choose to kill yourself via tobacco, alcohol, ecstasy, cocaine, cannabis, crack, speed, lsd or whatever, Just don't expect me to pay for it.
The war on drugs is UNWINNABLE. Politicians love it because drugs are one of the new bogey-men that have come along to replace the Soviet Union as our new "enemy" (along with the much misunderstood Muslims in the middle east).
All I am asking for is a bit of consistancy. The message our government is putting across is mixed to say the least
We will take tax from alcohol and tobacco, but not from cannabis or ecstacy. Because the first two are "good" and the last two are "bad".
When will the USA wake up and elect some intelligent politicians ?
Its only going to get worse now GW is in control!!!
What the *hell*? Educate, from sites that are pro-drug? Talk about propaganda.
The majority of posts here are asking for legalization and the whole bit. Drug use is something I care about personally and what others do. You talk like we throw money at something that doesnt benefit us one bit, or some say that we throw money at something that in return hurts us...Then you have the conspiracy theorists saying that a bunch of groups are lobbying to keep the War raging. People want to legalize anything that doesnt hurt someone else directly. Directly I have to assume is similar to "a gun pointed at their head". But my question is How do we know that life would be great, crime would go down, and there would be great joy if the war on drugs was dropped and legalized everything?
In *our* society, how can you tell? Sure you have examples of others. And I dont want to hear "before such and such a year there werent drug laws" (was the automobile even created then?) We have a society where people have *huge* ammounts of free time (how ironic that this is a post to a mostly IT audience) compared to countries that are still considered "third world" or less developed, we have big gaps of time that we dont have to work. *Gasp* some of us even still have two days off FROM work.
I remember watching a news peice on tv, someone was interviewing some member of an african tribe, the responses were interesting, especially when asked "What would you do if you had free time, whats some of your hobbys?" His response was along the lines of "What do you mean free time? Theres always something to do." Why does any of this matter? Its because there is no way to tell for sure what would happen if we dropped the war on drugs and drugs were legal.
Everyone gets caught in this "non direct" crap. If someone is on something, goes out driving, crosses the line and kills you, thats pretty direct wouldnt you say? Not to mention that it doesnt even need to be direct to harm someone. If you took a newborn. Put it in a lifespan that drugs were never mentioned, no one offered him a hit in gradeschool, no one in his class went to raves and beer blasts in high school, and he never saw a drug deal, are you telling me that he wouldnt be drug free the rest of his life? Anyone that contributes to the stigma "take drugs, you need it to have fun, your reality isnt cool enough" that society is saying, is directly affecting that middle schooler thats deciding whether or not to take a hit.
You *can't* go along with "make everything legal, let people decide for themselves*. EVERYONE knows that kids are impressionable beyond belief, you cant present this load onto a kid, and you cant have the government, and the parents, supporting legal drugs, using drugs, and then saying to their kids "dont listen to anyone, decide for yourself whether you want to use drugs". Thats bull.
Everyone uses these statistics, about drugs not killing as many people as tobacco and alcohol. A basic statistics class will teach you can only compare evenly weighted subjects, legal and illegal substances dont seem to equal to me.
And then theres the statistics on how drugs arent physically as bad for you as they say. What about the view that drugs are a mental crutch? I find it a shame that your life isnt interesting enough that you need drugs. Partygoers, stoners, ravers, they all look at others and say "have a good time" "get a life, try it". *My* life is dynamic enough, interesting enough, and fun enough. Why do I need drugs? Why does anyone need drugs? I dont care how "bad" you think your life is, if you do think of it that way, its pretty obvious your using as a crutch, I dont care how bad you think your life is, the most developed and well along societies are the ones with the highest drug abuse, thank god that you live in such a society.
Everyone is pushing around this legalization shit, If someone is driving, and is on something, passes out at the wheel, and kills your family, come back to me and tell me that you still want your weed legalized.
Matt
"So many have become demoralized that now a change must be forced or all will perish in the lunacy once it befalls."
This movie was great.
over-generalization
self-rationalization
on each side.
politicians don't understand
the disillusionment.
Because most people in America don't have "two brain cells." If you took a random sampling of opinions, I bet that most of the responses you would get from middle america would be in favor of illegal drugs (and enforcement of that illegality). Parents are worried about their kids smoking pot (oh no ...), old people are still worried about "the crack cocaine," and noone has any kind of perspective on the issue. Politicians ultimately, on issues like this, go with their constituents. Politicians who have not done so have not gone back to Washington.
I still think it sucks, as the only "effective" methadone therapy is maintenance (which is the way methadone treatment was commonly done in the late-80's/early-90's in the Northeast, whence my exposure to people familiar with methadone occured). I.e., the premise is "to cure the addict, let's keep him addicted, but to a drug isn't quite as euphoria-inducing, that's cheaper, legally availbe - to addicts- and doesn't cause the onset of withdrawl symptoms as soon." Thus, not only does one remain dependant on drugs, but on the state as the supplier of drugs.
For tapering, methadone sucks, because it takes so long to completely leave the system, and no tapering therapy gets rid of the addict's underlying desire for an altered state of consciousness. It's that desire which leads an addict to do drugs in the first place, whether the desire itself is merely the expression of people's natural desire to get fsck'd up -- all known human cultures (except Mormons) use intoxicants of one form or another -- or, partly a reaction to an unpleasant "normal" state of consciousness caused by depression or anxiety disorders.
Moderators, any chance of a "Interesting even though completely off topic?"
In fact, attenuation of the euphoria probably only comes as a result of tolerance after prolonged treatment at high doses (junkies know that this happens even with heroin -- if you do enough of it for long enough, you can't get high, only avert withdrawl symtpoms).
Methadone's primary aid in getting off dope is that it completely eradicates physical withdrawl which is very uncomfortable (but, contrary to what you said in your post, never fatal -- though alcohol witdrawl and barbiturate withdrawl can be and often are).
In short, I think that there are much better therapies.
You might be interested to know that this film is a remake of the excellent 1980's Channel 4 (UK TV station, also responsible for films like The Straight Story, Trainspotting and Elizabeth) miniseries "Traffik". Doesn't detract from the fact that this is a good film, it's just not that new.
In addition, the War on Drugs serves as a proxy for two other wars that governments in the United States wage: The war on minorities, and the war on children.
Regarding minorities, it serves as an excuse for local racist officials to use to embark upon sweeping raids and widespread violations of civil rights and the U.S. Constitution while dealing with "those" people (where "those" people are brown, black, poor, you know, anybody who doesn't "look like us").
As regards the war on children, we are a nation of hypocrits. We profess to love children. Politicians get elected promising to do such-and-such "for the children". Yet we do not provide the necessities for children to engage in healthy lifestyles. Our children are fat and unhealthy because they are cloistered inside homes rather than being allowed to run and play, thanks to the "war on drugs". This allows more profit for the megacorporations that advertise on television. Similarly, our children eat fatty unhealthy foods because that's what's profitable for the megacorporations that control the U.S. food supply. If a parent fights the megacorporations and tries to guide his children into a healthy lifestyle, local governments, which are owned by developers, make sure that there are no bicycle paths, skateboard parks, obstacle/fitness courses, etc. for children to play safely on (such things cost developers money to build and affect the bottom line, after all). If recreation facilities are provided by local governments, they are inevitably for group sports rather than for individual sports such as bicycling or rollerblading -- lord knows we wouldn't want children to learn to be individuals, we want them to be well-indoctrinated consumers who create profit for the mega-corporations and who think exactly like everybody else (otherwise they might demand homes that aren't cookie-cutter suburbian glee -- oh woe to the tract housing developer!).
The War on Drugs makes a convenient proxy for these other wars that go on every day. After all, if local skate parks are accused of being gathering places for "drug-dealing skate punks", this gives an excuse to shut them down (thus punishing those kids who would be individuals rather than comfortable groupthinkers). And if the Hispanics in your area are getting uppity and not being content to mow your lawn and trim your hedges, why, let's just send in the Sheriff's Posse to bust in a few doors and bang a few heads based on "anonymous tips"! And oh, if we manage to kill a few of those nasty brown people, gosh, that's one less spic cluttering the earth.
Feh. As long as there are bigots and megacorps, there will be a threat. If the War on Drugs had not been invented, something else just as nasty would have (much as the "Red Scare" was similarly invented in the late 40's-early 50's to feed the careers of Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon).
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
There is still, however, a long way to go, and any gains could swiftly be wiped away if it is decided that it's not to the benefit of the megacorps that run this country. The Internet is one thing that helps today -- while it is not easy to find opposing views (it has taken over a year for me to find sites that provide news critical of the status quo), it is at least easier than trying to find things via "the grapevine" (because one megacorps controls over 90% of newsstand distribution in this country, and one megacorps controls over 80% of book distribution in this country, you can't find dissenting views at most bookstores or newsstands). That is one of the reasons I joined the EFF, so that at least governmental efforts to kill free speech on the Internet can be fought -- though if we get to the point where one megacorps controls over 90% of the Internet (the way they do w/newsstands), and can thus censor sites with impunity via their boundary routers, the EFF's efforts may be for naught.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
but somehow he managed to turn it into a "See? My family have experience of this thing! I know how evil drugs can be!" political triumph.
Haha.. that line is almost verbatim from the movie "Traffic." What a coincidence :)
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Its only going to get worse now GW is in control!!!
A man who strongly believes that everyone who uses illegal recreational drugs should go to jail (and thus be virtually disqualified from running for president), except for him.
The war, IMHO, is not about drugs. It is a cover to allow/give our government the power to intrude into our lives and develop the systems and technologies to do so. With the assistance of the media, they/we can maintain taboos on sex and drugs. This puts a lot of money into the coffers of those that benefit from the technologies and systems. This includes industries running the gambit from private jailers to camera makers.
The Economist review of 2001 seems to think that it will be legalised in the UK by the end of the decade. Unless the US does some serious bullying, I think that Canada will be the next big western nation that legalises marijuana.
The US would use all necessary means to overturn any such law. This would include political and economic pressure (which could include boycotts, pressure on other countries to not do business with Canada or even a naval blockade of ports), or covert action to overthrow the Canadian government and replace it with one that toes the line. (CIA-backed coups don't just happen in Latin America; there was a documented CIA hand in the dismissal of Australia's leftist Whitlam government in 1975. If that can happen in an English-speaking country half a world away, think of what could do if a country that shares large stretches of border with the US betrays its cause in the One True War Against Evil.)
In theory that makes sense; though in practice, there are areas where a collective effort is much more efficient than the sum of disparate individual efforts. For example, providing a collectively-funded police force and army make much more sense than letting everyone be totally responsible for their own defence. In similar terms, spending relatively small amounts of common money on alleviating grievious social problems can reduce the total costs (including flow-on costs from crime, health issues and so on) by many times the expenditure.
Your typical junky would not have the money to pay for their own detoxification program; if they did, they would probably spend it on drugs. If they happen to be wealthy, and can afford to maintain a habit without harming anyone else, by all means let them. If, however, they are turning to crime to finance their addiction, it makes sense for those potentially affected to finance their detoxification.
That's the problem with simple, clear, absolutist ideologies, like Libertarianism; they tend to simplify things more than they should be. To paraphrase Einstein, solutions should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.
(Having said that, I must say I agree with libertarian views on many issues. I still think, though, that Ayn Rand is only one notch or so above L. Ron Hubbard in the credibility stakes.)
I was a drug user for quite some time (marijuana, lsd, psilocybin, ecstacy, speed, MDA and so forth). My drug use eventually caused 'toxic psychosis', a mental illness I will have to deal with for the rest of my life. However, I still believe that people should be able to choose what they do what they will with regards to their own wellbeing, be it choosing whether to wear a seat belt, hang gliding, blasphemy (I'm an atheist myself), or using drugs.
I believe that drugs are a health issue, and should be treated as such. I'd like to advance our understanding of the causes of sociological patterns of ill health, and educate people that alienating people involved in the illegal drug-using culture through poorly considered laws only serves to harm the people you love most.
I'd like to support and work with those who are trying to improve the situation, and provide my experiences as a resource for those who want to understand why people take drugs, the effects on drug users by these laws and the effects of the drugs themselves.
My prefered medium for disussion is mailing lists, but any other pointers are welcome. Feel free to email me if you have any questions about drugs and mental illness.
Thankyou,
Oliver White - ojw@unite.com.au
Ven. Jhanrato
The February 12, 1996, issue of National Review, by far one of the best periodicals available, was dedicated to the war on drugs and even bore the title "The War on Drugs is Lost". It is well worth searching out this issue at the library (or via back issue). It has much thoughtful commentary about the drug war and the drug problem.
You can read the title article by William F. Buckley, Jr., at http://www.worldpolicy.org/americas/usa/nr-drugwar .html.
Larry Niven's fiction described wire-heading or current addiction, where a user gets an implant that can electrically tickle a pleasure center in his brain, powered by a wall-plug AC adaptor with a timer. (The timer prevents death due to starvation or dehydration, which happened in real rats on whom experiments of this sort were done.) We could probably end the war on drugs even without legalizing any drugs, by introducing legal/safe/cheap wire-heading. The technology is trivial and could be productized in six months tops, if anybody wanted to do it. The profit motive for criminals and law enforcement would disappear, and with it, the war on drugs.
There would be a transient massive spike in number of addicts, and gross economic displacement in South America. The latter could be plastered over by shifting the DEA budget into foreign aid. Introduction of legal/safe/cheap wire-heading would of course be violently opposed by everybody who wins in the war on drugs: organized crime, the DEA, big booze/tobacco, etc. So it won't happen, but it's a fun little libertarian fantasy.
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
The American mindset is poisoned by some bad ideas that prevent a lot progress from ever happening. The only way to ever progress is to wipe out these ideas.
In the case of the drug war, the two biggest poison ideas (IMHO) that prevent the war from being stopped, are:
Because tolerance is mistakenly treated as equivalent to advocacy, Joe Schmoe thinks that legalizing drugs "would send a message to kids that it's ok to use drugs." This meme must be destroyed. You can be anti-drug and anti-drugwar.
That society is responsible for people (instead of the people being responsible for themselves), leads to countless problems, and some of them are very apparent in the drug situation. There is a strong (and justified) consensus that smoking crack, shooting heroin, eating cyanide tablets, etc. is bad for the user in many ways. If society is reponsible for the consequences of someone eating a cyanide tablet or smoking a crack rock, then society must not allow anyone to eat cyanide tablets or smoke crack rocks. (Ever notice that we also happen to have laws against suicide? It's no coincidence.)
One of the corrollaries of society being responsible for people is public health care. If someone incurs medical expenses from doing a stupid thing, and I am forced to pay (in the form of taxes or maybe insurance payments from overly-broad insurance pools) for the medical care, then I am under very strong pressure to lobby for making it illegal to do stupid things. How can I legalize drugs under these circumstances?
Get rid of this burden which has been immorally placed upon society, so that people are responsible for their own actions, and a lot of the drug problem (and many other problems too) will go away.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I agree the Michael Douglas subplot was a bit weak. An interesting aspect of the movie is the fact that it's a remake of a (Canadian?) series that aired on British TV (as noted elsewhere here on /.), with relevant details changed (e.g. British MP => US Drug Czar.) I haven't seen the series, but I wonder to what extent Soderbergh "blockbusterized" it, turning into something that a mass audience might pay to go and see. If so, I think he's done a service in terms of raising the issue.
I think you're right about the hypocrisy being a problem in the War on Drugs, but that's really a major point of the movie, surely? Seems like you're coming from the same place, although you might draw different conclusions. I don't think the movie rammed any conclusions down the audience's throat, though, which is a good thing.
People have to learn that they are responsible for the consequences of their own actions, and that they can't always count on a second chance. When people learn this, they'll become more responsible.
The only problem is that by the time they learn this, it may be too late. Your sentiment sounds fine in theory, although it's usually heard from rather right-wing Republicans, but it doesn't really gel with how humans behave in real life. Ignoring human nature usually makes for bad public policy, even if you're only concerned about your own self-interest and tax bite. If you seriously favor the Asian model of response to drugs, the only way you're going to have that in your lifetime is by moving to Asia. And I for one am glad of that.
Speaking of second chances, the current and future U.S. President are both testaments to the concept. In a way, second chances are a fundamental American value. In no other country is having run a failed business less stigmatized, for example. People do, in general, learn from mistakes, if you let them. "No second chances" is a recipe for squandering human resources and huge societal cost in the long run.
Terrorism
The Drug War
You forgot:
Kiddie Porn
> For instance Marxist rebels in Columbia have found themselves pitted against a regieme supported by War on Drugs money and soldiers trained by American 'advisors'.
I thoroughly expect Columbia to be the USA's "next Vietnam". Slip-sliding, one decision at a time... Too much invested to back out now... Besides, we're just doing God's work to prevent the spread of Communism^w drug use... It's only a police action... The whole region may go unstable if we let Vietnam^w Columbia fall...
And so it goes. You've heard it all before, if you're old enough to remember.
Also notice that the "stop the spread of Communism" argument in the '60s followed the rabidly anti-Communist McCarthyism of the '50s. Initial anti-drug involvement in Columbia in the '90s followed the rabidly anti-drug whateverism of the '80s.
The more things change....
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
By that measure, water is equally lethal. :)
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Er, that's not true.
Oh, yes it is. The law was struck on July 31. The Justice Ministry had until Sept. 29, 2000 to appeal. At this point, the best they can do is rewrite the law to allow medicinal use while continuing to prohibit recreational use. However, medicinial use will have to be allowed under the new law, advancing Canadian law a bit farther than it was before.
In a best-case scenario, the Justice Ministry would just decriminalize the drug and move on to more pressing issues. I've already outlined the worst case, outside of "outside pressure" encouraging the government to ignore the decision and reinstate the law untouched.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Hardly anyone is actually talking about the movie--everyone here is just bashing the War on Drugs.
I saw the movie, and didn't think it was that great. Of course, Katz calls it "One of the best of the year", which is trivially true, since we're only 7 days into 2001, but misleading.
After the first third of the movie, I knew how each of the three sub-plots was going to end. Yes, the War on Drugs doesn't work, and we all know that Hollywood loves to tell us that, so it was pretty easy to see where it was all going.
The cinematography was interesting, and there was nothing really wrong with the movie, but it wasn't brilliant or anything. Michael Douglas's character was straight formula, with little depth and only what character development was absolutely required by the plot.
In my opinion, "What Women Want" (which I saw the day after Traffic) was better, simply because it was less ambitious (and thus managed to accomplish all its goal--namely, making the audience laugh).
Since everyone else is using this as an excuse to talk about the War on Drugs, I'm going to play devil's advocate. Everyone talks about the "European Approach" to drugs--decriminalization, lots of free rehab, free needles, etc. Nobody talks about the Asian approach, i.e., very harsh punishments, strong family values, etc. Neither Asia nor Europe has the same kind of drug problem the US has, because they both have consistent drug policies (though these policies are on opposite ends of the spectrum).
The real problem with the US War on Drugs is that it's inconsistent and hypocritical. The US gives unreasonably harsh prison sentances to drug users (as compared with sentances for violent crimes), while giving the Whitehouse keys to other drug users. Marijuana is illegal, but tobacco and alcohol are legal.
Another hypocrisy I'd like to point out: tons of people here say that drug use should be legal because it's a victimless crime, but, in the same breath, they say we need free treatment centres for addicts. Who do you think pays for those treatment centres? The rest of society. Unless it's drug users paying for their own treatment, they are victimizing everyone who has to pay for their rehabilitation.
My solution? Make drugs legal, tax them, fund treatment centres with the tax revenues... Use the rest of the tax revenue for drug education programs. Show kids in schools videos of addicts their own age passed out in their own bodily fluids. Show them real footage of addicts overdosing. Tell them it's their choice.
Oh, and please don't give me that crap about people not chosing to become addicts, etc. Maybe they didn't choose to become addicts, but they did choose to take that first toke/hit/pill. Sometimes mistakes have harsh consequences. People have to learn that they are responsible for the consequences of their own actions, and that they can't always count on a second chance. When people learn this, they'll become more responsible.
The HK MP5 is made by a German company. But the idea gets through, its an expensive gun and they wouldn't have it if America wasn't paying for it. Hell we even TRAIN a bunch of their soldiers.
FunOne
FunOne
I'm not just talking about pot. Unfortunately.
:P
I'm also talking about the vandal that punched out my car window while under the influence of something (my neighbor says he suspects it was PCP), and a speed freak I knew in college who was making my life unpleasant (and creating dangerous situations for anyone foolish enough to fall for his charm and date him, like breaking plates over his SO's head) even while sober.
Then again, I was also talking about the belligerent drunk that screamed obscenities and swung at me while I was on first-aid duty at Pennsic and responding to a call of "unconscious person in a ditch." By the time I got there he was conscious and MEAN. Fortunately for me he was sufficiently drunk that his aim wasn't too good.
As for hallucinogens -- never done any, but been around plenty of people under the influence of acid and shrooms, and they never seemed inclined to do anything more antisocial than paint graffiti on their own furniture.
My comment stands. Chemicals (legal or otherwise) might stand to remove inhibitions, but chances are excellent that someone who is an asshole under the influence is also an asshole (maybe a more repressed one, but an asshole nonetheless) while not under the influence. Someone who has a violent temper might be more inclined to show it (especially under the influence of alcohol, in my experience), but that doesn't mean the temper's not there to begin with.
This is also why I think there need to be better studies on the REAL effects of various drugs, and even then -- well, you choose to take the drug, you still get to be responsible for your actions under the influence. Don't hurt people, don't damage property, and don't do things that require your judgment and coordination to be unimpaired (ie driving).
Otherwise, it's your body and I don't care what kind of junk you feed it.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
1. As has been posted elsewhere on this thread, it makes a dandy excuse for the government to play with surveillance equipment and to otherwise generally ignore our rights. Since drugs are supposedly such a terrible thing, the end (getting drugs off the street) justifies the means (basically turning the Bill of Rights into toilet paper).
2. It's good for all the (over 21) alcoholics and tobacco addicts who don't do any other drugs -- they can point and say "hey, at least our habit's legal!"
3. It serves as a justification for some truly horrible racism. In fact, that's how many drugs became illegal in the first place -- they were associated with a minority group that might be evil enough to try to seduce your innocent white daughters...
4. In the case of marijuana in particular, hemp's many industrial uses scare a lot of big businesses who would rather not have to deal with the competition that widely-available industrial-grade hemp would offer.
5. Biggest of all, the Wo(s)D is welfare for the middle class. The drug-prevention industry is huge, the prison industry is huge, new police are asked for and hired in the name of getting drugs off the street, etc. This is particularly true in the case of the prison problem. Not only is a ridiculously large portion of prison space taken up by non-violent drug offenders, but if you've read Flashbacks (Timothy Leary's autobiography), you know about the Harvard prison experiments. If you haven't read about this, here's what Leary and the other researchers found: the prisoners that had the experience of a controlled mescaline trip while in prison stayed OUT of prison once they were out 90% of the time. 90%! That is absolutely amazing. It irritates me no end that these experiments had to be shut down, and that they are seen as an excuse for careless use of drugs by the ill-informed.
I'm sure there are other reasons, but those are the big ones I can think of right now.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
Another point along the same lines: since there isn't an anti-Communist Cold War raging against Russia, and since the users at least of "psychedelic" drugs tend to be more politically liberal than average, it's a nifty way to keep the Cold War going, and/or to have an excuse to throw "radicals" in jail. (Case in point: Timothy Leary getting ten years for pot possession, for a tiny amount that actually belonged to his daughter. Even most of the prison guards were saying "Wow, sorry you're here!" Of course, he managed to convice people he was nice and non-threatening because they were stupid enough to give him psychological tests that he designed. *laughs*)
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
Incorrect. States with capital punishment for murder do not have a lower incidence of murder.
In the drug trade, dealers already accept the possibility of a violent death. Users accept the possibility of death by overdose or adulteration. The possibility of the death penalty doesn't mean much in that context.
As I said eariler in this thread, the death penalty has been used for drug crimes - for tobacco posession in 17th century Russian and the Ottoman Empire, for opium sales in 18th century China, for any drug sales in present day China. It still exists in the U.S. today under the Narcotics Control Act for sale of heroin to minors (though I don't think it's ever been imposed). Yet drug abuse continues.
We can't even keep drugs out of prisons.
Even with totalitarian measures, prohibition doesn't work.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Cigarettes have been banned before. In 17th century Russia, and the Ottoman Empire, tobacco possession was punishable by death. In the U.S. in 1921, cigarettes were illegal in fourteen states.
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Long term, it still doesn't work. Drug use still exists in China.
A quick Google search for "drug use in China" shows that opium is still grown there; HIV transmission via shared needles is still a problem; and China's State Council said only months ago that "the situation is grim for the anti-drug struggle."
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
You can put this down as "victimless crimes" or more precisely "consentual crimes". Every crime that doesn't result in harm to another human being (or his/her property) should be eliminated. How can a free society permit government to dictate what we can or can't do with our own bodies, minds and souls? If my actions upset you then don't watch! One day I will be tried for a consentual crime and on that day I will preach until it is thrown out of court or I am put away for contempt.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Plan to throw the first version away, you will anyway.
you forgot one big player in the war on drugs:
the artificial fibre industry, who has a lot to lose if they get competition from hemp fibre..
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
That analogy would only work if murder was legal.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
I understand where you're coming from (I'm an advocate of decriminalization for most drugs), but I still think that the argument about the drugs still posing a danger to others because of how they change the way people act is an important one to understand. It's a bit of a trump card for advocates of the war on drugs, so we can't just pretend it doesn't matter, especially since the advocates are the ones making the laws.
I also don't believe that all drugs do is increase the chance of things happening when the tendencies are already there. I honestly think that once one gets into the range of meth, hallucinogens (including massive amounts of THC), and X (where the effects of a high for chronic users are very different from the effects for occasional users), there is little comparison between the effects of severe intoxication with many drugs and the effects of being extremely drunk.
That may not mean that these drugs have to stay illegal, but I think there should definitely at least be public intoxication laws pertaining to them. But what I think doesn't matter, because if you want to convince your local congressman of anything, you better not try to use the effects of pot to explain issues pertaining to powerful stimulants.
So some questions are:
Will legalization increase the proportion of people to whom drugs are available? (yes)
Agreed, but what I advocate, and what most people advocate is decriminalization, which is a whole different pack o' cards. Under decriminalization, it is legal to posess drugs but drug trafficking remains illegal - so, hypothetically, drug dealers will still be just as hard to find. This is a long shot, but it might actually make drugs harder to find, as police will quite possibly quit trying to find users and put more effort into finding dealers. This could burn the candle at both ends for drug dealers, as not only would more dealers be taken off the streets from being arrested, but fewer dealers would be there to take their place as dealing would possibly become a less popular job.
Then again, if enough more people decide they want drugs when if they are decriminalized (I doubt it - in my experience, psychonauts and addicts are usually not the kinds of people who let laws stop them, so anyone who would use drugs already is.), dealing could become very popular. There's really no way of knowing which way the pendulum swings until we try it.
Is the decrease in drug related violent crimes worth the increase in citizens doing stupid things to themselves? (normative - you the viewers at home get to answer)
That's a very good question, but I would like to ask will people definitely start doing more stupid things? My guess would be that if, for example, pot were legalized in the US, the situation would be pretty bad here for a couple years and then it'd be a lot like Amsterdam - we'd all realize how stupid it is to fry your brain on pot and get so sick of the perma-dazed stoners walking around the streets that, much like in Amsterdam, people who do smoke weed (possibly a greater number of people) would do it in much more moderation than anyone here does nowadays, and the vast majority of people walking down the streets stopping to stare at every shiny object they see would, at least along the northern border, be Canadian kids crossing the border for a day of toking. At least I hope that's the way it would turn out.
Would the legalization of said drugs decrease their stigma and increase use? (yes)
I have a feeling it would decrease their abuse, though. If you take a look at many places where drugs are easier to get, more people use them but fewer people use them to the point where they cause problems. One example in my mind is European teenagers with alcohol vs. American teenagers with alcohol. The international students from Europe in my high school all thought we were pretty stupid about the way we drank.
What effects would increased positive drug meme's have on the american cultural locus? (normative)
If it means movies like Dude, where's my car? would become more popular, I think I might reconsider my position on drugs. =)
Is liquor a good example of potential effects of cocaine/crack, etc? (no idea)
Not at all. Cocaine and its derivatives are strong stimulants, alcohol is a depressant. A caffiene overdose is more similar (though still quite different.)
Does anyone really care or do they just view it as a sort of cultural selection akin to natural selection except it isn't about genes - more about class and social interactions. In other words - if someone wants to be a druggie and ruin their life on crack/cocaine we should just let them smear themselves out?
Given the worries I have about a lot of my friends, I've thought about that for a long time, and, it seems to me, when people do indeed want to smear themselves out, they generally won't let anything stand in their way. When people want help, they should certainly get anything we have to offer to help them. The group I can't decide for is the people who are screwing up their lives simply because they have no idea what they are getting into - kids who hough spraypaint, for example. I hate to admit it, but in addition to the part of me who is scared for them there's a part of me that really wants to say "If you're going to inhale LACQUER of all things, you probably weren't a very rational human being to begin with, so it's not like brain damage will hurt any vital organs."
You're probably talking primarily about weed use - and I don't see it as that bad - but what about other drugs? Although, even weed, E, and some of our legalized drugs are just easy ways out and can and will still ruin lives.
Yeah, if we ever change the drug policy I think we should definitely start slowly beginning with weed. I'm really not sure about other stuff - weed, in my opinion, is more benign than alcohol in most ways except that it makes people dumb, which to me is a horrible thing, but most stuff that's much harder is pretty dangerous - I wouldn't want LSD or mescaline to be easy for kids to get, and E is pretty dangerous, too (the data's not all in yet, but it looks like it has a greater potential for mermanent effects on a person's psyche than acid.) I really don't think it's possible to make a safe opinion about harder drugs and hallucinogens until we've tried weaker drugs like pot and seen what the effects of legalizing/decriminalizing those were.
See I'd like to make a decision one way or another, but I don't find the evidence thus far convincing either way.
"legalize drugs"? Which drugs? May I hypothetically prognosticate?
Legalize penicillin (yes, penicillin is a controlled substance, just try walking into a pharmacy and asking for a bottle of it with no prescription) and relative to a control group, you'll soon see a small increase in penicillin-resistant pathogens. That, at least, is the rationale put forth by the U.S.A.'s profit-oriented medical profession, why ordinary folks like you and I should not be able to buy antibiotics over-the-counter without first writing a big old check to an M.D. somewhere first in return for his scribbled sig on a scrip pad. I suspect that that for-profit aspect might have something to do with it too, but maybe I am just a cynic, feel free to disregard me.
Legalize marijuana, and, socially speaking, well, nothing happens. No one dies of marijuana overdoses, no one at all, not now and not "then," never. It could be argued that marijuana use would go up, but that assumption presumes that our idiotic War on Drugs actually does something today to inhibit marijuana use. This presumption seems to be contradicted by facts such as the one about marijuana being California's number-one cash crop. Evidently, legal or not, millions of people smoke marijuana anyway. The only public effect, then, would be that the jails would have more room for armed robbers, rapists, and that ugly ilk, and those taxes spent on enforcement of marijuana laws could be either spent on something more socially productive or rebated to the taxpayers, and the tens of billions of dollars which go into the illegal marijuana market would stop disappearing underground. Oh yeah, and when you'd go the the bookstore and buy new books they'd be printed on cheap, high-quality, acid-free paper that lasts just about forever.
Legalize heroin and other opiates, and among other effects you'll see a diminution in the number of overdose deaths. I've got a specific mechanism in mind. #1: junkies can only afford one or two doses at a time. #2: our junkie especially values that intense rush he gets when he shoots up, that rush is something he doesn't want to miss. #3: the concentration of street dope varies wildly from day to day. #4: overdoses suck; they don't feel extra-good, on the contrary, they feel real bad, plus of course OD'ing squanders a whole bunch of perfectly good dope. But in order not to miss out on that rush (junkies are not noted for caution), the junkie shoots up all he's got anyway. Unfortunately, sometimes the dealer is trying to do his customer a favor by supplying especially good, that is, high-purity dope. Alas, the poor junkie. All his old friends miss him.
But imagine that one could buy opiates in shrink wrap right over the counter at your local pharmacy and/or liquor store. (It isn't that fantastic, after all - keep in mind that a hundred years ago, right here in the U.S.A, you could buy all the morphine you wanted, with no legal restrictions.) Well, in that case, our junkie would probably not overdose, because, having bought a commercial product with a known concentration, he wouldn't want to take too much, and he'd know exactly what quantity he's taking. By the way, counting overdose fatalities, I exclude suicides. If opiates were readily available, they'd probably the means of choice for deliberate self-extinction. As Schopenhauer put it, "...there is nothing in the world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person." This might be a specific advantage of legalization, for victims of painful, terminal diseases. The obvious down side of opiate legalization, of course, would be that while you would see fewer overdose deaths, you would also most likely see a whole lot more people who become physically addicted to these opiates for one reason or another, If for any reason their supply were cut off for seventy-two hours, they would be reduced to agonized withdrawal victims. Maybe not good, huh? At least something to worry about.
Legalize cocaine. Imagine an ultra-libertarian world where even cocaine were available without restriction (again, this was the situation one century ago, when among other luminaries Freud and Conan Doyle dabbled in it). Now, first of all, too much cocaine kills, that's a simple medical fact. And second, for some people at least, cocaine is the perfect and complete binge drug. Particularly when you strip off that pesky HCl with a little NaHCO3 + H2O, heat the resulting solid precipitate to vaporization in a pipe, and inhale the gaseous product... Take these two facts together, you can see the danger here. More and more leads to more and more and more. So I am told. Individuals differ, of course. For example, someone I knew well a long time ago had that very same problem with mere common alcohol. One drink, one single little drink, and absolutely surely from that moment he'd stop eating and start drinking non-stop, for days and weeks until he had to be ambulanced to an emergency room in epileptiform delirium tremens. Anyway. My guess is, you make essentially limitless quantities of coke available o.t.c. and one result would be that every big city's Sanitation Department would have to take on a new, disgusting duty: patrolling the alleys every morning before dawn, carting off the corpses of the freshly OD'd dead. Gee, I don't like cocaine.
Well, all this is highly hypothetical, and who knows? maybe even incorrect in point of fact, but there's four of them. Only four of the countlessly many currently proscribed drugs, each wildly different from the others. That's the point I'm trying to make here: "drugs" are all different. Talking about globally legalizing "drugs" is like talking about legalizing, I don't know, green things. Cabbages, iguanas, bottles of absinthe, hand grenades, treat 'em all identically, they're all green. I could maybe accept this attitude from an ideologically pure radical Libertarian or anarchist. At least he is consistent: possession of any thing should be legal. Conversely there's the equally consistent but dystopian 1984/police-state model where everything is illegal. It's not over the issue of self-contradiction that we reject the Khmer Rouge theory of government! Anybody else, however, who jabbers about drug laws without explicitly distinguishing between the various drugs in question, I have to accuse him of shallow, or sloppy, or downright dishonest thinking.
So which drugs, exactly, did you want to legalize?
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
1.) Methadone gets you high as a motherf***in' kite. Wow, boy oh boy, is it ever strong to last long. By "last long" I mean where a strung-out junkie might start feeling itchy only eighteen hours after his last shot of smack, he'll still be OK thirty-six hours after the last cup of "my favorite flavor cherry red." If you, with no tolerance, steal and drink up some junkie's take-home (don't do that, it's cruel), be prepared not only to cop a Hell of a buzz today but also to wake up all buzzy and loaded tomorrow morning, after the greatest sleep, illuminated by Technicolor dreams, that you ever had in your life. That's how it works, it's that simple; the clinic simply substitutes a regular daily dose for those street drugs the patient has been acquiring and taking at such risk to his person. Don't ever discount the profound effect of being free of having to cruise the dismal and dangerous drug underground just in order not to get mortally sick.
2.) Methadone is also real mother to kick. After all, it is a strong-as-Hell opiate, maybe the strongest there is. When the clinic finally tapers you off, it takes months.
3.) Methadone treatment works absolutely great to get people who are physically addicted to street opiates free of their addictions. This is a hard fact, I've seen it with my own eyes - I'm talking about guys, apperently total burn-outs, who, if you'd known them at the depth of their addictions, you'd have bet any amount of money that they'd end up dead or locked up forever real soon. These same guys, after a few years (yep, I said years) in the hands of a methadone clinic, have been turned back into regular, sober, respectable, intelligent, even happy people. It's the damndest thing you ever saw, and I wouldn't be surprised if you are incredulous - you'd have to see it to believe it.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Rampant deregulation of narcotics has a habit of creating a drug epidemics, see 19th century China. History is actually pretty unclear as what is the best way to combat drug abuse.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
"In fact, because your wits are more about you when you are sober, the sentence should be greater when you are NOT intoxicated and have committed a crime."
So, by your logic, drunk drivers who cause fatal accidents should be slapped on the wrist, since they didn't know what they were doing. Tell me Mr. Dumbfuck, what's your rationale for that argument? Anyone who puts others at risk due to their own indulgence in alcohol or drugs deserves to be put away.
"Public safety is NOT a right."
True, but that doesn't give you the green light to put someone else's life at risk. People do die, but if you cause someone to die, you'll definitely be paying for it, no matter what fucked up bullshit rhetoric you try to offer.
As far as I'm concerned, you can put whatever you want into your system. Do it in the privacy of your own home.
--
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
Let's not forget the other half of this movie. The fact is that drugs can and often do become terribly destructive ways of coping with real feelings and issues. While this movie was good at pointing out the problems with the war on drugs, it only briefly touched on actual solutions to it. IMHO, making drugs illegal is equivalent to making suicide illegal - not very useful.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
By that measure, water is equally lethal.
My guess would be that water is actually quite a bit more lethal than heroin. I've heard it said that you can drown in a half cup of water -- and yet, certain irresponsible docters recommed we drink eight cups of the vile stuff a day! Think of the children!
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
The US is still waging this "war" on drugs because it would be political suicide for a politician to oppose it. Most Americans have come to accept the war on drugs as a fact of life and as an implicitly good thing. If a politician took a stand against it, said that it should be stopped because it is not working, (s)he could expect not to win the next election. As far as most voters are concerned anti-war-on-drugs == pro-drugs, and who would vote for a pro-drug canidate?
If the War on Drugs is so absurd, why is the U.S.A. wasting millions of dollars on such a futile war?
What is the motive? Whom does it benefit?
Politicians promise to continue the war on drugs; they get elected; they continue the war on drugs. Now everyone's acting all surprised? It's a democracy, that's how policies get made.
Of course, its more fun to actually whine about it than go to the voting booth it seems.
--
certain irresponsible docters recommed we drink eight cups of the vile stuff a day!
Yes, I know it's meant as a joke, but the 8 glasses-of-water rule is a myth; the LA Times had a really interesting article on it here...
--
The movie didn't spend two seconds on the topic of pot, which is essentially pseudo-legal now anyway (when was the last time you knew someone who was busted for smoking up?)
Heroin and cocaine are the issues at hand, which are probably way too dangerous to ever be legalized in any way.
the war on drugs has got to be the largest sham ive personally ever heard of. the figures i have found all seem to say figures to the tune of 19 billion dollars a year, also every few months some congressman manages to add 10 million or so to the yearly pool. 19 billion is a lot of money.
now take a look at what they do with that money, they setup special police forces that go to public schools, concerts, and various other suspect spots. this is great for catching the end user of said substances, but that is hardly stopping the problem.
lets now look at the technology that exists. there are radar style devices out there that can detect very small amounts of cocaine, barbituates, or opiates. now if you think about the bigger drugs, almost all of them fit into these categories. these are also inexpensively mades. if these devices were used instead of being left on the shelf, the us border patrol would not only be able to detect the drugs, but they would also see them about a mile away. the technology that is used, is usually dogs who can supposedly smell larger amounts of drugs.
lets also look at where the border patrol is told to watch. the heavily patrolled area is basically right along the us/mexico border, when in fact, more drugs come through from canada. vancouver, and montreal are the two largest drug centres in north america. both of these are port cities, and both of them are ridiculously close to the us border. i, being a canadian have crossed the us canada border more times than i can count, including several times in the two previously mentioned cities. not once have i ever seen any form of narcotics detection. most drugs that come through mexico are usually flown in, or brought in by people with "special clearance". yes, people who have paid the right people dont even get to be sniffed by the previously mentioned dogs.
yes folks, it seems the us wants to lose the war on drugs, but why? well, there is a lot of money being made from it. i dont mean employing a few hundred people, i mean several thousand occupations seem to benefit from it. the justice system obviously, most of the people in jails in the us wouldnt be there if drugs werent an issue. the police need larger numbers of people, with even more training. the hospital system gets a lot of drug related cases. those on the other side of the law make phenomenal amounts of money. more importantly, this "war on drugs" gives the politicians something to talk about during the debates. they tend to like keeping the real issues quiet. all the parties at hand tend to also make a great deal of money directly from those involved in the drug trade. medical professionals who come into contact with these people are often paid better to keep that whole doctor client secrecy thing a bit tighter, lawyers are paid twice what they normally get, arresting officers are often paid to lose evidence, the list goes on and on.
recently there was a push in vancouver to make needle drugs semi-legal. this is mostly because vancouver is the heroin capital of the western world. aids rates are high, crime in the troubled spots is outstanding (for canada at least). they wanted to make "shooting galleries", to ensure that people had clean needles, as well as having trained staff make sure that if there was an overdose the person would live. they also wanted education to be the focus, and possession of personal amounts to be perfectly legal. everyone in the city (i mean everyone) was excited. all of a sudden most of the people who were voting on it were suddenly against the idea. about four months later, a large drug bust revealed that these people were actually paid by the largest street gang to keep the drug illegal! it seems the gang makes more off of an illegal substance than off of a legal one.
that cant be an isolated incident.
.brad
Drink more tea
organicgreenteas.com
flesh eating ants records
I Look at this, and I think of programming maxims that have been passed down, such as here an other excellent places. A few that might be appropriate include:
etc.Point being, I wonder what we would find if we applied proper bug finding and engineering standards to the drug war. Some solutions we would not want to apply to humans, of course.
But I bet we would find alot of hidden factors that are not being even looked at one way or another.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
However, it looks like this movie is deeper and more interesting than that and most importantly isn't just a 2 hour long "don't do drugs" PSA (and it looks like it has a good plot too).
Illegal Drugs killed just over 8000 americans in 1994. Compare that to how many died from alcohol or tobacco. Is it really worth imprisoning over 800,000 americans, and letting out violent criminals? Is it really worth funding the Columbian army with 12 billion dollars to kill other Columbians, when the Columbian army is guilty of human rights violations? Have you noted the fact that despite actions over the last decade to curb supply, and massively increased funding, the street price of cocaine has dropped significantly in the last ten years. You might also look at the fact that drug use is not declining in American youth. In the Netherlands, where soft drugs are basically legal, drug use statistics are generally half that of the US, and the murder rate is down. Just wait until one of your friends or family gets imprisoned for taking a wrong turn in life, and watch just how much that imprisonment helps them overcome their problems and addictions. The war on drugs is the war on american children. Education is better than the slow erosion of the Bill of Rights.
What is the motive? Whom does it benefit?
A lot of the reasons listed by others here are essentially correct, but the biggest factor is the politiicians' _fears_, which are:
This seems to be a problem that only state initiatives seem to be solving (albeit slowly), as the public doesn't have to play politics over this issue. California voters, in fact, just accepted a drug treatment plan for first and second-time "offenders."
I know a lot of people here will disagree with me, but this War on the American People and politicians' innate inability to cope with issues directly and factually is a symptom of republicanism (small 'r') and can only be ultimately cured with increasing doses of direct democracy.
For more info on the failed War on the American People, check out this site: http://www.drcnet.org. They produce excellent articles in a weekly newsletter format that's emailed to subscribers.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Cannabis has no known proven medical benefits. Some takers with cancer says it helps, but to the best of my knowledge, most scientific tests on the subject have been inconclusive. That doesn't mean it doesn't help - it's just right now supporting its legalisation on those grounds would be like demanding hayfever sufferers be able to get cammomile tea on the NHS.
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
There's about as much evidence (ie plenty of commonsense and anecdotal, but little or no scientific) that pot helps with pain as there is that camomile tea helps relieve the symptoms of hayfever. Hence supporting the legalisation of pot on the basis that it might help as a painkiller is like making a pro-chamomile demand on the basis that it helps with hayfever.
Sorry if that wasn't clear enough.
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
(Note to non-British: Straw is home secretary (minister of the interior.) His son was arrested for possession a year or two ago. If there was any justice in the world, it would have been a major political embarassment for Straw who's as bad as his political opponents in the Conservative Party when it comes to drugs, but somehow he managed to turn it into a "See? My family have experience of this thing! I know how evil drugs can be!" political triumph.
Bastard.)
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Well, well, it seems that a lot of libertarian-minded folks read this site. I am one myself, and I am all for legalizing drugs. But there's one catch. All government funded or subsidized drug treatment must end too. If you really believe in freedom, you should also believe in my freedom to not pay for someone else's addiction.
I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
Coming from the other side of the "fence" on this war on drugs issue maybe I could point out a couple of things. I was born and lived almost 23 years in Buenos Aires, Argentina (I'm 25 now). Also, since I was 19 and due to my job, I had the opportunity to visit several other latin american countries including Chile, Uruguay, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela and Mexico)...sometimes staying there for months at a time.
Having this background (no offense, but I'm sure most of you don't have it), maybe I can shed some light in a couple of issues :
1) There is NO such thing as a 'War on Drugs' in any of the above mentioned countries. The 'War on Drugs' is viewed mainly as a US domestic initiative and there's actually no help, or very little help at all, from the US to these countries to combat the problem locally, at its source. Sure, there are each countries policies on drugs, the occasional DEA presence and help packages...but all those do very little. The somewhat recent help package from the US to Colombia (in money and BlackHawk helicopters) did nothing actually.
The money ended up in the pockets of corrupt gov't officials, politicians and other 'power' individuals (yes, including some drug lords). The choppers are generally used to combat the guerrillas along the Colombian-Venezuelan borders. To presume the US gov't doesn't know about all this is ridiculous.
2) In fact, almost 50% of the drugs actually consumed all over latin america come from the US (and to a lesser extent, Europe). Drug exporting countries in latin america generally export the raw product. Processing is done in US based labs and then exported back south. Processing cocaine is not terribly difficult, chemically speaking... but trying to process it in the amounts that are demanded is. The amount that is actually demanded far surpasses what can be processed in few jungle labs here and there.
The 'War on Drugs' it's a joke. If you want an analogy, think if in WWII, Germany sent their soldiers to be trained on the US and then the US sent them back to fight against its own men. It doesn't make sense... but in a way, it's what's going on right now.
Peace...
Remove 'spam' to mail plz...
But when it comes to super addictive stuff like cocain and nicotine, I say ban it and enforce it, because this indulgent culture can't stay away from it.
All that will accomplish is trading one problematic 'war' for another. There are a few very simple facts related to the drug war:
The sooner our society (and government) realises this, the sooner we can start spending those billions of dollars a year on something worthwhile. For example, the amount we have spent on the War on (some) drugs so far would have been enough to put every homeless person in the U.S. into a nice apartment complete with food, clothing, and counciling to help them reenter society with enough left over to treat drug addicts and lower taxes.
Drug related violence would disappear overnight. You'll notice that alcoholics rarely get into shootouts with police or each other in the Winn Dixie checkout line in spite of their impared reasoning processes (or DTs).
Police would no longer be able to legally steal Grandma's car w/o a trial under the bizarre (to say the least) legal fiction of charging the car with drug trafficing.
We wouldn't have to listen to the drug czar doublespeaking about how (to paraphrase) drug trafficing has decreased to only double the previous figure.
Your enemies couldn't legally destroy your home and disrupt your life just by making an anonymous call to the local drug squad from a payphone (it's not unheard of, sometimes homeowners get killed that way).
The best book on the absurdity of consensual crime is Peter McWilliam's "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do."
:-)
You can [read the entire book online]. It's very thought-provoking, and stands a good chance of significantly changing the way you've been programmed to think.
Free your mind, AC.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
There are some good points in the article. The Drug War under Clinton has failed, just as it did under Reagan. (FWIW, though, Clinton locked up more people than Reagan did, so simply making the laws tougher doesn't seem to work.)
I also believe in holding people accountable for their actions, and becoming intoxicated on anything is a choice. But I do think we need to apply an even standard, and I don't think O'Reilly presents one.
His plan would penalize anyone who "uses illegal drugs or overindulges alcohol" (paraphrasing). So it's okay for people to use alcohol as long as they don't "overindulge", but it isn't okay to use illegal drugs at all (or, presumably, use legal drugs in a non-prescribed way). With regard to current law enforcement policy, this is status quo.
It would make more sense to regulate the currently illegal drugs the same way we treat legal ones, and deal with intoxication in more general terms. It's okay for people to be intoxicated on alcohol, but certain activities (driving) are more dangerous than others (watching TV, talking with friends), and people caught doing those things are treated harshly if they are intoxicated. People below a certain age are not allowed to become intoxicated because they generally do not have the life experience necessary to make that kind of decision.
The exact details of what is dangerous may vary depending on the type of drug and its effects. But I think these guidelines are more rational than giving alcohol (and nicotine) the undeserved status of being safer than other drugs, because we can allow people to indulge in it, but not in illegal drugs. Its intoxicating effects are, in many ways, more dangerous than several illegals
phil
Eventually we'll learn and stop bothering people. Eventually.
--
RumorsDaily
>who struggles to keep her lifestyle after her husband gets arrested by the DEA and umasked as a drug lord.
How do I umask something as a drug lord? I have a user on my system who is a drug lord and I'd like his default permissions to reflect it. Would it be 'umask 0420'?
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
Just a reminder that on July 31 of this year, the federal law banning possession and growing of marijuana expires in Ontario due to an Ontario Appeals Court ruling striking said law down as unconstitutional. Reason: no provision for medicinal users! The feds had a chance to rewrite it, but it appears they're going to let ti slide.
After July 31, the law comes open for attack around the rest of the country, and is likely to fall really fast.
And I imagine there will suddenly be a lot of "pressure" to reinstate the law during the months of June and July from "certain parties." Considering that our prime minister isn't exactly known for having a backbone in the face of international pressure (what can you say about a guy who treated former Indonesian dictator Suharto like a good person and friend while protesters were pepper-sprayed outside?), I can only hope he grows one and holds the line. It'd be nice to see some sanity show up on the North American continent.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Drugs should be legal (or at least decriminalized), but being under the influence should not be considered a justification for the committing of any crime.
I've been around people who've done some pretty stupid and violent things while drunk or stoned or otherwise under the influence. And I can't think of a single case where the potential wasn't there. The drugs may have lowered inhibitions, but most of these people clearly had violent tendencies even while sober. *shrug* I don't think keeping drugs illegal because a small minority is going to be irresponsible is that wonderful of an idea. That's like outlawing the Internet beccause some people post kiddie porn.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
I have seen a lot of posts basically saying this: "The Drug War is a failure and it historically never works, we should just legalize everything as save ourselves the money." Question: Does legalizing everything work either?
Alright, drugs are legalized. What happens? First and foremost, drugs get relatively cheap and most likely get weaker. The hard drugs like heroin and cocaine, who were basically created by regulation, become less widespread. The system becomes less violent because there aren't as many profits to be made. No more drug related shootings in the streets, because the street gangs need to do something else to make their cash. These are the good things.
The bad things? Drug use skyrockets. Lots more users, more addicts, more overdoses, more everything. The barrier to entry is now practically nil so lots of people use pharmaceuticals recreationally. The smart individuals stop after a while when they get tired of it or realize its taking over their lives. The stupid or short-sighted progress to harder drugs and the problems for them escalate. So after about five years the problem will got from a serious criminal problem before deregulation to a serious public health problem afterwards.
In short deregulation is not as simple as it sounds. You could quite possibly end up with a culture reminiscent of mainland china at the turn of the 20th century. Chronic opium use was characteristic of over 30% of the society. How did they finally combat it? The Communists began summarily executing the opium users, providers, and everything else in the whole system. They started and won a Drug War.
So deregulation is trading a huge expensive criminal problem for a huge expensive social problem. The deregulation of liquor did not destroy alcoholism did it? It just brought it back out in the open. I will admit that the war on drugs is a fiasco, but will deregulation be any better?
My guess is no. It will demarginalize the problem and create an epidemic. If we are to really stop the problem of drug use we will need to start going for its throat at the source suppliers instead of biting off its fingers in the distribution networks.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
For any of you who watch the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News, Bill O'Reilly had an interesting take on the War on Drugs on his show last week.
Certainly interesting and somewhat inflammatory. Gotta say I agree with it though.
--
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
From The Onion's book, Our Dumb Century:
WASHINGTON, DC-- After nearly 30 years of combat, the U.S. has lost the drug war.
Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey delivered the U.S.'s unconditional surrender in a brief statement Friday. "Drugs, after a long, hard battle, you have defeated us," he said. "Despite all our efforts, the United States has proven no match for the awesome power of the illegal high."
"In retrospect," McCaffrey added, "this was not a winnable war."
McCaffrey then handed over power to High Times magazine editor Steven Hager, who will now head the new U.S. Office of Drug Policy, replacing the now-defunct DEA.
"We must all get behind drugs now," outgoing DEA Chief Thomas Constantine said. "I recommend we all get really, really baked."
With the defeat, drugs will begin a full-scale occupation of the vanquished U.S. Massive quantities of crack, heroin, PCP, LSD, marijuana and other drugs will flood the nation legally, saving America's estimated 75 million drug users billions of dollars on their yearly drug budgets.
Street gangs, working in conjunction with Columbian coke lords, will assume leadership of America's inner cities, and federally backed marijuana farms are expected to begin appearing throughout the rural Midwest and Northern California by the end of the year.
Drug kingpin Amando Fuentes said it was "inevitable" that the U.S. would surrender. "We knew we would eventually win this war," Fuentes told reporters from his impenetrable Mexico City palace. "America's relentless campaign of anti-drug slogans, TV public-service announcements and elite elementary-school D.A.R.E. forces were a formidable enemy in this war. But in the end, my well-armed and well-financed army was victorious."
---
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
The very premise of telling people what they should and should not put into their bodies is ridiculous from the get go and a violation of their liberties. When one considers that 80% of prisoners in American penal system are there because of using, selling, manufacturing or trafficing drugs it shows how much more insane the policy is. Think about how many real criminals could be prosecuted if drugs were legalized. The last American Pres and Vice Pres both admittedly used illegal drugs in their past.. should they go serve their time? Everyone knows Bush used Cocaine in his youth.. Is he going to go do his time now? No, of course not rich white people usually don't have to ('cept maybe John Delorean). Even the freaking ex Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop said that drugs should be decriminalized and that the war was not only a failure but was ultimately responsible for killing more people than drugs ever could. This is the same nonsense that people argued about during alcohol prohibition, before they came to their senses and did the right thing. Legalize all drugs and everything will be much better than it is now.
One thing that I've often been curious about is how the WoD could effectively be stopped. For instance I'm a Canadian and generally feel a very liberal attitude among most Canadians that the WOD is absurd and should be abolished. Marijuana is pretty much decriminalized and while you'll be arrested if you sit in front of police headquarters smoking up, generally it is an ignored "crime". There are still images of beatnick police officers standing in front of grossly overstated confiscated "Crops" but these are less frequent and received with much more scorn and derision than every before.
However what if Canada took the initiative and decided to legalize a wide variety of drugs through a national production and distribution chain (for example cocaine, LSD, etc.). Aren't there worldwide conventions and agreements dictating the general drug laws of most countries? What if Canada decided to ignore these (if they do exist) : Could you imagine the treatment Canada would get? Firstly traveling to another country would pretty much guarantee a strip cavity search, and trade over the border would likely grind to a halt as every truck were searched, etc. Every day on the news overpaid, underskilled, entrenched US politicians would be filling the airwaves about the evil emnating from the neighbour to the North, blah blah blah. "Satan on Earth! The next Hitler! Eroding American values and threatening our way of life!"
So where does it start? Realistically I can't see any 1st World nation starting it seriously without the US doing it first due to fear of reprisal from the US (Do I think it would be beyond the US to invade another sovereign nation because they don't follow laws that the US agrees with? Not in the slightest. To see US politicians throwing monkey shit at South American countries because said countries provide what is requested by supposedly free US citizens just blows me away. The extent with which many Americans [obviously not all thankfully!] are willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of freedom is frightening). The likelihood of something like this taking hold in the US seems incredibly unlikely : While the intelligent sector of society has long realized the absolute absurdity of the WoD, there is a large lemming majority that will believe anything they're told by the propagandaists, and there is a large hierarchy that wants things to stay just the way they are : Police have a public enemy to ask for more funds, military can come in and do some trivial action every now and then, the Coast Guard gets lots of dough, and politicians have a public enemy that they can continually declare war on and get good ratings despite metrics that are absolutely abysmal. There is an entrenched and brutally corrupt political structure in the states with everyone having their stake and their frontman pushing their ideas. It just seems very unlikely.
Did you know that mariujana is California's largest cash crop ?
What is going on here ? It seems a bit messed up to me.
I found the movie very immersive, informative, and thought provoking. It lays out quite vividly something that most smart people already know: why the classic "war on drugs" approach can't work, because the enormous demand for drugs will create a supply, no matter what legal prohibitive steps are taken.
I think the move does exactly what you want: it suggests that a large part of the answer is up to us. This is highlighted quite clearly when the drug czar's daughter in the movie ends up in a rehab program (not really giving away any plot.)
You'll see in the reviews something that was made amply clear, in fact stated in so many words, in the movie: that the "war on drugs" is a war, in part, on the people we love: our own children, for example. The movie wasn't saying we should give up; rather, it presents a well-constructed view of the drug industry from a number of different angles, giving some insight into what drives it and why efforts against it have had limited success, and poses the question, is the approach being taking right now really the most effective one? If you're not even willing to discuss the question, then it's your motives that should be scrutinized, not Steven Soderbergh's.
Nobody says drug abuse is good. We're just saying that throwing resources at turning drug abusers into criminals is a waste of the resources because you can't stop drug abuse in that manner. Much better to put those resources into helping drug abusers put their lives in order.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
1. People DO get busted for smoking up. It has happened to people I know within the past year or two.
2. Many of the dangers of heroin and cocaine are a direct result of them being illegal. For example, overdoses happen because of impurities in the drug or because someone gets a more pure batch than usual. Crack was created as a result of cocaine being illegal, much as moonshine became quite popular during Prohibition. There used to be cocaine in Coca-Cola (and lithium in 7-up for that matter), but somehow that didn't seem to be associated with massive social problems. Perhaps full legalization isn't a good answer here, but decriminalization and expansion of treatment centers seems like a damn good idea to me.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
Sadly, this issue was hardly even discussed in this years US election. Even if you watch the nightly news you know nothing about the Wo(s)D's. You don't hear about the people killed by officers busting into the wrong house. You most likely didn't hear about the pit of 100+ dead bodies found just over the border in Mexico. If you want to know more you should go and read back issues of DRCNet's newsletter.
Lastly, support of the War on Drugs is tact support for the mob and cartels. Remember what prohibition does folks. This lesson should have been learned during the 1930's. It isn't a War on Drugs, it is a War on Personal Freemdom. Remember that at all times please.
Matthew
"Drug related crime" is a misnomer, "prohibition related crime" is the more accurate and correct phrase.
I go to school at Kent State University, and one night in October, I was trying to meet new people and I came across a room in my hall which was occupied by several individuals. The door was wide open, with the guys inside sitting around playing or watching Tony Hawk on the TV in the far corner of the room. I peeked in and said "wazzup" and found myself sitting there with them.
No more than fifteen minutes later, a police officer came to the door, saying we were being too loud, something which I can't contest since it it was quite late at night. The officer asked us why we were still up, and why we were being so loud. The kid whom the room belonged to appologized for the noise and assured the officer that we were just getting a little carried away in a conversation. The officer didn't exactly take that too well, and then asked to do a room search. Why he felt compelled to do a room search is still beyond me, my guess is that if you are up past a certain point at night, you must do drugs, being considered "suspicious"... but whatever... my story continues.
The kid said it would be alright if the cop looked around, and quite matter-of-factly stated he had nothing to hide. As soon as the cop turned around, he found several marijuana seeds sitting on the desk behind the door.
I'm now fucked.
The officer then asked to see anything else in the room that may be of illegal nature, and the kid pointed out that there was probably (!!) naddy light in the fridge.
Fucked x 2.
So for the record, since I was simply in the room, I was charged with not only violating my dorms quiet hours policy (low volume levels between 8pm-11am) but was in "possession" of both alcohol and marijuana under Kent State's "Joint Responsibily" clause.
The schools policy on the matter is stated very clearly in the student handbook: First marijuana violation = $100 fine. Nowhere in the book was I able to find a punishment for an alcohol violation. When I went to the schools proprietary court system called Judicial Affairs for an intake hearing, I was told that the pressing punishment was to be kicked out of Kent State.
Let me recap: I was at the wrong place at the wrong time and I am now being told that I face being kicked out of college little over a month after starting. I had no prior offenses.
Paranoid that the school would actually kick me out, I had gone, two days after the late-night incident, to the local health clinic on my own free will, hoping to help clear the charges. I paid $85 for a drug test, which came up negative of all "street drugs," weed included. Armed with the knowladge of both my clean drug screening, and the fact that the school never gave me a sobriety test, I felt a little comfortable going into my hearing.
My parents were there, two KSUPD officers representing the officer which was there that night, my RD, the RA of the floor this happened on, and finally the judge.
Soon after the actual trial started, which was a full month after the incident, I began to feel very cornered and nervous. The judge attacked me for the fact that I was around the guys at all, would not accept that I did not know them before that night, that I did not know the seeds and beer were in the room, and that my grades were low enough (2.0GPA, and this wasn't even at midterms yet, what the fuck...) to warrant my being shoved out the door.
I Fired back stating that they broke their own policies for room search seing that the cop had already entered the room before he asked to search. The punishment being pressed upon me was not in accordance with the printed university handbook. The fact that I had no previous criminal nor Kent State record. The fact that my grades were in the toilet because I had missed a test in Algebra and still needed to make it up, thus giving me an F in the class. (FYI, before the test, I had an "A" and ended up with an "A" as a final grade...)
Finally, the hearing officer told me that I was being both irresponsible for own actions, and being arrogant. He then proceded to actually YELL at me, telling me that I "NEED TO GROW UP AND ACCEPT RESPONSIBLITY" for something which I had no responsiblity for. I didn't see the weed seeds(!) in the room, and I sure as hell don't have x-ray vision to see through refrigerator doors.
I waited till the very end to show him my drug test results. This enfuriated him even more.
The Resident Assistant ( a student ) tried pleading for my case, but to no luck. My Resident Director ( the Kent state employee who is hired to watch after a whole dorm building ) sided with my judge. The cops was obviously clueless, since they weren't there that night.
The judge finally left, came back, and said that he really wanted to remove me from Kent State, but would instead be "lenient" and give me a $100 fine plus 12 months of strict diciplinary probation. In this time, I can not violate any rules, including another noise violation, or even simply locking my keys inside my room. The drug thing was my warning card, I guess. Perfect.
So now I have to go back to this horrible excuse for a higher education facility in a week to begin my Spring semester. I have pretty much lost any chance of transfering out until my probation runs out, since it won't be removed from my record until then, if ever. The appeal I had was answered by the school in a rejection stating that the punishment was fair due to the "overwhelming perponderance of evidence against [me]."
Long story... now a simple question: Who do I turn to in this clear case of being fucked over?
Before the deluge of "what does this have to do with News for Nerds?" posts starts to swell, I'd like to point out that the federal government has, in the last few decades, used two primary examples of "public safety" to get their eavesdropping agenda through:
Of those two, terrorism is mostly only used when there's a major incident (the two that come to mind are the Trade Center bombing and the Murrah Federal Building bombing). Drugs are used whenever there isn't a good explosion somewhere.
You want to know why they think they can put Carnivore through? So they can "finally begin to stem the tide of drugs into our country." (That's not a quote, just a characterization.) Why do you think there's a serious threat of them using Tempest gear in the real world, or cavalierly subpoenaing reams of logging info from your ISP? So they can fight the War on Drugs -- and incidentally have the apparatus in place in case someone declares some other entirely consensual behavior as criminal. Reverse engineering by individuals, perhaps, or encrypted communication with other countries.
And why do such surprising entities as the Motion Picture and Recording Industries think they can take away our rights to our own property so carelessly? Why are people so apathetic that their property, once legally purchased, can be monitored so closely by the manufacturers? Because the government has been softening us up for years with slow encroachments on our freedom, justified by the above drug war.
So if you're fed up with the way our rights as individuals are being trampled on -- first by the government, then by companies with an excellent template to follow -- you're fed up with the drug war. And movies like Traffic really do have a direct impact on you. For that matter, so do "crackpot" (uh, poor choice of words) organizations like NORML, who have pointed out the increasing absurdities of this rationalization for years.
Another thing this Drug War enforces is continual international hostility to the US -- we're constantly tampering in the affairs of other countries, especially those in this hemisphere, and justifying it in the name of "stopping the supply of drugs." If you would rather not have China or Columbia dictate policy to us, and you believe in the Golden Rule ("Do unto others," not the one we generally use), then you, too, are against the Drug War. That's probably not news for nerds, though, so I'll let that drop....
phil
If you put a murderer in jail, you have removed a killer from society. If you put a drug dealer in jail, you have created a job opening.
That, in two sentences, is why a war on drugs cannot work. It is too expensive to control the behavior of third parties. You can control the behavior of people who interact with you at a reasonable cost, but you cannot control the behavior of people who interact with other people. Neither of them will cooperate with you.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Let me first start by saying that the issue of drugs is probably the only area on which I have anyway conservative views - but even I can see that the 'War on Drugs' launched by America is not only a failure, but a catastrophy.
:"Formally, all U.S. aid to Colombia, which produces most of the world's cocaine and most of the heroin consumed in the United States, is intended for anti-drug rather than counter-insurgency efforts. But in practical terms, the distinction is fading...". Ironic, considering it's pro-government paramilitaries that control the larger proportion of the drugs trade...the very same paramilitaries that routinely commit genocidal raids on villages that have tried to remain neutral...the very same paramilitaries that wander Columbia armed with American made weaponary such as MP-5s and secure in their training from American soldiers...oops! I mean advisors. No-one's saying that the rebels are angels - they too have participated in the drugs trade and kidnapping and so on. I'm just saying when a policy has got it so wrong, both on the American domestic front and on the foreign front, why is the policy persued so fanactically by certain Americans?
I would almost say world-wide catastrophy.
Sites like november.org give a smattering of alarming statistics about the effects in America of the war on drugs(for example "The average sentence for a first time, non-violent drug offender is longer than the average sentence for rape, child molestation, bank robbery or manslaughter..."). Walter Cronkite takes a dim view of the war here. Also, some surprising 'mistakes' of the war on drugs can be found here.
But here's where the international aspect comes in: most of the War on Drugs aid that is being sent to foreign(i.e. non-US) nations is being mainly used to support regiemes that otherwise might topple. For instance Marxist rebels in Columbia have found themselves pitted against a regieme supported by War on Drugs money and soldiers trained by American 'advisors'. As freerepublic.com puts it
Anyway....just to be more on topic, I saw C4's 'Traffikk', pretty good. I hope the film 'Traffic' hasn't dulled the message too much so as to render the message unreadable to the vast majority of people(i.e. non-slashdotters 8).
8)
Concrete analysis...