Slashdot Mirror
Voters Vote Yes, County Says No
Khyber writes in with a story from Montana, where residents of Missoula County voted in a referendum intended to advise county law-enforcement types to treat marijuana offenses as low-profile. The referendum would not have changed any laws, but was advisory only. After voters approved it, county commissioners overturned it by a 2-to-1 vote. They were swayed by the argument of the county attorney, who had a "gut feeling" that Missoula's electorate had misinterpreted the ballot language. The move has resulted in a flood of disaffection among voters, especially young voters. "Is there even a point to voting any more if the will of the people can so easily be subverted by two people?" one voter posted on a comment blog.
I think they forgot something...
How do you expect us to RTFA if there's no FA?
No and that is why voting among American citizens is extremely low.
I keep telling myself I'm not the desperate type.
There are no links to the actual news story... surely this was covered in the local paper or something???
this is it.
the government is so far removed from the ppl they don't even try to make it look legit anymore.
it would not matter if an entire state voted to allow medical weed, the feds just ignore it.
they can not allow anything to subvert their insane war on a plant. but hey, enjoy that beer and a cig! they are much safer.
-.no
Exactly. IMHO, slashdot should have an "offtopic" section for stuff like this.
Where the elected representative and not the people are the ones that, in the end, make the decision. While it is a surprise that it happens in such a low level in the power hierarchy, it is not like it doesn't happens all the time on Washington. Switzerland has a democracy, it suits better to their needs. America has a republic, used to be good when the representative to people ratio was around 30000, but not anymore.
You can change who is in charge, but they are the ones who will decide for you.
One could argue that voting issues certainly fall under 'Stuff that matters'.
Here in Oklahoma, we brought the lottery to a vote three times and it passed all three times, but we never got the lottery until about a year after the third time.
Could it be that the only reason this is being brought up is because it has to do with marijuana?
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
While I may agree with the sentiments expressed in the article... why on earth do we have an article posted in the first place without a link? Kind of defeats the entire purpose, doesn't it, if there's nothing we can read to verify any of this?
I found this story doing a Google search. From TFA:
The tone of the hearing shifted when Van Valkenburg said that he had proposed the amendments because of a "gut feeling" that Missoula voters were not "detail-oriented" enough to understand the complete scope of the initiative.
I think the only ones who failed the "detail-oriented" test are the slashdot editors who posted a story that references an article and a blog but failed to provide any links.
GMD
watch this
The government taxes and spends a LOT of money to prosecute the war on drugs. Virtually every department gets a cut.
It is only logical that a county attorney would want to continue prosecuting these cases, otherwise he might have to cut staff and save the taxpayers a few bucks.
Not all geeks think that partying is evil... This is a topic that is quite relevant to young people these days.
Today's lucky number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
There was no link in the story, so here's some that seem to be relevant.
An article
relevant Google news search
I'm glad to see this happens elsewhere. I thought maybe Arizona had a monopoly on that. Here, they hold a vote, then decide whether to follow the result or not. Whenever they choose not to, their excuse is usually "the voters didn't understand this".
The world is my oyster. That's why it's always in a stew.
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007/03/24/news /local/news04.txt
Man -- and I thought *I* was lazy. But too lazy to Google it? Wow.
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/city/article/miss oula_county_comission_amends_marijuana_deprioritiz ation_initiative/C8/L8/
Each state has 2% of the Senate vote.
Montana seems to have 2 Democrat senators... maybe they should start a groundswell by voting in some libertarians who wouldn't put up for that stuff.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
OK, that was bizarre -- even coming from an AC...
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
And seeing that communism isn't exactly the solution we're looking for, let's all convert to imperialism. ....What?!
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C1 bottles of beer on the wall. Take one down, pass it round... Oh, umm...
The county prosecutor opened the meeting by telling us that we did not understand the initiative, to which many of us, myself included, assured him that we read the initiative in its entirety, and did understand it. When everybody was done speaking, he came back up and told us that he disagreed with us, and that we still did not understand the initiative. In addition, he showed us a map showing how the votes were distributed, and told us that since most of the votes were centered around the "metropolitan" area of Missoula, and not so much in the surrounding areas of the county, that it was not fair to voters to have this initiative.
I really enjoy living in Missoula for a number of reasons, but the local government is not one of them.
For the record, I did vote, and will continue to, regardless of my opinion that voting is purely symbolic.
It's been said by Jean-Jacque Rousseau in the Social Contract that Democracy stops being Democracy (Democracy in the sense of Voting for Opinion vs the difference between Democracy and Republicanism) when the Government stops being a representative for the people. Once that happens it becomes an oppressive tyranical force something akin to a Dictatorship which is the ultimate end of Democractic rule, hence why its been said that every Democractic society needs to continuously reinvent itself and suffer a civil upheavel or it will become a Dictatorship in rule but a Democracy in name, this is the worst type of Dictatorship since it abuses not only the people it controls but also lies to the truth of its own existance. I would rather live under a Dictatorship which acknowledged it was rather than one who said it wasn't. Hence why I'm glad I live in Canada, although we still face many problems along the same lines but not as bad yet.
"the problem with common sense is that its not that common"
Article in local paper.
The actual initiative
The current story.
You're welcome.
Measure (This is actually short and readable. Maybe you will place it on the ballot in your county?)i nit.pdfs /local/news04.txt
http://www.co.missoula.mt.us/Election/Marijuana_I
Article
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007/03/24/new
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
The chairman of the Democratic party in my county pulled a trick to prevent a motion to initiate impeachment of President Bush from even getting voted on. There was great outrage among local Democrats. We had a county Democratic convention today. It was early Saturday morning but I showed up. It was the first convention I've ever attended but I was pissed off that the will of the people had been subverted.
A new more progressive chair and vice-chair were voted in unanimously. You can make a difference, especially by starting at the local level and working your way up.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
From --
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
We live under a defacto theocracy, with an entire canon of state enforced "morality" -- not just "anti-drug" but also "anti-racist" dogma, forced down the throat of an unwilling people by a managerial elite that think they're called by God or something to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.
There is only one fundamental human right from which all other options for living can be chosen:
The right to freedom of association with people of like mind upon land you have a natural right to occupy.
The rest is details or theocratic aggression.
Seastead this.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? First, nobody told the voters they got to choose the law, they simply got to advise the council. If they're not happy with the way the council took their advice, next election they can replace the council.
State != feds. If a state has a law contradicting a federal law, the federal law overrules. By definition, the fed ignores state laws - it's not their job to enforce them, and federal laws take priority. This was a county level law. Corruption in one county (and I'm not saying this is a case of corruption) is hardly evidence of corruption on a state or federal level.
That node was flagged by the new /. content analyzer as unreachable and optimized out.
Fascinating technology, really. Here's a link to how they do it:
This is the same behavior exhibited by the Massachusetts legislature in 2000 when the tax payers voted on a binding referendum to lower the state income tax rate from 5.3% to 5.0%. This time period was during a $1B annual surplus but the legislators stated that it was not finacially wise for the state to lower the tax rate and that the resulting decrease would not significantly benefit the tax payers in terms of cold hard cash. As it was a binding referendum the legislators simply passed a bill the next day to raise the tax rate back to 5.3%
This only confirms the reason why I and many others simply do not vote. Votes are simply subverted, and ignorance is usually cited by those in power.
The voters probably did not understand the wording of the ballot.
The voters probably did not understand what they are voting on.
The voters are too stupid to vote so just project the illusion that their votes matter.
I for one am sick and tired of the government and those in power who think they are above the voters. Government and those who work for the Government exist to serve the public, not the other way around.
Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
Let me give you a hint: All voting irregularities are 'stuff that matters' and it's stuff that matters to geeks as well as everyone else. The war on drugs has been as absurd as the DMCA and the **AA's war in copyrights/fair use.
... unless of course, you are only 12 and reading /. from your mom's basement?
You might argue that this isn't a voting irregularity, but the vote result was 'irregularly' thrown out on bogus grounds. That is to say that our government is not listening to us, and THAT is something that matters!
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
I think that the notion of "Stuff that Matters" is "Stuff that Matters to Nerds," not "politics of some small town."
The correct name is Cannabis. Marijuana refers to cannabis sativa strains originating in Mexico. There is also cannabis indica, which is lower in THC (the 'high') and higher in CBD (which is more beneficial in some medical cases, such as cataplexy).
There are also two other main strains, Industrial Hemp being one of them, but also another which i cannot remember the name of.
I think that it certainly matters more to many of us here than whether or not some dinosaurs dug burrows.
They do. They call it the "Politics" section.
I'd suggest that the only thing that "matters" for anyone keen on the subject is good music and lots of brownies.
The key to criminalisation was the way in which Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was written and passed.
To rephrase the above, if you wanted to deal in the stuff, you needed a tax stamp. Which required possession of the stuff. Which was
It's hardly surprising that in the decades since, the laws concerning cannabis are just as tortured and contradictory, especially when considered against the background of yet another new study that suggest alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous
exactly... especially when you get get caught in Missoula County with said "Stuff"
After so many countless Americans have fought and died to protect our freedom, we end up with fascist totalitarianism. It's like they all died in vane.
Kharma is like a boomerang. Mine is broken.
I live in Missoula and discussed this initiative with quite a few people, none of whom are consumers of unregulated or illegal substances. They all voted for this, and they all understood it clearly. "The police should be investigating real crimes" was the most commonly cited reason. There are unsolved robberies every week in this town that receive, as far as anyone can tell, scant police attention. Police can build careers and the county can confiscate property (and generate revenue) "busting people for drugs" but investigating robberies is hard work and not glamorous in any way. The people of Missoula county understand this clearly. The people who overturned this will very likely be voted out of office next chance.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
American democracy is a form of entertainment. A stage show, which certainly does not take requests from the audience.
Task Mangler
b) Elected officials don't do things the way you would.
Are you on the weed or what?
Why do you not vote for someone who thinks like you do? Don't tell me it doesn't matter, because you already told me you didn't vote, so we can't really know, now can we?
Personally, I think the problem is that we have ended up with a binary choice for elected officals; Assholes and Dimwits. The de-facto two party system just doesn't cover the real-world spectrum of opinion, including those who self-select to opt out of the system because, wah, wah, there is noone who exactly represents them exactly.
change is incremental, but if you don't vote you are stuck with no hope of change. If everyone who didn't vote "because it doesn't matter" voted for someone other than the two big parties it might give those of us who vote holding our nose a hint that other out there care too.
I always vote.
Sometimes "my guy" wins, sometimes he loses. I am almost always disappointed either way, by the policies that the guy in office advocates. Usually it seems like elected officials do something, just to be doing something, which is almost always wrong.
Hmm, maybe there isn't much difference, other than the fact that I can at least say "I tried".
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
>The influence of lobbyists and the nice gifts they bring matters much more than any pathetic constituent.
Two possible reasons for this, both curable by voter action.
First possibility, the politician cares more about booze and hookers in the short term than about getting reelected to get more booze and hookers in his next term. Voters can fix that every time someone's term comes up.
Second possibility, the lobbyist gifts actually influence elections. In the US, literal vote-buying is rare. Politicians want money for their campaigns so they can buy TV ads. Voters can fix that problem too, by ignoring TV campaign ads and by talking politics with their friends to drown out the campaign ads ("Joe, Joe, who do you think is going to be good for your family? Are you going to believe me, or some ad agency from New York?").
When somebody does a bad job it's their fault. When you can fire them and you don't it's your fault.
"...and then, depression set in."
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Stop voting them back in
What happened in Missoula County is similar to how the Electoral College works. Voters in the US do not directly elect the President and Vice President, but choosing the electors. Electors are members of the Electoral College who actually elect the President.
l -college/faq.html, "In the early 1800's, the term 'electoral college' came into general usage as the unofficial designation for the group of citizens selected to cast votes for President and Vice President. It was first written into Federal law in 1845, and today the term appears in 3 U.S.C. section 4, in the section heading and in the text as 'college of electors.'"
a /electcollege_3.htm "The Founding Fathers feared the direct popular election option. There were no organized national political parties yet, no structure by which to choose and limit the number of candidates. In addition, travel and communication was slow and difficult at that time. A very good candidate could be popular regionally, but remain unknown to the rest of the country. A large number of regionally popular candidates would thus divide the vote and not indicate the wishes of the nation as a whole.
From http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electora
"It is possible that an elector could ignore the results of the popular vote, but that occurs very rarely. Your vote helps decide which candidate receives your State's electoral votes."
Why do we have an Electoral College? Because back in the 1800's, it took too long to count the popular votes. In addition, from http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/
On the other hand, election by Congress would require the members to both accurately assess the desires of the people of their states and to actually vote accordingly. This could have led to elections that better reflected the opinions and political agendas of the members of Congress than the actual will of the people.
As a compromise, we have the Electoral College system."
Who are you? Some would be politician who's too lazy, or crazy, to get on the ballot? With your telling your friend how to vote as opposed to letting him make a decision on his own, one wonders.
Other things that matter:
Iranians capture 15 brit soldiers.
Mine disaster in Russia.
More murders in Thailand.
Well, you see it's like... oh hold on, I have to step away from the computer, I'm laughing so hard... OK, it's like don't worry about your karma because you see... hold on... I need to get some more of these cookies. These cookies are awesome and all of the sudden I just can't seem to get enough of... hold on, I think I'm going to have another laughing fit... umm... you see, oh, something about some "news for nerds" question. Dude, just chill out. Haven't you ever looked up at the stars and thought, that light is touching my face and it was touching a start? So thats why it's news for nerds.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
In Soviet Russia, you represent Democracy!
Ballot initiatives don't have much of a direct effect (although the actual news story I found says that they're still deprioritizing non-felony possession), but one of the commissioners who voted to change the initiative needs to run for re-election in 2008. If anyone plausible wants her job, it probably wouldn't be hard to defeat her on a platform of not second-guessing the electorate and the pot declaration that voters already went for.
> Iranians capture 15 brit soldiers.
I think they were sailors and marines that were captured, not soldiers.
Ganja is in the dominion of Jah, and is not within the jurisdiction of the governments of men. Anyone who takes a stand against cannabis is putting themselves at war with their own soul. All of you smokers know this is true, but can't be explained or admitted in public.
soap,ballot,jury,ammo. you used the first two, try the third, and then go enforce your state's term limit. If nothing else the bad national PR should bring them down.
We are all just people.
it would not matter if an entire state voted to allow medical weed, the feds just ignore it.
I have this crazy insane fantasy that I know will never happen. California votes to legalize marijuana, and then of course federal agents come in to arrest some people to "make an example" but then, in my fantasy world, the governor of California mobilizes the national guard and has the federal agents arrested, and then goes on TV and says, "ok federal government, what are you going to do? You are NOT going to fight a civil war over this because you don't have the balls tha Lincoln had. So your choices are, 1: get over it, or 2: oh wait, there is no 2."
This is exactly why I don't vote, & never will.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
You know, it was 75 years ago this month since marijuana was banned by the federal government. Use of this weed has risen every year since then. Could it be that the law just isn't working? Naw...
you were pwned!
So do religion issues, how to get laid, and maximizing your 401(k) return. That's why we have (drum roll please) religion websites, hook-up tips websites, and investment websites. Here's a hint: it's called specialization of websites to particular topics.
It doesn't particularly bother me that ./ carried this story, I just thought it was off-topic. You don't have to get all cranky about it.
With your telling your friend how to vote as opposed to letting him make a decision on his own, one wonders.
Yes, only those with the finances to have their opinions televised should be allowed to express opinions or influence people. We little people shouldn't think too hard or speak too loudly, it might cause us to forget our place.
We are all just people.
The cable news channels would all bust a nut over that.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Belladonna is a plant too. It doesn't change the fact that it's deadly. Opium and Coca are plants too. That doesn't make them harmless. Drug abuse and addiction harms not just individuals, but entire families, and the rest of society.
Beer and (another addictive, carcinogenic plant:) tobacco are not safer. They should be restricted More, and that's gradually happening to smokers, worldwide.
Just what are you suggesting we do about the problem with drug abuse and addiction?
Politics anywhere can affect us all. The original laws in this country that established the legal grounds for criminalizing marijuana possession and usage were funded by the lumber/paper industry and the cotton industry. They made donations to elected officials as well as paid for prejudiced research on marijuana. This process should sound familiar to you.
It wasn't marijuana they wanted to get rid of though but hemp, by focusing on marijuana propaganda they got hemp production in the US stopped as well as imports of hemp. Similar tactics have been repeated many times. Hemp had many uses at the time, including the production of paper and cloth, in fact the Declaration of Independance and the US Constitution are printed on paper made from hemp. Hemp would potentially be a great resource atm for replacing many hydrocarbon products currently used, so you can bet that the oil companies might join in any attempts to legalize hemp production. Hemp has a wide range of very good uses if you bother to research for them. Far too many to discuss here.
Marijuana prior to the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act had many medical uses and the American Medical Association opposed the passing of this act. This was mentioned by at least one other poster here but they didn't go in depth on it and neither will I for the purposes of this post other then to suggest everyone research a bit.
As I and others have stated here before, the only way we can change the current path of our government is to retake it from the current power structure from the local government on up. To do so requires the education of our fellow citizens and ourselves on what is really going on, on how it really should be and how to get it there. Therefore the events in some small town where the citizens have tried to reclaim their government (or some large city, or some other state) are of interest to us all, particularly when it involves governmental roadblocks to such repossession.
Will you ignore it when they come for those in Misoula, because your not from Misoula? (reference to the oft repeated quote) Btw, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were hemp farmers and Jefferson was a big advocate of its uses.
We are the people who fix your computers. We are the people who keep your infrastructure moving and alive. We are the people who make sure your insignificant lives are not interrupted because some piece of technology you depend on (that you've never bothered to learn anything about, even though it runs your life) breaks and we save the day.
Guess what? We don't LIKE alcohol! It fucks up our work. We smoke pot because it is relaxing and mentally stimulating. Anyone who doesn't feel the same way either hasn't smoked 'real' marijuana or they have a physical/emotional problem with it. Great! Don't smoke pot.
Just don't tell me I have to quit because YOU have a problem with it.
America DOES have a marijuana problem. The Problem? 80% or more Marijuana users are smoking LOW-GRADE marijuana that promotes medical and emotional issues.
Apart from the *obvious* flaws in your statements that others have expressed, how about News for socio-political/legal nerds?
Who said that everyone had to be a nerd of technology? I know several geeks and nerds of social studies, law and assorted subjects.
Gee. Talk of short sightedness.
Maybe it was short term memory loss.
"Is there even a point to voting any more if the will of the people can so easily be subverted by two people?"
I suspect this will be an unpopular opinion, but... SCREW the will of the people!
(in most cases)
The point of electing representatives is to make complex decisions that otherwise couldn't be made by an uninformed electorate that doesn't have sufficient time to be come educated on every issue. Now, this is not specific to this particular issue, but to issues in general. Generally speaking, direct democracy to decide various issues is a bad idea.
On the other hand, here in California, we do have the referendum system, which I actually do support. Sometimes we do need a direct vote of the people to make law. But that doesn't mean that elected reps should automatically roll over to the will of the people, if it's clear the people were not sufficiently educated. That's what they're there for.
If the people think the elected reps are wrong, they can vote them out in the next election.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
it's classic psychology: they have trained dogs to learn that they cannot control their surroundings. they teach them that if they get an electric shock from jumping over a barrier, then the dogs just lay down and take the shocks
it's sad, and it works just as well on humans
the point is to effect control on your government, that's the beauty of a democracy. but if a democracy is populated by those who think helpessly, like slaves, like, you, then democracy does not work
when you withhold your vote, you only help those who you complain about. those who you hate are HAPPY that you do not vote. if their actions lead you to not vote, all the more reason to do the actions they do, according to them
your psychology is that of a slave in a fascist state. and if enough people who think like you populate this country, then that is exactly what it will become. BECAUSE of people like you, not in spite of people like you
look: there will ALWAYS be assholes who try to manipulate the system. always. but simply because they exist, you will withhold your voice from your government. incredible. you must always fight the assholes who would subvert democracy. but if you simply stop fighting them, and give up your vote, then guess what? they win
if this country is not democratic in anyway, it is more because of people like you, then the assholes who would subvert it. because evil assholes can be fought. apathy on the other hand, is an obstinate unmoveable useless obstacle
people who think like you are the biggest reason democracy fails: "i'm helpless, so i will not vote"
no, you're not helpless, your vote counts. you only think that way because you have been trained like a dog in a cage. you've learned helpelessness, you have no heart, you've ceased caring
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's this kind of crap that has led to governments being overthrown. While this is just an advisory on mary jane, tomorrow it could be any of the bill of rights thats tossed out. Politicians who overrule the will of the people are playing a dangerous game.
Just remember, Ted Kaczynski lived in Montanna.
Canada, along with most other stable democracies, changes gradually and peacefully. Violent civic upheaval leads to long stagnant periods without change, segmented by another violent upheaval. Revolutionary societies such as the USSR and the USA are neither healthy nor stable.
It seems to me that the biggest problem here is that they bothered to throw the vote out instead of simply ignoring it, since the measure was never binding to begin with.
Then again, that's actually a good thing even if it discounts the will of the voters. Because --
-- now that they're on record as ignoring their constituents, the voters are free to toss them on their little white asses next time they're up for re-election.
If the voters choose not to do so--and that is probably fairly likely--then I think the "something wrong" part of this equation has little to do with the commissioners.
... it seems like the initiative was poorly drafted:
If the initiative truly is a "mere suggestion," and voters thought it was more than that, put out a new initiative that unequivocally states that the intent is not to advise law enforcement, but to actually change the law. If Van Valkenburg is just an obstinate jackass, and the initiative actually was designed to change the law, it should be relatively easy to enforce the language.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Nerds tend to care about and try to understand how systems of any sort work, and are particularly intrigued and interested when those systems behave anomalously or break down. In this case, the democratic process is a system, and the implementation of this system in a particular county in a particular state seems to have broken down spectacularly, and about an issue which many young people care about, no less.
So, it is news for nerds. And its stuff that matters to many here, judging by the decent number of comments thus far.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Then came the US Government WWII "Hemp For Victory" campaign.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkroOQT-84Q
Lots of historical info in that video.
Shitdrummer.
Contrary to popular belief, nerds like to smoke pot, also. Particularly musical nerds that spend most of their quality nerd-time with their heads buried in sequencers and software synths composing glitchy beats and practicing for the upcoming laptop deathmatch.
Why not just recall the arrogant SOBs?
Or wait a couple years and pass a binding referendum next time since you can't trust the bastards.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
Are not all what we, as public suffer from due to "guts" politicians have ..
they always have the "guts" to oppose popular will, but however manage to stay in power still.
Read radical news here
Fred Van Valkenburg
(406) 258-4737
fvanvalk@co.missoula.mt.us
County Commissioners
(406) 258-4877
200 W. Broadway St, Missoula, MT 59802
Bill Carey
(406) 721-5008
644 Cleveland St, Missoula, MT 59801
Barbara Evans
(406) 543-1268
808 Whitaker Dr, Missoula, MT 59803
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
...of the authoritarianism present in both major political parties. The unifying thread in politics today is paternalism - the belief that people are stupid (there really is no other way to read this council decision), and need the guidance of a wise government/polity to avoid ruin. Our elected representatives follow this belief in spades. So does the majority of the population that believes politics is a team sport (team blue is smart, team red is teh stupid and vice versa). There is a better way, but it requires letting go of this silly concern that people, given the opportunity, might make poor choices. Sure, some people will because some people are idiots. But most wont. And ultimately, as long as they're only harming themselves, it is not our business to coerce them into making the "right" choices. Period.
There's a lot of bullshit talk of collective responsibility these days. But it's really just a slicker version of good old fashioned paternalism, no different in essence than the paternalism inherent in the divine right of kings. If you really want change, vote for the people who truly believe in personal responsibility. If you really want change, vote out anyone who believes in social engineering, no matter what guise it takes. Run for office yourself if you want, but remember, there are many valid ways to participate in politics. Just talking to your friends and making them aware of options other than the current bipolar authoritarianism can help. Working to reform the major parties can help. Really, the only thing that doesn't help is walking away in disgust, even if it is all too tempting these days.
So this is a compelling reason to vote, not a reason to wuss out of the democratic process.
The started a temporary section called politics during one of the presidential races. Since then, Slashdot has started taking a deep left political slant. I Don't know if it is intentional or just the tone of the editors or management coming out.
But seeing how pot-smoking and making it legal is typically one of those left leaning views, It was probably given more importance then a site tagged "news for nerd" would normally give.
...What do you want for a place where the primary crop is dental floss?
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
It's hardly surprising that in the decades since, the laws concerning cannabis are just as tortured and contradictory, especially when considered against the background of yet another new study that suggest alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous
Regardless of Dr. Nutt's findings (note my ability to refrain from making jokes!), the problem I have with illegal (and legal) drugs is NOT primarily what it does to the user. While I think that a society of addicts is ultimately doomed, my primary concern are the victims of drug abusers.
We already have to deal with intoxicated people operating cars, planes, and other potentially lethal machinery. How much worse would things be if now, in addition to those, you've got people high on ecstasy or marijuana? What about heroin? Would bystander deaths double? Triple? Some of the effects of these drugs make alcohol pale in comparison.
People like to explain that the "war on drugs" is failing and how eventually the government will have no choice but to legalize these substances. They even go on to say how great it would be for everyone because then the government will be able to collect taxes in the same manner they do with tobacco. Last time I checked, not very many people grow tobacco in their backyards and make cigarettes in their basements. Why does anyone think dealers give the government a cut of their lucrative business?
Pretending for a moment that anyone would pay these "drug taxes", I wonder what percentage of these new taxes would go to pay for the welfare of addicts? 300% at the very least I would assume, but very likely more. Society already has to pay for addicts, how many would we be paying for if these substances become easily and legally available?
Logic has no place in pro-drug arguments, because there is nothing logical about (ab)using these drugs in the first place. I don't suggest to have answers, but I don't care what you use to justify your reasoning, in any case, the only question legalizing illegal drugs answers is "how can we destroy our society?"
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
I'm not a pot smoker, but when was the last time a government admitted it was wrong?
By your logic then you believe that alcohol and tobacco should also be illegal. Is that the case?
Little people allow themselves to be so in democracy; How else would you explain the intellectual stimulating movie "Predator" being the launchpad for 2 future governors.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
Those who COUNT the votes decide everything.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
What this shows is a chilling ignorance of how the system works among those voters. Advisory referendums are, well... advisory. They are not binding. They are easy to disregard and overturn by design.
Becoming diaffected because the system works as designed is stupid. Get off your ass and pass a binding resolution.
Actually, while the 'not many' part is true, a large number of folks grow some or all of the tobacco that they personally use, and many more roll their own cigarettes. Not a majority, to be sure, but it does happen, and it would happen the same way if Marijuana could be legally grown openly.
The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
-- now that they're on record as ignoring their constituents, the voters are free to toss them on their little white asses next time they're up for re-election.
Unless, of course, they decide that the voters "didn't understand" the ballots because the voters aren't "detail-oriented enough", and just stay in office, like they just did with the marijuana decision...
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Is there even a point to voting any more...?
There hasn't really ever been a point. Even in the absence of fraud our votes aren't actually counted.
I am in the midst of a series on voting on my blog. Please let me know what you think. There's a lot more to come in the series, though.
Left! Left? I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around your poor leftie-biggot excuse for an arguement.
;)
While I don't sport a Neo-Libertarian bent myself, I do believe that legalization or at least the downsizing of regulations concerning personal behaviors is a torch carried by the said-same people. Oddly enough it's one of the platforms on which I agree with them (Yup! I'm a leftie.) Needless to say the marijuana legalization issue is less left/right oriented as it is a freedom/fascism issue.
That having been said, I'm a nerd (technology and Linux geek) and this is news to me, and might I add very interesting and important to all Americans not just non-nerd ones.
So not only are you wrong in the crux of your post, but also in the snide undercurrent also. Have a nice day!
cat sig >
Sadly it's just a microcosm of the wider world. The UN General Assembly (i.e. The rest of the world) can vote all it likes but it's resolutions are non-binding. Yet when just a handful of countries vote (the Security Council) their word is law. The 5 permanent members ("permanent" already being an affront to any kind of democracy) also have veto power over everyone else. It's so ridiculously undemocratic, I'm not really sure why anyone bothers turning up. I think the rest of the world should set up their own UN, where countries have an equal say. If you think that countries should have unequal representation, it should be based on population count not wealth since you would not like rich people in your own country to have more votes than you, would you?
> "The war on drugs has been as absurd as the DMCA and the **AA's war in copyrights/fair use."
Wow. Reading that actually made me start to care about non-electronic injustice and incompetence. Now purging that from my mind so I can resume my life of apathy.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
"Logic has no place in pro-drug arguments, because there is nothing logical about (ab)using these drugs in the first place"
Of course there is, the brain is a pleasure seeking mechanism, in fact it can be argued that all effort is mediated in the brain for the purpose of seeking pleasure, learn about it. Drug users simply take a shorter route to pleasure, however damaging in the long run it may be.
So let's put them in jail, support them for a large part of their lives, give criminals an easy way to make money, ruin millions of lives in a bogus war, loose the tax on consumption... no, you are the illogical one. As for answering each and every point in detail there is no point, the willfully ignorant have no interest in learning anything.
You must be new here. Sorry but I'll disagree with most of the responses here. Slashdot since it's inception has been subverted by many groups.
n ce/Your rights online. However the front page is for IMPORTANT news for all nerds, not just what ever people want to promote mindlessly.
We can argue which nerd is interested in this but in the end this is NOT news for nerds, this is politics that has no point except to be political.
If we even want to start talking about if it's appropriate or not let's first get article links IN THE SUMMARY, and then show us the wording of the vote. But in the end this is not interesting.
If you want to pretend there's political nerds, fine but realize they are really "people who are into politics and nerds" pot-smoking nerds are "pot-smokers who are nerds", neither of these have anything to do with this site. We could argue people in this state who are nerds care, but a vast majority of us don't give a fuck.
There's a reason that we have sections for Slashdot, you can find news for nerds who care about apple/books/games/developers issues/hardware/interviews/IT/Linux/Politics/Scie
At least that's how I understand this site perhaps kdawson or the promoter (I assume it's not just kdawson who moves this to the main page) has a different opinion on this matter.
I'll tell you why legalizing drugs will aid our society. And it doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with the people who take drugs -- which, I'll note, already do so in violation of the law.
It'll help because it will mean criminals no longer make money. What'd Prohibition give us? The Mafia. What'd the War on Drugs give us? The South American cartels. What gave the Triads the financial backing they needed to engage in protection rackets and slavery? Funds from opium sales.
You remember hearing about that town in Mexico that can't keep a sheriff because the cartels murder anyone elected? Why are they doing that? 'Cause they like money, that's why. Who's giving them money? Why, that would be us. Why are they getting money? 'Cause they sell drugs. Drugs are made of fucking plants, why are they so expensive?
Artificially suppressed supply.
People using drugs is a problem, and one we need to deal with. AFTER we deal with the people with the fiscal incentive to give people drugs -- I think they're called "pushers". Why do you suppose that is?
Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
Some of us prefer not to inhale the byproduct of other people's addictions (or suffer the consequences of a new class of DUI drivers). For me, the smoke is a migraine trigger and the only argument for legalization I can see even having the slightest merit is the medical one (and I suspect that even that argument is greatly exaggerated due to bias). I would say it's fine to do only in your own homes, but I have no evidence to believe that the majority of people would be able to manage such self-control.
Your generalization is flawed: geekiness has nothing to do with consumption of any sort of substance. Perhaps a case can be made for novelty-seeking behaviors, but that says nothing about continued use. The generalization you invoke isn't even a stereotype, much less a fact.
I guess disregarding legitimate elections doesn't matter to you, then. So you wouldn't care if you found yourself under a dictator? Because that's what this leads to.
If it doesn't matter to you, you need to think about why it should matter to you.
i am a soviet space shuttle
We already have to deal with intoxicated people operating cars, planes, and other potentially lethal machinery. How much worse would things be if now, in addition to those, you've got people high on ecstasy or marijuana? What about heroin? Would bystander deaths double? Triple? Some of the effects of these drugs make alcohol pale in comparison.
Probably not much worse. We already have strong laws and strong enforcement against things like drunk driving. Drug usage would not become acceptable overnight, merely not criminal. Drug testing would not go away. Heroin usage is pretty much self-correcting.
If we removed the criminal penalties and a large amount of the money from the drug trade the hope would be that the criminal element associated with drugs would fade away. When you talk about bystander deaths from drugs, you need to balance it against the current fallout from the war on drugs - those killed by bullets from drug-cash fueled gangs, the lives wrecked by putting people in prison for possessing a few ounces of an illegal substance, the loss of our freedoms and liberties to allow our government to try to tackle an impossible job.
When the authorities can keep the prisons "drug-free" they can start arguing that they can win the war on drugs. So far I've seen no evidence that it is possible.
People like to explain that the "war on drugs" is failing and how eventually the government will have no choice but to legalize these substances. They even go on to say how great it would be for everyone because then the government will be able to collect taxes in the same manner they do with tobacco. Last time I checked, not very many people grow tobacco in their backyards and make cigarettes in their basements. Why does anyone think dealers give the government a cut of their lucrative business?
So, why don't people grow tobacco in their own backyards and make their own cigarettes? It's because even at $5 a pack it's a lot cheaper and easier to buy a package of cigarettes than it is to grow and roll your own. When you buy drugs you're not just paying for the cost of cultivation and processing - you're paying for the risks that the distributors are taking with being arrested and put in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison. Look at what the people in Columbia are paid for the raw coca leaves - it's nowhere near the price paid for cocaine or crack on the street in the US. The cost of processing is not that great. What you're paying for is all of the risks taken by the distributors. Remove the risks and the price will come down. Remove the money and the drug gangs will disappear.
Personally, I haven't taken any illegal drugs since college (about 20 years ago) and I didn't take too many back then. They bore me - I'd rather spend an evening reading a good book than getting high on something. What I don't care for is the destruction that the war on drugs is causing to our society. No knock searches, not being able to possess large amounts of cash, arbitrary confiscation of property on the suspicion that it was acquired illegally, intrusive controls in our banking system to check for money laundering, young kids with assault rifles. All of these are the fallout from the war on drugs and none of them really work because the rewards for dealing and distributing drugs continue to outweight the risks of dealing and distributing drugs.
This happened In Western Australia. The state voted No to daylight savings this was an entire State of Australia not a small county/city. The government didn't like the way we voted so they introduced daylight saving anyway.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
By your logic then you believe that alcohol and tobacco should also be illegal. Is that the case?
Tobacco isn't as much of a concern because it's effects alone on a person's mental facilities are much less than other drugs. I would say yes to alcohol, however we've tried that before and things didn't go so well. The problem is that once you decide to take something away, you have to be willing to do whatever it takes to then enforce the law. Most of the time, "whatever it takes" means taking even more away from the people.
You can always circumvent making alcohol illegal by simply trading a punishment for possession with stiffer punishments for abuse. For example, the FIRST time somebody is caught driving under the influence of alcohol, they lose their license. Not for a week, not a month, not a year. Forever. The goal here would be to remove the threat some people pose as fast as possible, without inflicting sobriety on more "responsible" people. It wouldn't fix the problem, but I think it would be a significant step in the right direction.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
And they wonder why voter turnout is low and voter apathy is high. Our votes no longer matter. If the community as a majority decides that something should happen then it should happen. If the was thought to be misinterpreted then there should be a second vote by the PEOPLE, not by the GOVERNMENT. They're essentially saying we're too stupid to understand the ballot.
Just more erosion of our rights as people. I feel bad for those people out in Montana.
If you were offended by anything I said... No, I'm not sorry. Please lighten up.
Nerds generally love beer, caffeine and pot. It is part of the culture and slashdot often talks about geek culture, even when it includes things that don't directly relate to technology (e.g., anime and monty python).
There are lots of reasons pot goes well with geeks. The most obvious is how well it complements a long coding or gaming session. I would say that another reason is that geek culture, or at least the unix culture that affects a lot of people here, came of age in California during the 1970s. Look also at the stoners who founded Apple and the American video game industry (supposedly, back in the day at Atari, the security guards' main role was to warn the programmers if any cops were coming so they could hide their stash).
Also, geeks tend to like decentralization of power and free choice. As a whole, they have a much stronger libertarian bent than the general populace, and as people who make a living using their minds, they are obviously unhappy about the government trying to dictate what they can do with them.
"Personal computers and recreational computers, personal drugs and recreational drugs, are simply two ways in which individuals have learned to take power back from the state".
-Timothy Leary
I'd rather be lucky than good.
..the Java emulator story posted 3 hours earlier it apparently matters to quite a few nerds.
Who's giving them money? Why, that would be us. Why are they getting money? 'Cause they sell drugs. Drugs are made of fucking plants, why are they so expensive?
The tobacco industry is incredibly wealthy, and they sell legally process plants. Where do you think these new legally-available drugs will come from? South America. Who will the money go to? The cartels. The only thing that will come from legalizing a drug such as marijuana will be increased demand. Increased demand will mean increased profits.
Gangs and drug-related violence won't go away. Why give up your spot on the corner when you can undercut the gas station down the street by 25%? Why give up your turf just because Uncle Sam said your merchandise isn't illegal anymore?
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
Definitely true. The story below this seemed interesting to me, a bit. This one I care about, so it's the one I read first. Even though this is "some small town in Montana", it's not a good precedent. What about when it's "some small city"......or an entire "small state"? Where's the line?
Of course there is, the brain is a pleasure seeking mechanism
That's not logic, that's human physiology. Logic would cause a potential user to stop and ask "What will this do to my health? My life? My family? My job? My future? Will this make me more or less productive in society?"
in fact it can be argued that all effort is mediated in the brain for the purpose of seeking pleasure
Again, only at the most basic level. If you really believe that this is all we are, then you really are one of the moist robots Scott Adams likes to go on about. For most people, there are more profound motivators than perceived pleasure.
the willfully ignorant have no interest in learning anything.
And those lost in self-justifying denial have even less.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
At last, an new slogan!
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
is very strong indeed. It will grow much stronger with crap like this going on. The Iowa militia is strong too. So is the Missouri, Nebraska, Minnesota.. Lots of us have guns and could easily make a mess. Memebers of the US military and guard might not be so loyal to the politicians as they think.
Of course there is still a point to voting - next time around, vote out your representatives. I mean, it's not like elections are fixed, or vote counting is fraudulent.
Oh, wait. Never mind.
With that in mind it doesn't take a huge leap of logic to figure out how we can end the massive drug cartels which cause so much damage and corruption south of the border that Tijuana police can't even be trusted to carry guns anymore; and how to end the gang violence that causes so many deaths in American cities each year; and solve the major prison overcrowding issues that states like California are wrestling with.Are you kidding? There is nothing more logical than changing a policy that is a spectacular failure in every imaginable way. It's widely reported that it is easier for school kids to get illegal drugs than it is for them to get beer. Tell me, is that the end result the War on Drugs was going for? Then why are we spending all this money just to turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals and draining resources from truly important areas of law enforcement? To answer that one only has to follow the money.
Logic has no place in anti-drug arguments, because there is nothing logical about prohibiting a fucking plant put on this earth by God himself for our enjoyment.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
nerds smoke weed too.... along with every other sub culture
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
The "turf" would dry up, because most people would rather walk down the street to the drug store to buy regulated quality marijuana than to risk getting shot buying some probably adulterated pot from a street corner dealer in a bad neighborhood. You are right, however, that legal drug producers have a great deal of power which is sometimes abused. These abuses, while serious, never reach the 'slaughter some dude's entire family' level that cartels reach...actually, not even in the same ballpark.
Also, most of the price associated with drugs is markup from the risk associated with processing and importation; in production countries, they shoot the growers when they find them. It's no picnic for a drug mule either. The prices are unbelievably inflated above actual material production and transportation costs. Also, a sizeable part of the market would shrivel for marijuana at least, because it is a relatively easy plant to cultivate at home.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
In California at least, the threshold for drink driving convictions for minors is about the same as the nominal uncertainty on many testing devices: 0.01% BAC. If I recall correctly, this can be achieved with less than 1 mL of ethanol, and is also an amount which is far below a level that would cause noticeable effects. Would it really be fair to destroy the lives of people (in parts of California, driving is practically essential) who might have a nearly undetectable and completely unnoticeable level of inebriation, or who might not have even had any alcohol at all (assuming that the uncertainties given are 3 sigma, there is at least a 1% chance that a reading of over 0.01 will result from an actual concentration of 0).
The idea is interesting, but unintended consequences and abuse can be tricky with any such idea.
You seem to believe that alcohol usage rates around US alcohol prohibition, the changes in hard drug usage rates as hard drug prohibitions have gotten more and more severe, and the reduction in users and addicts in the Netherlands as they eliminate more and more prohibitions are the exceptions, and that all we need is more of what hasn't worked to finally fix the problem.
You and I both want fewer drug users and fewer drug addicts. The difference is that I'm willing to acknowledge that drug laws don't help and probably make that goal even more difficult. So I ask you, have we seen a substantial benefit or has the War on (Some) Drugs made the drug problem in this country worse?There's a sneaky argument in there that you're not voicing. I'm not a user of any illegal drugs. Aside from the occasional glass of port, cup of tea, or Advil now and then, I don't use any drugs at all. I think that using addictive drugs is one of the stupidest possible things a person could do. And yet I firmly believe that legalization is the only chance we have to (1) reduce the number of drug users and addicts; (2) reduce the number of secondary crimes related to drug dealing and drug buying; (3) reduce the funding for gangs and other black-market organizations; and (4) begin the process of restoring some of our long-lost freedoms. We've paid for the War on (Some) Drugs with the fourth, fifth, ninth, and tenth amendments to the Constitution.
Regards,
Ross
And whats to stop the US from growing it and here and selling it if it was made legal? last time I check Pot grows pretty much everywhere.
Going out on a limb, I'd guess it's news for nerds who smoke pot.
Why the hell do the various moderators believe that this is an insightful comment?
It raises no arguments, and postulates only that nerds may not care about this news/issue.
What is insightful about it? Obviously some don't care about it, and many do. This is true of -any- issue brought forth for discussion on this site. This is hardly insightful-- it is obvious.
While it's true that most of us "nerds" were initially drawn to slashdot by things like linux, hardware comparo's, and science, we're not limited to the abovementioned topics.
Slashdot is frequented a population by some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I've ever encountered (with some bozo's too), and politics affects all of us, even those of you not contained within the borders of America.
I live in Missoula too, and it's seems clear that our Commisioners have learned the lessons of the Bush administration well, that is, if you don't feel like obeying the will of the voters (or the constitution), don't, and throw out some paternal language describing in conciliatory-sounding soundbites ("what about the children!").
The war on drugs is a total fiasco, but the war on the Bill of Rights that it masked has been a raging success.
Like many Missoulians (and Americans) right about now I'm thinking that it's well past overdue for some serious change in the way our city (and country) is run. What I don't know is how that change is going to come about. Our "leaders" have are so entrenched and corrupt, and the voting process so subverted (2000 election, 2004 election, both stolen), that I fear the only change will come by revolution. A frightening prospect, I can only hope that my fellow Americans have the guts to eventually stand up for what's right and against what's wrong, and that they have the stomach to do something about it.
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
So, you're saying that nerds don't care if the gov't doesn't listen to them?
This seems overreaching.
What is your basis in making this determination, other than your gut feeling?
My primary concern is that the United States remains a "free country" with individual liberty, which includes the opportunity to make mistakes or do things (that do not infringe on other people's rights) that you might not like. Apparently, you don't believe in civil rights or personal reinliberty.
(Posted anonymously only because I used mod points in this discussion. -- Astro Dr Dave)
Somehow I get the feeling that's not what the founding fathers meant by "government for the people"
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
> How much worse would things be if now, in addition to those, you've got people high on ecstasy or marijuana?
I'm guessing not much, as doped out people tend to stay put, opposed to imbibers who believe alcohol improves their driving.
> , the only question legalizing illegal drugs answers is "how can we destroy our society?"
No, the only question is WTF did we learn from Prohibition?
Wait for it...
Not a damned thing.
Wow, way to bring out the straw men. Driving under the influence of drugs is already illegal, smoking weed at home should not be however.
That very benefit to us is the reason it will never be legalized. It is my belief that money is the sole reason it will never get legalized. Consider 3 giant money-makers that come from drugs being illegal.
*The money that is made from the artificially inflated price of illegal goods.
*The money made from the artificially inflated number of prisoners due to drug related offenses***
*The money that is made from the drug/crime fighting industry.
It may walk on your personal rights, the personal rights of a class of people, or the rights of a nation... But how do you fight something so profitable when money IS power.
***Did you know prison's can compete with small companies for business?
California already legalized marijuana for medical use. It's still illegal though, due to the US Congress abusing the interstate commerce clause (with a complicit but un-justifiable Supreme Court ruling).
See Gonzales v. Raich: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v_Raich
(Posted anonymously only because I used mod points in this discussion. -- Astro Dr Dave)
he tobacco industry is incredibly wealthy, and they sell legally process plants. Where do you think these new legally-available drugs will come from? South America. Who will the money go to? The cartels. The only thing that will come from legalizing a drug such as marijuana will be increased demand. Increased demand will mean increased profits.
No, the tobacco industry will switch to growing marijuana. They could easily grow enough to meet any increase in demand. The cartels will see a big drop in sales and price.
Gangs and drug-related violence won't go away. Why give up your spot on the corner when you can undercut the gas station down the street by 25%? Why give up your turf just because Uncle Sam said your merchandise isn't illegal anymore?
They will probably tax marijuana like cigarettes - say $4 for a pack of 20. That's alot cheaper than the going rate. If it is taxed, the sale of non-taxed marijuana will be illeagal. Just like cigarettes.
We had THREE referendums on daylights savings - all got a resounding "no". They then initiated it anyway. Then they had a referendum on extended trading hours - again a very strong no vote. Guess what we're getting in a few months?
Money maybe? But you don't enjoy that?
Family, perhaps? But you don't enjoy them?
Making the world a better place? But you don't enjoy that?
Creative expression? But you don't enjoy that?
Educational achievement? But you don't enjoy that?
Building a legacy to be remembered by future generations? But you don't enjoy that?
So what is your great motivator that you gain no pleasure from, I'm curious.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
People already operate these machines under the influence of all manner of illicit drugs. People who use these drugs don't tend to care much about the legality or otherwise, so I don't think there is a valid case to make that ending prohibition will increase their numbers. If your argument is valid, will you also argue that cell phones should be banned? The reactions of people driving while talking on the phone is similar to driving drunk, so cell phones should be banned everywhere to prevent idiots from using them in cars. Is that your point?
The war on drugs is failing in the same way as a war on the common cold would fail. Declaring war on a health problem is great for propaganda but that's all. You cannot mend a broken bone by declaring war on it.
If the govermnet regulated the manufacture of synthetic drugs and allowed the taxed supply of all illicit drugs, it wouldn't matter what drug dealers thought. They would be out of business, their entire revenue stream would disappear and with it their power. The smart ones would go legitimate, much like the end of alcohol prohibition.
Your argument about taxes needing to be high to pay for addicts is flawed too. The government currently makes no revenue from the drug trade and, ignoring the cost to society of addiction, is idiotically throwing money at this war on drugs. If they stopped throwing that money away and started taxing drugs, they would eliminate an expense and turn it into a revenue stream.
If we now bring the cost of drug addiction back into the equation, in the case of physically addictive drugs like heroin and crack, one of the biggest costs to society is through associated crime. If the price of these drugs go down, the cost of maintaining an addiction goes down and associated crime levels drop. Also, by removing a huge disincentive to admit to drug problems people with are more likely to accept and even actively seek treatment. The war on drugs makes that more difficult.
As for cannabis, and the concept that it is a stepping stone to harder drugs, that has more to do with its illicit nature rather than the drug itself. Remove the "forbidden fruit" quality to it, and it stops being a stepping stone to anything.
All of these arguments are well established and have been proven true in countries around the world with the guts to stand up to the corruption that maintains US style drug laws. Remember, when advocating a tough stance on drugs, you are on the same side as organized criminals who stand nothing to lose from prohibition and everything to gain.
If you really want to stop the drug problem, the only sensible solution is to end prohibition. But then logic has no place in anti-drug rhetoric, or in "War on " propaganda.
I don't therefore I'm not.
I'm sorry... computer says no... *cough*
(If you don't get it)
-jX
Don't you just love politics? It's like a comedy of errors.
I already knew that your government wasn't listening to me, because I'm not a US citizen.
/. aren't, you know
/. is unabashedly a US based and US-centric site.
You mean you know that the US government is listening to you because you're not a US citizen. They supposedly can't listen to their own citizens, they use British intelligence for that.
Lots of people on
We know but it's irrelevant.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
..where some dictator (face reality, he's a dictator who got in in a series of coups using mass electronic blackbox voting election fraud) unitary executive just does whatever the hell he wants to do, and elections later that trounce his party and his policies, meaning "we the people" want things to change as in pronto now, mean absolutely nothing. "la la la, I can't hear you!" nonsense. "signing statements".
Yep, it's a problem. Autocratic regimes are always a problem historically, and it usually has to get worse with the state sponsored tyranny and terrorism before it gets better.
The war on some drugs is a rousing success-given your goal is to help bring about a terrorized population police state. That's why they don't want to change it-that and the fact (george carlin reference now), that there are way too many rich fatcat republican bankers and others of their ilk like the rogue spooks making billions off the "illegal" drug trade.
There's a lot of gnashing of teeth out there about the poor quality of our political leadership and the lack of good candidates who will stand up and fix what's wrong. But a timid people will never produce strong, moral leaders. It's axiomatic. If we want things to change in this country, we're just going to have to do it ourselves. We have to be strong if we expect our country to be strong. Corrupt political leaders will never bring themselves to justice--we have to do it. The police will never arrest themselves for violating the law, so we as citizens must arrest them. That's the ultimate guarantor of democracy, folks, us.
Can't speak for folks in other parts of the country, but Montanans still remember what it means to be free. They will correct this and those who think they can simply overrule a democratic vote.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
We are the people who fix your computers. We are the people who keep your infrastructure moving and alive. We are the people who make sure your insignificant lives are not interrupted because some piece of technology you depend on (that you've never bothered to learn anything about, even though it runs your life) breaks and we save the day.
Guess what? We don't LIKE women! It fucks up our work. We fuck children because it is relaxing and mentally stimulating. Anyone who doesn't feel the same way either hasn't fucked 'real' children or they have a physical/emotional problem with it. Great! Don't fuck children.
Just don't tell me I have to quit because YOU have a problem with it.
America DOES have a child fucking problem. The Problem? 80% or more child fuckers are fucking LOW-GRADE children that promotes medical and emotional issues.
The people in your district have voted in favor of cannibis. Cancel or Allow?
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Wow.
FC Closer
So what is your great motivator that you gain no pleasure from, I'm curious.
I think there is a difference from physiological pleasure and a feeling of happiness or contentment. Yes, some people obtain that through money, others through helping people, others through hobbies, etc.
By your argument, the enjoyment that comes from reading a book is the same as the pleasure that comes from drugs, is that right?
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
People who use these drugs don't tend to care much about the legality or otherwise, so I don't think there is a valid case to make that ending prohibition will increase their numbers.
Perhaps people who currently use them don't care, but what about all the people who have thought about it, or almost did, but didn't because they worried about the repercussions? Some people really do think about causality. If they do drugs, there's a good chance somebody will find out, and they will end up paying for their choice.
By removing the legal ramifications of doing drugs you remove the second-largest deterrent to doing them (second to moral/health reasons). The only thing left is the cost, and people prove every day in bars and casinos around the world that money isn't much of a deterrent at all.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
I think there is a difference from physiological pleasure and a feeling of happiness or contentment. Yes, some people obtain that through money, others through helping people, others through hobbies, etc.
By your argument, the enjoyment that comes from reading a book is the same as the pleasure that comes from drugs, is that right? It acts on the same mechanisms in the brain. Really, it's an activity, and as long as someone is not hurting others then it's Stay Out of my Fucking Way territory.
Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
By your argument, the enjoyment that comes from reading a book is the same as the pleasure that comes from drugs, is that right?
It may not be exactly the same as it is a different feeling. But as a motivator yes, I would say they are no different. People do things that make them feel good on some level. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just the way we work.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
So are we going to have "News for Sports Nerds" as well? Like the dorky guys who know every single sports score from every game in every sport in every country that ever happened? The guys who have 5 TVs to watch every single game, but get out of breath walking up a flight of stairs.
What about "News for Drama Nerds"? I heard there is a new bitchin' annotated version of the Complete Works of Shakespeare coming out... as well as a new biography of Author Miller! Sweet!
Here's a few links for everyone:
s /local/news04.txt
c ed_Amendment_to_Marijuana_Law_Passed_by_the_People #c5840343?cedit=58403435840343
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007/03/24/new
http://www.grupthink.com/topic/5605
http://digg.com/politics/Voters_Appalled_Over_For
Nevermind, these people who made the decision must be such amazing all knowing individuals, they know better than the people who voted.
You're trying to justify your argument by implicitly equating the market value of processed tobacco with processed cocaine. That's completely not happening. The tobacco industry makes money on /volume/. The cartels can't manage anything near that level of efficency; they live or die based on street value.
And do you have any proof for your claim that legalization would increase demand? Do you know anybody -- /anybody/ -- who gets up in the morning and says, "You know what would go great with this meal? Crack. Too bad it's illegal!" Hardly.
I am sick and I am tired and I have had it with the laws of my nation provoking such utter contempt. This is a stupid law, and even children can tell that it's a stupid law, and one bad law inevitably poisons any respect citizens have for the rest. My nation has enemies who seek it harm, and these enemies are directly empowered by my own tax dollars, and this getting old.
Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
My own thoughts about the futility of the Democratic process aside, one of the most beautiful things about said process is the fact that it's politicians are notoriously spineless.
If every person posting in indignation where to say, express their thoughts directly to the Missoula County Commissioners' Office, who knows what could happen?
oops, whats this?
Missoula County
Board of County Commissioners
200 W. Broadway
Missoula, MT 59802
Main Office Telephone Number: 406-258-4877
COMMISSIONER: JEAN CURTISS
Contact Person: Jean Curtiss
Phone: 406-258-4877
Fax: 406-721-4043
Email: mailto:jcurtiss@co.missoula.mt.us (or) bcc@co.missoula.mt.us
Location: Second Floor of Courthouse Annex Room 210
COMMISSIONER: BILL CAREY
Contact Person: Bill Carey
Phone: 406-258-4877
Fax: 406-721-4043
Email: mailto:bcarey@co.missoula.mt.us (or) bcc@co.missoula.mt.us
Location: Second Floor of Courthouse Annex Room 210
COMMISSIONER: BARBARA EVANS
Phone: 406-258-4877
Fax: 406-721-4043
Email: mailto:bevans@co.missoula.mt.us (or) bcc@co.missoula.mt.us
Location: Second Floor of Courthouse Annex Room 210
I have (very roughly) blogged about an idea that I had to implement an e-democracy without _any_ overhauls to the current parliamentry system.
http://www.blognow.com.au/edemocracy.
Basically you:
I don't know if this has ever been done anywhere in the world yet. I'm thinking of doing this for our (Australia's) next federal election. I don't think it well get up by a long way - but it might the next time around (or the next one)...
If you make referendums that aren't binding then yes, they are purely symbolic. If the vote is "We like this idea but aren't going to force it," don't be surprised if the government just ignores it. If this is REALLY something the voters care about then do something about it. Do a binding referendum, recall the county prosecutor and so on.
If you want to exert power over the government, you have to actually back it up. Non-binding referendums don't do shit. This is no more useful than congress passing a non-binding resolution against the war in Iraq. It's fluff, pure and simple. If you want something to really get done, you have to do a real resolution and then be prepared to put teeth in it.
What if the voters didn't understand the provision and thought it meant they were legalizing marijuana in that town? Then lets, assume half the town was smokers who organized a celebration, passed a doob around just to have the state police arrest them and conflate the amount of weed present as intent to distribute?
Could they use "i didn't understand" as a defense? they sure could, but it isn't likely to help much with the charges.
You don't use electricity in your house?
Tell me you can 'quit' using gas/diesel?
Hey.. why don't you quit buying fresh produce? That comes in trucks that produce byproducts that _I_ inhale and it gives ME headaches. You don't see me bitching at your stupid ass for it.
Cigarettes give me headaches and I used to smoke them for 20 years. You don't see me jumping on anyone for second hand smoke unless they're being a complete moron.
Yes... I popped off a silly remark... The whole freakin subject is just retarded.
How about yours? A whole new class of DUI drivers? In what world do you live in that people DON'T smoke pot in the cars around you daily?? Do you have ANY idea of what kind of quantities of pot are sold?
As for your 'headaches' from inhaling second hand smoke? Stop hanging around thugs that smoke dirt and seeds... get a higher class of friends. You don't go to the store and buy rotten grapes right? Well... lots of folks buy crappy pot because it's illegal and no regular dependable supply can be set up. Can you imagine what kind of grapes you would find people selling if they were illegal? Pathetic.
You sit there and believe wholeheartedly that you're 'aware' of the whole 'drug thing'.
Hey putz... wake up and smell your own B.S. When was the last time you actually was honest with yourself? When was the last time you looked in the mirror and said "Fuck it... I'm not going to lie to myself anymore.". Never, eh? Keep living the lie. Swallow your valium, take your lunesta, eat your govt. pharms and be happy.
GO BACK TO SLEEP AMERICA! YOUR GOVT IS BACK IN CONTROL!
Putz
That's why the State of Minnesota, in its wisdom, made sure the new Twins baseball stadium couldn't be put to a referendum.
It's one thing to remember this is a republic, not a democracy. It is another thing to see how government serves the corporations, not the people.
LoL. I guess the real answer is directly related to how many people weren't saved because the IP cost too much for the patient to afford the relevant medical procedure or medicine that used the IP.
I would guess that IP issues have killed more people in poorer areas then any war on drugs could have. The difference is also that death from the war on drugs seems to be related to an action already known not to be proper while death due to the lack of affordable medical treatments or medicine seem to be directly related to the greed of the IP owner and the person trying to make a living or going about normal life.
In most countries, Motive for murder increases the punishment. In this situation it doesn't count.
Remember when crack (which is only slightly more addictive than cocaine, and far less than tobacco -- and most of its "ill effects" come from the nasty shit it's sometimes cut with) suddenly became the devil? The Crips were expanding, and it got the Mob and the South Americans worried, so pretty soon -- horror stories and "get tough" talk from politicians. (It also helps if the drug is popular with a minority. This is why they had to rename cannabis to the more scary-foreign-sounding "MARIHUANA")
The Wikipedia discussion of how marijuana became criminalized mentions Randolph Hearst's paper mills (which would have become worthless thanks to the invention of mechanized hemp harvesting - hemp paper is superior and acid-free, so it lasts longer.) but leaves out the fact that Harry Anslinger was appointed to his job as head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics by his uncle-in-law, Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. Mellon was the primary stockholder in Mellon Bank, and one of their largest accounts was the DuPont corporation, which sold a chemical for production of paper from wood pulp to.... The Heart corporation. (They also were big in petroleum-based textiles such as nylon, for which hemp was a competitor) Big old circle-jerk there. When cannabis (and coincidentally, all varieties of hemp, even the ones with very little THC content) became illegal, DuPont and Hearst were the beneficiaries.
So let's put them in jail, support them for a large part of their lives, give criminals an easy way to make money, ruin millions of lives in a bogus war, loose the tax on consumption...
What is being overlooked here are the huge profits generated by prohibition on both sides of the law and on and off the books. The purpose behind all prohibitions of goods of any kind is purely economic. And with drugs in the US, race played a part. Unlike alcohol and tobacco, marijuana requires very little infrastructure to produce and consume. When it's so easy to "grow yer own", it will never be the big money maker that alcohol and tobacco and other drugs are. Prohibition is the answer to that little problem. Profitability is up in all the "right" sectors, law enforcement, government "services", the prison industry is doing great. Corruption in government is up, respect for the law is down, but we're talking about 20% of the world's economy at least. Accountants wield more power than lawyers. Heh, actually they're the two ends of this parasite. A symbiotic relationship if there ever was one. The funny thing is that after hours, it's easier to score a bag of weed than a six pack. Easier still to get coke...for all the obvious reasons. Prohibition is very logical in a certain business sense, and in a world run by pirates, that the only sense there is. This all only goes to show that, despite all our chrome covered gadgets, we are still as primitive as we ever were.
What?
The right to freedom of association with people of like mind upon land you have a natural right to occupy.
So. Where does the process begin? How does the 'population of the people' set in motion the chain of events that will replace the current govt.?
Are we able to create a govt that will not violate human rights?
You and I both know that the current govt. will never "step aside".
You and I both know that their 'mind set' is not conducive to the creation of a "new" govt and they will, therefore, be pretty much useless.
What steps will need to be taken to bring about a peaceful change?
Is the only outcome chaos and destruction? Rebellion and war?
I seriously hope not but the similarity between our gotv practices today and the govt in Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' is just too spooky. I remember reading it as a kid thinking "People wouldn't be stupid enough to let a real govt get away with that, but it is a great story." Now I have to say it's beginning to become alarming.
The heap had been rolling quite slowly toward the lip of the canyon for some time... the sudden rush of acceleration before all that destruction at the end was a complete surprise to the occupants.
Umm, the GP was talking about the DMCA and the RIAA/MPAA. Your comment is related to that... how?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Anon because of mods . . . but it is interesting to see wanting to end restrictions on personal freedoms characterized as left leaning. Arent the left leaning hippie commies the ones who want to control personal freedoms? Isn't a long standing tenet of conservatism to have small government that does not infringe on personal freedoms? This political labeling and name calling has stopped being informative and borders on lunacy. It is illegal to drive UI. It should remain illegal to sell illicit substances to children. But why should we want to spend money to keep adults of geek or other persuasion from doing what they want with the notable line being where they start to infringe on the rights of others? It is a waste of time and money and creates a divided society.
You not likely going to get far with a revolution either. Most people over 30 have been disappointed enough to go back and see what the hell is going on. When this happens, they realize we are not a democracy but a republic and what happened in Missoula was by design. I doubt you will get much support in the efforts. However, I'm declaring my property an isolated country with no trespassers allowed if you win. I don't want to be subjected to majority rule nor do i want to be subjected to laws based on the reasoning of whatever feels good today. And thats what you will have with a democracy unless you limit it's ability to make changes. But then your back to a form of a republic.
My comment was directed at the guy who said IP. Not the DMCA or **AA.
If IP isn't what he meant to say then he should have said what he meant. But IP has probably killed more people then the war on drugs. And I guess if you have to have something, The DMCA governs the same IP in medical applications as it does for RIAA. I remember about some Euro scientists who made a cloned drug that would have been forbidden in America by the DMCA were it wasn't effect in Europe. The drug was supposed to be some cheap alternative to an expensive name brand drug that people in poor countries couldn't afford.
I'm the one who said IP. I didn't say it by mistake, but from the context it should have been obvious I talking about media companies IP and not pharmaceutical companies IP. That's an unrelated and much more complex issue.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
For the record, while it may be a small city on a national scale, locally Missoula is quite big. It is the second largest city in Montana.
If you believe that then you really need to re-read the Bill of Rights.
9 8007,00.html?xid=rss-nation
5 846864220&q=gun+control+penn+and+teller&hl=en
Or check out the following...
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,15
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=231250844
Yeah, what chance would a few guys with guns and improvised munitions stand against a modern, well-trained, professional army...
Maybe the war in Iraq can provide us with some clues. How's that thing going, anyway?
'nuff said.
I believe you are quite correct, just as you are with your other statements. These are also the reasons they made our "government by the people" a republic instead of a democracy. Prohibition and the wars you mentioned are marketing schemes and our founding fathers fully realized that such government and interest group schemes could fully result in political lynch mobs. The checks and balances of the system they designed were intended to nullify such nonsensical moves, this hasn't always worked, especially since senators became popularly elected to the senate instead of being appointed.
If we went to a pure democracy we would likely be handing over the government to the major media corporations and marketing firms. Think about it, who is in the greatest position to influence opinion in this country? In this way the government wouldn't have to do a 1984ish takeover of the media, the media would take over the government and of course start taking contracts with other major corporations for changing opinions of the masses.
We need a power shift back to the people but it needs to be in such a way that it reduces federal power, strengthens that government which is most local and maintains the defence of the minority opinion. We don't need to change our constitution, we need to restore the form of government it described.
As put forth by many others the war on drugs etc are but distractions from and justifications for power seizures and pork barrel spending. Take a strong look at how they have used them to erode our rights and liberty and to fill the pockets of their friends and influence peddlers.
Gangs and drug-related violence won't go away. Why give up your spot on the corner when you can undercut the gas station down the street by 25%? Why give up your turf just because Uncle Sam said your merchandise isn't illegal anymore?
The local dealer (or syndicate) is pretty much toast without a source. Both national, and some international legalization would need to take place (not for pot, obviously). If a legal international market existed, the current local distributors (criminal) would have no way to get it cheaper than the gas station (other than by outright theft). I'm sure it would be quite hard to remove the entrenched international manufacturers, but I think it could be done with time. What is being done now certainly isn't working very well.
The current non-political producers would become legitimate, and that would almost certainly result in a "mellowing" of their business practices. The political movements, whether FARC in Columbia, or the Taliban in Afghanistan, would have a much harder time getting money out of drugs. Legitimate companies could compete for (pay and protect) labourers successfully. Businesses (like Tescos or Walmart or whatever) would certainly buy from the legal sources, so most or all of the market would be legal. Cost of production would be similar, but you'd have a further side-effect of weakening local support for groups like FARC or the Taliban, and cutting into their war-budget significantly.
I bet quite a few countries would resist legalization, but I bet plenty would be into it without the current US anti-drug pressures and international agreements.
Personally, I can't see very many drawbacks to legalization of any drug, and can see a lot of positives. Sure, a handful more people might f*ck up their own lives, but I don't think that's either likely, or worse than the current state of affairs. Cutting into the revenue of gangs and guerrilla movements alone are worth that (possible) extra social cost.
Do me a favor, don't speak for all of us, okay? I like the drink, I like the weed. I can get shitfaced, I can get wacky, I can quit for years, I can choose to go back. Done all that. I'm in IT, but I don't live for my work. I live.
And low-grade pot doesn't create "emotional issues" other than getting pissed that you got ripped off for shwag.
I understand.
This story isn't about wanting to end restriction on personal freedoms. It is about the government working as it was intended were the republic form of government went against the will of the people. Maybe I worded it wrong but the mention of pot-smoking and making it legal was just something attached to the story to get us to overlook the real story.
Now, the left/right thing isn't in the story itself but in the way it was being attempted. Left leaning people as of recent(well as long as i can remember)have decried government oppression or attempted to sneak in the legalization of pot or other drugs. Right leaning people attempt to do it normally thru regular processes and procedure. Look at Ohio. There were some tough laws on the books concerning Pot. The bulk amounts were low and the penalties were high. I know a guy who was busted with 4 times the bulk amount, Was charged for each plus intention to distribute. They found two plants growing on his property and a dime bag with seeds in it in the house. The plants weren't even close to picking either. Two years into his jail term, the law was changed within the system (with a republican governor and one of the state houses were republican controlled at the time too) and the amounts he had would have been considered a misdemeanor without the intent to distribute carrying a 6month max jail term. Lickily, Some of the plant was missing and they offered a plea-bargain which he plead to that dropped 3 of the bulk charges and the intent to distribute giving him 18 months prison.
Yes, unless that personal freedom places the public in danger at large. Killing and murdering to protect your honor or family name is a personal freedom. I don't think anyone in their right mind would consider getting rid of laws designed to stop this from happening. But I wasn't arguing that.
Sure it is. Are you saying the left is the reason all thse laws were passed? lol.. OK kidding aside, The problems unchecked pot smokers would give the nation or communities would make it necessary for a larger government to deal with it. It is anecdotal but I have seen two companies were the institution of drug testing because of the accident rate had seen almost a 90% reduction in accidents there. Now, it could be because of the people who failed hte drug test were gone or it could be because the people stopped using drugs to keep their jobs (and yes, there was a six month warning before testing the first time). But we also have the burnout stoner's who cannot function properly and just sit there being non productive all day long.
I wasn't trying to be informative. I was making a statement of protest. This story is a non story in much the same sense that "windows is now owned by microsoft" is a non-story. The OP was right, Why is this even here? And my answer was because of the political nature of this site.
The problem with Driving under the influence of pot is that you cannot reliably detect it in perportion to how the person is currently effected by it. If your a non smoker, You could toke down and then test negative but be completely stoned. And then when tunnel vision sets in and you hit the lady in the cross walk or kill the family of five on the freeway and get out od the DUI ch
In all three cases, the legislators threw the term limits out (which limit them to only a few terms). They refuse to leave, and have deemed the overwhelming majority vote of the people to be either caused by confusion reading ballets or just plain wrong.
That's flat-out incorrect. The Legislature didn't throw the term limits out, the courts did, as Nebraska's first two attempts at a term limit law also imposed term limits on federal representatives, something the State of Nebraska has no jurisdiction over. The third time, they limited it to state officials, and (SURPRISE!) the courts had no problems with it. I don't know how you can say that they "refused to leave" when every legislator who was term-limited out did indeed leave after the 2006 election.
Because the people kept on sending out petitions to get it back on the ballot and voted on, the legislature decided to fix that. They made all sorts of new rules on the petition process, cutting the time to circulate petitions in half, doubling the required amount of votes, using nefarious methods to reject signatures, etc.
Those changes you speak of only happened AFTER the final success of the term limit initiatives. Don't conflate to the two together to show evidence of some evil plot.
Once you let someone be a full-time politician, the power goes to their head. The influence of lobbyists and the nice gifts they bring matters much more than any pathetic constituent. Show me someone who's a life-long politician and I'll show you a crook - party need not matter.
Next thing you will vote for one President and another one will be inaugurated... Oh, wait.
When the authorities can keep the prisons "drug-free" they can start arguing that they can win the war on drugs. So far I've seen no evidence that it is possible.
Spent a lot of time in prison, have we?
You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
Yeah, but the alternative is Capitalists making money on drugs.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Obligatory Office Quote:
Creed: That, is Northern Lights, Cannabis Indica.
Dwight: *Sigh*, No, (pause) it's marijuana.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
The second amendment does not apply to normal citizens. It applies to organized militias.
That's your interpretation. Thankfully, many other people disagree.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"why don't people grow tobacco in their own backyards and make their own cigarettes?"
Because it is illegal to do so. You need a license to grow tobacco, & theyre not available to Joe Citizen. If you want to make youre own booze, thats fine tho.
You can, however buy pipe tobacco & roll your own cigs for about 1/10th the cost of the equivilant in pack-cigs.
What I'm talking about as "natural rights" is the Lockean "state of nature". In a state of nature, every man has territory or he dies. This is simply a biological observation.
Seastead this.
In Sweden we voted about changing to driving on the right in 1955. The results were 82.9% against. The parliament still forced us to switch sides in 1963.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_referendums
So, representative democracy might not be the perfect system for governing, but it is the best we have.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
While I think that a society of addicts is ultimately doomed, my primary concern are the victims of drug abusers.
Bullshit. You just think it's evil and want it kept illegal.
We already have to deal with intoxicated people operating cars, planes, and other potentially lethal machinery. How much worse would things be if now, in addition to those, you've got people high on ecstasy or marijuana?
Actually, it'd spike, then come back to about the same.
Some of the effects of these drugs make alcohol pale in comparison.
For instance, it gives you the munchies and suppresses nausea.
They even go on to say how great it would be for everyone because then the government will be able to collect taxes in the same manner they do with tobacco. Last time I checked, not very many people grow tobacco in their backyards and make cigarettes in their basements. Why does anyone think dealers give the government a cut of their lucrative business?
People are lazy - they mostly will buy from a dealer if they can, just like with beer. The current dealers will be swept away by lower priced competition once they don't have a government granted monopoly.
I wonder what percentage of these new taxes would go to pay for the welfare of addicts?
Trot out welfare queens - this is relevant how?
Logic has no place in pro-drug arguments
You wouldn't know logic if ti raped your dog.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Even if you are this principled, I think this approach is misguided. Consider the cost/benefit to society of letting you die of a minor treatable illness instead of allowing you to continue contributing as an active member. Consider the cost/benefit to society of helping you over a few rough months with welfare than to have you spiral into poverty and likely crime. If public education is good enough, even people who live off welfare could have children who surpass them and contribute beneficially. The world doesn't need to be so cold, and in many developed countries, it isn't.
From this comment, I'm assuming you're American, since I've only ever heard arguments and fear of government size from friends from the states. I don't quite understand this point, but there must have been some severe cultural trauma in the past to inspire this fear of government. This fear is not present in people from other countries, as far as I know. It seems there are many problems which can only be addressed efficiently on a country-wide scale. The government should be as big as it needs to be to address those problems, no more, no less. Clearly the government shouldn't interfere with fundamental human-rights. The rest is economics.
Smoking pot is very popular amongst nerds, as is discussing the principles of democratic representation.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Personally I would say any SMART geek would avoid drugs like the plague. Why would ANY geek want to use drugs? We use our minds and our intelligence is important to us, using drugs manipulates out minds in unnatural ways and disables our intelligence for a while.
I guess it's just stoners looking to be anything but wastes of space.
I like muppets.
I know you were the guy. But you see, I didn't say it like i meant it so you didn't know what I meant. But it was pretty obvious from the thread when I mentioned you specifically.
But the war on drugs isn't as simple as you think. It is more like the pharmaceutical companies IP
Slashdot was stuff for nerds,but in last several years it become just another industry blog aggregator.
Like wired news.The ratio of signal-to-noise is fluctuating between 1:5 to 1:10 .
When liberty dies and the will of the people is ignored, it does matter to everyone, including nerds. I, for one, am glad that Slashdot is about more than just the latest shiny gadgets.
butter the donkey
Yes it does matter -- as I said, no man is an island. But if every voting irregularity worldwide gets posted on /. it will become unusable. I follow other newsfeeds for that stuff.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Assumptions are callous.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Your nickname is certainly appropriate.
This time period was during a $1B annual surplus
And what happened in the next time period? The economy took a big dump and states across the country faced budget shortfalls in the billions. Buy not throwing away their surplus to a big tax cut, Massachusetts wasn't hit as hard later on.
You should change your nickname from Anonymous Coward to Captain_Obvious. This is most appropriate for someone like you. Don't worry about the details, Just pop with the observation.
;)
BTW what other insights can you give us? Will you proclaim the sun will rise tomorrow? Or that maybe you were lying about not touching yourself because a woman wouldn't. Or maybe you can make a comment about spelling or grammar? Nahh, people people who comment on speling and grammar can usualy give an example of what is wrong. This wouldn't be you.
They should look at what democracy is realy about and look at what the president does. He listens to what the peop^h^h^h^hhow to delete al this and not post?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
And given that alcohol is on many levels much more addictive and destructive than heroin, you might want to ask yourself: why hasn't our society collapsed under the weight of all those alcohol users? Simple: not all alcohol users destroy themselves. Most people do take care of themselves, albeit not optimally. This will be no different with other drugs.
The key is the first. A lone individual with a gun is no danger to the government. A large organization, even without guns, which can freely assemble, communicate, plan, and share vital pieces of information (governmental weaknesses, tactics, etc) is a danger to the government. 5 shots at police does nothing, 546 precisely placed knife wounds does everything.
"Hemp would potentially be a great resource atm for replacing many hydrocarbon products currently used, so you can bet that the oil companies might join in any attempts to legalize hemp production. Hemp has a wide range of very good uses if you bother to research for them. Far too many to discuss here."
No, hemp does not have a lot of very good uses. You can make clothes out of it, if you don't mind being uncomfortable. You can make paper out of it, if you don't mind it being fragile, and brown. It makes great rope and twine. That's why you can buy hemp rope and hemp twine almost anywhere, but only retarded hippy stores sell anything else made from hemp. No, hemp is not a replacement for any petroleum based products. Yes, I know that there is "research" that shows that we can use hemp to replace every aspect of modern life. While this may be "technically" true, it is far from actually being true.
Please don't call Missoula a small town, it is one of the largest cities in Montana. I've lived in small towns before, Missoula is not one.
I wish people would stop acting like Marijuana is so completely benign. Sure, it's not as toxic or addictive as cigarettes, but smoking anything is bad for your lungs. People with dependent personalities can become addicted to anything with a strong psychological effect. Don't get me wrong, it shouldn't be illegal. I'm just sick of people acting like it's some king of magic wonder drug that can solve all of our problems.
In Florida, the same thing happened. The citizens voted "YES" to have a commuter train system built (twice). We even voted for the higher taxes to do it! But Governor Jeb Bush decided, "NO" all on his own. And so there is no train.
Democracy is all but dead in the States. Recently China passed laws to secure private property rights to it's citizens, while here in the U.S. emanate domain laws were watered down to allow seizures for commercial interests. Who's more communist now?
:T:R:A:N:S:
There is of course a problem with that - the people who traffic drugs are making millions of dollars, and they aren't just going to give up and find honest work. If you want to kill of their business then you have to totally seize the market. That means rock-bottom prices and no restrictions on who you sell to. If you sell drugs legally under the same controls as alcohol you're just going to force the dealers to target children. If you try to make tax money from it they'll undercut you. And this is without even considering the fact that it send a signal that taking drugs is safe and Government-approved; that's going to make it much more difficult for parents to keep their children away from drugs.
I'd like to point out that most of the insurgents are either getting new munitions from Iran or have plenty of military grade munitions laying around from the previous administration.
I mean a 150MM artillery shell isn't something you keep about your house either is it?
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I assumed nothing. Reading is fundamental. A quote from the post I replied to:
"How much worse would things be if now, in addition to those, you've got people high on ecstasy or marijuana? What about heroin?"
Maybe because a lot of geeks are intelligent and open-minded enough not to equate [any drug use at all] == brain damage. You don't have to be a drug addict or drub abuser (or whatever your favourite label is for these rogue heathen geeks you refer to) to have the odd joint, or go out for a few beers with your friends / family.
:P
Or maybe it's just because geeks are, despite common legend, regular human beings - people with stress, depression, pain, or even just a sense of a experimentation that needs to be fulfilled.
If you want to get into health, consider that many of us spend huge portions of our lives sat in weird positions typing repetitively on keyboards and staring at flickering screens all day, often neglecting exercise and socialising in the process. In that light, why would any SMART geek want to use a computer? It's obviously detrimental to health, both mentally and physically.
I don't know where you live, but I'm glad I'm not there!
Fortunately, I've hardly ever been around it here (not sure where you got the idea that this had anything to do with my friends), but first found that I was sensitive to the smoke when visiting Amsterdam, a place where pot is already legal. It has nothing to do with "quality", since the pot being smoked in Amsterdam is presumably "high-grade", nor would it be something that was fixed with legalization.
Migraines are more than headaches. Please look them up; it may be enlightening.
Not an apples-to-apples comparison (pun intended). The right to eat, a necessary condition for life, trumps the pain delivery may cause. Furthermore, even for non-necessary goods, such as electricity, the fumes from vehicles are not the intended byproduct of delivery (the fruit/good is); they are an unfortunate side-effect that we are working very hard to reduce or eliminate. Finally, you're not presenting an argument for pot, you're presenting an argument against fruit.
Why?
I had expected such a response, though I'm not entirely sure what "lie" you're referring to. I prefer making lifestyle changes to simply medicating my problems away; medications are something to be taken only when necessary and then for the shortest duration possible (and then only after reading and analyzing the effects right down to the level of chemical bonding). I don't even take medications for the aforementioned migraines, preferring to simply avoid triggers.
Anyway, I'm not sure why you feel the need to attack me or presume all sorts of ridiculous things about my lifestyle simply because I hold a dissenting viewpoint. The only thing you can truly infer from my argument is that I tend to avoid pot smoke.
There's a reason it was called the quiet revolution.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
This certainly doesn't sound like democracy at work... Looks like it is time for some officials there to step down and for people to establish true democracy in their county.
Some people find relief from their migraines smoking pot -- maybe you should give it a try.
I guess it's just stoners looking to be anything but wastes of space.
Why even bother posting on this subject if your mind is already made up?
Do the rest of us a favor, and keep your ignorance and bias to yourself.
the only people getting killed are insurgents and American Soldiers, who are almost exclusively from the lower classes. As far as the upper classes, who are profiting handsomely from this war, are concerned, the Wars going great.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Hey, it's my goddamn Constitutional RIGHT to have 150mm artillery shells lying around the house!
Haida Manga
Personally, I can't see very many drawbacks to legalization of any drug, and can see a lot of positives.
Then I doubt you have done drugs on a regular basis. The difference between pot and alchohol is huge. One can pretty much consume a moderate amount of alchohol every night and go to work the next day completely sober and capable. But if you smoke a moderate amount of dope every night, it builds up and begins to effect (negatively) your concentration, your memory, and your perception of social situations. I know, because I was a former moderate pot smoker and it affected me that way. It's also been proven that THC will build up in your brain and have these effects. Making pot legal will only increase misery, it won't alleviate it.
That said, I do not agree with the current draconian laws putting people in jail for moderate pot usage. I think it's way out of proportion to the crime and detracts from greater priorities. Posted AC for my protection. :-)
Absence of prohibition != approval.
Most kids won't go to a hardened criminal to get drugs, if they want them. An older brother/sister or niegbourhood "tough kid" will be sufficient.
There is illegal bootlegging and counterfieting of tobacco and liquor products. High prices and taxes pratty well ensures that. Legal drugs will probably be the same.
A few points to ponder:
I used to work late hours in a Service Station on weekends. Working my way through Uni. Bunch of pissed guys from the local pub or bunch of stoners looking for a few munchies? I knew which was much more pleasant to deal with, less blood and mess to clean up afterwards.
I wondered down the local last night and sank enough Magners with a few mates to wake up with a sizable hangover. Now I feel like shit and probably said something inappropriate to the g/f so now she's not talking to me. The coffee shops in Amsterdam provide a nice relaxing atmosphere, where one can talk just as much shite with your mates but wake up feeling OK and be a productive member of society.
Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
The reason that at least Americans don't grow their own tobacco and roll their own cigarrettes is the same reason that most Americans don't buy a coffee maker/espresso maker/whatever to make their own coffee drinks. In Washington state (home of Starbucks and a million smaller coffee houses), it is impossible to work somewhere with more than a couple of employees (if that) where you don't run into a LOT of people who buy one or more coffee drinks every single day, at $3-7 a pop.
It would be nearly trivial to purchase even a high-end coffee maker (or other) for the cost of less than one or two months' outlay for their daily fix, they could even have one for home, one for work, one for church, etc.
Americans have become lazy, and succumb to instant gratification. The sheer volume of coffee outlets in Washington (and other places) is a perfect testament to this. Even McDonalds sells higher end coffee (Seattle's Best). 7-11 carries Kona coffee. People come in every single day for their coffee, sometimes more than once.
People also succumb to the belief that it's cheaper to live in the city and pay for all food, when the reality is that you get significantly different food if you grow it yourself, especially organically - without pesticides - as well as your food isn't processed if you grow it yourself. It's comparing apples and halibut it's so different.
Americans (and much of the world now) believe such fallacies as you can make millions becoming a music star, actor, sports star, whatever, when the reality is that the masses pay for those elite few who comprise a minute fraction of a single percent who actually strike it rich. Instant gratification combined with the willingness of the masses to believe fallacies based upon false premises further entrench stupidity.
Americans also falsely believe that the person getting the most votes for President becomes President. Dubya disproved this TWICE in a row, losing the popular vote, yet no one does anything about it. The root cause is the same in all cases.
All you need is slaughterhouse dirt for nitrates and some old car batteries for sulfuric acid and you're ready to blow that tree stump out of your yard... military grade munitions are very overpriced.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
I honestly cannot think of anything more compassionate that has a realistic chance of working than to force decentralization by individuals, acting alone and undetectable, making synchronized, but otherwise uncoordinated and unplanned, attacks on its control nodes to bring it down. Yes, I know this means many people will suffer but I really think it is the least painful of a wide range of bad options.
Seastead this.
This would be true if it had never been prohibited. Ask an average person which is worse for you, alcohol or drugs, and they'll say drugs. Now, I suspect they can't list the different health issues of the two, but I bet they can tell you that drugs are illegal. Legalizing drugs would be a signal that the Government no longer considered them bad. The fact that oranges are legal isn't a sign that they're Government-sanctioned, but the fact that paracetamol became legal is a sign that it has been researched and found to be a useful medication with few side effects.
There is illegal bootlegging and counterfieting of tobacco and liquor products. High prices and taxes pratty well ensures that. Legal drugs will probably be the same.I would agree with you if it weren't for the massive foundation of the illegal drug trade. While you can buy "black market" alcohol and cigarettes the practice isn't widespread because the two having been legal for so long means the supply has to grow and find a demand. With drugs, the situation is the opposite; drugs are illegal, so a massive supply operation has grown up. With legalisation this operation would have to find a different demographic to target its products.
I used to work late hours in a Service Station on weekends. Working my way through Uni. Bunch of pissed guys from the local pub or bunch of stoners looking for a few munchies? I knew which was much more pleasant to deal with, less blood and mess to clean up afterwards.A fair point, but you do need to bear in mind that legalizing cannabis alone isn't really an option, at least if you really want to cut off funds to organized crime. And other drugs can cause much more serious societal problems than cannabis or alcohol.
And do you have any proof for your claim that legalization would increase demand? Do you know anybody -- /anybody/ -- who gets up in the morning and says, "You know what would go great with this meal? Crack. Too bad it's illegal!" Hardly.
It's not so much that there would be hordes of people lined up on day 1 after legalization; rather, it would make those drugs even easier to accept as something to experiment with, and you do risk a higher number of people on average being addicted to it at an earlier age. If you're going to support legalization, you have to be ready to admit it can result in more use, abuse, and addiction.
Did I say overlords? I meant protectors.
A few uses.
You say you have a chemical engineering degree? Then you should know better. Generally speaking paper is brown without chemical treatment regardless of the fiber source. Anyone remember the "natural paper" fad? Treatment also has a great deal to do with clothing, imagine wearing fresh untanned leather. Fragile? The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution were both written on it are still on display in good condition. Paper from hemp actually has an advantage over paper from timber, it is acid free.
Plastics, paint, oil, biodiesel, ethanol, etc, see above linked article and feel free to search for more. My use of the term "replacing" was as in "substituting for" not as in "elimination of".
Never called Missoula a small town. Read the parent to my post then reread my comment and you will see I was responding to their post.
I agree, especially when it was outlawed under such bogus circumstances. Wonder drug? No, but the American Medical Association was strongly opposed to the Marihuana Act cause it greatly reduced their arsenal. I don't smoke the stuff, nor do I advocate for others to do so or not do so, however I hate bogus scientific research being used to pad corporate and political wallets while stifling competition. We should make a honest effort to explore hemp's usefulness and make extensive use of it where it is superior.
Offtopic side note to the parent: Read that article I linked and you will see that if hemp does make a return in the US that many things will need to be relearned and re-engineered. An area that might prove of interest to one who desires a career in chemical engineering. Also, when Henry Ford spoke of using ethanol for fuel, he spoke of potatos which might be more of interest to you in Idaho. Don't recall much about potatos, maybe when I am not so tired maybe I will search to see if anyone ever did for potatos what George Washington Carver did for peanuts.
If you ever consider going to work for Monsanto, research them heavily first and you may change your mind.
This is not to say that they wouldn't then move on to other illegal forms of recreation like, say, underage prostitution. The difference I see in that one, and the reason to keep that illegal should be obvious. Drugs can't be victims, even if they aren't choosing to be used. Do you know anybody --
It may be the reason for the second ammendment, only thing is the second amendment is now redundant. The very instant anyone attempts to put together a group of people with the aim of affecting Government policies or methods through the 'bearing arms' avenue, they'll be thrown in prison or sent to GTMO.
Somebody mod parent up, he's absolutely spot on. How useful is the 2nd amendment anymore, when even a few hippie war protesters are so dangerous, they have to be confined in 'free-speech zones'? Maybe a 'test case' is in order....
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
what's the other option?
to paraphrase winston churchill: democracy is the worst form of government devised, except for all of the other types of government
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Why not just set your prefs to not put politics stories on the front page? That's what the prefs are for. Some people do want to know about this, some don't, so it's easier to err on the side of being informative and make it possible to remove the stories.
i am a soviet space shuttle
the bush administration has committed many crimes
but if you think they are of the same order and magnitude as what the nazis did, you are seriously deluded or propagandized
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
#4 isn't a democracy, and #2 and #3 aren't real democracy either
if it's not democracy, then work must be made to make it a dmeocracy, not just stop voting. what does that do but enforce the efforts of evil assholes?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
you're offered a choice between no change and little doubtful change
to not vote means your influence is certain: zero
unless you are advocating change via nondemocratic means, when you do not vote you are advocating acceptance of evil assholes who subvert democracy
those who destroy democracy DEPEND upon you not voting
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The Quiet Revolution preceded the October Crisis.
Further, the October Crisis also supports my position, as the FLQ not only failed in all their goals, but led the Quebec sovereignty movement to universally renounce the use of violence.
Just because you have a majority doesn't mean you walk all over the minority, he said. Too often there's more emphasis put on dividing people than on uniting them.
..wouldn't that be a compelling argument for legalisation?
09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Then I guess you'll just have to scroll on by, won't you? I know it's annoying to have to take the effort to move that scroll bar downward to see the next story, or to click those links to earlier stories, such a sacrifice, isn't it? If you're not interested in it, just keep scrolling.
i am a soviet space shuttle
The proxy system didn't seem to appeal to people in sufficient numbers to make any impact on the electoral system. If widely adopted it would form the affinity groups in a public manner which would allow them to seek independence in conjunction with other groups that were disenfranchised. It might also put enough pressure on the political system to represent the interests of the people, although I don't hold out as much hope there.
The Hutter Prize basically depends on the largess of the wealthy (including corporations) which, as it turns out, isn't forthcoming. What the Hutter Prize would do in theory is solve the knowledge problem -- which would allow an objective metric of epistemological merit to be affixed to a given description of the world. This is the sort of thing you need if you are going to "argue" with a theocracy since theocracies insist on "dialog" rather than experimentation. It has the essential weakness of any theory-intensive approach to the problem of knowledge.
Seastead this.
No wonder you worry about epidemics so much. You're a vectorist.
Seastead this.
Yeah, one-off is no biggie. My worry, as I've said elsewhere, is that we end up getting every democratic anomoly or abuse reported here, swamping the news for nerds. Nip it in the bud!
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
owned
In California at least, the threshold for drink driving convictions for minors is about the same as the nominal uncertainty on many testing devices: 0.01% BAC. If I recall correctly, this can be achieved with less than 1 mL of ethanol
The net effect of that is to make it illegal for somebody under 21 to drive to church and take part in communion. Gotta love it...
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
If you get caught with weed, even if the sentence from the local police is low or non-existant, you WILL lose the privelidge of taking out student loans and receiving grant money from the state or federal government. That far outweighs any local penalty given out, even if its 30 days in jail... I'd rather take 30 days than not have the ability to go to school and become educated...
I've read Slashdot for the last 5 years, and now I start posting... Go figure
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
"Is there even a point to voting any more if the will of the people can so easily be subverted by two people?"
As we anarchists like to say, "No matter who you vote for, the government gets into power."
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Sure, legalizing marijuana results in more use and abuse of marijuana. It does not increase the use of cocaine or meth - and it might even lower them as you no longer buy all of the stuff from the same persons. And there are a lot of studies that show marijuana as less unhealthy than tobacco (unless you happen to be stoned while driving, which can be very unhealthy - but there already are laws against that).
You will probably end up with more pot smokers, but you also get a lot of benefits (like medical use, improved quality, less money going to international crime syndicates, one entry level drug less...) that might well offset the fact that more people inhale oxidized hemp.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
...in fact the Declaration of Independance and the US Constitution are printed on paper made from hemp...
n ce/charters/treasure/declaration_facts.html - second question)
This is not correct. Those documents were written on parchment. Stop spreading this myth.
(References:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a8.html - Question 145
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experie
I agree that sustained abuse of grass can turn you into a bit of zombie during the day but no more than sustained alcohol abuse does, I have worked with both kinds of people and I think it's safe to say that had they not had weed and alcohol available they'd probably have been abusing something else. Personally I have tried a lot of both dope and alcohol and haven't find either of them at all addictive.
The vast majority of people are able to regulate their lifestyle perfectly reasonably, the main difference legalisation will make is that first of all the drugs are quality controlled, secondly the supply chains will out of the hands of criminals and thirdly you can have rules in place governing their use e.g. no selling to minors, no selling any more to people who are obviously out of it etc.
You realize that it is easy to have a private pot garden (takes about 3'x3' and with the new bulbs doesn't even raise your electric bill or heat signature). The pot you grow is a hell of a lot safer than the booze you might try to make in a homemade still.
It is trivially easy to get pot anywhere.
It's a multi billion dollar business.
*Illegal* pot is absolutely destroying the governments, justice systems, and police officers in just about every country south of us and is starting to do a number on the local guys too.
We incarcerate roughly 1% of our society (and disenfranchise them) based on trivial drug offenses.
Pot has many benefits. Hemp has many benefits (including a much better source of artificial fuel than corn).
It could be a well integrated part of our society, producing tax income and strengthening all of the central and south american countries.
Opposing pot legalization is as stupid as proposing making alcohol illegal.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
You can't take the sky from me...
My rule is, if there's a university with more student than your town has citizens, yours is a small town.
</big-city smugness>
You can't take the sky from me...
Ah, it must be wonderfull to retain such a child-like gullibility.
You can't take the sky from me...
You can't take the sky from me...
You can't take the sky from me...
This was an advisory refendum only. It was symbology. Absolutely no substance. It's the equivalent of telling a rapist "please be gentle".
I am all in favor of full narcotics legalization. But I am not so stupid to think that some idiotic feel-good "advisory" referendum would change anything. You might as well be sitting around a campfire singing Kumbaya. If you want to change things in Montana, you need to start with referendums that have teeth in them. Then start voting out the bastards.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Some of the effects of these drugs make alcohol pale in comparison.
disclaimer: i'm neither for nor against legalization/decriminalization/whatever. if you ask me, there's way more broad/serious issues to be worring about in the states. i'm getting the fuck out of this country soon anyway, so you guys are on your own regardless. now for my... cents...
i mean, if you've taken ecstasy, marijuana, and heroin, and that's still your opinion, you've gotta hook me up with your supplier. but seriously, i've gotten really, -really- drunk before. pretty intense, this alcohol stuff. i mean, i've seen people barely able to walk after drinking a bunch. or even unable to walk. even with a little bit, it's fairly obvious that someone's been drinking. now, i've never had ecstasy effect my motor or mental faculties to such an extent, ever. marijuana? you've got to be kidding me. i just got back from africa, where i spent three weeks trying to smoke as much pot as i possibly could [literally], and that didn't come close to being as intense as a good night of drinking. now, heroin, i've only tried once. and i snorted it, no needles for me. let me tell you, wow was i disappointed. you'd figure with all these rock stars on it, it'd be the most euphoric experience ever. nah. kinda weak. i mean, really weak. i hear shooting it is more intense, but meh.
either way, my take on the matter is that alcohol is ridiculously intense compared to just about any drug i've ever taken. except maybe embalming fluid and ketamine. but ironically, i found the effect of both of those to be strikingly similar to that of alcohol. especially with ketamine, virtually indistinguishable from alcohol. note, i've never messed with crack or meth or anything that ridiculous, so perhaps my view on the matter is incomplete.
so if you haven't been as... adventurous?... as me regarding use of illegal drugs, there you have it. if you're looking to get -fucked up-, alcohol is still pretty much the best way to accomplish that. the only reason i smoke so much pot is because alcohol is too intense for me. hopefully my lengthy ramble has convinced someone that there's really no drugs that would make alcohol pale in comparison.
mmmm... acid...
Oddly enough, alcohol use flourished under prohibition despite the dangers of unsafe underground products. Usage actually dropped when prohibition ended. Also, people increased consumption of more dangerous liquers and decreased consumption of bulky drinks like wine and beer. This went back to normal after prohibition.
One source.
In other words, I believe that legalizing MJ would lead to a decrease in crime, a decrease in incarceration, a reduction of the cost of or law enforcement, or at least a reprioritization towards more damaging crimes like rape and murder.
I don't read AC A human right
Very sensible comment. Well said.
-- Tom
Soap box, the ballot box, jury box and ammo box
--To be used roughly in that order.
I don't read AC A human right
that means you all should believe, worship, and obey that my brother is a douche because I have gut feeling.
destiny, chance, fate, fortune; they're all ways of claiming your fortunes, without claiming your failures. -gerrard
anarchy quickly becomes rule by warlords
if you don't understand why, you don't understand human nature. i'm certain in your thought experiments anarchy really rocks, but in the real world, populated by real human beings, it is basically the definition of suckage
please move to somalia where you can experience your glorious anarchy and leave the rest of us with a better grasp on human nature with the pursuit of a sound government we deserve
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Read the FAQ dude. It's an American company run by American's. Obviously it's available to the world since everything on the internet is. Everyone is welcome to participate, but just because you wish it wasn't an American site doesn't make it so.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
I've come up with scads of great ideas while high on pot. In fact, that's one of the reasons I like it. It puts my brain into overdrive. In fact, there was a period in my life where I smoked a lot of it and it added a second, more encompassing way of thinking onto the way I used to think. You ought to give it a try, you might be pleased with the results!
the problem I have with illegal (and legal) drugs is NOT primarily what it does to the user. While I think that a society of addicts is ultimately doomed, my primary concern are the victims of drug abusers.
Were there even a single scrap of truth to that then you would wholheartedly support complete legalization of all drugs immediately. No other path is consistent with your stated concern.
We already have to deal with intoxicated people operating cars, planes, and other potentially lethal machinery. How much worse would things be if now, in addition to those, you've got people high on ecstasy or marijuana?
You seem to be suffering from a sad delusion that making it legal would change that at all. That has no rational basis and is completely contradicted by reality. Drug laws do nothing to cut demand for drugs. We learned exactly what insane laws like those do back in prohibition. They increase useage and massively increase violent crime. Every time. No exceptions. No matter what color the sky on your planet.
Would bystander deaths double? Triple?
Not even the smallest possibility. They would go way down. As soon as you quit making it a crime it becomes an issue which can be discussed reasonably and dealt with in a reasonable manner. What it is now is the primary cause of violent crime due entirely to the fact that it is illegal.
People like to explain that the "war on drugs" is failing and how eventually the government will have no choice but to legalize these substances.
It's not failing. It's a great success. You clearly have no idea what the goals of it are though. It has led to massive profits for the prison industrial complex ans to various interests which would lose big if pot *and* hemp were legal. It's not really tough to figure it out. All you have to do is look at the effects and have some basic understanding of history and human nature.
Last time I checked, not very many people grow tobacco in their backyards and make cigarettes in their basements. Why does anyone think dealers give the government a cut of their lucrative business?
Tobacco is *legal*. Economies of scale by big growers make it unfeasible for somebody to profit off of it on a small scale.
That particular thing might not be true of pot given the quantities involved, but it doesn't change the fact that it is the legal versus illegal dichotomy which is at issue.
And if it were legal and people did grow their own and the government didn't get to collect taxes from what they sold off then so what? Take the savings from eliminating the DEA, eliminating *at least* 1/3 of the prison space requirements and massive reduction in police forces when it is no longer profitable in a black market economy and you'll benefit even more.
Pretending for a moment that anyone would pay these "drug taxes", I wonder what percentage of these new taxes would go to pay for the welfare of addicts? 300% at the very least I would assume, but very likely more. Society already has to pay for addicts, how many would we be paying for if these substances become easily and legally available?
300% Wow, you're smoking the good shit.
If society already is paying, then your police state plan obviously isn't working, Sparky.
Take 10% of the *savings* from eliminating the drug laws which are the sole source of the crime and you'll have all the treatment programs you need. That leaves 90% of the drug war budget that can go back into our pockets (OK, I'll pass it on after that last sentence)
Logic has no place in pro-drug arguments, because there is nothing logical about (ab)using these drugs in the first place.
Nonsense. Logic has no place in pro drug law arguments because were the actual points to be argued nobody would buy into them. All they have is idiotic bullshit like you've been spewing.
I don't suggest to have answers, but I don't care what you use to justify your reasoning, in any case, the only quest
What'd Prohibition give us? The Mafia.
It also gave us the Kennedys, since Poppa Joe owned the trucks that carried it.
Chalk that one up in the positive or negative column as you see fit.
I was the fifth person to testify at this hearing. There were six people to testify in favor of the amendment (which would allow law enforcement to go after felony marijuana crimes,) and over 30 people against it. Pretty much every reason Van Valkenberg gave for amending the initiative was soundly refuted, but it was pretty clear by the time I got up to testify that two of the commisioners weren't even listening to us. The only comments we got from them were requests that we speed it up because they "don't want to be here all day."
Really, it's an activity, and as long as someone is not hurting others then it's Stay Out of my Fucking Way territory.
I'd like to agree, but the problem is that if somebody chooses to remove their ability to discern dangerous actions towards others then you're in new territory. Waving a gun around in school, for example, doesn't actually hurt anyone, but I imagine you'll be in handcuffs soon enough.
If everyone wants to go this route (and it appears so by your moderation) then punishments had better be adjusted accordingly. If you kill somebody through drug-related negligence (ie, it's manslaughter) then the death penalty is the only result I want to see. Someone who has such little regard for other people's lives that they willingly throw them away has no right to their own.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
Might I add, that at the turn of the century Coke® contained plenty of 'coca-extract' and sold for a Nickel!
I think people forget that marijuana--unlike tobacco--does alter your brain functions quite quickly, and that can impair the operation of a motor vehicle, for starters. I remember Car and Driver in the late 1970's wrote an article that actually had a few of their editors smoke a "joint" before driving a car, and that promptly affected the ability to drive a car through a obstacle course properly.
or suffer the consequences of a new class of DUI drivers
Hot tip, they're already doing it. Therefore there is nothing new and your point has destroyed itself with only a tiny bit of actual thought. Perhaps you should have tried thinking about it for a second before posting such drivel.
. For me, the smoke is a migraine trigger and the only argument for legalization I can see even having the slightest merit is the medical one
Well, that's not how a free society works. You need to come up with an argument for illegalization.
Nobody has yet come up with an honest rational argument for that, so it should be legal.
Granted this isn't a free society hence drug laws which can only empower the police state and have no possible positive effects. Go ahead try to find one you will fail.
it would not matter if an entire state voted to allow medical weed, the feds just ignore it.
You're correct, except you shouldn't have put it in the hypothetical. California already legalized medical marijuana and the feds illegally went in and arrested people for engaging in perfectly legal activities.
I agree with you completely. This whole idea that whatever I choose to do with my life has no affect on anyone else's life is absurd and naive.
I stand pwnt.
Pardon my French, but what the fuck does that have to do with ANYTHING?
Perhaps you think that's a reason for cannabis to be illegal? It wouldn't make any sense, though, since that would mean we'd have to make laws against alcohol, laptop computers, masturbation, sleeping pills, blindfolds, annoying passengers, and boxing gloves, too. Any of those can impair your driving, so none of them should be legal anywhere, ever!
Or did you just think you had a point with that? I understand that lifelong exposure to anti-drug propaganda will do that to you.
People should be allowed to do whatever they want with their own bodies and property as long as they neither phsyically harm, nor directly threaten the lives or property of others.
(disclaimer: I've smoked pot -- about 16 years ago. Purely a social smoker, out with friends kind of thing. I've never smoked alone, and have been what they call 'clean and sober' since then. No, I'm not saying this to garner any applause. I'm saying I have direct experience, yet no vested interest.)
Oh and hey, did you ever consider the impact of the lack of a double-blind in that car and driver 'experiment?' Expectations skew results. If you tell people that wearing a red jacket causes people to drive aggressively and badly, they'll drive worse if you then put them in a red jacket.
OTOH, back when I smoked pot I noticed that if I got nervous or tried to concentrate on anything, the high vanished in minutes -- which is probably why so many all-the-time stoners never try to focus on doing anything. They're trying to get their money's worth, and it becomes a habit.
This is just sad, and not from what you are probably thinking. It takes this to get young voters intersted in voting? Of all the things to get up in arms about (the same people who have been running the VA hospitals wanting to take over their health care for one), this is the best thing they could think of to get excited over, the legalization of marijuana?
While I am libertarian in my beliefs and really don't have a problem with people doing drugs as long as they are not infringing on the rights of others, I have to admit that the legalization of drugs comes down pretty low on the list of items of Liberty that are under assault.
"We already have to deal with intoxicated people operating cars, planes, and other potentially lethal machinery. How much worse would things be if now, in addition to those, you've got people high on ecstasy or marijuana?"
A better question would be, how much better would things be if now we decided to give stiffer penalties for driving under the influence -- just take away people's licenses on their first infraction, for something like 10 years, or life.
Then these things will happen less, and we can safely consider allowing people to intoxicate themselves with whatever drug they wish. I mean really, Marijuana is about as intoxicating as alcohol, so someone irresponsible enough to intoxicate and then drive could use either to fuck up, couldn't they?
A better question would be, how much better would things be if now we decided to give stiffer penalties for driving under the influence -- just take away people's licenses on their first infraction, for something like 10 years, or life.
:)
I wholeheartedly agree
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
you revel in thought experiments. you have a wonderful list of what ifs. you're probably a student (or if you're an adult, that's just scarier) and so you have no real world experience with trying to make money and live a life. and so you can consider these ideas as sound when they are obviously crackpot, simply because you are so naive and earnest. so anarchy makes sense to you, in your perfect little hermetically sealed bubble, apart from the daily worries of the average person
unfortunately, how the human beings in your delightful experiment actually behave is different than you project. you want me to provide assertion for this. this is like asking me to prove to you that digestion results in shit: it should be your common knowledge already, such that if you don't know the fundamental aspects of the subject matter, then the issue is less that i will not prove it to you, and more that if you even have to ask for proof, it shows out of touch with reality you are, to ask such a foolish question
anarchy doesn't work. if you need to ask why, you're seriously deluded, and not worth the time explaining it to, because anyone who would need such explaining is already out of touch with simple rational persuasion
look, i'm certian you're a very positive, earnest little clueless fellow. why don't you write some more polemics, have some flamewars with some better adjusted folk, have a few brainstorming sessions with a few other deluded fools, and go squat in some abandoned building, or whatever gives you a hard on about your grand utopian scheming. you're not the first of your crackpot utopian kind, and you won't be the last
but i'm sorry, that you are so out of touch with essential human nature that you lack the fundamental understandings of why anarchy is pure hell, and you certainly are not worth the intellectual charity effort on my part to try to open your eyes to simple common sense and basic fundamental reality that a kindergartener could appreciate
good luck to you fruitcake. say it loud, say it proud, provide some entertainment for the us well-adjusted folk
xoxoxoxoxoxox
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Maybe we can learn how to better keep county commissioners, lawyers, or moon dust out of our underground dens.
You don't think small arms can defeat the U.S. government ask the Iraqi insurgents, hint they are winning and "we" (U.S. neo-con belligerents) are losing. Same thing with the 2nd amendment I think the heavily armed U.S. populace is very capable of defeating our cumbersome top heavy bureaucratic U.S. military in a 4th generation asymmetric guerrilla war.
http://antiwar.com/lind/index.php?articleid=1702
That's why as a decentralist anti-authoritarian leftist I think the right wing gun nuts (who I disagree with on about everything else) are right about the 2nd amendment as a check on government power.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Waco was about shooting police officers trying to serve a Warrant. The Branch Davidians were 1 of several groups snagged in a multi year long investigation involving a couple of fairly disreputable gun dealers who were selling semi->full auto kits to people at gun shows. The list of groups the kits were sold to include several gangs as well as drug cartels. At the conclusion of that phase of the investigation, the govt went after the people who had purchased the kits to get them back off the street. When the warrant was served on the BD compound, several police officers where shot. Starting your legal proceedings by shooting police officers isn't likely to make things go your way in the long run. Stupid thing is that with a few hours of paperwork & some ingenuity, the BD compound could have legally had those same half dozen full auto weapons - via at least 2 alternate methods. Their issue is that they clandestinely purchased the conversion kits through a dealer known to be supplying drug dealers/gangs with them.
Personally, the people on the county commission should be removed for failing do their jobs; represent the people. If they felt the people misinterpreted the ballot then they could have done a poll to see if people understood or try the vote again. Over turning the vote with out proper evidence is wrong and an abuse of power that should not be tolerated. It falls to the people of the county, as Americans, to do this; it is stated in the Decoration of Independence that its the peoples reasonability to take such action. After all, the government is for the people not the other way around.
As for the advisory on marijuana offenses, this is a hard topic because people have varying beliefs what they all feel is the correct one. While history shows that prohibition does not work and the removal of a persons rights only encourages this action on other topics; leaves me to believe that its the wrong course. However, legalizing it and having strong punishments for abusing it appears to work better to some degree but its not a perfect answer. For example: drunk driving has strong punishments, though one can ague that we still need stronger punishments here. Its not a perfect answer and I think this causes problems for people because they would like a perfect answer when none exists. However, there is all ways room to improve or tweak the laws to find the best balance between peoples freedom and the potential harm/harm it can cause other people when the user(s) abuse drugs/toxins.
The real problem with both is the ability to maturely hand the drugs/toxins as well as passing that ability on to the kids. Its the hardest thing to teach and learn as well as the one that most people fear has not been learned. Hopefully, we are not trying to avoid teaching this lesson or handing this off to someone else in hope that its will all work out in the end.
> Hey, it's my goddamn Constitutional RIGHT to have 150mm artillery shells lying around the house!
;-)
If you get 150mm artillery shells, I want ICBMs and a couple pounds of Pu239
Either that or a couple big tanks of liquid nitrogen and a bunch of magnesium rods...
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
There's a third alternative to the choices of revolt or vote for the least corrupt politician.
Run yourself.
Currently, in my home state of NC, candidates can run independently with petition signatures of 4% of registered voters in their constituency. Currently, nobody does this and wins. However, it seems to me that getting together a large enough group to run a reform candidate and win would be much easier than getting a large enough group together to forcibly overthrow the government.
Speed, coke, and heroin were quite accessible years ago, and once thought to be okay. They were touted as panaceas, much like weed today. Soldiers were given drugs to ward off fatigue. Truckers and college students would use speed to stay alert. But addiction became a Huge problem, which lead to prohibitions. It's not a Big Conspiracy.Yeah, that's a great idea, considering that people die every day, with AA. And then there's the fact that anyone can have too much to drink, and drive impaired. AA only represents a small fraction of alcoholics. The majority of addicts are delusional about - and impaired by - their substance abuse.Addiction has a high recidivism rate. The vast majority of smokers CAN'T quit. There is an negative impact on society who pays for smoker' medical bills, and the friends and family who have to be exposed to, or take care of they're smoking-induced stroke- or cancer-victim parents, and later themselves.It's not easy getting animals to stoke.
Animals Exposed To Marijuana's Active Component Will Self-Administer
"Self-administration of drugs by animals, long considered a model of human drug-seeking behavior, is characteristic of virtually all addictive and abused drugs.
See: Tolerance and dependence.Sometimes people try to defend their position by crying about discrimination. Like you. Other times they can think of the right thing to say: Just because the idiot majority believes marijuana is harmless doesn't mean they're right.
I'm actually big on punishing drug driving. However, I'm not sure a lifetime ban on driving is the solution. And the reason is a pragmatic one:
When you take away somebody's ability to hold a decent job you essentially turn them into a net-cost to society - they don't pay much in taxes and they'll probably be a drain on social systems. Now, if you're talking about incurring that cost to put a rapist who can't control his urges behind bars to keep everybody safe I'd say that is a good tradeoff. On the other hand, if a person is unlikely to be a repeat offender it is a needless cost to society.
Make penalties stiff to deter crime and deter repeat offenses. However, make the penalties such that a person doesn't just check out of society for a lack of anything else to do. If the penalty for stealing is being banned from ever holding a job, how do you think an ex-con is going to feed himself?
Now, if we're talking serious violent crime I'm all for locking people up simply to get them off the street - we have to consider the danger to others. But you have to be practical about denying a livelihood to somebody who is 20...
Yeah, that's right, I was trolling when I made that observation.
how about stopping income-related tax by forming proxy-based economies that operate outside the jurisdiction of the IRS?
MORTAR COMBAT!
Dude. The Taliban was responsible for stamping out the drug trade in Afghanistan, and since they were crushed the drug trade has gotten right back on track. They are not the people making money off of drugs.
Anyone who uses psychologically altering substances needs to be able to set up containments for themselves beforehand. Effects should be known and dosages should be appropriate.
I think laws should be like this: You can use a drug, but you are still responsible for your actions, even if you are incapacitated. Just like it goes for German autobahns: You can go over 130km/h (some have gone to 300km/h on various stretches), but if you get in an accident it is automatically your fault. If there are reasonable grounds to believe you hurt someone else and drug metabolites are found in your body, then you are automatically guilty of any crimes committed.
But the cloud of mystery/propaganda only hurts more than it helps, IMO. It artificially keeps drug prices high since they are forced into a black market, which criminals take advantage of to finance their activities. Remove prohibition legislation, and criminals will have a STRONGLY weakened revenue stream. Ask any legal-drug company what happens to their revenue on a drug when its patent expires.
Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.