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.
No and that is why voting among American citizens is extremely low.
I keep telling myself I'm not the desperate type.
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 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.
reason enough?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
So this is a compelling reason to vote, not a reason to wuss out of the democratic process.
As a Canadian, I have to say... dealing with this sort of thing was the only reasonable justification I ever saw for your stupid gun laws.
What are you all waiting for? Go shoot the fuckers already.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
It's not just the justification. It's the entire purpose behind the second amendment. And behind all the new gun laws that try to supersede the second amendment. A little rebellion from time to time is good for the country. Even if it is bad for the belligerents.
That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
"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.
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
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.
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
/)
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.
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.
Your only choice is to vote for the lest corrupt and most honest politician. While you state that a little rebellion is good, it ain't gonna happen.
But apart from all that, there is a serious problem with treating these issues as solvable through prohibitions. People want drugs, plain and simple. Therefore people will find them, whether or not other people want to protect them from themselves. By forcing them to go through back channels to do so, all you do is create a fantastic money-making machine for the criminal element to exploit, and make criminals out of a whole bunch of people who otherwise contribute perfectly well to society.
A better solution is to treat these things like we currently treat alcoholism. Some people can handle their stuff, some people can't; do everything in your power to help out those that can't deal with their drug of choice, give them support, try to find ways to get them off the stuff, etc., but leave everyone else alone. Same thing is happening with smoking these days - for those that want to quit, there is help. For those that don't, they can't smoke in enclosed places anymore, so it doesn't negatively impact others, but otherwise they are left alone. As far as pot, the stuff doesn't even physically addict you, so I have trouble seeing how it could be much of an actual problem for anyone (everyone I know that has wanted to quit just did it, no problem, no struggle). I know a lot of people say that it is used as an escape from reality and so on, but that in itself is no reason to make it illegal.
Here's one of my favorite quotes from one of the news articles on this topic:Yeah, how dare we infringe upon the right of the minority to force their ideals upon the majority, right? This is one of the most blatant inversions of the principle of protection from mob rule that I've ever seen...
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
The second amendment does not apply to normal citizens. It applies to organized militias.
Just in case people actually believe that. It is necessary to say that you are incorrect. Note the commas. Very important. Also the word "the", as in THE people. Not necessarily of the militia.
What?
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?
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.
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.
Maybe a 'test case' is in order....
We had one. It was called "Waco". I watched it on TV. It didn't end well.
In any event, I believe the GP wasn't quite right. The Right to Bear Arms has little to do with "affecting Government policies or methods" other than as a deterrent. If you want to see what happens when people use firearms to directly influence the political process, there are plenty of places in the world where that goes on regularly. It also rarely ends well. We call those situations "coups".
The Second Amendment is there for the time when We, The People of these United States, have given up on the political process, can no longer tolerate our Federal Government's policies or methods, and have set out to replace it and them. Without weapons that is infinitely more difficult. The Second also serves a deterrent, so that the government (any government, local, state or Federal) can't get too overbearing. And what I've been seeing lately, in my State, indicates that more of us need to keep and bear arms. The face of government that most of us see are the police, and they are starting to get out of hand. Power corrupts and all that.
Point being, if we ever reach the point where we need those guns, en-masse, to overthrow our own government, the Second Amendment will no longer matter. But its existence for all this time (and our observance of it) will have given us the chance to try again.
At least, that's the theory. Time will tell if the Founders were right once again.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.