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...
No and that is why voting among American citizens is extremely low.
I keep telling myself I'm not the desperate type.
One could argue that voting issues certainly fall under 'Stuff that matters'.
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
There are no links to the actual news story... surely this was covered in the local paper or something???
A Google News search revealed this story which elaborates on the details in the article summary.
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.
There was no link in the story, so here's some that seem to be relevant.
An article
relevant Google news search
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.
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.
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
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.
In Nebraska, we've voted in term limits for our state legislators three times. Because Nebraska has the nation's only unicameral (meaning only one congressional body, rather than two like a house and senate), the people's vote via referendum is considered the check and balance of "the other house."
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.
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.
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.
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
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"
LOL. Exactly. You're already there with the 'imperialism'. Watch now as the idiots' faces fall when they realise this is how we saw them all along. Tyrannised. We ain't getting modded up for this either.. Maybe we should tell them they're 'free Romans' or something. LOL
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
The thing is that our government is supposed to be designed like this from the very begining because sometimes majority rule sucks and you get morons who try to use this very same referdums in other states to ban gay marriage and restrict the rights of other people.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
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.
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."
One problem with your thesis. And that is there is no such thing as a "natural right". You have what rights are given to you by the community you live in. Unfortunately, the state has taken away the ability for the community to hand out rights, and now claims that to itself.
So, you don't have any natural right to occupy any land.
I'm not really disagreeing with you otherwise, just arguing a point.
(I don't believe in a god either. I'm so going straight to hell, except I don't believe in that either.)
I wank in the shower.
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"?
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.
Many states in the United States are replublics. Some (I have no idea how many) are hybrid republics and democracies. One such state is California. In California, one can petition to have a measure put on the ballot. Once sufficient signatures are gathered, the measure goes on the ballot. If the measure is submitted to the ballot as a proposed law, then 50%+1 voters can make it a law, although the law can still be overturned by a supermajority of the legislature, I think 75%. However, if the measure is sumbitted to the ballot as a proposed constitutional amendment, and it passes (I think the number then required is 60%, but I'm not sure), there's nothing the legislature can do about it. This is how, in the so-called "Proposition 13 revolution", we took away the legislature's ability to levy tax at all.
In California, legislators and the governor must also be wary of a second democratic power: The power to recall any or all of them. When ex-governor Grey Davis pulled a stunt similar to the one described above, his term as governor was terminated abruptly.
So, what can you do about it if you live in a republic? You can move to a democracy, or you can only vote for people who promise to turn the republic into a democracy.
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...
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.
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.
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.
For an example of a polar opposite state legislature, check out New Hampshire:
- 435 Representatives for roughly a million people.
- Pay for representatives is $100 per year.
- The legislature is very much part-time.
It's considered the most represented population at the state level in the US. When I was living there as a teenager I knew 4 state reps personally, including a guy who worked as an elevator operator. Say what you want about the area, it does have a government that represents its people.
I am officially gone from
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.
So this is a compelling reason to vote, not a reason to wuss out of the democratic process.
Just what are you suggesting we do about the problem with drug abuse and addiction?
Educate the population, get basic health care for everyone and alleviate the worst pressures of poverty. The answers to this problem have been known for decades if not longer, and are within easy reach for America. We simply lack the will to fix this.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
By your logic then you believe that alcohol and tobacco should also be illegal. Is that the case?
-- 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.
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?
Hey, I'm an American pal.
That means I'm free to use any argument I want to make up my mind, no matter how ignorant, stupid, or not your opinion it is.
If you want me to vote, you're going to have to pay me to do it, just like any other work.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
"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
/)
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.
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?
People should be allowed to do harm to themselves. People should be allowed to smoke in public. The government should not interfere. Now if a corporation wants to not hire people that smoke or drink, that is perfectly ok. If the government want to outlaw drunk driving, that is ok because you are causing great immediate harm. You don't have to go to the bar, and walking past someone smoking a cigarette will not cause significant harm. (Attempted) suicide should not be a crime for people over the age of 18
I currently don't have health insurance because I quite my corporate job to be a contractor for a few months. If I got injured, and die due to lack of medical care, I deserve to die. I never finished college. If no one will hire me as a result, I deserve to literally starve to death. I would accept private charity, but would chose death over welfare. I drink and occasionally smoke cigars. I will not blame anyone for liver cancer.
The government needs to not deal with these problems. Private charities should. If charities can not raise enough money to help you, you do not deserve help. I am being callous here, but it is necessary to keep the government small.
--- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
We can argue over whether the system functioned properly or not; in fact, that's what this sort of thread is all about...hence my argument that it was in fact appropriate for /.
As for whether the system in fact acted as intended...I'd say no. While it is true that the government in question is in the republican form, even representative governments (like this one) contain methods of polling constitutents directly and investing the people with some limited legislative powers, like a referendum. Absent actual powers, non-binding ballot questions are intended to ask the people's inclination on issues of policy. In this case, a lawyer working for the county had 'a gut feeling' that people who voted for the question intended to vote against it, despite there being no evidence supproting that conclusion. Since deliberative bodies are supposed to deliberate on facts, and there were no facts in evidence except for the simple fact of the actual vote result, two out of three commissioners erred very, very badly. That was the system breaking down.
It isn't to say that the commissioners broke any laws. Quite the contrary, they probably acted within their authority. Nonetheless, we know that a system can act harmfully without having any structural defect. For example, it is within the power of the federal government to raise the marginal tax rate in all categories to 100%. It wouldn't be illegal, but I think we would all call it a massive systemic breakdown nonetheless.
P.S. The republican form was an innovation whose intention was never to prevent the tyranny of the majority. The element in the equation that provides that protection is a Constitution, a document prescribing and proscribing the bounds of legitimate authority for the governing body and placing certain human rights out-of-bounds of legislation or regulation.
P.P.S. I also think that most republics don't follow the wills of their constituents, and for the most part this is a good thing, as the people at large are neither privy to the requisite information nor the time to analyze that information to make decently informed decisions about most issues. However, that system seems to fail when that natural obfucatory nature of legislation provides a convenient shield for monied interests to ply favorable regulation.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Wow.
FC Closer
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
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
Canada, along with most other stable democracies, changes gradually and peacefully.
You obvioulsy weren't in Quebec 40 odd years ago.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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)...
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.
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?
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.
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.
People should be allowed to do harm to themselves. People should be allowed to smoke in public.
Problem A; people smoking in public do not just harm themselves, they do cause harm to others. That harm isn't necessarily cancer, but it is certainly an unpleasant environment for non-smokers. Causing involuntary harm to others is one of the things government is supposed to try to prevent. Bans on smoking in public places are there to protect the staff, who often don't have the power or the financial ability to just get another job in a non-smoky business.
If charities can not raise enough money to help you, you do not deserve help. I am being callous here, but it is necessary to keep the government small.
Problem B; I disagree with your priority. I personally feel that basic humanity demands that we give assistance to provide a minimum standard of healthcare and support to people in our society is more important than small government for small governments sake. The nature of democratic societies, and the governments that we appoint to serve our will (theoretically) is that the will of the majority prevails (with some areas off limits to change in countries with constitutions). A majority of people feel that it's just that we have some humanity towards our fellow man in trouble, and that its government's duty to assist on our behalf and with some of everybodies money. Charity is for donations over and above that minimum assistance.
Now, you appear to feel that being compelled to pay for things you don't agree with is unjust. Unfortunately, you're in a minority. There's a whole bunch of things I don't agree with my government spending money on, but I don't dispute their duty to do so, as they wouldn't BE the government if it hadn't been the will of the people. We're both entitled to go form our own political party, stand as a candidate, lobby our representatives, or even just vote for politicians who agree with our views. If we end up in a minority, well, that's the cost of the living in a democratic society. Society has to cater to everyone, which means that not everyone wins 100%.
Problems where this ability of the people (as a group) to choose the path of their government are some of the most grave of all, which is why this article from missoula would be troubling for me if I lived in the US.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
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"
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
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.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
Hey, it's my goddamn Constitutional RIGHT to have 150mm artillery shells lying around the house!
Haida Manga
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
You know what's interesting about this topic? I had never heard about Florida commuter rail. You probably never heard about my post above on how the State of Minnesota disallowed even holding a referendum on 1/2 a billion for a Minnesota Twins ball park. I follow some "liberal" sites but I bet there are a lot of cases like this we never hear about. Somebody should probably start a web site: "Demcracy Denied State by State" or the like specifically on how the people's voice gets ignored or stifled in the U.S.
In a bigger sense, this is all part of a trend toward government unravelling out of control that starts at the top with Bush issuing signing statements about what Congress' legislation means to him and how he feels he should or should not follow their "recommendations and guidelines". Instead of the traditional other way around where the legislative branch legislates and the executive branch executes. If the federal government has gone crazy, why should we expect states, counties and cities not to?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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