Slashdot Mirror
Spy Satellite Photos Used To Fight Drug Smugglers
Hugh Pickens writes "The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, part of the Department of Defense, is using satellites to track the activities of drug cartels operating along the US-Mexican border. The agency is supplying photos to pinpoint Mexican narcotics operations and anticipate smuggling attempts into the United States. During a conference on border security held in Phoenix last week, Scott Zikmanis said his agency already has supplied some data to the El Paso Intelligence Center, a federal clearinghouse for investigating drug cartels. Any border-security surveillance will be done over Mexico, not the US says Zikmanis because a federal law, the Posse Comitatus Act, strictly limits US military operations on American soil unless such operations are authorized by Congress. Civil rights attorneys question the use of satellite technology in law enforcement. 'We are in the midst of a really dangerous time in terms of technology,' said Chris Calabrese, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. 'The idea that such a powerful tool might be turned on US citizens is really troubling.'"
Is drug smuggling really such a big problem to require the use of military resources? It seems like something like this falls much more into the realm of law enforcement than something the military should get involved in.
I know that it is sometimes called the war on drugs, but is it really so bad that it deserves to be called a war?
Enough said.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Well, as long as it is not the NSA, we have nothing to worry about...
As long as they don't prevent the singularity.
but I'm high on Mexican brown
really a terrible dilemma...
now try searching for "rfid cyanide patent"
techno will free itself from petty laws
Gee, I seem to recall people getting convicted for something called tax evasion. But then I'm sure all the wonderful lefties who like to chant "Legalize, Regulate and Tax" will make sure to pay the fees, right? None of them would ever break a law.
I'm for as much military intervention as it takes.
To those that don't know.. phoenix/tucson are seeing record kidnappings and murders. These are being primarily carried out by drug cartels. CNN and Fox have been talking about it, which makes this a political move to calm the masses.
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
So, does anyone think the US is interested in, say, chinese or russian sattelite images of the US for this purpose?
Anyway, I find it hard to believe that law enforcement is not following the letter of the law and saying "It's not on soil! It's in SPACE!"
Did we check to see that US military flights over another sovereign nation would be OK with them?
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
They say they don't, but they do.
They are watching us, to see if we are wearing our tin foil hats or not.
You know, to block their mind control rays.
Soon as you stumble, your hat falls off, bingo, they got you!
The only way I don't see this working is if some idiot posts about it on the internet.
Spy Satellite Photos Used To Fight Drug Smugglers. So what do they do now? Perhaps they fight. For the right. To parteeeeee!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Great to see the U.S. government finally using some of its high technology to stop the scourge of drug smuggling and sleazy lawless murdering criminal gangs that have been operating almost without limit along the Southern Border.
The next step: bring in the flying drones to intercept and destroy the shipments.
"The idea that such a powerful tool might be turned on US citizens is really troubling."
They do it anyway, they just say they don't.
It's because they want to catch you off guard
Without your tin foil hat, you know, to block their rays.
You stumble once, your hat falls off, they got you!
Use superglue, and cut your hair off each night.
Nerds are against the "drug war".
They will lose their funding.
Anyone think that we've created a monster?
Typical of all government programs.
While the spy satellites are indeed owned by the military, no military troops are being deployed to meet up with the smugglers. While I haven't exactly read the act lately, I thought it just prohibited the active deployment of troops... I was not under the impression it prohibited cooperation between the military and DoJ.
The GPS system is owned by the military too, but nobody argues that the use of GPS isn't permissible because merely because it's owned by the DoD.
SirWired
I knew we shouldn't have run the whole drug-smuggling operation on the roof.
At least all of our communications were done inside, on the phone. Those should be safe.
ohh...enough said...realy... ÐÐÐÐÑÐÐн Ð'ÐоÐ
OMG like meth could someday come to Philly?
The collective amnesia that goes on with the drug war is so sad.
Decades ago, before pseudo was the precursor and little old ladies and everyone else had to sign books to get allergy medicine, the meth precusor was p2p. There was a decades old movie where Harrison Ford lived amongst them Amish because of police conspiracy involving p2p.
I keep hearing how the meth menace will spread from the mid west to the east coast. I just laugh because the only thing that has changed in the epic waste of decades of the drug war is that meth quality and availibility has gone up. And it is not like some mythical heartland that can be "destroyed" by meth can't be destroyed by Alcohol.
Tax it and regulate it or suffer enternal hell and epic waste of lives and money that makes the waste of addiction look tame. And you still suffer all the waste of addiction under this stupid war we got going.
And don't think the domestic police forces won't end up like the Mexicales. Ask some Philly bodega operators, and they will tell you it has already happened.
Isn't protecting the borders exactly what the military are supposed to do?
Don't sugar coat it. Tell him how you really feel.
i support the legalization of marijuana. hell, i even think magic mushrooms and lsd should be legal, if they are used in a controlled environment. because, while they are extremely reality-altering, they are not addictive
but some chemicals, like pcp and meth, are literally life destroyers: they are powerfully chemically addictive and habituating. this means you can't use them for awhile and walk away. they take over your life. where before you had a relationship and a job, now you just have a habit to feed. no, sorry, human willpower is not stronger than these chemical forces
so some drugs must be fought, forever, regardless of the fact the war is never won and regardless of the fact that prohibition feeds organized crime and other social ills. simply because legalization of SOME highly addictive drugs create WORSE negative effects on society than prohibtion of them does. i am all for novel approaches for users: healthcare treatments, for example, rather than stone cold jail. but an addict is an addict is an addict: they need some sort of limits on their freedom, because an addict just uses their freedom to get more drugs
most ironically of all, if you want to get right down to the issue of personal freedoms, guess what: addictive drugs are the most personal freedom destroying force in the world. no harsh fascist intrusive government in the wildest imagination can destroy more personal freedom than an addiction to something like meth can (well, actually, such a government could be that evil by forcefully addicting its citizens to something like meth, but this only further proves my point about some drugs)
alcohol, marijuana, nicotine, lsd... legalize
pcp, oxycodone, methamphetamine... no, sorry, never. these are freedom destorying chemically addicting and habituating monsters that enslave and zombify worse than any government, real or imaginary, ever could. these drugd remain illegal IN THE NAME OF personal freedom
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Wait until Argus hits the skies.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
There are limits to power that must be respected. Our country gets into trouble when projects its power in a blundering way.
Keep the military miles and miles and miles away from drugs. Drug money will corrupt the poorly paid officers and NCOs. It is absolutely stupid to put our soldiers in a position where they can be bribed.
Iraq and Afghanistan are stupid because the USA's not getting anything out of either stupid war.
We are excellent at shock and awe. We can destroy any enemy FAST. Bush and Obama don't get it--we don't blunt our damn spear on stupid shit.
Really, electronic fencing with video based surveillance is all you really need with camps every few miles or so.
No, what's really needed is to get rid of stupid, liberty denying, racist laws.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Why waste these spy cameras on drug smuggling when we can catch dogs in the act of shitting on the path? Children can't play in some areas without stepping in dogshit it's time we had action on this. Why won't they think of the children.....and the parents who have to clean them afterwards. At least drugs can make you a little more chilled when scraping another round of dogshit from your soles.
While the spy satellites are indeed owned by the military, no military troops are being deployed to meet up with the smugglers. While I haven't exactly read the act lately, I thought it just prohibited the active deployment of troops... I was not under the impression it prohibited cooperation between the military and DoJ.
The posse comitatus act prohibits military cooperation with law enforcement fairly broadly, but additional laws passed in 1981 give the effect you note when dealing with drug cases--the military can't actively arrest and so forth, but they can operate in support roles (up to having a Navy vessel pull up alongside a smuggler's boat, and then Coast Guard units handle the actual arrest)--the Coast Guard has always been exempt from posse comitatus, as it's sort of a hybrid military/police force.
rage, rage against the dying of the light
I agree with you in principle, but this description of how it would play out borders on the hilarious.
I mean, what do you do with the hundreds of thousands of people who are currently in prison on drug charges?
Set them free. More people are in prison in the US, and the US has the highest highest prison population in the world, because of drugs than any other reason. And many of them are non violent.
Right now people in prison now for drug offenses are a drain on taxpayers when they could be taxpayers themselves.
Do you just let them out, or do you go further than that?
You apologize for falsely imprisoning them.
What do you do about the thousands of socially marginal people who just lost their jobs (yes, if you are willing to risk prison to distribute drugs, you are likely socially marginal; sorry.)? And so on.
Citation NEEDED!!! I dare you to find science studies that reach that conclusion.
I don't any now but I knew many people who bought, sold, and used illegal drugs and not one was worse than alcoholics I also knew. Those addicted to a legal drug are worse than those who use illegal drugs.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
When not in use for other things, why not use them to help fight crime?
What crimes can they used to fight? The War on Drugs? Legalize drugs. Besides getting rid of laws that deny liberty, that will also reduce violence. The economic and racist war on immigration? The ancestors of Central Americans were here before the Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock. Even today American Indian tribes on both sides of the US Mexico, as well as the US Canadian, border have rights to cross the border. Such as the Tohono O'odham Nation and the Iroquois Confederacy.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
haha only serious.
But... the future refused to change.
How is this new? I'm serious. I'd have thought we were using all available resources - including military satellites - for years. What's the new element to this: that our military capabilities are now being used in the "drug war"?
Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
Sorry, but immigrants don't have the "liberty" of invading this country and breeding it into crippling poverty like the failed states from whence they came. They have the priviledge of getting in line, entering through the front door and being integrated into our society.
Look at the facts from the latest recession:
1) All major sectors of the economy contracting, except Education and Government. Why? Schools are filled with immigrant anchor-babies. Jails are filled with immigrant criminals and drug users supplied by foreign smugglers. Immigrants and US citizens out of work due to over-supplied labor markets require more government welfare and unemployment services.
2) Housing market vastly oversupplied. Why? Government-set artificially-low interest rates, racist preferred-lending laws, and open borders created the perfect environment for a flood of immigrants to enter the US, build homes that were not demanded by the market, and get loans they couldn't afford to pay back. The rest of us paid for it for years through lost interest on our savings. And now we're continuing to pay for it through direct government subsidies to irresponsible banks and home "owners".
Borders are not racist. Unchecked immigration has crippled the US economy and is fueling the largest government expansion since that idiot Bush's failed war.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
i was wrong to include that chemical
as for the addictiveness of something like meth or heroin: this is pharmacology. one exposure, two or three... no big deal, as you say. but with each return to the drug, the addiction and habituation gets further rooted. this is not propaganda, this is psychological and pharmacological fact. do you deny this about htese drugs? you are correct baout pcp, i was wrong to call it highly addictive. but heroin, meth, cocaine... no, these are truly deeply addictive
"If you do not have the freedom to decide what chemicals you can consume you are not very free"
this is like saying "if you do not have the freedom to remove your own freedom you are not free"
this is a philosophically paradoxical question, but i will come down on the side of you not having the freedom to remove your own freedom. its like suicide. the problem with suicide is that all future choice is removed by the act, so what is the net gain in freedom? none. such that preventing someone from committing suicide, or preventing them from using highly addictive drugs, actually results in a gain in future freedom. besides, no person is an island. self-nihilistic actions often get intertwined with nihilistic actions which deny freedoms to others as well. the idea that one can become addicted, and only hurt themselves, is false
paradoxical, but true: if you force people not to use highly addictive drugs, you increase their personal freedom. this assumes you understand the fact that highly addictive drugs remove your personal freedom
The posse comitatus act prohibits military cooperation with law enforcement fairly broadly, but additional laws passed in 1981 [allow] support roles [] when dealing with drug cases
And to quote the Wikipedia artical on Posse Comitatus:
Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, and aircraft, as well as intelligence support, technological aid, and surveillance) while generally prohibiting direct participation of Department of Defense personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests).
Sound like there's no problem AT ALL with Posse Comitatus.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
There's a pretty easy way around Posse Comitatus. Remember during the second gulf war the Pentagon was running around buying up commercial sat data because they didn't want Saddam to just buy his intelligence? Well, those commercial satellites are still out there, and they have adequate resolution for this task. All the DEA has to do is buy imagery from a commercial or foreign source.
In fact, reading the article, it's not at all clear to me that isn't what's happening already. They're pretty vague on exactly where the data is coming from..
Where did I say anything about racist jobs?
Hint, nowhere. I said "racist laws". And yes anti-emigration laws are at least prejudice if not racist. There were the Know Nothings who in the 1840s and '50s wanted to make it illegal for Irish Catholics to emigrate to the US. In 1882 the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed to bar Chinese from immigrating. The Immigration Act of 1924 restricted immigration from both eastern and southern Europe. Why even Benjamin Franklin wanted to restrict Dutch and German immigrants.
On the other hand the Bracero Treaty allowed millions of Mexicans to immigrate between 1942 and 1964.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
i am saying that a different drug should have a different legal attitude
that the same policy on all drugs is illogical, simply because it ignores different effects of different drugs. most importantly: addiction. additionally: inebriation
so, for example, nicotine is highly addictive, but it doesn't inebriate. so you can handle a job/ relationship: legal
lsd is highly inebriating, but not addictive: legal
alcohol, marijuana: weakly, moderately addictive/ inebriating
but meth? heroin?: highly addictive, highly inebriating: illegal
understand me now?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Alcoholics don't really count as well adjusted, at least, I don't count them that way.
Neither do I. However my point was that alcohol is worse than drugs that are illegal.
I've also known quite a few people who dabbled in various ways (and that isn't even a euphemism for myself) and the most involved ones have generally demonstrated the highest rate of bad decisions (outside of the decision to mess with drugs and whatnot).
Whereas alcoholics are good decision makers?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Yes, military resources have been used in a counter-drug facility for a long time now. In fact, almost everything the coast guard does aren't the sort of thing that is typically thought of as the role of the military.
Also: reconnaissance satellites are not a military resource. They belong to the NRO.
Enforce and increase the penalties for hiring illegals and it will stop. Nobody's going to come here if they won't get a job.
What American Indian tribe are you a member of? If you're not American Indian what tribe signed your documents, or the ancestor of yours that immigrated here?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
But Mexico has/had soldiers on their southern border to prevent people from coming in.
Plus they have draconian immigration laws relative to the USA.
Their hypocrisy vis a vis their complaints about crackdowns on illegal immigration against their citizens is ignored.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Sorry, but immigrants don't have the "liberty" of invading this country and breeding it into crippling poverty like the failed states from whence they came. They have the priviledge of getting in line, entering through the front door and being integrated into our society.
So, what American Indian tribe are you a member of?
Look at the facts from the latest recession:
1) All major sectors of the economy contracting, except Education and Government.
Including technology, which illegal immigrant are not taking jobs away. However that does not address the cause of the recession, immigration did not cause it. Actually immigrants are more likely to start new businesses creating jobs than those born in the US. More jobs make for a better economy in general. The recession was caused by financial institutions giving mortgages to people who could not afford those mortgages.
Jails are filled with immigrant criminals and drug users supplied by foreign smugglers
The US, with the world's largest prison population, has more people in prison from drug convictions than from any other crime. Legalize drugs and release those convicted of non violent drug offenses. Not only would this reduce the costs of laws enforcement but it would reduce drug violence as well.
Borders are not racist. Unchecked immigration has crippled the US economy and is fueling the largest government expansion since that idiot Bush's failed war.
Borders may not be racist but immigration laws are.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
So anybody who has an opiate prescription for back pain or post-surgical pain isn't allowed to drive?
What about somebody taking Adderal for ADHD? What about someone who's been prescribed valium or something for anxiety? What about SSRIs? Hey, pretty much every morning, I used to drive to work not only under the influence of, but consuming, nicotine. (If anything, driving under the influence of nicotine withdrawal is what should be illegal...)
I guess my point is:
1) not all drug effects, especially on things like cognitive ability or hand to eye coordination or reaction time, are the same;
2) in North America, we are not used to talking about drugs in a sensible fashion. We've had decades of "drugs are bad, m'kay" being pretty much the most sophisticated discourse on the subject.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
I greatly hope that Mexican Government has approved of these actions. America seems to take their own rights so seriously that they treat the rest of the world as second class citizens. If America wants to be the land of the free they should extend their rights to people that aren't American.
FUCK YOURSELF!!!
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
appears simple: chose generosity.
Unfortunately, such a stance is ridiculed as untenable due to the overwhelming 'culture of greed' that pervades developed countries and
'spills over' into the underdeveloped/undeveloped ones via 'exported popular media' from developed countries (mostly the USA) that showcase 'greedy behavior' (primarily game shows, crime-dramas, sporting events, and financial news reports).
I've read elsewhere on the Net (in another Slashdot post?) that in some 'third world' countries, people will share what litte food they have with others -- even when it is only three mouthfuls of food for the whole day.
Generosity is sharing and caring in its purest form. Alas, it is anathema in 'greed is good' capitalistic societies and countries.
Forget about rehab centers. Those are expensive. The profits from legalized drugs wouldn't even pay for the increase in jail cells required.
More people are in prison in the US from drug convictions than from any other crimes. With legal drugs all those people can be taxpaying employees. And no crimes won't increase with legalization, if anything it will decrease. When alcohol was prohibited crimes increased and became more violent as well as made organized crime syndicates such as the Mafia powerful.
And aside from the practical difficulties, do you really want government more dependent on the proceeds of drug distribution than it already is?
I don't want government passing laws that make victim-less crimes. Who's the victim when a causal drug user gets arrested and sentenced to gaol? The one convicted. Who's the victim when someone is charged with prostitution or for being a client? Who's the victim when there's gambling? Again those convicted. While one of the most dangerous drugs, alcohol, is legal an extremely industrially useful drug, hemp, is illegal.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
That said, yes, pot heads shouldn't be in jail. But... Get to drugs much harder than that and they should be. Harder, more addictive, drugs add to crime, and not just drug crimes. Hard drug users are a deeper social problem than the mere moral crime of marijuana use.
Where is the evidence from peer reviewed scientific studies that shows drugs cause deep social problems? Oh and don't forget to include alcohol, I bet it causes a lot of problems.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Interesting that while US is trying to do something about Mexican drug smuggling (probably because it borders with US), they turn the blind eye (or even worse) to the Afghanistan drug production, which floods the Europe with locally-produced opium. It is estimated that Afghanistan is accountable for more than 90% of world's opium production, and most of it goes to the Europe.
It is also worth to note that before the US invasion of Afghanistan, Taliban was able to contain the problem - the drug production declined some 94% during its reign.
But ever since the fall of Taliban regime, opium production has continued to rise each year at an alarming rate:
"The increase in opium production in Afghanistan was from 185 metric tons in 2001 to 6,100 metric tons in 2006." http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/drugs-market.htm
One has to wonder about the US involvement in this:
"Who benefits from the Afghan Opium Trade?" http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3294
Whats happening here is something thats well within laws that in my mind make sense, balancing the needs of national security with clear boundaries that protect the rights of Americans. Stopping foreign violence from spreading over our border is definitely within the scope of the federal government's responsibility.
Yes it's government's responsibility to protect the nation and people from foreign threats. However the best way to do so as far as drug violence is concerned is to legalize drugs. With legal drugs criminal gangs won't be fighting each other, or targeting citizens. Drug addiction itself is, should be, a medical not a legal issue. It's no different than say NYC banning trans fats. If under the influence someone harms another then they should be punished for that harm, just as people who cause harm who are not under the influence should be.
However, I do agree that what we do need to keep a watch on it. I'd suggest explicit laws stating the limits of how satellite surveillance can be used domestically.
I'd rather not have to watch period. Give government power and it will be abused. J Edgar Hoover was a good example. Like the old saying goes, "an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure". It's much harder to take power away than it is to give or grab power.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
the whole point making it illegal is making it less available. yes, it is always available, there will always be drug use, but the point is to MINIMIZE it. illegality actually does make it less available. you can always get it, but casual use means you are less likely to try it if it is a little harder to get it. if you are less likely to try it, you are less likely to fall down the chemical rabbit hole. you are less likely to try coke if it is verboten then if it is freely available
and that's the whole point: for those people who are at empty stage of their lives, and might turn to a drug, the point is to keep them away from drugs, and allow them to get back to a full life again. but if you introduce drugs into the situation, you turn what might otherwise be a temporary bit of helplessness into a life-destorying chemical dependency
and this simple observation outweighs all of the negatives of prohibition in regard ot the truly highly addictive and highly inebriating drugs like meth, coke, heroin. not marjiuana, not alcohol, not lsd, not nicotine: these should be legal. the double whammy of high addiction and high inebriation makes it impossible to retain a relationship and a job on meth, heroin, coke, etc.
every socioeconomic theohistorical geopolitical... every nook and cranny of human life you find drug abuse. people devalue themselves all the time. its even psychologically healthy to hold yourself back at times. but we all overdo it now and then, and wind up in a funk of despondency and hopelessness about our lives. this happens all the time in every society on the earth. there are addicts to nearly every kind of drug in all societies on the earth, present and historical. drug abuse is a constant, and it is a symptom of people who have given up in some way. they need society to keep drugs away from them in the first place: this is the most responsible public health attitude you can take towards drugs: lessen the availability, like innoculating from a disease
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I've read elsewhere on the Net (in another Slashdot post?) that in some 'third world' countries, people will share what litte food they have with others -- even when it is only three mouthfuls of food for the whole day.
Sharing happens in the US too. Last year I shared what I grew in my garden with the family of 4 next door even though I am on disability and don't work. What I don't like is theft. Now yesterday I spent a few hours working in my garden planting a number of veggies after I spend other days working on it as well. When I went out to work on it today of the 20 pepper, tomato, and tomatillo plants I had planted in one spot all but 2 were gone. One pepper that was mostly buried with mulch and a tomatillo with a broken stalk were all that was left. The rest were taken from the ground with some of the tomato cages I had over the tomato and tomatillo plants ripped out as well. Now I don't feel like sharing at all this year. And I was willing and expressed interest in helping others start their own gardens. I could have made and canned enough Chile Relleno and other stuff peppers, sauces, and soups to last me several weeks if not a few months.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
its harder to get. sure, if you are committed to get it, you'll get it no problem. but the issue is initial casual use, before you get addicted: if meth is harder to get, less people will try it up front: they have no bruning desire to seek it out (yet)
this influence has a real value
the effect: illegality leading to less use, therefore it leads to less addiction. all addiciton needs to mushroom in society is exposure. so limit exposure: less addicts. simple as that. and this effect outweighs all of the bad effects of prohition of meth (increase in criminal organization, glorification among retarded subcultures, self-stigmatism of addicts rather than seeking out health treatment, etc). all of the bad effects of illegality are real, but of lower negative value than the widespread addiction that legality would lead to
with a drug like alcohol meanwhile, which is far less addictive, the prohibition effects are worse than the increase in alcohol addiction due to easy access
it depends upon the substance in question. you just can't treat something like meth like you treat alcohol policy wise. you simply can't if you have any knowledge of the pharmacology involved
if you had any familiarity with what meth really does to lives, and how easily it does these things compared to alcohol, you wouldn't have this clueless cavalier attitude to something far more powerful and dangerous than alcohol
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Prohibition doesn't make it less available, it makes it more expensive, dangerous to get/be around, and difficult to get help if one needs it."
the last 3 points are absolutely true. and yet the fact that illegality makes it less available (sorry, that's obvious truth), and therefore creates less addicts, outweighs the 3 negative effects you list. in what way could i prove to you this fact? oh wait, YOU PROVIDE THE PROOF:
"Also, your classification of drugs is pretty terrible, alcohol is responsible for more deaths, family breakups, injuries, and heartbreak than all other drugs combined and it's legal."
correction:
"Also, your classification of drugs is pretty terrible, alcohol is responsible for more deaths, family breakups, injuries, and heartbreak than all other drugs combined BECAUSE it's legal."
do you see that? legality=higher availability=more addicts=more damage. you say so yourself
"Also, many high strung people use coke and get paid a lot of money for their jobs."
yes, and there's people who can drive 90 mph all the time and never get into accidents. statistical outliers and anecdotes don't mean a damn thing. pharmacological fact: heroin, meth, and coke are among the mostly highly addictive and inebriating substances known to man (as opposed to just addictive, like nicotine: legal, or just inebriating, like lsd: should be legal). a high percentage of users of these drugs, as opposed to a low percentage of marijuana or alcohol users, proceed to a shadow of a life where they can't maintain relationships or a job. thus, it is better to make these highly addictive/ highly inebriating substances illegal: with all the real and ugly damage prohibition effects create, prohibtion effects are still smaller amounts of societal and personal damage than increased addiction that legality creates. you have to look at the pharmacology: you can't treat something like meth like you do alcohol policy-wise. you simply can't. its a kind of clueless ignorance on your part about what these drugs really do to peoples lives (easily, as opposed to alcohol) to even begin to think that way
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You are all a bunch of paint huffing, meth snorting, rotten teeth'd, scumbags who would sell their first born for an immediate sense of self-pleasure. Fucking die already!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg
Meth, Methamphetamine, is not on your chart. Neither is oxycodone or Phencyclidine, PCP. Now according to the chart and graph heroin and cocaine are the most addictive, however I knew people who used both and they were not addicted to either. Now according to the Rat Pack study of opiates, which heroin is, they are not highly addictive.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
In western, developed societies (such as the USA) a 'handful' of people control most of the wealth in that country. Their goal appears twofold:
1) Maintain the status quo.
2) Keep as much money as possible flowing...to their pockets.
To do that, almost everyone else in such societies are treated as cogs in a giant machine that benefits only an elite few at the top of the socioeconomic ladder. The (somewhat) exception to this are those that work visibly in the mass media industry comprising music, movies, and publishing. These individuals can (and do) influence the masses and are paid very well for their services but their employers make even more from their efforts...unless they are 'self employed' AND 'household names' in which case they pocket most of the profits.
Unfortunately, 'money makes the world go around' and it is for that reason 10% of the people starve in 'greed is good' societies that obsess over anything that can be reduced to 'dollars and cents'.
The film Fight Club memorably delved into these things. In retrospect, I am surprised it was made at all but it was ultimately made because a group of people thought they could turn a anarchic bestselling book into a hit movie. It didn't happen at first but now the film is acknowledged as a classic and there hasn't been a major Hollywood film like it released since then that I know of.
marijuana should be legal
as for cocaine, meth, heroin: it would be nice if you could use those drugs and only destroy yourself. but when these highly addictive+highly inebriating drugs make you an addict (when, not if), you become a dead weight on those around you. or, if abandoned by your family friends and your job, you become a ward of society. in other words, it is a fallacy to say you only hurt yourself. you hurt us all
blotting out reality because of psychological pain is just slow motion suicide. not that i'm against euthanasia, but the obvious answer to suicide is this:
1. sound mind, unsound body: suicide ok. like someone with huntington's
2. sound body, unsound mind: suicide not ok. simply because the very mechanisms of choice are corrupted. no free will choice is being made, a pathology is making the decisions. given time, you might reconsider suicide. given suicide, you don't reconsider anything
the same observations apply to highly addictive+inebriating drugs. and its not a coincidence, all highly addictive+inebriating drug use is just a form of slow motion suicide, a devaluing and nihilism of the self. if this dmaage could be confined to the self, all would be ok with suicide and hardcore drug use. except that this is never the case. anyone who commits suicide and becomes a hardcore addict hurts family, friends, society. no man is an island. it is a colossal blindness to think you are only hurting yourself
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'm sick of the government using billions of dollars to make it harder for people to get their hands on some weed. All it does is make it harder to get good weed.
The answer is to grow your own. Your weed, hemp or marijuana is one of the easiest plants to grow. Ever wonder why it's called "weed", because like other weeds it grows easily in many places.
Of course homegrown weed may not have as much THC as professionally grown weed.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
medically only. but treating them medically implies they have no limits on their freedoms like in a prison. the reason they need to be constrained is that an addict is an addict is an addict. that is, they have no free will. given free choice, they pursue the same damaging endeavour. and so you need some sort of constraint on their freedoms in order to treat them, which implies some sort of criminal confinement in addition to the medical treatment. not that your typical american prison is drug free, btw, i labor under no delusions. nor do i think drug addcits don't need some sort of medical treatment. but i am simply dispelling your notion that treating addicts only medically is pragmatic. it doesn't work because they relapse, the flunk out, they willfully fight the treatment, etc
as for death from overdose versus death from stalin: if you take an honest appraisal of all the lives destroyed by drugs on a regular background noise basis around the world throughout history and in all cultures, it would be as an ocean compared to the raindrop of the suffering caused by the cruel dictators who have ever lived. for real. drugs have destroyed orders of magnitude more lives than all the dictators ever. its just that dictators do big quick cruel things that grab headlines, while destruction via drugs is a constant low grade background noise of destruction. it adds up to a lot more
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
To those that don't know.. phoenix/tucson are seeing record kidnappings and murders. These are being primarily carried out by drug cartels. CNN and Fox have been talking about it, which makes this a political move to calm the masses.
Yea, CNN is about the only tv station I watch and they've been going on about the border violence for weeks if not months. But I only heard once where the solution was made on how to fight it, Jessy "The Body" Ventura said on Larry King the only way to solve it is to legalize drugs. Though Arnold Schwarzenegger did say he wanted to legalize and tax it too.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Just stop them from coming across with drugs? Stop all illegal migration north of the border?!?!
How are they going to do that? Build a Berlin Wall, er Apartheid Wall?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
If it were desperate people, blame the greediness of 'Corporate America' that drove people to steal essentially your whole garden just to have food to eat. I know government welfare exists in the USA...if you are destitute enough to qualify for it. Otherwise, that avenue of aid is closed when no other form of 'social safety net' is available for those affected (i.e. the 'economic homeless'). This might have been the case here.
If it were vandals, this appears to be the inevitable conclusion of 'theft vs infringement' that gets debated (endlessely) here on Slashdot. The vandals can't (or don't want to) tell the difference in copying computer files illegally or depriving people the fruit of their labors out in 'the real world'. They benefit at your expense and they don't care anyway.
You could grow a garden inside your home if possible to prevent this from happening again but likely you will draw the interest of the police who will think you are growing marijuana indoors. All it would take is a busybody, wannabe cop, or a 'griefer' to 'turn you in' erroneously.
but treating them medically implies they have no limits on their freedoms like in a prison. the reason they need to be constrained is that an addict is an addict is an addict. that is, they have no free will. given free choice, they pursue the same damaging endeavour. and so you need some sort of constraint on their freedoms in order to treat them, which implies some sort of criminal confinement in addition to the medical treatment.
And where's your medical or scientific evidence drugs are as addictive as drug warriors make out? According to this graph and chart heroin is the most addictive drug, yet the Rat Park study showed heroin is not as addictive as it's made out to be.
f you take an honest appraisal of all the lives destroyed by drugs on a regular background noise basis around the world throughout history and in all cultures, it would be as an ocean compared to the raindrop of the suffering caused by the cruel dictators who have ever lived.
Where's your proof?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
that is the only way to stop drug smugglers
blame the greediness of 'Corporate America' that drove people to steal essentially your whole garden just to have food to eat. I know government welfare exists in the USA...if you are destitute enough to qualify for it. Otherwise, that avenue of aid is closed when no other form of 'social safety net' is available for those affected (i.e. the 'economic homeless'). This might have been the case here.
I am on welfare. Last Friday my brother-in-law took me to the local social services office to get financial assistance. I was given "food stamps", they're going to help with my medical expenses, and with my rent. My rent hasn't even been paid in a year. Now if it wasn't for my sister, who owns the apartment building I live in, I would have been evicted months ago. I know because the lady who lived in the apartment before I moved in was evicted, I delivered the eviction notice.
If it were vandals, this appears to be the inevitable conclusion of 'theft vs infringement' that gets debated (endlessely) here on Slashdot.
When I told my brother-in-law the plants in my garden were taken, he saw the work I put into it, at first he said he thought the city had taken them. I've seen others plant gardens between the sidewalk and the street and nothing happened to them so I did the same. However all who ever it was only took the plants, I also had a lot of soil and mulch as well as a dozen tomato cages that were left there. What puzzles me is if it was the city why leave these and if thieves why not take the cages? Also last year I had some tomatoes not 20 feet from what was taken that no one ever bothered, it could be because whoever was new to the area though. Right now I have Thai Basel there but I may transplant some to plant more tomatoes there, or something else.
You could grow a garden inside your home if possible to prevent this from happening again but likely you will draw the interest of the police who will think you are growing marijuana indoors
There's not enough space to grow much. And I don't have good sunlight through the windows so I'd have to use grow lights. About the best I could do really is grow lettuce.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
channels
What legal channels? Certainly American Indians didn't stamp visas. Oh you mean the European settlers, the same ones who massacred those already here? At least I don't see Mexicans doing that. And there are Mexicans who have the right to cross the border. The US Mexican border cuts right through the Tohono O'odham Nation. Yuman Indians who live on the border find it hard to get both Mexican passports and US visas. Some Indian tribes in Arizona oppose restrictions.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
"The idea that such a powerful tool might be turned on US citizens is really troubling"
on the other hand, having it spying on Mexican citizens will be reassuring?
The economic and racist war on immigration?
How is deterring _illegal_ immigration racist?
I know you couldn't be referring to our legal immigration policies, as we are the most welcoming country in the world in terms of gaining citizenship. We accept more immigrants as permanent residents than any other country in the world - over a million in 2008.
Imagine how many more we could let in if illegals weren't jumping the line because they don't respect our laws?
I think Andre the Giant had a posse comitatus...
Thank you...
I'm in town all week...
"Contrarily the lookaside buffer might not be the panacea... "
Really? And how exactly do you think Mexico was founded? You think they peacefully and magically came to an agreement with the Indians living there? No, the same villainous Europeans (who are always evil when it comes to discussions regarding Native Indians) wiped out most of them, after attempting to enslave them and convert their religious beliefs, and started a colony. It is completely pointless to bring this shit up in a discussion about immigration. Basically what you're saying is that since America was stolen from the Native Indians that all American laws are invalid and everyone should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want. Sorry, but that isn't how it works in the real world. What happened to the Native Americans was wrong, but it has absolutely nothing to do with America's immigration policies.
Just about any country on the planet requires some sort of immigration process to make you a naturalized citizen. If you want in, you have to play by the fucking rules. If you prefer, we could simply adopt the same policy Mexico has at their southern borders, but somehow I'm sure you'd claim that it was somehow racist as well.
If you were so horrified about phone taps, then this should also outrage you. It's the same thing, just substituting video for audio. These satellite operators should be imprisioned!
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Imagine how many more we could let in if illegals weren't jumping the line because they don't respect our laws?
You know why "illegal immigrants" risk their lives to cross the border instead of waiting in line? Because the system is convoluted and can take years.
We accept more immigrants as permanent residents than any other country in the world - over a million in 2008.
And we have a large population. Numbers don't matter so much as percentages or ratios do, as a percent how many immigrants are there of different ethnic groups? Take for instance Norway, Muslims make up 2% of the population and most are immigrants. Or take Turks in Germany, there are approximately 2.8 million immigrants from Turkey, 3% of the population in Germany.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
What, like the ones that say that people have to fill out paperwork to become citizens?
Becoming a citizen is different than being resident. I have no problem what's so ever in requiring testing to become a citizen, but people should be able to freely move across borders. Without a lot of paperwork. I'll even say they should be legally able to work, and pay taxes. But the only way they could collect Social Security is if they become a citizen. Because a lot of immigrants want to work here for a short tyme then go back home this would help the Social Security Fund stay solvent.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
funny, if it so non-addictive then why do people risk going to jail by using it? Even if they already got two strikes which in the US seems to mean you can get life for a 3rd joint.
But hey, it is non-addictive. I got mates who smoke, the old school are about as addicted as your average tobacco junkie, but the users of the more modern stuff, the type grown under lights and on glass wool and whatever, they are addicted. Just take their stuff away and see the withdrawal.
Not addictive. Sure.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
If you never take it. What the GP was talking about is that we should ask ourselves WHY people start with drugs, less then what drugs they take or even how they work.
I got no desire whatsoever to take meth or anything like it. I don't even drink, don't like that tast and see no reason to learn to like it.
Why do other people feel different?
The problem isn't meth perse, if you want to use a drug, alcohol will do the trick just fine. What is it that causes some people to flee into alcoholism?
Is it a flight from poor living conditions, a way to feel good when there is no other way. Study that, fix that and it won't matter if drugs are available, people won't have any need for them.
Mind you, this is tricky, how many housewives who should be happy by societies standards are abusing medical drugs? Asking ourselves wether some long accepted ways of lives are perhaps leading people to drugs is not comfortable. Rather blame mexicans for drugs then admit the american way of life leads people to drugs. (not saying it is, but doubt anyone could research it without getting a ton of flack)
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
articles
I would say I'm almost convinced of Portugal's success, but I'm really not convinced similar policy would have a beneficial effect in the US. Comparing alcohol use in Europe and the US, for example, it's obvious that Americans have much less responsible attitudes towards it. I would say I agree with a federalist (anti-federalist actually) approach to de-criminalization of drug use, even though the point is becoming moot with the rise of prescription drug abuse, and the federal implementation of UHC would completely negate any economic differences between states that choose to criminalize drug use and those that don't. In fact, it would favor states that de-criminalize, with other states subsidizing them. Furthermore, individual drug abuse has not been likely to result in criminal sanctions in the US for some time. The most usual result is deferred sentencing, probation and monitoring, with jail time only being imposed after violation of probation.
Violent crime rates rose, though "drug-related" violence fell. Where to draw the line on these is extremely difficult. Violence is highly correlated with substance abuse in individuals, even though many drugs have a palliative effect when used. Increases in carjackings and armed-robbery give me the impression that roving bands of crack-heads are stealing to get their fix, which is what happens in any US neighborhood with widespread drug abuse. These crimes occur when the abuser hasn't had drugs lately, so they aren't "drug-related".
As for cost/benefits, I couldn't find where those are directly addressed. I would have expected the CATO paper to at least delve into this. It doesn't even mention the cost of treatment programs. The number of people in treatment more than doubled. Portugal already had a large welfare state that the US does not have. And Portugal's economy, which was already the worst in Western Europe, has worsened since de-criminalization. In fact, I suspect that the welfare state is masking the true costs of the policy.
They are also paying taxes.
The US has a progressive income tax. They aren't paying the true cost of the services they consume. People making higher incomes are subsidizing them.
While the birth rate, in developed nations, needs to be about 2.1 in the US it is about 2.09.
The US economy is shedding a half a million jobs a month, mostly due to rising energy costs and a growth in automation technologies. If anything, the birth rate "needs" to be negative.
Now if you want to reduce immigration them you should oppose the billions of dollars the government gives in subsidies to businesses
I do. But it's perfectly possible for Mexican peasant farmers to grow fruits and vegetables instead of corn, and profit from trade as you mentioned. They don't because it's easier for them to pack up and move here, because there are no barriers and US governments will happily provide them services as incentive.
Those people receiving remittances from immigrant laborers can then buy American goods, which helps the American economy.
It doesn't help the American economy nearly as much as Americans buying American goods due to the multiplier effect.
In fact, fewer jobs is the ideal economic situation
I call BS. Now I'm willing to admit I am wrong, so if you can provide a link to economic studies supporting your assertion I am change my beliefs. But you have to prove it to me first.
I can't find any economic studies, and quite frankly I doubt any exist. I doubt it has been considered much at all lately, given the current economic state of the US which is traditionally a powerhouse of economic theory.
Naive macroeconomic optimization says that full employment produces maximum utility. "Full employment" means that everyone who wants a job, has one. Gove
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
A law that has been found to be valid by the Supreme Court is not unconstitutional in the eyes of the system. It may be morally wrong, but it's constitutional, and therefore not a 'false law.' (I still don't like that name, because it implies something different from an unconstitutional law.)
I agree my use of "false law" was bad, that "bad law" may of been better, but I used it to begin with because it fit in with "false imprisonment".
I'll have to be more careful about stuff like that.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
or GTFO?
I don't understand your link between FDR and Jackson.
Jackson basically told the Supreme Court to get lost whereas FDR packed the court with those who would let him do what he wanted. That should be pretty easy to understand.
The treaty was signed and ratified in 1835 during Jackson's term, but the Trail of Tears didn't happen until 1838, after Jackson left office.
The Cherokee was sent on the Trail of Tears in 1838, but the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee-Creek, and Seminole were sent away before them. The Choctaw was forcibly removed in 1831, the Seminoles in 1832, the Creek in 1834, and the Chickasaw in 1837. Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act in 1830, so he was president during the removal of all these tribes except the Cherokee. I'm not sure about the others but when the Cherokee was forced the move the US broke a treaty with them. Okay, when the Choctaw was removed treaties were broken, and about 2500 died on their Trail of Tears. The Treaty of Indian Springs in 1825 which allowed the forcible removal of the Creek was never ratified by the Creek. And the Treaty With the Chickasaw, January 10, 1786 was broken with the forces removal of the Chickasaw.
there's little evidence in any case that Jackson's response was as harsh as you reported. What he is recorded to have said was much lighter, and basically that as the Supreme Court found Georgia's action to be unconstitutional, they could not force Georgia to comply; Jackson had no intentions of getting involved.
Okay so Jackson's remake may not of been as harsh as I made out, quotes I've read had him saying Marshall needed to get his own army, but it was bad still. And the decision was about the Cherokee removal:
"In 1831 the Supreme Court of the United States, in a decision rendered by Justice, John Marshall, declared the forced removal of the entire Cherokee Nation from their ancestral homes in the South Eastern United States to be illegal, unconstitutional and against treaties made. President Andrew Jackson, having the executive responsibility for enforcement of the laws had this to say:"
"John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can."
Jackson had no intentions of getting involved.
That's right, Andrew Jackson was pretty well known as an Indian Fighter in Tennessee, his home state.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Jackson basically told the Supreme Court to get lost whereas FDR packed the court with those who would let him do what he wanted. That should be pretty easy to understand.
You accused Jackson of court packing, when he did no such thing. Ignoring the court is very different from attempting to alter the make-up of the court through legal (albeit ethically questionable) means.
The Cherokee was sent on the Trail of Tears [wikipedia.org] in 1838, but the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee-Creek, and Seminole were sent away before them.
Understood, but you made no mention of them in your previous post. Your accusation was that he had harsh words for Marshall after a case involving the removal of the Cherokee, both of which were not factual. There's a wide difference between 'let him get his own army to enforce it' and "the decision of the supreme court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate." The case ordered Georgia to release the plaintiff in the case and to not enforce the particular law in question anymore, not for the federal government to get involved to enforce the ruling.
Your points change from post to post, and you have gotten several key facts wrong, though you seem to be arguing that this doesn't matter. Jackson did a lot of things as president that tarnished his name in the office, and perhaps to some extent the office itself. I'm not about to defend the man. But when taking on the system, we must be accurate in the portrayal, and not fall to pointless hyperbole, or else we lose credibility as the arguments are taken apart piece by piece.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
No they are not. You aren't an immigrant if you don't have the right to be there in the first place.
I provided a link, can you show where the definition says permission is required? If not then you're making things up.
Ok, how does an illegal mexican start a business? Can't even get a DBA license because you don't have the right to live in the US.
Show me where I said illegal immigrants start more businesses. Hint: I didn't, I said immigrants.
Since you seem to want to make things ups I see no reason to continue. Reason? Ah, I haven't seen any from you. I provide links to support what I say, but all you do is say is "Go look it up."
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
You accused Jackson of court packing
I said FDR was accused of packing the court not Jackson. Look for yourself, here's what I said "Many people accuse FDR of court packing".
Since you want to make things up and accuse me of saying things I did not say, I see no reason to continue. There's a big difference between debating with logic and lying.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
And then you followed it up with "A century earlier, in defiance of the Supreme Court, President Andrew Jackson did it." That suggests that you were referring to the court packing, though it's possible that you simply had a poorly-worded statement referencing fascism, which itself is a poor choice of words, as ignoring the Supreme Court and undertaking a fascist route are fairly far apart. Not that Jackson ignored the Court at all. He simply chose to take the letter of the decision -- which went against Georgia, not Jackson -- rather than the spirit. And while the decision had to do with a Cherokee man -- one -- you said it had to do with the Cherokee Trail of Tears.
I haven't made up anything. Everything I have stated as fact can be cited. I have, however, found multiple errors in your statements. At best, your wording is misleading. At worst, you're trying to cover your tracks when found to be incorrect.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
I had a linguistics class once taught by a guy from spain. One of the things I've retained was when he told us how in spain they talk about the Cure for drugs, Cure for poverty, etc. In the US we use the term War.
That's how it should be if anything. Drug abuse needs to be treated as a medical issue not a legal one. And drug use should not be treated.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The screwed up people were your alcoholics.
Okay. I've met alcoholics who didn't junction, except in the most rudimentary way. Others were a danger to society.
The link goes to a post I made where I make statements that are contrary to my perception of your perception of my attitude.
The subject bar? No I don't think that making drugs legal again will solve all the problems. But I do believe there will be less problems and those can be handled easier. For instance I've said elsewhere that the drugs can be taxed then the revenue thus generated can be used to offer treatments for those who want it.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?