Slashdot Mirror
Open Government Brainstorm Defies Wisdom of Crowds
theodp writes "In May, the White House launched what it called an 'unprecedented online process for public engagement in policymaking.' Brainstorming was conducted in an effort to identify ways to 'strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative.' So, what were some of the top vote-getters? Currently near the top of the list are Legalize Marijuana And Solve Many Tax Issues / Prison Issues (#2) and Remove Marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (#3). For those who remember Obama's earlier Online Town Hall, it's deja vu all over again."
And it embodies, IMHO, a wider question about the freedom of the people to act as they wish without *very* good reason from the government and without demonstrable harm to other folks.
Shame it'll just be written off with excuses like it always is all over the world.
The problem being illustrated is with the concept of 'democracy', an idea our Founding Fathers was aware of and not only discarded it was a notion they took great measures to prevent. Instead we were given a Republic, if we could keep it. Epic Fail.
Democracy means if you have a group of a hundred people, fifty one can vote to piss in the Corn Flakes of the other forty nine and if everyone believes in Democracy there can't be any objections if the votes were counted properly. Because that is what Democracy IS, the People can have anything they vote for. We had a Republic with a written Constituition that laid down hard limits that while changable, were intentionally difficult. This created the Rule of Laws instead of the Rule of Men. We had divided and limited government. But we threw that away and now have the Rule of Men and our civilization is declining.
Democrat delenda est
Actually, I think you completely misunderstand why many people want drugs like marijuana legalised.
It's not just so you can light a joint any time that you want without risk of being caught. There are a lot more important issues here.
It's because the current system is harmful, wastes money, and doesn't work. It's got sweet FA to do about taking the drugs themselves to solve society's problems. It's about legalising drugs in order to solve problems the Drug War and prohibition creates. It's about solving the issues of: wasting public money in a drugs war that has had no tangible effect; treating drug users as criminals and overburdening the prison population (not to mention the cost of incarceration, the cost to the economy, and the social costs as well); it's about focusing on the real issue, which is addiction and rehabilitation.
Sit down and read through this website and hopefully you'll understand why the War on Drugs is bogus, and why marijuana (at the very least) should be legalised. I, myself, take the view that the Dutch model is the way to go (so I go further than just legalisation of marijuana).
Incidentally, in my opinion it's not that the voting public don't want it, it's that it's not an issue on the agenda in the media itself, which shapes the opinions of the voting public (never mind that the US government and certain banks have and continue to make extremely large profits as a result of drugs). The "War on Drugs" has been and is extremely lucrative for big business, and for the government, in terms of profits and control, and that's one of the underlying reasons why the myths of the dangers of legalising drugs like marijuana continue to dominate discourse.
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
While I certainly don't have the tolerance levels of some of the hardcore stoners I know who have been smoking for ten years, there's no way I'd ever argue that marijuana doesn't reduce driving ability. I've driven high before a few times, I don't like doing it at all and don't do it regularly (only twice in four years of smoking). You don't speed or get reckless like you do when drunk, but your motor skills and reaction times are unquestionably impaired. The last time I did it was a fairly long 3 AM highway trip where I had my in-car camera running, so I have a perfect record of how I drove. Really the only positive thing I can say about my driving that night is I stayed between the lines (barely at times) and didn't really speed by much (70MPH in a 65, which is odd for me, sober I tend to run the Turnpike at 90+). Terrible idea.
Obviously this is just one anecdotal experience and yes I'll agree that it is far safer to drive on weed versus alcohol, but if you believe you drive fine on weed you're lying to yourself.
That said, I'm still all for legalization. They can't tell how much marijuana intoxication is affecting driving as-is, so it wouldn't change anyways. They can't tell how intoxicated you are off of any of the number of OTC or prescription drugs the average American is on either. All that would change is that the states with retarded "any detectable levels of metabolites" laws for marijuana OVIs would have to STFU and figure something else out. I could not smoke anything for a week, be unquestionably sober, and still get popped for an OVI based on a piss test in those states. Fuck 'em, that's not fair at all.
I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
The word "marijuana" for cannabis was introduced by the prohibitionists back in the 1930s. Everybody knew that hemp was a good thing, and cannabis was a useful medicine, so they needed a new word to whip up a frenzy, and to keep all those old prohibition agents employed now that they were no longer arresting rum runners.
The word "marijuana" was great because it linked the drug to those dirty dark-skinned fellows. As evil prick Harry Anslinger testified to Congress in 1937, "There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."
So, yes, the selection of the word marijuana by prohibitionists was rooted in racism. Cannabis would be a more historically neutral term for the medicinal plant, or hemp for the industrially useful strains.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
DARE is not drug education. That is a horrific bad drug scare that leaves emotional damage and bigoted views about drug users, or it's an advertisement to a curious young moderately rebellious child.
Most of all, it's dangerous because it discredits (by using ad logicum and ad hominem) any valid reasons for not doing drugs. If you tell kids repeatedly that "Drugs are bad because drugs are... baaaayud... mmm'k?" and that "Drugs are bad because bad people take drugs so people who take drugs are bad, which means drugs are baaad, mm'k?", then when they realise that both of those reasons (and most of the others given to not take drugs) are absolute bullshit, they assume drugs are safe and good.
The drug education program at my school was unintentionally excellent, because they gave us a bunch of cards with real, unbiased information on most illegal drugs. I could tell that, for example, MDMA is far less dangerous than riding a horse, on a use-by-use basis. Or that ice will fuck you up and destroy your life. This influenced me as to what drugs I would eventually experiment with. This was really not what they intended, but is still how I will educate my children - I'll tell them exactly what the pros and cons of various drugs are, and then let them decide what they will accept as a level of risk. I'd hope that by telling them honestly, "casual, occasional use of MDMA, speed, and weed is pretty safe as such things go, and probably less bad for you than getting trashed on hard spirits", that when I tell them "but kids, stay the fuck away from ice, smack, and crack, because those are the ones that will have you sucking dick in the toilets for a hit" they'll respect me and listen to my advice.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
There, fixed that for you. Seriously, whatever you do affects everyone around you. Driving a car, walking across the street, owning a house, all of these affect everyone around you. That's not the point. The proper question is: does smoking marijuana in the privacy of your own home unreasonably affect the people around you? If you drive a car today at or below the speed limit, you are not unreasonable even though your driving and even being on the highway increases everyone else's risk of an accident. You driving 100 mph in a 55 mph zone, however, is unreasonable. That's why I changed your post to alcohol. If drinking alcoholic beverages in your own home is reasonable, why is marijuana any different?
Similar to the upcoming US election results