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."
Hey folks, it seems that the administration is at it again. All of my posts have been removed regarding Obamas legitimacy of his birth certificate. It seems all of you that feel the same way will have yours removed sonner or later so that the ideas input portion of this website seems to consist mostly of garbage that doesnt really natter to true conservatives... How Sad Obama... You can change a leopards spots but you will never change the leopard.
Are there no abuse policy/software in place to catch this?
Even the other users like a person named 'obamawatch' is ranting about the president's birth certificate. I'm embarrassed enough for all parties involved--is this the "YouTube of the Government" to them? This is really what you say when you get the chance to make suggestions to your government?
Where's the "Ron Paul Should Be President" +75,496 idea?
I hate to say it but this might almost not work for a population the size of America. I know on a smaller scale (like in Hennepin County, Minnesota) they get useful ideas from the populace with very realistic goals. I dare say the only way this could work on a national level is to require the user to put in their SSN & birthdate for verification and banning for repeated abuse. But I don't like information going through IdeaScale one bit.
My work here is dung.
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.
That's not going to help people articulate ideas let alone produce anything usable. Half these things read sort of like a rant. IdeaScale should implement sections like the following:
Go to corporate America and ask any CEO what he expects to see in an idea presented to him from an underling. Then you'll get an idea of what kind of data we should be seeking from people with ideas.
I mean, this site should at least try to help people from making asses of themselves and instead 90% of these posts sound like people thinking they have the floor to say whatever they want about whatever they feel like. It's not coherent, it's not helping, it's nothing but internet drivel.
My work here is dung.
But I think the fact that this issue keeps coming up shows that marijuana legalization isn't as much of a fringe, oddball, shouldn't-even-talk-about-it issue as some people seem to think. Polls are showing around half of the people in the US could go for completely legalization, and more than 70% are in favor of medicinal legalization. It's kind of ridiculous that despite the support for this issue it is still considered such a non-issue.
Hell, the numbers in favor of legalization are *much* larger than the numbers in favor of gun control, and they still talk about trying to push that through!
"Think of all the DA's, DEA employees, prison workers that would be out of a job"
-- if you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
When will there be a way to check a person's marijuana intoxication level quickly and easily at a traffic stop?
Until there is such a check, legalizing marijuana would make the current drunk driving problem many times more difficult in terms of detection and enforcement.
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Cannabis intended for recreational consumption comes in several different grades ranging in price from $10 a pound for compressed bricks of seedy Mexican hemp flowers purchased near the source up to $3,500 a pound for manicured colas grown indoors by farmers who produce small crops. That same $3,500 pound can be sold to consumers for up to $25 a gram, meaning that pound's street value if sold by the gram is in the neighborhood of $11,000.
But, the case in point is the series of raids this summer, which authorities claimed netted 138 pounds of cannabis from 340,000 plants. Since they raided in August, the plants they took were immature [...] and at least half would have been male plants that produce nothing. Had those plants, which represent less than 10 percent of the county's entire crop, survived to maturity they would have yielded somewhere in the neighborhood of three-quarters to one pound per plant or about 150,000 total pounds of low- to mid-grade cannabis which would have been valued at something like $500 to $1,000 a pound [...] for an estimated net sale price of conservatively $75,000,000. Factor in the percentage of undetected crops and we see the county's illicit outdoor cannabis crop can conservatively be valued at $750 million in initial sales. [...] it would not be unreasonable to place a value of Tulare County's current cannabis industry at $1 billion, all of it untaxed.
Let me isolate that statement for effect: Tulare County is currently home to a $1,000,000,000 unregulated, untaxed industry that our elected officials are actively and ineffectually attempting to eradicate at the taxpayers' expense, thus depriving the county and state of at least $80,000,000 in annual sales-tax revenues while they charge us for the privilege.
Think about that when you read we cannot afford to fund rural health clinics or that our schools are in need of repair or that we can't afford rural fire stations or if you live along or must drive ill-maintained county roads or if you're one of the thousands of unemployed or are affected by that unemployment or if you or one of your family members is considered an outlaw because they use cannabis or if you think it's wrong to destroy Yokohl Valley in the hopes of generating a tenth the revenue cannabis could provide the moment it is legalized.
You know, if I can just grow the shit, I'm not paying $3500 for it. Let's say cigarettes (which are legal, and a huge industry) cost $25 a gram for tobacco. A cigarette contains about 0.8 grams of tobacco (a bit less); a pack contains about 20 grams. So that's like $500/pack. Now, I don't smoke; but if a trip to the gas station for a pack of cigs cost me $20 to fill my tank and $500 for a pack of Malboros? I'd grow my own tobacco.
The whole argument for marijuana tax hinges on artificial scarcity. Marijuana is a weed, literally. It grows anywhere, it's the easiest shit to grow, and everyone already knows how to grow it. Seeds are easy to find. If you legalize it everybody will grow it; growing plants are harder to hide than a pocket-sized bag full of mulch, but nobody cares if the plant's now legal!
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I used to think that all drugs were bad, and all that stuff. But after reading the second linked thread, the Schedule I thread, specifically the bits about
* marijuana not killing people as much as tobacco and alcohol;
* pure THC being ranked as a Schedule III drug and marijuana as a Schedule I drug (see comment by user pbrigando13);
* Oxycontin et al., more damaging and causing more of a dependency than marijuana (which creates none), not being on the Controlled Substances List altogether;
* (taking this one with a grain of salt) the advantages of marijuana, rarer use of violence and driving accidents from users than alcoholics, etc. (see comment by user onegod1world)
, I'm reconsidering that stance.
Also, I'd like to point out that #1 is End Imperial Presidency -- with 755 votes against #2's 351 --, heavily criticizing Bush's presidency and calling out what happened in Iraq as war crimes, as they should be called. That is a serious one, and I for one am glad that it got voted up top.
Why are you under the impression that cannabis intoxication is a traffic problem? (There's science done on the subject that I doubt you're aware of)
Cannabis != alcohol. Those two drugs to not have the same issues.
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
It doesn't matter how more likely marijuana makes drivers get into accidents. The law as it currently stands forbids driving while intoxicated, and that could be with prescription drugs or weed just as much as alcohol.
#2 has 531 votes, not 351. Typos rule.
Marijuana decriminalization is not simply a "stoner" issue. It's actually a very important one.
The US has disproportionately crowded jails, filled disproportionately with African-Americans, and a very large fraction of which are there on drug charges. The US "War on Drugs" has led to many many convictions over marijuana and we are paying the social and monetary cost of imprisoning lots of people.
This is not a Cheech and Chong movie - these are people in jail for doing something that is widely regarded as harmless in of itself.
So, I don't think it's any surprise when you have a very vocal segment of the population calling for decriminalization... particularly in this forum! Establishment media and other outlets for vox populi are likely to steer away from this issue due to editorial concerns - no one wants to look "pro drugs", so the issue will be touched very carefully in a newspaper.
Do _I_ think it's the most important issue? No. But then my brother isn't in jail for dealing.
policeman looks for scent of weed (distinctive when you know what you're looking for), red eyes, and smoke. If he sees 2 of 3 signs, he issues a field sobriety test. Problem Solved.
WÌÌfÍ--ÍSÌÒÍ...Í...ÌHÌÍfÍÍÍ--ÍÍÍ
Research from the Dutch "Nederlands Forensisch Instituut" (Dutch Forensics Institute) shows that the effect of a single joint equates to about 1.1 ppt alcohol in the blood. In 2006, out of 730 casualties in lethal accidents, 75 were drugsrelated (also cocaine, speed etc. but that doesnt impact driving as much as marihuana). Currently experiments are underway to determine intoxication level with drugs out of the cheekslime. To this date a bloodtest is required, which is done on suspects (smells like having smoked pot, eyes looking decidedly vague, reactions not very coordinated etc.)
See http://thecoffeeshops.wordpress.com/tag/jointje/ for the Dutch article.
So it's not FUD, and research has been done over here where its legal to smoke it, and yes it does cause serious traffic accidents.
Note: I am completely in favor of legalizing it. But don't say it's harmless - driving after smoking, especially given current THC levels in joints, is NOT harmless. Oh, and don't compare your homegrown weed with the stuff you buy in the coffeeshops over in Holland. The THC of the current export-quality pot is nothing to scoff at and can knock you out quite easily.
It is ridiculous to assume that because the crowd opinion does not match your own that the crowd is wrong. Perhaps legalization is the correct course of action, and you are blinded by your own puny intellect.
Legalization would save tens of billions of dollars in law enforcement and prison system fees. This money could easily be redirected to proping up companies that make cars that no one wants, making the world a better place.
Here is a hint, you can't detect oxycontin from someones breath & someone abusing that shit is about 1000 times more likely to run you off the road that someone high on pot.
There is a war going on for your mind.
The War on Drugs isn't one that they can hope to win, primarily because the enemy are their own constituents.
I don't consider marijuana a desirable substance myself (and stoners who insist on self-justification beyond all rationality, go away. Yes, I have smoked, and inhaled, despite your insistence that it is impossible for anyone who has smoked to have a negative opinion on the substance) but I also know very well that criminalisation does not work, and will never work.
As a (admittedly informally, and generally fairly secretively) practicing Shakta Hindu, I could also if I wanted, claim historical precedent for my own use of marijuana as a religious sacrament. (Although AFAIK, in India at least, marijuana is more commonly used in association with Shiva, but it has been consumed as part of the worship of Kali)
Although I hold nothing against other adherents of various religions who do so, I have made the decision not to do that, as my own experience has led me to believe that marijuana is not b primarily beneficial substance, at least in the case of my own specific physiology.
I acknowledge, however, that it is not up to me to make that decision for anyone else other than myself. I further acknowledge that the plant does have certain extremely legitimate medical uses; I have advocated at least trying it with a few people I know at times, when they have been in extreme pain.
There is a certain percentage of the population (whether they are a minority or not, I do not know specifically, and make no claim about) who whether for good or ill, are mortally determined to smoke marijuana. Given their level of adamancy on this especially, it is not the place of government to make the decision for these individuals as to whether they should be allowed to smoke or not, especially considering that such a decision is usually made against these individuals' implicit, if not explicit, consent.
It has long been my opinion that the American government is, and always has been, at its' heart, a fundamentally tyrannical and insidious institution, which will, at any opportunity afforded to it, enthusiastically act as the mortal enemy of its' own constituents. The long term war that the Drug Enforcement Administration has been waging against said constituents, is in itself compelling proof of this assertion.
The DEA, in its' own defense, would likely try to claim that many of the substances which it crusades against the use of are gravely harmful; sometimes lethally so. In the cases of heroine, cocaine, and methamphetamines in particular, I would not argue against such an assertion. However, whether the drugs themselves are lethal is not the point.
The point is that it should not rightfully be the role of government to act as a parental figure for its' constituents. As adults, said constituents are supposed to be able to serve that role for themselves.
I also believe that criminalisation, rather than reducing the use of these substances, in face greatly contributes to their appeal, as it is well known that both teenagers and retrograde adults take particular delight in doing certain things, primarily when they know that said things are illegal or taboo. If many of these drugs, marijuana included, we made legal, use of them would cease to appear to be an act of rebellion, and would instead become socially mundane.
A third point is that many of the entheogens have not been allowed virtually any academic study, because of a hysterical, knee-jerk governmental approach to criminalisation. Some early work was done with LSD, yes; but very little such work has been done with other substances such as MDMA. If this research was permitted to be conducted, more could likely be learned about the drugs' drawbacks, potentially beneficial uses, and guidelines could possibly even be developed for the safe and guided use of the substances by those who still wished to consume them.
No marijuana is not harmless, but the fact that I'm sitting here smoking it while watching TV *is* harmless, and that's why it should be legalized. I'm not endangering anybody except myself.
This all comes down to control. U.S. Congress wants to control our morals, like a modern-day version of the medieval church. This is not freedom.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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.
Why are you under the impression that cannabis intoxication is a traffic problem? (There's science done on the subject that I doubt you're aware of)
Cannabis != alcohol. Those two drugs to not have the same issues.
Well, they don't get aggressive or overconfident, which is definitely nice. But someone going 30 on the motorway isn't exactly safe either.
Even so, I've never heard of serious marihuana intoxication problems in traffic, and I live in a country where smoking pot is legal. People who are high have better things to do than driving a car, apparently.
Doesn't matter, we put up with distracted drivers every day which are just as/more dangerous than people intoxicated by marijuana. The issue of DUI enforcement shouldn't allow us to continue on a proven failed path that is bankrupting the country and ruining peoples lives (disproportionally minority lives). Bust the people who pose a danger for reckless operation with video showing the improper operation and let a jury decide if they posed a risk.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
And yet I don't hear any suggestion that we test people for Ambien at traffic stops. Weird, huh?
No Sir everyone is NOT smoking it, this is a pure liberal myth. The marrijuana you can buy today has been scientifically proved that its 56,820 times stronger than the natural product, which was bad enough, and can and does cause almost instant irrevocable and permanent psychosis, paranoia and schizophrenia to name but a few of it's deadly effects.
Sure some of those pop singers and other losers that kids look up may boast they smoke a bit and so it might even be fashionable and 'cool' amongst the non god fearing and easily led youth of today but I can guarantee almost none of them will have actually got their hands on any of the evil weed.
Despite the, discredited, opinions on display here the war on drugs is proceeding excellently, our police and associated agencies are capturing ever greater hauls of the drug and we're catching and imprisoning more users, dealers, smugglers, manufacturers and suppliers than ever before. No Sir almost every wannabe pot head will already be on a police watch list and rapidly apprehended, brought to justice and locked up for a very long time the very first time he sets eyes on any reefer. Those who slip through the net rapidly become addicted and have their lives ruined by the deadly psychotic effects of the hash skunk, praise God we are able to capture most of them before they go on to kill or maim in psychotic murder rampages.
Not all prescription drugs, intoxicating prescription drugs. To place the effects of marijuana under the same umbrella as alcohol is unfounded. Perhaps part of the problem is that lack of understanding of how drugs work is being used to justify using such broad brush-stokes in applying the lay.
Marijuana sounds vaguely spanish.
You should use the term "plant-based tetrahydrocannabinol feedstock" instead.
Unless you're high, in which case you'll get lost somewhere in the middle because you noticed that dude, when we die? We like.... we.... we end up trapped in our own minds...so....like......you need to be able to live with yourself before you die... or you'll be in hell, but if you're happy with your life... you'll be in heaven......
Dude, that's deep. What was I talking about?
It's been a long time.
so where is the field test for pain killers? or viagra?
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
That always bothers me. I don't care what state I'm in, I can't recite the alphabet backwards on demand. I'd get about 3 letters in and realise I'm lost. "Just a minute while I sing the alphabet song and write it down."
It's been a long time.
I have exactly one mod point left which I'd love to use in a topic like this, but I'd rather reply to you as it appears that as usual the paternal government believers on this site are sending you to +5 post haste.
1. Anybody who believes the politicians "we" elect "know what's best" for society better than anyone else should probably not be voting...or using sharp objects.
2. There's this raw and quite ugly (yes I'll use the word) elitism that runs on these sorts of sites where tech-nerdy loner types hang out. Never ending snorting and hrmphing at the stupidity of the "masses", misplaced snobbery, tortured "logic" and outright hypocrisy.
After spending 9 years reading this site and other various sites like it kuro5hin, digg, reddit, etc. I truly have come to the disturbing conclusion that despite much of the fawning over libertarian ideals (which have a nice appeal in many ways), huge swaths of the users that frequent these sites really deep down just want to be ruled by kings.
I mean here we have a prime example, the US federal government sets up a site to let the general public let it know without the distortion of lobbyists or twist of demographic surveys; what issues are important to the people that can access the site. Well the people that can access the site who are probably the same people snorting and hrmphing about the uselessness of democracy and the "masses" (which they inevitably define as everyone beneath themselves) have stated loud and clear that the main issue in their lives is the legalisation of a particular drug. An issue that is most likely the hub of a larger ideology in themselves.
But what I don't understand is why to many people here is that such a bad and embarrassing failure of the "masses" or democracy or open governance in general? Oh people want something that *directly* affects them in their day to day life legal? And they are *partaking* in the political process in a small way to try and make that happen...hahah well that's just stupid, democracy fails it!11.
And so what? How is that a failing except for lick-spittles who worship power? To those who have daydreams of central government politicians being great and powerful Lords and Noblemen who don't have time for the dirty masses silly little problems in between hunting down terrorists and single handedly "running the country" it's a problem, but only so far as it interrupts the illusion.
Democracy isn't perfect, but it isn't as bad as everyone here likes to smugly assume it is. And whatever the US federal government is...it's a bloody loooong way from anything resembling democracy or even the representative republic that it's supposed to be.
I don't know if you're referring to the full legalization thread (#2) or just the Schedule reclassification thread (#3), but here goes.
[T]here is a considerable legal difference between "drunk" and driving while "intoxicated" and "under the influence". The concept of drunk, as used in public drunk statutes, refers to a person who is so inebriated that he is incapable of caring for his own safety. This is a considerably greater degree of inebriation than "intoxicated" or "under the influence". This latter condition is often legally defined as that physical state in which the liquor has so far affected the nervous system, brain or muscles as to impair the ability to operate a vehicle in a manner like that of an ordinarily prudent or cautious person under like conditions in the full possession of his faculties using reasonable care. source
[Emphasis mine, from "Drunk driving defense" by Lawrence Taylor & Steven Oberman]
The effects of THC on the body do include relaxation of the muscles, therefore would fall under the term "under the influence" as defined in law. However,
Although marijuana's share of fatal crashes is much lower than those attributed to alcohol, researchers say the results show that marijuana use, even in low doses, significantly increases the risk of fatal car accidents. source
While the quote could be used in an argument on both sides, if marijuana were only reclassified under another Schedule, not fully legalized, the rate of use would be lower than with full legalization (with a law already in place for "intoxicated driving" as above!), so it all comes down to what you'd rather avoid: even more driving accidents than in the current situation; another cause of driving accidents; or perhaps the fact that the "new" cause of accidents is less well detectable by simple behavioral analysis therefore less enforceable. But the point of rescheduling marijuana (#3) is that the current legislation doesn't make sense. See my other comment in this thread for a summary of why.
If this is what you really believe then I would urge you to support a limited federal government in all matters.
The issue is this: If you give them the power to regulate X, they invariably regulate Y and Z. On the other hand if you do not want Z to be regulated then you may have to settle for X and Y going unregulated as well. It's not to say your state government could not be more proactive. Invariably power over one object extends to power over other objects until power over all things is obtained. Just consider the velocity US policy in the 20th century.
So, if you do not want your morals controlled you may have to give up federal control of say education and healthcare. Let the states handle it. There is something to be said about 50 competing solutions. Eventually someone will get it right. On the other hand if we have a single solution and get it wrong... It really makes for a mess. I believe any inefficiencies are made up for by the robustness of a decentralized solution.
I would urge you to read the Constitution and see if those words justify: 1) Any of the bailout nonsense, including the take over of GM. 3) Marijuana prohibition. 4) A central bank. 5) Universal healthcare or indeed medicare or medicaid.
For what it's worth I agree whole heartedly with you about MJ. It can be harmful. Hell, you may eventually get lung cancer from smoking it someday, but (at least in my eyes) you own yourself and you are as free to make your own decisions as you are free to deal with their consequences.
Anyway, please think how control begets more control.
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
... something about Tetris with plants...
> we did? when the hell did that happen?
Congress started sneaking over the line pretty fast actually. But they sneaked because they knew it was wrong and if enough people caught em there would be trouble. By the turn of the 20th Century they weren't sneaking much anymore. By the New Deal we were plainly in the age of the Rule of Men, and FDR was The Man.
Let me set a challenge to you. Go to Congress's Thomas search engine and find a Bill at random. Open another tab and Google up a copy of the US Constituition. Since you are asking the question it is a good probability you have never actually read our founding document so do that before continuing. Now read that random Bill and attempt to locate the authority for whatever it is trying to do in the Constituition you have open in the other tab. Odds are you won't find any such authority but you will find a 10th Amendment that forbids it. Repeat this random process another nine times, recording your results. I'll bet you that at least eight will fail muster and give you even odds that all ten will fail.
That is what the Rule of Men looks like.
Democrat delenda est
Putting the drug debate aside, online polls always suffer from two things:
biased sample and hasty generalization
A poll at WhiteHouse.gov merely reflects the opinion of those who visited WhiteHouse.gov--nothing more and nothing less. A poll at cnn.com or foxnews.com merely reflects the opinions of those who visit those sites--nothing more and nothing less. It doesn't matter how popular the online poll is... THEY CANNOT BE GENERALIZED TO THE US POPULATION AT LARGE. And it would be unwise for an administration to make policy decisions based on informal online polls.
That's why we have the voting system. Those who vote represent legal US citizens who chose to exercise their constitutional right to vote--nothing more, nothing less.
Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
Actually, I like to partake in the pleasures of cannabis every now and again and definitely believe it should be legal, however I agree wholeheartedly with the original poster on the dangers of marijuana intoxication and driving.
First off, as someone who does smoke marijuana, I can definitely attest to levels of intoxication that would prevent me from driving coherently, and do avoid such scenarios. Second, I have been involved in a major traffic collision when a driver intoxicated on marijuana pulled out in front of me causing me to t-bone him, totaling both cars. Luckily no one was severely injured.
So yes, marijuana should be legal, however there should be ways to ensure it's use is responsible and does not endanger others. And frankly, driving is the only dangerous thing I can currently think of because I'm surely not dangerous in any other way while high.
And would someone please mod the OP out of troll hell. His comment was neither inflammatory nor fallacious.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
Congrats - you've hit on the real issue. How about we provide %100 percent extended unemployment for all who loose thier jobs as the prisons and jails begin to empty. (It would still be cheaper for the tax payer than continuing the drug war). It won't take very long for a new economy, and new jobs, to rise around the new Hemp and marijuana industries.
Pot smokers and conspiracy theorists have a lot of time on their hands.
Pay attention you stupid fuck, or perhaps "willfully ignorant fool" would be a more politically correct phrasing. Yes, there are officially-released images of an Obama birth certificate. However, there are also both valid criticisms of its legitimacy in and unto itself (e.g., is it really what it purports to be or has it been altered), and there remains the indisputable point that there exists a separate, longer-form, alternative birth certificate which, for inexplicable reasons, Obama refuses to allow to be reviewed. The point of the so-called "birthers" is that Obama refuses to allow inspection of the alternate, more informative, document which no one at all denys does exist and answer the simple question of whether or not that alternate document corroborates the previously-release shorter version. The only thing worse than a fool is a willfully ignorant fool who chooses to refuse to think for fear that thinking would unavoidably lead to questioning issues that bring discomfort. I assume you are a technical professional and in being so you are entrusted to make intelligent, informed decisions, even when doing so may take you out of your comfort zone. What's more important -- deciding whether to implement a customer solution in Qt or .Net or the world you leave to your children?
Bush was an asshat but remember, not all change is for the better. Now stand up and grow a pair or get what you deserve.
Only if the goal of society is to keep you safe and snug your whole life (you know, safe until you die). It's not, there's a balancing act being performed. Sometimes life is a little more dangerous (though not necessarily in the case we're discussing, your strawman is rather hollow) because someone else is free to do something interesting. You have to balance the positive and negative.
One final thing, the GP suggested treating the two substances the same, and you're trying to negate him or her by (poorly) implying a balance in the substances effects on society? WTF?
No marijuana is not harmless, but the fact that I'm sitting here smoking it while watching TV *is* harmless
If you weren't so high, you would have realised that you're actually at your computer, commenting on slashdot.
I keep having to say write this. I might copy this one so I can paste it. Nah I'll keep it personal. You get used to the high. Prohibitionists like to reference this when asked about marijuana addiction. You build a tolerance to marijuana, just like you build a tolerance to some prescription drugs, such as Cymbalta, another anti-depressant drug that leaves you feeling "high" the first few weeks of using it. Your doctor should be sure to tell you of these issues, and there should be no difference with marijuana. People aren't educated on drugs. 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.
Health Freedom is almost as popular as Freedom itself.
This whole argument is a red herring. Is there any evidence that more people would drive stoned if pot were legal? I'd make an argument for the converse:
Currently there can be no widespread campaigns to stigmatize driving stoned (as there have been for driving drunk) because they would be seen as implicit approval of getting stoned and not driving. But if pot were legal you'd be sure to see a slew billboards and PSAs talking about the dangers of driving stoned.
The US Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate interstate trade and to print money. This supports the right of the fg (federal government) to forbid interstate trade in marijuana (or anything else), sort of supports the central bank (I would say the constitution doesn't include the right to delegate the right to print money, so I think to be legal the Fed should have to have to get their decisions rubber stamped).
Of course, that doesn't explain why the fg can outlaw any drug (prescription, recreational or otherwise) within a state.
I agree regarding the bail-out, although in fact I think the argument would be that they're not making any laws with the bailout; they're handing out money to organizations that agree to follow a contract. The same BS lets the fed govt regulate any number of things (public schools, intrastate interstates, etc.).
I believe strongly in rule of law, and I think our system could have worked fine as a federation of states (in the old-school 'country' sense). However, I think the US is long past the point that it could turn back the clock and become a federation of states.
From a purists point of view, I think we need a number of amendments to the constitution, to expand the rights of the federal government from those listed in the constitution (in a limited way), and at the same time we need to commit ourselves to rule of law, eliminating all statutory law that is in contradiction with the constitution.
From a realist point of view, I think all that would happen from that is that federal power would expand and our rights contract.
Until there's a sea change in our cultural attitude about rule of law and the role of government, I think any wholesale change in our government would be for the worse.
>>>>>I'm not endangering anybody except myself
>
>>you're interacting with thousands directly and probably billions indirectly
Yeah.
So?
I want to remind you what Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic Party said, "Whatever religion my neighbor may choose does not harm my body, my property, nor my rights, so I will allow my neighbor the freedom to worship however he pleases." The same principle applies to you. My smoking of marijuana while posting on slashdot does not harm your body, your personal property, nor your rights, therefore you have no justification to stop my activity here in my private home.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I don't smoke the stuff (any more) but I still want it legalised.
1. I don't want my taxes paying for the persecution of people who are doing nobody any harm (except possibly themselves)
2. I don't think it's the government's place to regulate what they can and can't do
3. It is a blatant authoritarian restriction, with no real evidential backing. I don't like irrational lawmaking and government should not be able to get away with making laws restricting what people can and can't do without a bloody good reason.
That work for you?
All your analysis focused on the druggies and totally missed the government. I would ask you, "What does marijuana have to do with this?" I think it has nothing to do with this. Legalization vs prohibition of marijuana, though, is a totally different subject:
Strengthen our democracy: Let's declare a bunch of people, none of who are infringing anyone else's rights, criminals. Depending on to what degree we've made them criminals, let's stop allowing them to vote.
Promote efficiency: Let's spend public money on cops, courts, and prisons to enforce laws that have no useful purpose. Let's put people in prison, for no reason, so that they can't contribute to the GDP and their families are weakened so that they become more economically dependent on others. Let's penalize domestic farmers to increase foreign market share. Let's create health care problems that we all end up paying for, by making people turn to black markets with dubious quality products.
Or we could stop doing those things. Which scenario is more democratic? Which is more efficient? (I'll admit I don't, off the top of my head, see how it's related to transparency and collaboration.)
I can almost buy the argument that prohibition is more perversely "democratic" since it actually is some people's nature to want to gang up on others.
But efficient? You've got be kidding. In terms of government efficiency, legalization advocacy is right on topic and directly addresses problems that prohibition is causing. They're not only on-topic, but they crush their opponents without even a close fight. Please, pro-prohibition advocates, bring up efficiency or just about anything else related to the economy. Libertarians will eat you for breakfast.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
I'm not sure why this is flamebait... it is well known that THC reduces your response time. If/when I have driven stoned, i've been real careful, but once I tried to turn into a bus stop which I thought was a driveway.
I don't think legalizing will make the problem worse, however, and I don't think it is nearly the issue that alcohol is.
Jeremy
You'd have to knock me out with a schedule II substance in order to drag me to a journey concert.
Jeremy
The HBO show "The Wire" summed up the war on drugs nicely:
Det. Ellis Carver: You can't even call this shit a war.
Det. Thomas Hauk: Why not?
Det. Ellis Carver: Wars end.
Slashdot: news for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
With the prohibition, people are more likely to hide their use from family, roommates, or whomever, and what a lot of them do is hop in their cars and take a cruise to smoke. I'm telling you, prohibition does more harm than it does good.
Health Freedom is almost as popular as Freedom itself.
It doesn't matter how more likely marijuana makes drivers get into accidents. The law as it currently stands forbids driving while intoxicated, and that could be with prescription drugs or weed just as much as alcohol.
It damn well should. If marijuana intoxication doesn't increase the chance of a driver causing an accident, then why should it be forbidden to drive while under the influence of marijuana?
(For clarification - I don't smoke weed and I never will. THC does nothing for me. But I hate seeing people being told "you shouldn't do that because... well, you shouldn't".
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
This is a simple matter of paying attention to science and obeying the law as written.
The rules for Schedule I are:
A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
The best available scientific and medical evidence and opinion clearly shows that criteria B and C do not apply (the US Institute of Medicine refuted B a decade ago, for example). The only way one can claim A applies is via a circular argument: all cannabis use DEFINED as abuse, therefore it has a high potential for abuse.
If the rules of classification are objectively and scientifically applied the it would rank no higher than Schedule IV!
The logic of scheduling Cannabis at Schedule IV (or V) is further shown by the DEA itself - by scheduling pure 100% THC at Schedule III. Clearly a preparation that is only about 10% as potent should have a lower ranking. One should note that Schedule V consists entirely of drugs with higher rankings (from I down to III) in reduced potency preparations.
This is simply a matter of getting science and reason back into regulation. Regrettably the DEA has been given a pass on these by both parties form the very beginning.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
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.
Addressing this from the standpoint of having a proper controlled substance rescheduling of cannabis down from Schedule I to Schedule V (the DEA itself lists 100% pure THC at only Schedule III !), in accordance with the actual regulations and science:
Say what? Let me analyse this point by point...
Strengthen our democracy: How, by making people sit around their bong every night discussing the problems of the world? Like.. "Man... link um.. why do they fold those papers around those little sticks of gum? Can't they see we need to save some trees? Besides they taste terrible when folding a joint, their just disgusting."
When government regulations are flagrantly abused to maintain the power and budget of one organization (the DEA) this clearly undermines the meaning of democratic government. If the government writes regulations, it should follow them.
Promote efficiency: Get real, Marijuana and efficiency in the same sentence? Last I knew all my childhood friends were doing nothing with their lives. Just sitting around getting high with no aspirations in life. Several are dead from accidents, suicide, some perpetually in rehab clinics, and all living life day-t-day. Efficiency is not the first word on my mind.
When I consider pouring billions of dollars into a bottomless pit based on abuse of regulations and scorn of scientific evidence, efficiency is the FIRST word on my mind!
Making government more transparent: Ok, Marijuana is hallucinogenic for some people, but I doubt that the Government is going to get any more transparent that way.
Obeying regulations and enforcing them in a logical evidence-based manner is essential to transparent government.
Collaborative: Ok, lets get this one definition straight. We are talking about the Government being more collaborative, not people sitting around talking about fantasies while smoking joints. How is legalizing Marijuana going to get the Government to improve on their collaboration skills?
Recent polls on medical marijuana show nation public support at the level of 72% in favor and 21% opposed. Paying attention to the overwhelming majority of Americans today is the essence of collaborative (as opposed to imperial or authoritarian) federal government.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
"Just because the voice of the crowd in this instance happens to be a bunch of stoners that doesn't mean we should dismiss it offhand"
But you already did by calling them "a bunch of stoners". I support legalization, and know a lot of other people who do too. Most of us don't smoke pot.
Speeding and recklessness are a function of the level of assholitude. Every single person I know (without exception) that's been arrested for DUI or killed someone while DUI, drove like an utter moron when they were sober too. I'd have been involved in one, but I knew how the guy drove and refused to drive with him even when he was sober. I wouldn't drive to the corner 7-11 with him. My girlfriend's sister was killed by that guy when he got drunk, drove like an F1 racer, lost control and got T-Boned by an oncoming car in the rain.
Thing is they drive the same way while intoxicated, only they don't have the reflexes to handle it like they do when sober. The stupidity starts while sober. I'm not advocating DUI for careful drivers, but you can't blame it totally on the alcohol.
All the more reason to not drive like an ass whether you are sober or not.
-Viz
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
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
Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank.
Amazing how little press it's gotten.
Excellently put, good sir. I've encountered far to many ignorant people who think DARE is the end of the road as far as substance abuse education. If you do a little research, you'll find that alcohol is a MUCH bigger problem in American society (as far as effects to the end user), than most of the illicit drugs are, especially on a use-by-use basis. One of the biggest problems with alot of the illicit drugs, is the market that you have to go through to obtain them, and the people you have to know. Those two things will create bigger problems for the users than the drugs will by far (if used in moderation / recreationally; hardcore physical and/or phsychological dependence is its own problem, which very much occurs with alcohol as well).
Well duh? If pot is legalized more people would use it. They'll be more stupid people who use it,
If it's legal, you can also have proper education (which is far more effective than prohibition). In Netherland, pot is legal and many other drugs tolerated or easier to get than abroad, but the people who are stupid with drugs are mostly foreigners. The Dutch mostly restrict their pot use to weekends and parties, and don't mix them with alcohol (or other drugs, but alcohol is the big one).
While I do not recommend driving while high for the novice smoker, people who have been accommodated to marijuana frequently drive with little (read: no) consequences... marijuana relaxes and causes the user to 'zone' into driving mode ... *Real* smokers tend to laugh at people who think driving high is dangerous or difficult.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. I've talked with so many people that say that others may have trouble driving while drunk/high, but they're really good at it because they know what they're doing. Same argument: "but I'm good at driving drunk/stoned/tripping/on speed."
If pot were legal and we could have open public discourse (media etc) on the subject, we could start to bring some of this to light. Driving is dangerous, and it gets more so the more mind-altering drugs you've taken. I'd agree that driving stoned is probably less dangerous than driving drunk, but that doesn't mean it's not more dangerous than driving sober (Somewhere else in the comments someone referenced some studies on this).
It seems like a bad idea to operate any type of heavy machinery under the influence of any mind altering substance. Yet the countless mind bending pharmacutials all that is required is a small warning stating such on the side of the pill container. It's obvious when someone should/shouldn't be driving. Why is this any different?
because those are the ones that will have you sucking dick in the toilets for a hit
I kinda understand the expression, but I hope you won't try to scare your kids with homosexual bashing.
What makes you think his kids aren't lesbians?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
> ..the essential principles of the constitution have been expounded upon and shifted SLOWLY and
> SLIGHTLY in interpretation over time. as THEY SHOULD BE, since society changes. right?
No. That is the 'living constitution theory and it's rubbish. It means exactly what it meant when the words were written or it is meaningless, meaning whatever the Democrats in Congress and the Media say it means. For the Rule of Law to work requires a dead Constitution. Of course that doesn't mean it must be unchanging, as it provides a means to update it, Amendments. If a part of it is considered obsolete or in need of updating or rewriting to adapt to changes in society or technology one need only pass an Amendment. Heck, if the required supermajority think the whole thing needs replacing another Constitutional Convention can always be called into existence. But what isn't supposed to be allowed is for some judge to suddenly discover some new Right in it, or Congress to suddenly discover a new power.
For example, back when we were still a Republic some rather unwise folks thought banning booze was a nifty idea. But since they were unwise, but not illiterate they could actually read the Constitution and see it gave the Federal Government no such authority. Also not being evil they decided they had to do it the right way and work to pass an Amendment. We all know how that worked out, so another Amendment was passed to cancel out the first. Fast forward just a little. If regulating booze was outside the powers of the Federal Government, can anyone explain how in the Wide Wide World of Sports the FDA, DEA, etc. can exist? Easy, the Living Constitution and the newly redefined Commerce Clause! See the problem yet?
Democrat delenda est