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!
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.
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
Right, just like no one would ever but pre-made hamburgers at a markup if beef and bread were readily available in grocery stores...
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.
And you're using TOBACCO as an example? You do realize tobacco is a plant that grows anywhere, right? But how many people are growing it themselves to make their own cigarettes? The price of cannabis is directly linked to its illegality. After 10 years of it being legal, an quarter ounce of marijuana will cost as much as a six pack of beer.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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